PE> If you choose to play silly buggers with the software, the result being
PE> you sending me out-of-spec messages, the onus is squarely on you as
PE> being malicious. 

BG> Not necessarily, Paul.  Just because he's a slack and idle turd, too lazy 
BG> to upgrade his software, doesn't mean that he's being intentionally 
BG> malicious.

There are two parts:
1. Not upgrading when I've told you about a problem you are causing me.
2. Deliberately importing kludge lines when you know your QWK reader
isn't designed to do it.

I consider not giving a rat's arse whether you send me out-of-spec
messages to be malicious.

Crikey, I've only got 2 real requirements on this system.  One is that
you send me in-spec messages, and the other is that the decision of
the moderator in an echo is final, I won't be risking my feed for
anyone.  I don't consider those two REQUIREMENTS to be unreasonable,
and if anyone thinks they are, that's their problem.  Maybe David
Drummond would like to volunteer as a great place to send out-of-spec
messages to.  This is the WRONG PLACE if you don't give a shit about
the technical requirements of the FTS AND FSC (of any FSC you use a 
kludge defined by) specs.  And no, that doesn't apply to genuine
mistakes by someone like Keith, who went and fixed his software as
soon as I told him it was out-of-spec.  It's the non-genuine mistakes
that I consider to be malicious.  It really does boil down to if your
idea of a BBS is one that allows you to post out-of-spec messages
whenever you feel like it, then you have to go elsewhere, I'm not
interested.  BFN.  Paul.
@EOT:

---