Xref: utzoo news.admin:14757 news.software.b:8034 Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!emory!wrdis01!mips!daver!tscs!tct!chip From: chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg) Newsgroups: news.admin,news.software.b Subject: Re: Really funny jokes being missed Message-ID: <28445BBB.E43@tct.com> Date: 30 May 91 01:56:10 GMT References: <3752@ksr.com> <10623@castle.ed.ac.uk> Organization: Teltronics/TCT, Sarasota, FL Lines: 33 According to aipdc@castle.ed.ac.uk (Paul D. Crowley): >I don't think there's anything wrong with the attitude "Unfortunately, >it's impractical: a thousand sites could try to send errors [...]" > >The trouble is, no-one wants to look for ways around it, because they >feel it's _desirable_ behaviour, to "punish" the user for making a >mistake. I consider it desirable to put teeth in the standards for *software* that transports news. Each person who ventures to write Usenet software enters a field in which small mistakes can cause huge problems. To require the relatively few people who write the software to adhere *strictly* to the relevant RFCs is, in my opinion, not too much to ask. To users, I say: Choose carefully the software and the system you use to access Usenet. If you choose badly, you suffer the consequences. >Sure, the world would be a better place if software never had any bugs >in it, if human users never made mistakes, if everyone understood and >adhered to the same standards. Given that they don't, isn't it part of >writing half-decent software taking into account the possibility that >not everything and everyone you're taking data from is entirely without >flaw? C News matches that description. It antipates and recovers from errors quite well, thank you. The only point of disagreement here is what kind of error recovery is appropriate. If robustness were the only issue, Geoff and Henry would be universally acclaimed. -- Chip Salzenberg at Teltronics/TCT , perl -e 'sub do { print "extinct!\n"; } do do()'