PE> The idea is that YOU have to demonstrate that it is a bug in QWK2PKT.

RS> Indeed. Which is why you got a pair of input files,

PE> Neither of which is actually used by QWK2PKT.

Fraid so, even someone as loony as you should have been able to
work out that that the input files used by QWK2PKT are in those.

RS> one which produces the dud PKT and one which does not.
RS> With obviously the BAT file which included the QWK2PKT
RS> line so you could see the option switches which were used.

PE> Of course I want the options.

So even someone with as severe a problem as yours should be able to look at
the line which contains the only mention of QWK2PKT and see them on there.

PE> I expect a one-line batch file with the options.

You can expect whatever you like Paul. If you have such monumentally
silly ideas you will have to spell out what you want coz we havent
actually perfected mind reading yet, particularly of loonys.

Corse even if you do spell it out, you might well find
that what you expect is too silly to be bothered with too.

PE> I had to guess what %1 was used for,

RS> VERY difficult task given that its the input data for QWK2PKT Paul.

PE> %1 is not input data for QWK2PKT.

Pathetic really.

PE> then I had to stuff around finding out what input it was expecting.

RS> VERY difficult task given that its the input data for QWK2PKT Paul.

PE> No it isn't.  It didn't like your .REP file one little bit.

Yeah, well, it was obviously a rash assumption that someone who had
already done some debugging on QWK2PKT previously hadnt even noticed
stuff like that about what it was doing. Corse there is also the problem
that if he hasnt noticed that stuff, he may not be able to do too much
too useful about working out what the problem with the dud PKT too.

PE> YOU should have cut that one line out.

RS> Soorree, I dont read minds, many prefer to see the BAT file actually
RS> used so they can check stuff like the switches used in the QWK2PKT line.

PE> I DID WANT to see the switches used.

I made the rash assumption that even you should have been capable
of finding the line which invoked QWK2PKT in that BAT file and it
makes sense to include the whole BAT file in case there was no
visible problem with that and the next consideration was whether
there was something else about the way QWK2PKT was used that was
relevant, say on what happened to the PKT after it had been produced
by QWK2PKT if the invokation of QWK2PKT alone produced a good PKT from
the REP which produced a dud PKT with the whole BAT file in use.

PE> Sending me a 100-line batch file instead of a 1-line batch
PE> file does not let me know about switches I didn't have.

God knows what this is about, yet another massive brain fart presumably.

PE> YOU SEND ME THE UNZIPPED FILE!!!

RS> I assumed that even you would be able to work out that that REP
RS> contains a single MSG, particularly when thats bog standard QWK stuff.

PE> Yeah, which I don't actually use myself, didn't have a clue what was wrong.

You must have done that stuff when modifying QWK2PKT in the first
place. Or do you really just code and pray and not even test at all ?

PE> I was going to tell you that your .REP was corrupt, then I twigged
PE> that it might have been compressed.  YOU should have done all that.

Soorree, I dont read minds, I assumed you actually understood
the basics since you did modify QWK2PKT in the first place.
@EOT:

---