hs>> Mark please, I am not going to spent more than 10 seconds
hs>> on this.  I saw your message twice.  It may be as you say,
hs>> you edited later.  Whatever.

ML> then why tell me to fix my software (left quoted above> ?

Because you LET a DUPE get out!!!

If you want to be perfectly honest, if you EDITED later and resent it,
thats either brain lapse on your part or your EDITOR doesn't know how to
LOCKED the message to prevent your exporter from grabbing it.

How far do you want to take this Mark?

ML? was it
ML> nothing more than a cheap shot when you saw that your argument about 
ML> REPLY control lines was being replied to overwhelmingly? -=B-)

Hey call it what you want Mark.

As far as arugments is concern, I know I am RIGHT. and you KNOW I am right.
You can't admit it. You don't want to ADMIT it that you ARE advocating the
generation of BAD addressing into the NET. I can't say that you are
actually responsible because you don't author any software, but you are
telling "potential authors" reading this echo, how to create illogical
software.

I repeat:

     I AM NOT SPITTING OUT BAD ADDRESSES INTO THE NET FOR THE NEXT GUY TO
     SCREW UP WITH.

So along as that is the CASE, you and "your FRIENDS" can kiss my ass, and
be OVERWHELMING WRONG all you want.  I will clearly make sure that when a
SYSOP bitches about mail being addressed wrong, I will remind him to look
at the possibility that his user replied to a message created by one of of
Mark's friends email software which screwed up the addressing in the
system.

Hey, atleast YOU now know the same thing and will be able to address it as
well. If you DON'T, then you are hiding behind the truth.

Preach putting bad addressing all you want. I will not be part of it.

How far you do you want to take this Mark?
--- Platinum Xpress/386/Wildcat! v1.2h