PE> (in fact if they are in one they will almost certainly be in
PE> the other, since I only changed a couple of lines of code).

RS> Nice theory Paul. Didnt explain the intrazone netmail breaking in
RS> an attempt to fix the inter zone netmail tho. And it would not be
RS> the first time in recorded history that an attempt to fix one problem
RS> has broken something else either. Which just happens to why better
RS> testing is a good idea on stuff that matters, particularly when the
RS> result of something breaking may not be visible.

PE> Of course, that's why Brenton tested it out first.

Pity the broken interzone netmail lasted for a long time AFTER
that testing, and you found it YOURSELF later when you went to
change some MORE. You said at the time you were damned if you
knew how no one noticed.

PE> And it works.

It didnt. Neither did that level of testing pick up the problem with
insufficient free space just silently deleting a fucking great chunk
of mail, a problem that has actually been there well over a YEAR.

Atleast the OTHER one which go thru the testing did bomb so obviously
that no one could miss it, no mail at all, and no PKTs to try again.

PE> I'm not saying 2.22 is perfect, just that it is a far better
PE> alternative than 2.21, and that there is no valid reason to
PE> be sticking to 2.21.

Pity you were ALSO saying *I* should change TOO. I aint gunna till
I test it more carefully.

--- PQWK202