PE> You will see that all the hair-splitting over "serious" in
PE> "serious network problems" has now been said as
"network problems"

RS> Now try explaining why the date 'out of spec' persists. Have fun.

PE> You try explaining how that fact remotely helps your case. Have fun.

RS> Some loon called Paul Edwards was proclaiming that if it causes
RS> a problem for him alone, he can demand that those messages be
RS> fixed, particularly in this case where 'the spec' DOES rigidly
RS> specify that field and those messages clearly are 'out of spec'.

PE> That is correct.

Now try explaining why you aint furiously PCing every example of a message
you see in the total echomail volume that you claim doesnt adhere to your
bizarre interpretation of 'the specs'. Because you know damned well that
if you tried that you would get the bums rush in not time Paul.

PE> Now try explaining how your quote (still above)
PE> says anything to the contrary.

It doesnt have to be that particular quote dorko, we have this
funky concept of a thread that continues over a number messages
without everything being requoted in its entirety in perpetuity.

Doesnt actually matter a damn if you admit it or not, you know damned
well that you DONT furiously PC even that very clear cut breach of 'the
specs' so its dead bloody obvious that your silly claim about 'problem
for the network' is complete and UTTER tripe, and that clearly no one
else in the network is doing that either, coz its persisted for YEARS.
@EOT:

---