Hi Paul,   
      
   On 2016-08-23 20:35:13, you wrote to me:   
      
    WV>> before I started working on my code, to see what kind of responses I   
    WV>> would get. From the 18 I send out I got 9 responses from 8 systems.   
      
    PQ>                                  ^   
    PQ> The appropriate word is sent.  I see this form often misused.   
      
   I probably write that all the time. Because in my mind (mint?;)) it sounds   
   like a 'd'. And you do write 'sending' not 'senting'... ;)   
      
    WV>> But maybe some are held up by the fact that Wards system has been   
    WV>> down again. We'll see when he gets online again...   
      
    PQ> Okay.  Unless they get routed to the 'too hard bin', 'file 13', ermm...   
   the   
    PQ> bit bucket.  ;)   
      
   Could also happen. I could repeat the test when Ward is back online... Well   
   maybe... ;)   
      
    WV>> I found your systems response a bit sparse compared to others,   
    WV>> although sufficient: It just quotes the Via lines, not the entire   
    WV>> message. And it said it was a TRACE response, when in fact it should   
    WV>> have been a PING response, because my message was directed at your   
    WV>> 3:640/384 system, which was also the one responding...   
      
    PQ> Oh, I didn't know there was a difference in expectation in the   
    PQ> specifications.   
      
    PQ> Ah, I've just re-read the proposal.  I see what you mean.  I'll quit using   
    PQ> my botched effort.   
      
   Isn't that a bit of an extreme response? ;)   
      
   It's better to get any response than no response.   
      
    PQ> Thanks for the heads up.   
      
   As you mentioned it was a prototype, I thought you could use the feedback to   
   fix things?   
      
      
   Bye, Wilfred.   
      
   --- FMail-W32 1.71.3.200-B20160822   
    * Origin: FMail development HQ (2:280/464)