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.

I see you have realised yourself that your quote above has absolutely
nothing to do with the situation, and have chosen to fake away.

RS> Now try explaining why you aint furiously PCing every example of a message
RS> you see in the total echomail volume that you claim doesnt adhere to your
RS> bizarre interpretation of 'the specs'. 

The reason I don't is because I don't want to raise a PC when I have no
idea what side of the bed the *C got out of that morning.

RS> Because you know damned well that
RS> if you tried that you would get the bums rush in not time Paul.

No, I don't know that at all.  I do know that this is EXACTLY what DN told
me to do, but I'm still not willing to get it.  I'd rather just delete all
out-of-spec messages etc.

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

RS> It doesnt have to be that particular quote dorko, we have this

Poor old Rod.  Makes a direct "have fun" statement, and then
fakes away like mad.  The last time I remember this situation was when my
dad was telling me that reading in poor light was bad for my eyes. I said
that's an old wive's tale, how does he know?  He said he spoke to doctors. 
He almost had me there, and then I said "what did the doctor say,
anyway".  "Anyone over 40 that doesn't wear glasses is kidding
themselves".  Bit of a pause.  "So what does that have to do with
reading in poor light?"  "Well I admit there's not a direct
correlation".  He obviously came from the Rod Speed school of gross
faking. 

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

Sorry Rod, we have a direct quote from DN that one single node having
problems constitutes "problem for the network".  It's not even a
nice attempt at faking.  Try harder, boy.  BFN.  Paul.
@EOT:

---