DN> Then the system where it "barfs" has a problem with the
DN> person who originated or otherwise mangled the mail in the
DN> first place (which may not actually be the originating system,
DN> but for the sake of argument here we will assume that it is).

PE> In this case it is, 3:640/305 is the
PE> system generating the out of spec message.

DD> Was it?  Didn't it originate from Russell's?

PE> A sysop is responsible for all mail entering fidonet, not the point.

Pity its not 'entering fidonet' tho. As usual,
its nothing like as cut and dried as you claim.

PE> Exactly what I did, inform you that you were putting out out-of-spec
PE> messages, to which you replied "Well Squish didn't care about it, and
PE> it's far more popular than your heap of shit" rather than a more helpful
PE> "Oh, sorry about that - thanks for pointing it out, I'll go and
fix it".
PE> Actually, fortunately your points are far more responsible than you
PE> anyway, and basically did that after being prompted.

DD> Considering the point generated the message in
DD> the first place, it was the least he could do.

PE> And the least you could have done as
PE> the person responsible for his messages

Thats only true of fidonet. It aint fidonet.

PE> was to make sure he was doing something about it rather
PE> than the far less helpful "Your software is a heap of shit".

That was PRECISELY what Nugent warned you about, the likely
outcome you would get by howling about PCing in the FIRST message
to Dave. You are very likely to get that sort of response.

AND you didnt help when you just proclaimed that it was absolutely
certainly, not the slightest possibility of doubt, that Russ's
messages were 'out of spec'. In the circumstances, when Squish
obviously couldnt care less, it is reasonable for him to wonder
if in fact YOUR software was having a brain fart, and if you dont
point out the bit of 'the specs' you claim was being flouted, he
cant check for himself that he agrees that 'the specs' actually were,.

DN> However, as I indicated above, the responsibility
DN> for the data is still firmly with the the originating
DN> system. If there is any complaint to be made over this,

PE> That's you.

DD> Only if there is a valid complaint

PE> There is.

You havent even established that, let alone that its even fidonet.

DN> then it should be initially to that node,

PE> That was done.

DD> NOT  - I received a rude robot message.

He's right, you did PRECISELY what Nugent said was positively
counter productive, and you got PRECISELY the response he said
you would, the OPPOSITE of a willingness to look at the 'problem'

PE> Well even if you did (which is great),

He's talking about YOUR message with YOU behaving like a robot.

PE> what I said above is still valid!

Nope, you havent actually established that it was 'out of spec', or
that its actually 'fidonet' or that its even possible for you to PC.

And even if you can establish all of that, you have in fact blown you
foot right off because it would THEN provide a DAMNED good reason for
people to use othernet numbers to avoid any possibility of mindless attempts
to PC. You claimed that there was no good reason for othernets at all.

DN> and if you get nowhere, then to the node's NC.

PE> Like I said, a PC-able offence.

DD> Try it . . .

PE> You'd rather say "your software is fucked" and make me PC you
PE> rather than be a bit more cooperative and actually fix the problem?

You CANT PC it, it aint fido. Or more legalistically
if you try to PC it you will be told it aint fido.

PE> P.S. You will see that all the hair-splitting over "serious" in
PE> "serious network problems" has now been said as
"network problems"
PE> even when it was emphasised that there was only ONE node affected.

DD> The network was not involved in the alleged non-compliant
DD> message Paul. The conference is a closed conference that
DD> just happens to be moved by fidinet technology.

PE> The network is involved David.

Nope, you asserting that doesnt make it true.

PE> What's your definition of the network.

Rather more viable than yours. You even claimed some utterly
bizarre idea that a LOCAL echo that never went anywhere other
than your own system and your points was fidonet. Soorree, aint so.

PE> Last I saw you were passing LOCSYSOP on to about 5 other
PE> nodes who I don't even know. If I thought there was some
PE> problem with that I would have asked you to cut their feed,
PE> but I can't actually see a problem with it at the moment.

Yes, you CAN do that, you CANT PC tho.
@EOT:

---