PE> Not kludge lines I didn't.

RS> Yes, but that was the usual problem with you being far too cryptic.
RS> I dont recall you even mentioning that kludge lines werent included in
RS> that concept, in the long series of messages where it was being discussed.

You may recall that Bob was saying that if it wasn't designed to
allow binary data, it was useless, and I was saying that sending
ASCII data was what concerned me.  Anyhow, I thought I posted the
spec itself.

RS> And you STILL are on the utterly LUDICROUS proposition that it makes
RS> the slightest sense to be silently binning entire PKT which contain
RS> a message which isnt absolutely pristine in your eyes judged by
RS> your completely loony ideas about what constitutes 'the specs'.

PE> You misunderstood me.

RS> Nope, I understood fine, INCLUDING your claim that I was doing that
RS> deliberately, maliciously, when I was doing nothing of the sort.

RS> AND I didnt misunderstand the message where you said you planned
RS> to silently bin entire PKTs which had a message which you regarded
RS> as out of spec. One particular message says that very unambiguously
RS> indeed, no misunderstanding of that message is possible.

THAT was in the situation where I had warned you about a problem and
you did nothing to fix it.

PE> 2. If I have already done that, and you don't FIX it IMMEDIATELY,
PE> then I consider that to be malicious, and I'll take an action
PE> of some sort, up to me, which may be to silently bin the packet.

RS> Soorree, you didnt say anything remotely like that in the original message.
RS> You mangle what you did say so comprehensively, you dont get to claim
RS> anyone is being malicious when they aint doing anything remotely like that 
RS> .

We were already in the situation where you had done nothing to fix
it.

RS> In FACT if you had bothered to look, you would have found that
RS> from the MOMENT you pointed out that it was possible for PQWK
RS> to let an embedded MSGID escape, I changed to the latest PQWK.

It is STILL possible for an embedded MSGID to escape!  Do not let
that happen!  I have told you how to avoid that problem, it's up
to you what you do to solve the problem.

PQWK260 will now not create an invalid fixed header because of an
embedded MSGID.

RS> Feel free to apologise on the claim about malicious anytime you like.

The previous message is as close as you will get to that.

RS> Luckily for you, the systems upstream of you
RS> have a HELL of a lot more sense than to do that.

PE> I don't recall I ever sent out-of-spec messages to
PE> Dave. Certainly I don't recall being notified by him.

RS> Yes, it was out of spec. Clearly his system didnt give a damn about that 
RS> wart.

What was out of spec, Rod?  I send a relatively small amount to
Dave that I send to you guys, so I might have checked the packets
manually before sending them.  In fact, I'm certain that I would
have, on the first run of Tobruk.  And I would have remembered
Dave telling me about out-of-spec messages too.  Just where did
you get your information from?

RS> I had no way of seeing how long your system had been doing that
RS> without going and getting mail from somewhere else to see how long
RS> its been going on for. It would have to be a system past Dave.

Are you talking about my node not going into the PATH line?  In
that case, it was a bug, but it wasn't out-of-spec, PATH being
optional.  BFN.  Paul.
@EOT:

---