PE> It was probably the uuencoding that got him mad.

BG> So how else can you send fucking binary code in an ASCII message?

RS> You dont in routed netmail, you crashmail, in which case you dont even
RS> need to UUCODE just file attach to netmail. Trivial with a decent mailer.

One thing I forgot to mention is that its theoretically possible for
it to arrive at his BBS, but he doenst get to see the file itself, coz
the sysop doesnt notice the file attach. I usually add a note to the
netmail message suggesting he asks his sysop if he cant see the file.

So far its never failed once, not even had any
BBS refuse the crashmail because I'm not nodelisted.

BG> I eventually had to do that anyway, as the stupid dork
BG> acknowledged receipt of the UUencoded driver, but had no
BG> idea how to decode it, and rather than crash just the decoder,
BG> it was just as easy to crash the entire 3Kb file instead.

True, thats what I would have done.

BG> Is it just me, or is the world really full of complete fuckwits?

There certainly are plenty out there. Just look at that Richard
Heppell fellow. Tho hopefully most arent quite that bad |-)

BG> I just double-checked, and it was only 72 lines of around 60
BG> characters per line, UNCOMPRESSED.  I can sort of see his point,

RS> Yeah, I think its just a general objection to UUCODING in routed
RS> netmail, not to the actual cost of that particular one. Its just
RS> one of those things that some people get obscessed about.

BG> Like adding a "c" to "obsessed", you mean?  :)

Thats just cage rattling. You lot never noticed
that I only did that in AVT, not anywhere else |-)

BG> Dunno what his problem is, but having now spoken with
BG> several people who've actually met him, the general
BG> feeling is that he's an ignorant prick, and completely
BG> unsuited to the authority he holds with the club's four BBSs.

Yeah, I've heard stuff along those lines, particularly
as far as the BRISBUG or whatever its called is concerned.

Presumably the usual problem with some people just needing to flaunt
their power to show what big people they are, when in fact all it does
is demonstrate very graphically what they psychological problems are.

Trevs got similar problems, tho not quite so bad.

BG> but there was absolutely no need for him to adopt such a threatening
BG> posture, as all he's done is get me mad now, and the really annoying
BG> thing is that I could have sent it via normal email (at the expense
BG> of every sysop who carries OS2_Z3) and likely nobody would have
BG> complained at all.  He really is an arrogant cunt.  NFSE.

RS> True, obviously a graduate of the Bill
RS> Hely School of Charm and Diplomacy |-)

BG> Shouldn't that be the "Rod Speed School of Charm and
Diplomacy" ?  :)

BG> Anyway, at least Bill had the decency
BG> to distance himself from fidonet though.

True, but the people like Marwick need the avenue for
flaunting their power. Its basically their mental crutch.

BG> The really annoying thing about Marwick is that if he perceives
BG> that I've done the wrong thing (even unintentionally), he has the
BG> power to cut all of my email routing through his board, and given
BG> that he's already done it once before, I don't doubt that he'd do
BG> so again with even the slightest provocation.

Yes, its a real problem. You do actually have some legal recourse on
natural justice grounds, but thats usually not cheap to exercise and
in this particular case you wouldnt win anyway coz there is a pretty
explicit ban on UUCODE in routed netmail in Policy4.

But on something else, say the use of norty words in netmail,
you could shaft him comprehensively if you didnt mind the cost
of doing it when the ABC and SBS etc have those words too.

--- PQWK202