I transferred this here as I'm getting sick of it cluttering up
the sysop echo.

 PE>> When you add to that the fact that pqwk is far more complicated
 PE>> than pktjoin, written by multiple authors, basically a heap of
 PE>> shit, had quite a lot of bug fixes go through already, whilst
 PE>> the pktjoin code is about 3 pages long,

 RS> Sure, no argument there. Main problem tho is that everyone else is
 RS> using PKT2QWK, have been doing so for the best part of a year now.
 RS> Frank is the only one who is seeing the dud QWKs at the moment. So
 RS> its less likely that it is PKT2QWK than his BAT files, which he has
 RS> changed, or his machine config.
 
HEY ROD!!!  Everyone else is using PKTJOIN too!!!!!!!!!!  Without
problems!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  Please reread this para!!!!!!!!!!!!! 

 PE>> you would have to be on drugs to be saying the pktjoin is more
 PE>> likely to be problem than pqwk.

 RS> But you keep studiously ignoring the situation where processing more
 RS> than one archived file of PKTs in a single run produces a fucked QWK
 RS> and processing them individually does not. Particularly when the
 
Sounds like bullshit to me, but even if it was true, it's still
just as likely to be a pqwk problem. 
 
 RS> resulting QWK with the multiple archive files is nothing unusual size
 RS> wise. THATs the symptoms which make it more likely its PKTJOIN, no
 RS> matter how unlikely that looks from the code of PKTJOIN.

 RS> AND I just dont buy this 'look at the code, its so simple' line, it
 RS> wouldnt be the first time that some compiler has managed to produce
 RS> an EXE from very simple code which has some subtle problem which
 RS> causes it to go bang on some particular detail of its input files.

We're getting into the realm of the incredibly unlikely here, when
we've got code that looks like something the cat dragged in.  Do
you know how to do axiom semantics?  I don't, but with the amount
of time spent arguing about a trivial program like pktjoin, it could 
probably have been proven to be correct!

 RS> Corse in the strictest sense you can argue that it is always a PKT2QWK
 RS> bug if its too stupid to notice a fucked input PKT and just blindly
 RS> produces a fucked QWK from it too.
 
It does do some validation BTW. 

 RS> Just what you call the reliance on no existing NDXs when PKT2QWK starts
 RS> is also arguable. If you want to be totally hair splitting even that can
 RS> be called a bug sort of.

Mark made a conscious effort to append to the file rather than
overwrite it.  The mind boggles as to the reason for this.
BFN.  Paul.
@EOT:

--- Mksmsg