PE> The thing is, I already told you.

RS> No you didnt. You didnt say that the version of PQWK I was using
RS> would allow a MSGID between a SET/EOT pair and that that was wrong.

Yeah, like I said later, I thought it was an origin line, which I
had told you about.

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.

Not kludge lines I didn't.

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 the
RS> slightest sense to be silently binning entire PKT which contain a message
RS> which isnt absolutely pristine in your eyes judged by your completely loony
RS> ideas about what constitutes 'the specs'. 

You misunderstood me.

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

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

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

And luckily I have enough sense to IMMEDIATELY fix any problems they
tell me about.  BTW, I don't recall I ever sent out-of-spec messages
to Dave.  Certainly I don't recall being notified by him.  BFN.  Paul.
@EOT:

---