On 09/20/18, Eli the Bearded pondered and said...
 
 Et> And in the 1990s Fidonet was notorious for poor quality headers on
 Et> Usenet posts, so I don't think you are helping your argument there. When
 Et> your (as in you run it) software modifies a header to make it into a
 Et> lie, that's where it is defective. "It runs as intended" implies you
 Et> believe the authors wanted this lie to happen, instead of "didn't think
 Et> of this edge case".

You make many assumptions all of which are inaccurate and untrue. It's your
view that the software is creating a 'lie' it's not a view I share. It's your
opinion the software is defective. I disagree. For you to suggest I am
working to help perpetuate a lie the original author intended to inflict on
[insert victim here] is laughable.

 Et> There is a lot of source code online. If you don't provide a link, no
 Et> one will know which is the code you use. And if someone did fix the
 Et> source, would you commit to running the fixed version?

Google 'Soupgate' it's not hard.

 Et> (I'll also repeat, my news reader software has ZERO issues threading
 Et> these Fidonet posts because it doesn't slavishly thread based on date.
 Et> The Fidonet gateway is note the only thing which needs a good coat of
 Et> mud here.)

So why go to town on this when for over three years countless others who have
encountered posts via the gateway software in Usenet have happily had no
problems what so ever.

I'm dropping the thread now. There seems to be no useful purpose in engaging
in a dialogue that seems destined to roll on in pointless debate.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A39 2018/04/21 (Windows/32)