PE> Like I said!!!!  A bug in PQWK 2.50 makes it
PE> put the incorrect address in the fixed header!

RS> Well, you originally claimed that a message
RS> of mine had an embedded origin line.

PE> Yeah, it was the MSGID that did it in this case.

RS> You eventually realised you had fucked that up and it did not.
RS> NOW you may be saying that PQWK 2.5 produces a PKT which has
RS> a message which has the incorrect address in the a header.

PE> That is correct.

RS> Presumably you mean in the header of that
RS> particular message that is dud, in that PKT.

PE> That is correct.

RS> I really havent got a fucking clue what you are trying
RS> to say since what you do say is so damned cryptic.

PE> I told you the message header was fucked, because of a bug in PQWK 2.50.

Yes, but you didnt say WHICH header, and since you did offer a PKT back,
it wasnt at all clear that you meant a header I had sent or if you meant
the header after Tobruk had produced a PKT from the PKT I sent.

RS> AND I CERTAINLY HAVE HAVE NEVER DELIBERATELY SEND
RS> YOUR SYSTEM A MESSAGE THAT I KNOW IS OUT OF SPEC.

PE> I didn't say that, Rod, I said that you were deliberately
PE> using software which I had already said caused me problems.

That doesnt qualify as malicious, soorree.

PE> In this case, there is some excuse, because I only
PE> mentioned embedded origin lines, not embedded MSGIDs.

Yeah, I certainly wouldnt have kept using it coz I thought it only
fixed the embedded origin line problem which I knew I wasnt gunna send.
@EOT:

---