Hi Paul,

On 2016-08-23 20:35:13, you wrote to me:

 WV>> before I started working on my code, to see what kind of responses I
 WV>> would get. From the 18 I send out I got 9 responses from 8 systems.

 PQ>                                  ^
 PQ> The appropriate word is sent.  I see this form often misused.

I probably write that all the time. Because in my mind (mint?;)) it sounds like
a 'd'. And you do write 'sending' not 'senting'... ;)

 WV>> But maybe some are held up by the fact that Wards system has been
 WV>> down again. We'll see when he gets online again...

 PQ> Okay.  Unless they get routed to the 'too hard bin', 'file 13', ermm...
the
 PQ> bit bucket.  ;)

Could also happen. I could repeat the test when Ward is back online... Well
maybe... ;)

 WV>> I found your systems response a bit sparse compared to others,
 WV>> although sufficient: It just quotes the Via lines, not the entire
 WV>> message. And it said it was a TRACE response, when in fact it should
 WV>> have been a PING response, because my message was directed at your
 WV>> 3:640/384 system, which was also the one responding...

 PQ> Oh, I didn't know there was a difference in expectation in the
 PQ> specifications.

 PQ> Ah, I've just re-read the proposal.  I see what you mean.  I'll quit using
 PQ> my botched effort.

Isn't that a bit of an extreme response? ;)

It's better to get any response than no response.

 PQ> Thanks for the heads up.

As you mentioned it was a prototype, I thought you could use the feedback to
fix things?


Bye, Wilfred.

--- FMail-W32 1.71.3.200-B20160822