On Sat, 12 Nov 2016 05:59:36 -0500, mark lewis wrote:   
      
    ml> while that may be true, it does so incorrectly... this is akin to   
    ml> writing workaround code in your software to work around the bugs in   
    ml> other's code... that's pure crap and bullshit... you don't work around   
    ml> other's bugs... you point them out and get them to fix them... fidonet   
    ml> found this out two decades ago... the internet hasn't reached that point   
   yet...   
      
   Good intentions...   
      
   I see no problem with a looser implementation provided doing so does   
   not break something else.  I would say that shoving fidonet messages   
   into NNTP is bound to break something anyway.   
      
   I haven't read the RFCs cover to cover and probaly won't ever do so.   
   I'll only read the parts that are relevant to what I am trying to get   
   working and then test a suite of readers against it.  Call it a 'best   
   effort'.   
      
   ---   
    * Origin: The Byte Museum - news: news.bytemuseum.org (1:19/10)