PE> Actually, I think you've misunderstood Rod there.

AC> Probably.  He's very difficult to understand.

Pathetically feeble Andrew, try harder boy, this convinces no one |-)

PE> I happen to agree with his sentiments.  "too bad for the user" is a
PE> crime against humanity.

AC> Funnily enough, I too agree with this.

Ok, then lets go thru this bit rather carefully shall we ?

    AWL> If the user enters "AREA:" as his/her first line, and
    AWL> the software doesn't fix it, then too bad for the user.

    RS> Typical fucked abortion so common in amateur designed protocols.

No just what is it you find so 'difficult to understand' in that bit
Andrew ? I say thats a fucked abortion, you say you agree that 'too bad
for the user' is a crime against humanity, so just why did you feel the
need to try some mindless sledging when I said precisely the same thing,
in what might not have been words of one syllable, but were atleast
likely to be intelligible by most people ?

PE> You should endeavour to develop robust protocols.  When a hole in a
PE> protocol is pointed out, you should see if there is a way of plugging
PE> it, assuming it is too late to abandon the protocol in the first place.

AC> Fine.  In the process of doing so you should not try to verbally
AC> strangle existing protocols in _abusive_ manner, however.

Stop playing with yourself Andrew. I wasnt attempting to strange anything,
I was in fact saying that its just not good enough to say 'if the software
doesn't fix it, then too bad for the user', the answer is doing it better
WITH the existing protocols.

And lets have a look at the 'in _abusive_ manner' shall we ?

  AC> If you don't fucking like the way the brain-fart-of-a-fucked-protocol
  AC> works (and it does work), go fucking write your own bullshit damn
  AC> protocol.

This is fine, but mine isnt ?  Maybe you would care to explain just
what I was going wrong ? Not enough mangled cliches perhaps ? |-)

PE> I have identified the hole, and have suggested SOT/EOT as a
PE> method of plugging it.

AC> Is this "hole", enough of a problem to warrant such a fix in
AC> the first place?

It certainly makes it easier to identify dud messages, say those
which have managed to include origin lines in forwarded messages etc.

PE> And Rod hasn't been saying that he wants to write a new
PE> protocol, he's been saying all along that if you're going
PE> to do that, you should justify why you can't use X.400,

AC> Funny.  If that's the case, why are you telling me?

Coz you were too thick to notice it the first time ? |-)

AC> (Are Paul Edwards and Rod Speed the same person? :-))

Nar, he microwaves ants. Literally. And doesnt let mind altering
substances pass his lips either, thank christ some might say
when he does stuff like that without the help of substances  |-)

AC> What is X.400?  Where is the FSC document?

AC> These are the reasons, Paul.  No-one knows what this "X.400" is.
AC> Not even me.

We cant help it if you are pig ignorant |-)

--- PQWK202