Hey Ward!
Nevermind development given the total screwups of the past such as TZUTC and especially obsolete datetime stamps your aforementioned developers are too chickenshit to take on even though they should know better.
They couldn't develop their way out of a wet paper bag.
Hey Ward!
Nevermind development given the total screwups of the past such as
TZUTC and especially obsolete datetime stamps your aforementioned
developers are too chickenshit to take on even though they should know better.
They couldn't develop their way out of a wet paper bag.
On the basis of what software or are we all supposed to guess?
On the basis of what software or are we all supposed to guess?
All of it including my own. Speaking for mine, it totally ignores pkt head
Its unfortunate that in one moment you come across as ambitious
and technical, but then next you resort to unoriginal
Torvalds-style effeminate whining.
Maybe "Life is good" for you if you were to start your own net
No thank you. I am a member of the FTSC and fully plan to make it count if can. I call it doing my job.
How about you? I have seen didley-squat coming from your direction. What exactly are supposed to be doing and how come you're not doing it?
And you would be fired on the spot from my IT department
And you would be fired on the spot from my IT department
Good thing it isn't an issue.
Hey Vincent!
On the basis of what software or are we all supposed to guess?
All of it including my own. Speaking for mine, it totally ignores pkt headers no matter which type but it can create type 2 and 2+. As far
as everything else is concerned it looks to either be broken (sysop is unaware of their noncompliancy) or type 2 pkt headers are unsupported
by design. If so then all these by default are noncompliant until
such time there is a document to replace current standards, which
*ONLY* includes type 2 headers.
Does the software you use support type 2?
Does the software you use support type 2?
As I use mbse the answer is err - yes as far as I know - checking
docs.
The recognized mail packets are type 2+ following the FSC-0039
standard with a fall back to the old stone age packets.
All that is needed to make that real is to make it the standard.
The FTSC may declare it so and the rest of Fido might flip its
middle finger. Then what?
I am not going to ask you the same, not that I am not interested, but you tend to harsh my buzz from time to time and I think this might be one of those occasions.
Mauwice,
when awaiting new dentuwes and evewy "w" sounds like a "w" ...
Are you having a senior's moment? ;-)
I refuse to be old and people who treat me like that are in for
a bad moment
They do that only once.
Sysop: | digital man |
---|---|
Location: | Riverside County, California |
Users: | 1,044 |
Nodes: | 15 (0 / 15) |
Uptime: | 80:34:57 |
Calls: | 500,400 |
Calls today: | 3 |
Files: | 95,209 |
D/L today: |
525 files (130M bytes) |
Messages: | 464,867 |
Posted today: | 1 |