RS> You cant debug it anyway, the blemish doesnt happen on your system.

PE> Quite probably,

RS> Aint no 'quite probably' about it, if you use the single line that
RS> contains the QWK2PKT invokation on it, with the pair of MSGs, one
RS> which exhibits the fault on my system and one which does not, and
RS> both PKTs dont exhibit the fault, we have excellent evidence that
RS> its vastly more likely that its some difference in the environment
RS> thats producing the different result on your system than mine.

If you're too thick to grasp what I've already told you, ie I have NOT run
the same test that you did, because you didn't send me that test to run,
that's entirely your problem.

RS> Pity that a bit of difference on that directory structure is
RS> MOST unlikely to produce that PARTICULAR change in the PKT that
RS> was seen. And that its quite trivial to recreate that directory
RS> structure on your system to make quite sure that it isnt that
RS> if you really do want to cover the most unlikelys that thoroughly.

It's quite trivial for you to give me what I asked for, actually.

PE> fine, silent deletion next time you send me a PKT with that glitch.

RS> Anyone ever told you that you are a complete fuckwit ?

PE> Not as many as have told you exactly the same thing.

RS> Odd, could have sworn that heaps have told you just that on your
RS> wild proclamations about software, bug testing, etc etc etc in
RS> here alone, and not one has actually said that to me on that.

Only because they all have you twitted Rod, only because you're twitted.

PE> Your loss, Rod.  It doesn't worry me one iota if I delete
PE> any out-of-spec packets left over because you've been warned
PE> about a problem and don't care enough about it to fix it.

RS> You really are a complete and utter fuckwit if you cant even grasp
RS> that I put considerable effort into looking at why that bad PKT was
RS> produced, producing a clear pair of datafiles, one of which produced
RS> the problem and one which did not. AND have the mental horsepower to
RS> notice that if that pair dont exhibit the problem on your system, you
RS> have a problem debugging that wart.

You haven't given me what I asked for, in fact point-blank refused to do
so.  Your tough luck.  You get to either:

1. Use different software (preferred option from my POV).

2. Put up with silent deletion (4th preferred option from my POV).

3. Debug the problem yourself (2nd preferred option from my POV).

4. Give me what I asked for (3rd preferred option from my POV).

RS> And if you seriously think that silent deletion of PKTs in that situation
RS> is anything remotely like a reliable mail system, you have an even more
RS> serious problem with dog shit between the ears than I thought.

And if you seriously think that sending me out-of-spec mail DELIBERATELY
rather than do the trivial steps you need to get the problem fixed, then
you've the one with dog-shit for a brain.

PE> I know I'd be VERY eager to fix the problem if
PE> Dave told me I was sending him out-of-spec packets.

RS> I'm ALSO eager to fix the problem you complete fuckwit. 

Not eager enough to give me what I asked for.  Doesn't sound very eager to me.

RS> Your lunatic ideas
RS> on how to go about fixing the problem are another matter entirely tho.

Seems like you're far more interested in playing silly buggers than
actually getting the problem fixed.  Fine by me.  There's nothing in it for
me to fix a problem with a program I don't use myself and that I don't get
paid any money for.  She's all yours, Jim.

RS> And then there's the tiny matter that he DOESNT just silently
RS> delete any PKT from your system which has the slightest blemish
RS> too. AND he doesnt run mindlessly anal software that chucks a
RS> wobbly about trivial blemishes either. Neither does the Bulldog.

Actually, you have no idea on what he runs.  I do know that he doesn't have
a system on 3:711/934 that, when informed of out-of-spec messages coming
from his system simply proclaims "Fix it yourself you fuckwit". I
can imagine exactly what 3:711/934's echomail feed would be like if he
tried it, too.

RS> Corse the authors of the software they run may just have more
RS> of an idea about what robust software is about than you do too.

Whatever, Rod.  Run them instead.  There's nothing in it for me. BFN.  Paul.
@EOT:

---