Hi,

On 2015-09-26 12:08:44, Paul Hayton wrote to Wilfred van Velzen:
  about: "Re: ":

 Wv>> I don't know if you should call it 'failing'. Besides all the
 Wv>> software used in this path:

 Wv>> @PATH: 292/854 221/1 320/119 261/38 230/150 0 203/0 640/384 712/848
 Wv>> 770/1
 Wv>>
 Wv>> "failed" to detect it. So you are in good company. ;)

 PH> So what software did pick up the "issue"

It's in my PID kludge. ;)  (FMail)

 PH> and I guess the other question that springs to my mind is hoe big a
 PH> deal is it anyway?

In this case, no big deal. There were no real technical issues, only confused
people. ;)

 PH> Do we get many packets with those kinds of problems in them?

Not like this. But sometimes a /rescan goes wrong, and we get a couple of
thousand old messages in some areas, which are not picked up by the dupe
detection routines on most systems. Than it's nice when these are caught before
tossing and exporting...

That happend a couple of times in the past years, which made me implement the
old mail detection in FMail, and has since caught a couple of those events.


Bye, Wilfred.


--- FMail-W32-1.69.7.134-B20150923