PE> Two radically different opinions, and don't pretend
PE> that every *C in the world has the same opinion as you.

RS> Never ever claimed anything remotely like that. I did however say that
RS> if you chose to mindlessly PC every single blemish in a message that
RS> you saw, you and I BOTH know that you would get fucked over eventually.

PE> No, the issue was whether *A* particular PC would succeed or not.

Nope, fraid not. You've just deleted all the context where
its clear that that was PRECISELY the issue being discussed.

PE> You wouldn't have a clue.  Neither would I.

Even that proposition is a dud. If a PARTICULAR PC was tried on one
of those issues where its generally agreed that say FTS-0001 is rather
loosely worded, you wouldnt stand a chance of forcing the other system
to comply with what you proclaimed was what FTS-0001 required.

Or if you mindlessly PCed every example of what you claimed was 'out of
spec' using your rather bizarre definition of the spec like demanding
that the address in an otherwise legal origin line from a point
absolutely must be 4D, you would in fact get fucked over in no time.

Its nothing like as impossible to predict as you are claiming.

PE> It's no longer good enough to just look at POLICY4 and decide rationally,
PE> you have to second-guess what the *C will feel like on the day.

Nope, not on some of that more obvious stuff like mindlessly
PCing every single blemish that you claim to have found in
echomail which doesnt even actually cause yourself or the
network any problem like that address in the origin line.

No *C can just rule that kludge lines must start with say 0x02
instead of 0x01 for example. A PC claiming that would certainly fail.

PE> YOU were the one claiming that there was
PE> NO WAY that *A* particular PC would succeed.

Nope, never did. I am saying that there are a considerable number of things
which ARE predictable, like what would happen to you if you were silly enough
to mindlessly PC every trivial blemish you claim to have found in echomail.

Its nothing like as unpredictable as you claim, purely at the
whim of a particular *C and what side of the bed he got out on.

You have no basis to even proclaim that even something which is causing
a real problem must be PCed initially. The sensible approach is to point
out the problem and that will usually see the person causing the problem
try to fix it. The PC is only something that can be resorted to if it
does cause a significant problem, AND they have told you to go and fuck
yourself when the problem has been pointed out.

There are indeed SOME PCs based on a claim to fail to meet 'the specs'
which may well succeed in the sense that it may well be possible to show
that a particular say mailer does breech the specs very unambiguously
every time it attempts to negotiate a session. In that case the system
using that will be advised of the problem and given an opportunity to
fix that problem. And if he chooses not to, the requirement for testing
mailer compliance by a ZMH call may well be found to be breached.

PE> In addition, you always refused to stake your house
PE> + life on that assertion, which spoke volumes.

Its a pathetically silly basis on which to be discussing something Paul.

I can say that we have a law which proscribes murder in the situation
that Bryant did quite a few at Port Arthur and I dont need to stake my
house and my life on that proposition. The real world doesnt work like that.
@EOT:

---