1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
|
Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <grarpamp@gmail.com>) id 1SPcIq-0005n9-Ix
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 02 May 2012 16:21:20 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 74.125.82.175 as permitted sender)
client-ip=74.125.82.175; envelope-from=grarpamp@gmail.com;
helo=mail-we0-f175.google.com;
Received: from mail-we0-f175.google.com ([74.125.82.175])
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1SPcIp-0002pE-Po
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Wed, 02 May 2012 16:21:20 +0000
Received: by wera1 with SMTP id a1so712280wer.34
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Wed, 02 May 2012 09:21:13 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.216.201.150 with SMTP id b22mr473003weo.103.1335975673707;
Wed, 02 May 2012 09:21:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.180.106.229 with HTTP; Wed, 2 May 2012 09:21:13 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <201205020931.01718.luke@dashjr.org>
References: <1335808239.18613.YahooMailNeo@web121006.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
<CALf2ePx_+SaANDfvyuTpv=M8rquvjAqSGV5+Uo=wkYKb-oOrLQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CANEZrP17H-E0mWGGjNS2i0079LuRJ9MnVHSPjR_ots2LR7j9bA@mail.gmail.com>
<201205020931.01718.luke@dashjr.org>
Date: Wed, 2 May 2012 12:21:13 -0400
Message-ID: <CAD2Ti2_AUG7zmhwrg1GK9iDOgAh5RNrSEGvJefWCc0Uo=-GQbw@mail.gmail.com>
From: grarpamp <grarpamp@gmail.com>
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(grarpamp[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
author's domain
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
not necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
X-Headers-End: 1SPcIp-0002pE-Po
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] new bitcoin.org clients page
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 May 2012 16:21:20 -0000
> While Bitcoin-Qt is by far the best client
This is purely subjective. One's best is another's worst.
> These are both things which are particular
> suitable to clear objective enumeration.
Yes, so for the purposes of compiling a list of clients
and libraries, please just stick to a table of features.
On the subjective part, I'm finding the library+client
implementations to be nice, and indeed the future.
Afaik, there are two major pairs of these so far that
should be listed. Ymmv.
Can someone also please set the reply-to header
for these lists. It's really annoying to hit reply and
not have the list address show up. Thanks :)
|
