Tryign to send mail via a python script by using the local MTA

[Ferrous Cranus]

Στις 16/9/2013 12:40 μμ, ο/η Antoon Pardon έγραψε:
> Op 16-09-13 10:48, Chris Angelico schreef:
>> On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 6:43 PM, Antoon Pardon
>> <antoon.pardon at rece.vub.ac.be> wrote:
>>> Op 16-09-13 10:19, Chris Angelico schreef:
>>>> It's a contribution that SAYS that it looks carelessly written. I
>>>> think most people here are intelligent enough to know that that's
>>>> different from actual carelessness.
>>>
>>> The question is, should they care about that difference. The end
>>> result is a contribution that is just as hard to read.
>>
>> Is it, really? I throw the question open: Is it really just as
>> difficult to read a deliberately-pointed-out sloppiness as an actual
>> one? And is it as much of a problem to the list?
>
> Do you think "improt" is easier to read when written so deliberatly
> instead of out of carelessness?
>
>>>> In a debate, you make points and counterpoints. In most debates, you
>>>> also gain (or lose) "points for style". Steven scored plenty of the
>>>> latter IMO.
>>>
>>> And why should we accept you as the arbiter for this?
>>
>> "We" shouldn't. Style points are per-listener. In my eyes he did well.
>> You may well disagree.
>
> Why do you keep introducing your personal appreciations while at the
> same time you admit they don't carry much weight.
>
>>>> You're here making a straw-man and a false dichotomy; I
>>>> believe that "making a point" is sufficient justification for what
>>>> Steven and I did, but I don't think it justifies "any kind of means".
>>>
>>> Then your argument was incomplete, because it just mentioned making
>>> a point as if that in itself was sufficient.
>>
>> Context. Context. Context. Sufficient justification for what it was
>> used for. You do not seriously believe that that needs to be spelled
>> out?
>
> Your context adds nothing. The only thing that the context would add,
> is that in this specific case you think that the end justifies the means
> but it doesn't explain in any way on what grounds you think so. Those
> that took Nikos to task earlier for his behaviour probably though their
> end justified the means too.
>
> So yes, if you don't want to give the impression that you are simply
> ad hoccing what you personnally don't have a problem with, you'd
> better spell a few things out.
>
>>>> I would not, for instance, destroy Nikos's server, data, or access to
>>>> either, to make a point; and history will confirm this.
>>>
>>> No it doesn't.
>>
>> No? He gave me his root password - check the list archives. I did none
>> of the above three destructive actions (nor any other destructive
>> action), even though it would have made my point much stronger to do
>> so.
>
> You behaved in a way some people clearly thought of a questionable. So
> for those people you have established you are prepared to exhibit
> questionable behaviour to make your point. So I think there are a
> number of people who will think of you as not trustable enough to
> withhold the behaviour in question here, when you think it would be
> necessary to make your point.
>
Look,

i want this to stop.
Open your own thread and discuss this if you like.
This is a thread i opened for a specific question and all i see its 
irrelevant answers.