PE> Yeah, the only problem with that theory is that Bob Lawrence,
PE> Brenton Vettoretti and Dieter Mirbach have been conversing in
PE> echomail and netmail for the last week or so using 2.22.  So don't
PE> read any of their messages if you think there's a problem with it.

RS> Yeah, the only problem with that theory is that you actually saw
RS> that change you made to fix international netmail, result in a
RS> problem for non same zone netmail, which stayed there for many
RS> weeks before it got noticed. Presumably because the local mapping
RS> caught the same node netmail, they either didnt send any same
RS> zone netmail, or did and it vanished and they never noticed.

PE> The only problem with that theory is that PQWK221 is just as
PE> likely to have that problem as PQWK222, you wouldn't know.

RS> Crap, I put some effort into manually checking what it was producing
RS> when I started using it. Precisely because I wont adopt a compile
RS> and pray approach to software which is doing something that matters.

RS> Just dropping in 222 without any checks on what its producing, just
RS> '3 people have used it for a week without complaining' aint testing IMO.

PE>> The other problem with that theory is that there is a serious KNOWN
PE>> problem with PQWK221, but there are no known problems with PQWK222.

RS> Yes, and if you KNOW you arent actually doing the thing that its got
RS> a KNOWN problem with, inter zone netmail, thats no big deal at all.

PE> The known problem with PQWK221 is not inter zone netmail, that works
PE> fine.

Yeah, I meant 2.02, whoopy do.  Will now rephrase my response to your top
para. I am not using 2.21, so I dont give a stuff about its deficiencys.

PE> The problem with PQWK221 is that failure to put a "To:" in netmail
PE> causes a random destination address in the PKT, because there is no
PE> default destination address.

OK, I wont use it then. Never have done, dont plan to. I do at some stage
plan to test 2.22 thoroughly, or whatever has replaced it, before I use it.

--- PQWK202