PE> It doesn't fall down at all, it is simply the way it works.

RS> Thats what I SAID Paul, that you get that fucked
RS> result when that type of kludge is optional.

PE> The result is not fucked.  It is the
PE> best you can do, with an optional kludge.

RS> Thats what I SAID, and that is rather fucked, when a system part way
RS> thru the route a particular message takes can add the PATH for the first
RS> time and so its only got some of the systems that its passed thru listed.

PE> Whether you happen to think it is fucked or not, it is CERTAINLY
PE> not out of spec.  It is EXACTLY as the spec was designed.

RS> Thats what I SAID dorko.

PE> Bullshit, you said it was out of spec.

Bullshit, I SAID that it was no more out of spec than say an
embedded origin line that you rave about being utterly unspeakable.
In fact BOTH are allowed and it makes no sense to bin an entire
PKT which contains a single message which has one of either.

PE> It was NOT out of spec.

Neither is an embedded origin line that you howl about.

PE> There is no spec outlawing those ascii characters in user-text.

RS> Pathetic faking. Using that utterly bogus line of
RS> complete and utter bullshit you can have as many
RS> embedded origin lines and tear lines as you like.

PE> You basically can.

RS> So your mindless obsessive raving about whats out of spec has
RS> blown up in your face and covered you with black stuff. Again.

PE> Nope.

Yep.

PE> I'm not even sure which bit you are referring to, but whatever
PE> it is, I have been completely accurate on what is in spec.

Pity that you have completely silly ideas on what its appropriate to
bin an entire PKT when a particular message has what is in spec then.
Just as well other systems upstream of you didnt do so when the PATH
in messages coming from your system had some imperfections resulting
from the inevitable outcome of allowing that to be optional.

PE> Except they're not origin lines, they are simply user-text that
PE> starts with "---" etc.  They happen to look the same as tearlines +
PE> origin lines, but they aren't, as there is only one each of them.

RS> You'll go blind if you dont watch out. Again.

PE> Sorry if you don't understand the difference.

Sorry if you cant manage a better line in mindless bullshit.

RS> UTTER tripe, its breaks the specs because the specs
RS> say you can only have one origin line if you have one.

PE> The specs say that AN origin line is appended to the end of the message,
PE> they do NOT say you cannot have a line starting " *
Origin" in your user-te

RS> Pity the same line of argument applys to other stuff
RS> that you mindlessly rave about being out of spec.

PE> Nope.

Yep.

PE> x'01' is not something the user is allowed to use.

Pity it doesnt say that in 'the specs'.

PE> It is generically dedicated to software, as is x'00'.

Ditto.

PE> There IS something outlawing a nonconforming kludge line in user-text.

PE> FTS-1

RS> Smoke. Pity it doesnt outlaw that particular example.

PE> It does.

RS> Bullshit it does.

PE> It does (re MSGID).

Bullshit it does, pity that there is more involved that MSGID.

PE> It is fairly obvious you have understood neither FTS-1, FTS-4 or FTS-9,
PE> given the comments you have put forward on all three of these specs.

RS> Sure Paul, just like the FTS chair doesnt either. Mindless smoke.

PE> No idea what you're on about there, either.

Sure you havent.
@EOT:

---