RS> In fact you had raved on for many messages about the value of the
RS> SOT/EOT being that it ALLOWED various stuff which would otherwise
RS> be considered to be information a tosser used to be recognised as
RS> being part of the body of the message, so the werent a problem.

PE> Not kludge lines I didn't.

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

If you dont specifically mention exceptions, its
not hard to miss the fact that they are exceptions.

In fact I'm complete confident that you didnt mention that
kludge lines were an exception because I would certainly have
pointed out that it makes a lot more sense to allow those in
there too, particularly mail processing apps which dont do
anything with the body of the message between the SOT/EOT at all.

Its just much more robust if its done that way, allowing those kludge
lines inside the SOT/EOT pair, for precisely the same reasons that
--- and origin lines are allowed, it means that if they get in there
because the user has them in the body of the text, the aint a problem.

There is no disadvantage either with mail processing apps.

PE> It's your lack of doing something about it that pissed me off.

RS> Pity you had such a massive series of brain farts on that then.

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.

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

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

PE> 1. If you send me a non-pristine message, I rename
PE> the .PKT to .BAD for manual checking, so that I can
PE> inform you of the problem.  Ala what I did with Keith.

Fine, no problem with that at all, its the only sensible approach.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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

---