PE> I'm sure too.  I have had some blues with the
PE> FTS chair.  They were about inadequate documentation.

RS> And a few other tiny matters like one Paul Edwards proclaiming that he
RS> would be PCing on what he considers to be stuff thats out of spec and being
RS> told that if he didnt watch out he might get flushed if he tried that.

Rod, the other stuff I have already explained to you, even if you
are too thick to understand it.

As for this new bit about PCing, pray tell where you got this
information from, because it's certainly news to me.  Have fun
trying to quote a message to back up this complete fabrication.
In the meantime, have a quote of what the FTSC Chair REALLY said
about PCing.  He was telling ME that I SHOULD be PCing.  Poor
old Rod.  Picked up some Bob germs along the way...

Ä NET_DEV (3:711/934.9) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ NET_DEV Ä
 Msg  : 76 of 1632 - 69 + 82                Rcv                                 
 From : david nugent                        3:632/348       Sat 23 Apr 94 06:28 
 To   : Paul Edwards                                        Tue 26 Apr 94 07:51 
 Subj : Date field                                                              
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ

 > dn> Whether it is or is not valid depends upon the type of
 > dn> date ('SEAdog' or 'Fido').

 > [D:\TOBRUK\SRC]del e:\tobruk\src\msg\*.sq*

 > [D:\TOBRUK\SRC]tobruk -csquish.cfg -ptemp.pkt -q1200000
 > -i600000 TBK002 Tobruk Version 0.16 (probably) started TBK003
 > Processing packet temp.pkt DTS001 Bad date:  4 Apr 94
 > 11:49:16 DTS001 Bad date:  4 Apr 94  14:00:24 [D:\TOBRUK\SRC]
 > [D:\TOBRUK\SRC]

 > It's Fido (nominally).  The string is " 4 Apr 94  11:49:16".
 > It's the right length, it's just that it has a leading space
 > instead of a "0".  The routine I am using checks practically
 > EVERYTHING.

Your routine appears to be correct. '0' is required by the standard for Fido
format dates. (my software also flags this, but interprets the date nevertheless
- a little more needs to be wrong before getting out the chainsaw... :-)).


 > >> Do I go to you for a definite interpretation of the standard or what?

 > dn> You approach your NC. When it escalates (because it is a
 > serious problem)
 > dn> it will eventually get to the IC and then the FTSC.

 > Do I complain to the NC about the node, the mailprocessor
 > they are using, or the BBS software they are using?

A sysop is individually responsible for all the software they run and any
problems it causes on the network. This question is the same one I saw you
answer yourself only last evening in regards to the "Devil Dialer" in
AUST_SYSOP. :-)
@EOT:

---