nospam.Paul.Hayton@f100.n770.z3.binkp.net (Paul Hayton) writes:
> On 09/20/18, Eli the Bearded pondered and said...

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

The interpretation of the Date: header field isn’t open to opinion.
There’s a right way to do it, and your software is doing something
else.

--
https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05