Paul, at 10:59 on Jun 23 1996, you wrote to David Drummond ...

PE> I saw your latest message.  There has been some confusion.

PE>>> Russell, are you doing anything to fix your PATH lines?

PE> Above is where I was prompting Russell to do something about 
PE> his PATH line, after having sent him this message...

. . .[chomp]. . .

PE> Russell, you are sending stuff with an out-of-spec PATH, it 
PE> is 3D instead of 2D.  What are you doing?  BFN.  Paul.

DD>>> They don't bother my software - yours must be fucked!

PE> Above is where you couldn't give a shit.

PE>> *YOUR* system is sending me an out-of-spec message.  YOUR 
PE>> software is fucked.  That is a PC-able offence BTW.  You do 
PE>> not have the right to send out-of-spec messages to me, just 
PE>> because you received one yourself.  

PE> Above is where I was pointing out that 3:640/305, being the
PE> responsible fidonet node, was entering out-of-spec messages
PE> into the network.  YOU are responsible for all of your 
PE> point's mail, and I pointed out to you that it was a pretty 
PE> piss-poor attitude of yours to just sit back and say "who 
PE> gives a shit", just because YOU PERSONALLY aren't affected, 
PE> when it is YOUR SYSTEM that is responsible for the messages.  
PE> In this case, Russell's messages, being your responsibility, 
PE> were the ones I was talking about.

DD>> In what way is the message out of spec?  

PE> Above I assumed that you were being a smartarse, since I had
PE> already sent a message to Russell telling him exactly what 
PE> was wrong with his PATH line, and if you wanted to play silly
PE>  buggers when I've already told you the answer, you can read 
PE> the spec yourself and do the silly-buggering yourself.

PE> If you'd come back with something along the lines of "I've 
PE> had a look at my messages, and they look OK to me, I don't 
PE> know what you're talking about", I might have twigged that 
PE> you didn't know I was still talking about Russell's 3D PATH 
PE> line.

PE> You might want to let DN know that it was just a 
PE> misunderstanding.

Nope, I don't give a shit!

Considering this is a "closed" echo, I don't think it concerns DN
at all. - if we cannot get the software to live amicably with each other,
we will have to drop the link.

No-one in the rest of Fidodom has expressed having any problems with
Russell's mail, which kinda leads me to think your software is too
pedantic.

Russell has now adjusted his software to your satisfaction, so I think I
will just drop the thread.

David
@EOT:

--- Msgedsq/2 3.10