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 
DN>> system, but for the sake of argument here we will assume 
DN>> that it is).

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

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

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

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

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

And the least you could have done as the person responsible for his
messages was to make sure he was doing something about it rather than the
far less helpful "Your software is a heap of shit".

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

PE> That's you.

DD> Only if there is a valid complaint

There is.

DN>> made over this, then it should be initially to that node, 
DN>> and if you get 

PE> That was done.

DD> NOT  - I received a rude robot message.

Well even if you did (which is great), what I said above is still valid!

DN>> nowhere, then to the node's NC. 

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

DD> Try it . . .

You'd rather say "your software is fucked" and make me PC you
rather than be a bit more cooperative and actually fix the problem?  You
from NZ by any chance?

PE> Yeah, but what happens when you get an unreasonable person?  
PE> You point it out to them politely and they tell you your 
PE> software is a heap of shit.

DD> You point it out by sending a robot message which states 'your message is 
DD> out of spec" - no explanation of how or what spec?

Please quote the entire message back at me, the copies that I get to see
most certainly tell you what is out of spec.  You presumably realise that
they are the FTS specs.

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

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

The network is involved David.  What's your definition of the network. 
BTW, check the SEENBYs in this "closed conference". Last I saw
you were passing LOCSYSOP on to about 5 other nodes who I don't even know. 
If I thought there was some problem with that I would have asked you to cut
their feed, but I can't actually see a problem with it at the moment.  BFN.
 Paul. 
@EOT:

---