Subj : Re: Remember
To   : MATT BEDYNEK
From : FOXY FERGUSON
Date : Tue Aug 28 2001 02:12 am

MB> I disagree with any filtering practice outside that of a
MB> technical nature.

The problem, Matt, is in the definition of "technical".

If everybody ain't on the same page in the songbook, then the
tune being sung can be.... horific.

For example, all it takes as regards gating software is for the
author of one of them to decide that the "standard" gate practices
are not manditory and his way is better and the result can be
described as "techinical violations in msgs"...

My primary uplink's system sometimes sidelines as "dupes" msgs
that my system thinks aren't. Between us, Cassell and I have
determined via investigation that these alleged dupes really are
not, since the text of the messages is entirely different in
every instance so far identified and investigated.

Since the author of my software has so far declined to "fix" what
ain't really broke and the tosser Ross is using ain't really broke
either, possible solutions include (a) me changing software, (b)
Ross changing software, (c) accept that some of my outgoing mail
may not make it to it's destination, or (d) re-upload the "dupe"
msg whenever it's identified.

The fact of the matter is that in combination under specific
circumstances, mail can easily go missing due to an unforseen and
unresolvable conflict between diapariate software operating on
different platforms.

Difference of opinion by different authors has oftimes resulted
in very different tactics and sometimes contradictory approaches
to any problem or issue.

As another example, I have at least one mailer/tosser/bbs pkg
that I consider VERY broke because of the approach the author
took towards a certain critical issue, and consequently I would
never recommend that said software be used by anyone who aspires
to being a major mail mover. However, it's not my call to make
for another sysop, only for myself.

--- Platinum Xpress/Wildcat! v1.4c
 * Origin: Pogo's (1:361/1)

.