Hello mark!

12 Jun 03 11:03, mark lewis wrote to Mike Tripp:

 ml> the ^ASPLIT proposal... IMO, it was implemented on the wrong side of
 ml> the problem... systems that cannot handle large messages should split
 ml> those messages for tossing into their message areas... anyone feeding
 ml> from that system should get the original, unsplit message and split it
 ml> themselves if needed... the same goes for those QWK doors... they
 ml> should split the messages down into what the user's reader can
 ml> handle...

The only problem with that logic is that =every= system cannot handle large
messages, if large is defined as unlimited.  What are the minimum hardware
and software requirements to receive "infinitely large" messages?

 ml> and i'll mention, once again, about the specs for packed messages
 ml> stating that the message body is unbounded... ie: no size limit...

And the very next thing that same spec defines is the character required to
denote the boundary of the "unbounded" portion... :)

Fortunately for Fido, most programmers willingly condensed "unlimited
specified" to "unspecified"...and so we got
"programmer's choice"/pot luck/de facto.  Since my OS/2 box can
theoretically scan out a message larger than my DOS box can create a disk
partition to store...I don't see where Scott's code needs a lot of
"fixing" in this regard.  Tossers don't mean much if you can't
pass their output around freely. ;)

.\\ike

--- GoldED 2.50+