Paul, at 08:20 on May 31 1996, you wrote to David Drummond ...

PE>> *YOUR* system is sending me an out-of-spec message.  YOUR 
PE>> software is fucked.  That is a PC-able offence BTW.  You do 
PE>> not have the right to send out-of-spec messages to me, just 
PE>> because you received one yourself.  

DD>> In what way is the message out of spec?  

PE> Read FTS-4 for yourself.

DD>> Please quote the portion of policy 
DD>> that dictates what spec my messages must adhere to.

PE> I'll quote a message from the FTSC Chair...

PE> Ä NET_DEV (3:711/934.9) ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
PE> ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ NET_DEV Ä
PE> Msg  : 76 of 1632 - 69 + 82                Rcv                      
          
PE> From : david nugent                        3:632/348       
PE> Sat 23 Apr 94 06:28 To   : Paul Edwards                     
PE>                    Tue 26 Apr 94 07:51 Subj : Date field    
PE>                                                           
PE> ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
PE> ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ Ä

>> dn> Whether it is or is not valid depends upon the type of
>> dn> date ('SEAdog' or 'Fido').

>> [D:\TOBRUK\SRC]del e:\tobruk\src\msg\*.sq*

>> [D:\TOBRUK\SRC]tobruk -csquish.cfg -ptemp.pkt -q1200000
>> -i600000 TBK002 Tobruk Version 0.16 (probably) started TBK003
>> Processing packet temp.pkt DTS001 Bad date:  4 Apr 94
>> 11:49:16 DTS001 Bad date:  4 Apr 94  14:00:24 [D:\TOBRUK\SRC]
>> [D:\TOBRUK\SRC]

>> It's Fido (nominally).  The string is " 4 Apr 94  11:49:16".
>> It's the right length, it's just that it has a leading space
>> instead of a "0".  The routine I am using checks practically
>> EVERYTHING.

PE> Your routine appears to be correct. '0' is required by the 
PE> standard for Fido format dates. (my software also flags this, 
PE> but interprets the date nevertheless
PE> - a little more needs to be wrong before getting out the 
PE> chainsaw... :-)).


>> >> Do I go to you for a definite interpretation of the 
>> >> standard or what?

>> dn> You approach your NC. When it escalates (because it is a
>> serious problem)
>> dn> it will eventually get to the IC and then the FTSC.

>> Do I complain to the NC about the node, the mailprocessor
>> they are using, or the BBS software they are using?

PE> A sysop is individually responsible for all the software 
PE> they run and any problems it causes on the network. This 
PE> question is the same one I saw you answer yourself only last 
PE> evening in regards to the "Devil Dialer" in AUST_SYSOP. :-)

PE> You will also find insinuation in Policy 4 that the FTSC 
PE> sets the technical standards.  Of course, you may prefer to 
PE> tell the FTSC Chair and ZC that he is out of his tree.

He also mentions software "causing problems in the network".

Considering that one hell of a lot more systems run the mail processor I
run, that the one you run, and none of them are seeing any problems
suggests to me that YOUR software is too pedantic and too easily annoyed.

I think that's mentioned in Policy too.

David
@EOT:

--- Msgedsq/2 3.10