Oli wrote to Blue White <=-
But the namespace for a couple of numbers is much smaller and numbers
are not self-explanatory. How easy is it to spot a mistake? Just
imagine Usenet would have used 16-bit numbers instead of names.
Btw, you reply message is one of the examples that does not have a
REPLY kludge and therefore breaks message threading. Even the simplest things (copying a field/kludge into another) seems to be hard or error prone with QWK.
Btw, you reply message is one of the examples that does not have a
REPLY kludge and therefore breaks message threading. Even the
simplest things (copying a field/kludge into another) seems to be
hard or error prone with QWK.
Except it wasn't sent via QWK. :)
Good point.
Maybe I just assumed that everything that goes wrong has to be the
fault of bad QWK implementations ;)
How was it send then? The tearline said MultiMail/DOS. Was it
BlueWave?
How was it send then? The tearline said MultiMail/DOS. Was it
BlueWave?
It was sent via Bluewave. This message is being entered directly on
the BBS.
Oli wrote to Al <=-
QWK networking works well.
Does it?
I wonder why I'm seeing lots of mails without a REPLY kludge in
FSX_NET.
I wonder why I'm seeing lots of mails without a REPLY kludge in FSX_NET.
This is another offline reply, this time using QWK. I just want to see if a REPLY kludge is added on upload.
This is another offline reply, this time using QWK. I just want to
see if a REPLY kludge is added on upload.
It has:
X-FTN-MSGID 21:4/106.0 670fc6c9
X-FTN-REPLY 21:3/102 63bd4224
Sysop: | digital man |
---|---|
Location: | Riverside County, California |
Users: | 1,038 |
Nodes: | 15 (0 / 15) |
Uptime: | 150:21:33 |
Calls: | 236,140 |
Files: | 60,374 |
D/L today: |
12 files (34,091K bytes) |
Messages: | 288,574 |