KvE> Had the host segment been processed, by a current makenl, then DOWN   
    KvE> would have been converted to "Down" and the line a valid entry.   
      
    AL> No, the line in question is not a valid entry, as the standards are   
    AL> currently documented.   
      
   isn't that an ugly oversight?? most *C's will simply alter the existing line   
   and add or change the first field without editing the rest of the line...   
   "Down" should be allowed with "-Unpublished-" as "Hold" and "Pvt" are...   
      
   then there's the problem of coding to the specs when the program being coded   
   is the one that sets the specs which are then documented by a completly   
   different body that has nothing to do with the program... so i say that   
   makenl-ng should not "code to the specs" in this particular case but it should   
   allow "Down" with "-Unpublished-" and let the specs catch up... that'll fix   
   that...   
      
   now, with all that said... i just tested using the following versions of   
   makenl... the numbers in parenthesis are the actual file dates of the binary   
   on the disk...   
      
   MakeNL -- Version 2.51 -- Jun 14 1992 16:55:25 (28 Nov 1999 y2k patch)   
   MakeNL -- Version 2.51 -- Jun 14 1992 16:55:25 (16 Jun 1992)   
   MakeNL -- Version 2.50 -- Feb 11 1991 11:54:28 (12 Feb 1991)   
      
   all of them *DO* allow "Down" with "-Unpublished-"... no bitchin', gripin', or   
   complainin'... i manually checked the output file and they were all exactly   
   the same... this indicates a problem with the current code that needs to be   
   fixed so as to conform to the old version(s)... that takes case of one   
   problem...   
      
      
   this also indicates that something is not right with the specs... at least in   
   this particular case anyway... this needs to be brought up "over there" and   
   fixed as well...   
      
   )\/(ark   
      
    * Origin:  (1:3634/12)