PE> No he doesn't. His program is designed to process FTS-1
 PE> packets, and it does.

 BL> Are you saying that it's okay to lock the computer if he gets
 BL> 73 bytes? 

 PE> Are you saying it's OK to send non-standard packets to a
 PE> system?

  I'm saying that a good programmer would consider the possibility and
allow for it.

 PE> I do, I just don't always code for it. When was the last time
 PE> you checked the return code from fclose()? You do realise that
 PE> if fclose() fails (on writing) you could actually lose data?

  Then what's the point of checking if it's already too late? ROFL! 

  I don't claim to be a good programmer, btw (I'm still learning), but
I am a good engineer.

 PE> The file names can be of any format, 72 characters of anything.

  Not if you expect it to do a FREQ it can't.

  Whatever goes in the Sbj line is part of the PKT format. The very
least you should do, is refer to these other standards, just as *they*
would have to refer to this one.

 PE> There is no need for the PKT format to dictate that, that is
 PE> for the mail protocol to care about. That's what I reckon
 PE> anyway.

  You are wrong.

 PE> Same as the File-request bit. The subject is also a string. On
 PE> my system (when I was running Squish anyway), that subject
 PE> string was actually converted into a .REQ file suitable for an
 PE> FTS-6 session. THAT is a purely local issue.

  It all starts with the Sbj line. If you read your PKT standard, you
are left thinking that anything can go in there, including control
codes. Ths is not true when using it for freq or then the Sbj line is
a set of file names. You should therefore say so.

  You described the ^a control lines in detail. Why is this any
different?

 BL> I've always thought it would be better for *one* person to
 BL> write the standard. They are usually written in committee, and
 BL> they sort-of wander a bit.

 PE> The best argument against this "committee never works" theory
 PE> is the ANSI C standard. It's faultless.

  Either faultless, or you have not found the faults, yet.

  The way a Standards Committee works, is that once the amendments are
agreed, it goes to the editorial staff which then proof read the whole
thing and correct it, and send it back. The problem is that the
proof-readers are not as expert as the committee members, and it tends
to wander a bit, as I said.

  The best standards are changed a little at a time, over many years,
incorporating the language of other standards as they go.

Regards,
Bob
___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.12
@EOT:

---