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?  

Read FTS-4 for yourself.

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

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

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

 > 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.

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

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



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

---