Just a sample of the Echomail archive
Cooperative anarchy at its finest, still active today. Darkrealms is the Zone 1 Hub.
|    MAKENL_NG    |    MakeNL Next Generation.    |    1,725 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 258 of 1,725    |
|    Janis Kracht to mark lewis    |
|    Error in the Region 17 / Net 153 segmmen    |
|    04 Nov 12 16:21:18    |
      >> Had the host segment been processed, by a current makenl, then DOWN       >> would have been converted to "Down" and the line a valid entry.              >> No, the line in question is not a valid entry, as the standards are       >> 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 "Down" should be allowed with "-Unpublished-" as "Hold" and "Pvt" are...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 i       >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" wit       > "-Unpublished-" and let the specs catch up...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 o       > 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all of them *DO* allow "Down" with "-Unpublished-"...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 th       > 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...              Seems that way to me, Mark.              > 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...              Take care,       Janis              --- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Dada-1        * Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/38)    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca