Hi, Bob.

BL> FM> Thanks, Bob. I won't do it then, 'cos I want to continue to use
BL> FM> QWK at this stage. Unless I could use part of it, then PKT2QWK
BL> FM> etc and OLX. But Paul warned me about tampering with *any* of
BL> FM> it! :-) Not that I can anyway, 'cos I can't freq it.

BL>  I wrote a new pktjoin in VB (one that ignores tenmin.pkt), and
BL>thought: "Jeeze, this is too easy!" so I got stuck into QWK2PKT.

BL>  Bloody hell! Both QWK and PKT are inventions of the Devil. First,
BL>you need an  entirely different system for Netmail under QWK, so you
BL>have to do it twice, and then you have to sit down and work out all
BL>the ways it can stuff up. Nothing is checked! It either works, or it
BL>doesn't.

BL>  I thought Paul was exaggerating with his kludges, and that it would
BL>be pretty easy to produce a PKT out of a reply QWK, but it's just one
BL>big kludge! The system is a kludge.

I haven't looked at PKT and only a little at QWK. I thought QWK was
reasonably straightforward, if a little bizarre in its implementation of
some things like dates and numbers as you have seen. And, of course
limiting in that it doesn't allow the full length for eg
From:/To:/Subject:. I never had to contend with ^A kludges, never saw
them. (Maybe they don't appear in QWKs.)

Hey Paul, I assume PKT is the way things move around in the "real"
world, inter-BBS? What was that Fido spec I should have grabbed?

Hey David, what about Internet?

If I'm going to do something, I might as well handle the lot. At least
allow for everything in "the lot", for future expansion.

Regards, FIM.

 * * BYTE ME -- BYTE ME -- BYTE ME -- BYTE ME
@EOT:

---