Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!sunic!dkuug!tidk!storm
From: storm@texas.dk (Kim F. Storm)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: Re: none (was re: tried of bogus subject lines?) (long)
Message-ID: <418@texas.dk>
Date: 20 Sep 89 12:28:16 GMT
References: <13639@well.UUCP>
Organization: Texas Instruments, Denmark
Lines: 15

pokey@well.UUCP (Jef Poskanzer) writes:

>The only important difference between these other bogosities and Re^n
>is that Re^n is generated by a program, and therefore there's at least
>a chance of fixing it.  So it should be fixed.

It is fixed by patch #4, Jul 10, 1989.

I have excused nn's build-in violation of RFC 1036 several times on the
net and issued a patch as soon as I realized that it was a violation.
What more can I do?
-- 
Kim F. Storm        storm@texas.dk        Tel +45 429 174 00
Texas Instruments, Marielundvej 46E, DK-2730 Herlev, Denmark
	  No news is good news, but nn is better!