RS> The problem is that you barely even test changes, just release and pray.
RS> It aint exactly a terrific idea to just use stuff released like that.

PE> It gets live-tested by the first person to use it.

RS> Soorree, that aint anything remotely like rigorous testing.

Yes it is, a week of testing by Frank was plenty of testing.  And
if you don't like PQWK's testing level, USE A DIFFERENT PRODUCT.
I said months ago that PQWK had a problem, which caused me problems,
and if you have so little regard for that that you couldn't give a
shit if you cause me problems, well I consider that to be malicious.

PE> I am recompiling Tobruk now, with that bit of code commented
PE> out, to allow what appears to be "routed echomail".  Then I
PE> will recompile it back to normal.  And then THAT IS IT.  NO MORE.

RS> That doesnt sound like a terribly practical approach, because its quite
RS> feasible for other than PKTs generated by PQWK to have that problem.
RS> In other words, even if the latest PQWK is used, you havent allowed for
RS> some other point which doesnt even use PQWK at all doing that blemish.

PE> No, it's only a problem with people who send me packets directly.

RS> And they dont all happen to use PQWK do they ? And presumably

No, they don't.  I wish no-one used PQWK.

RS> you dont expect Tobruk to only ever get used by you either.

No, I don't.

PE> The problem is that the address of the sender is not
PE> 711/934 but whatever crap was in an inserted origin line.

RS> Yes, no argument that there is a problem with embedded origin lines.

Not really.  Using PQWK260, you can send me embedded origin lines,
and I won't complain.  Or using MSGED, you can send me embedded
origin lines.  There may be other software that doesn't like
embedded origin lines, but it's basically in-spec as far as I'm
concerned, they have to fix their software if they don't like it.
PQWK250 was something that needed fixing in that regard.

RS> How best to DEAL with them tho is another matter entirely tho.

RS> You can for example make a case for nuking the * on one of those
RS> embedded origin lines IN TOBRUK, when its tossing a packet from
RS> people who send you packets directly. And THEN it catches those warts
RS> even when something else is used to prepare the packets than PWQK too.

No, the problem is not the embedded origin line in the MSG in the
PKT I receive from you, the problem is in the address in the fixed 
header portion of the MSG in the PKT I receive from you.  You are
not using your own address in there.  That is because of a bug in
PQWK250.

RS> THATS what robust software is all about. Recognising that in the real
RS> world not all packets can be guaranteed to be absolutely pristine.

No, that's why it was caught and rejected.  I don't check that area
very often, that's why Keith's was weeks old before I found it.  You
were lucky, I was looking for problems from Keith when I found yours,
so there was only a few days delay.

RS> In fact for a time Tobruk was producing some which werent
RS> itself. 

*I* fixed problems in Tobruk as soon as they were pointed out to me,
or I saw them myself.  YOU have to do the same, either by stopping
using PQWK250, or upgrading.  I did the work to fix the problem, it's
up to YOU to choose one of the fixes available.  It's not up to you
to choose to not care, and send me corrupt mail.

RS> It would have made no sense for system up stream of
RS> you to be silently binning entire PKTs when a wart was seen.

It would be nice if the system upstream told me.  The thing is, I
already told you.  It's your lack of doing something about it that
pissed me off.  BFN.  Paul.
@EOT:

---