Tcp/ip does not modify the email. The email client does not modify the email. The disk drive in your machine does not modify the email.
A specific program with the specific job of *processing* email a certain way, processes it, if and when you voluntarily want it to, and not because someone else decided that what they think is good is all you or anyone else could possibly ever have any need for. It is not a disk drives job, or a disk drive driver author, to tell the user 10 years later what data they do and do not want. Not with more strength than an overridable default at least. Even in that classic example I brought up of ftp clients, it is merely a default and configurable behavior, not something it just does to your data without either allowing you to opt-out or even so much as *telling* you that it happened. John actually bragged that he will not only modify the data, but will not even warn that data is being modified. I can't believe I have to explain to anyone who calls themselves a programmer or any other IT related person how counterproductive and insane that is. I'm not a teacher and so instead of having ready ways to explain the basics to kids and ignorants who just don't know any better, I'm merely inarticulately flabbergasted. The integrity crack is based on, for example, implying that because he happens to operate the listserver, his opinion on a technical matter may not be contested, and for accusing & chastising me for things I didn't do, and for the arrogance expressed in his philosophy on how to treat users (of both software and services in this case) and of course violating data integrity after ignorance can no longer be an excuse. You can be endeared by that or not. I won't apologize for rebuffing someone's unprovoked nonsense. Go back and read the thread, and show me the spot where I said anything to John to warrant his response. If I'm insulting now, I am only reacting to specific things and telling not one lie along the way. If you don't like how I reacted to John, I didn't like John reacted to me, and I defy you to read his first post at me and say what you would say if for example I had said exactly those same words to him or you. I wasn't even talking to John with that first post for that matter. It was really to Kurt if anyone since he had just talked about tweaking mComm. But it was really just to anyone as an expression of a tenet or guiding principle related to the topic at hand. Not any kind of attack. It was just *topical conversation*, with no malice in it, but John decided to react to it in a nasty way. To *that* I reacted essentially go fly a kite, and upon review, that still stands. -- bkw On Sun, Feb 10, 2019, 11:34 AM Mike Stein <[email protected] wrote: > So you're suggesting that we all disable our malware scanners and let > viruses pass through our email clients exactly as sent to corrupt our > systems, just as passing an inappropriate EOF does to the Model T? > > Brian, you've made some considerable contributions to this hobby, but > insulting John by questioning his integrity is totally inappropriate and > unnecessary and does not endear you to anyone; quite to the contrary... > > m > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Brian White <[email protected]> > *To:* [email protected] > *Sent:* Sunday, February 10, 2019 2:43 AM > *Subject:* Re: [M100] Weird "bug" with TS-DOS 4.0 (ROM version) > > I am quite happy to stand behind the principle I expressed. Not embarassed > at all, and if you see it as shooting ones mouth off, that is merely an > exposure of your own lack of > integrity, just as you express disdain for data integrity. I can only > highlight something that should be understood, I can't understand it for > you. > > You are of course free to write any kind of software you want and make it > do anything you think makes sense. That is why all I said was "please" > followed by "for this reason". Your disregard of a pretty fundamental tenet > of robust engineering is an entirely seprate issue from my articulating the > tenet. > > On Sun, Feb 10, 2019 at 2:17 AM John R. Hogerhuis <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> >> >> On Sat, Feb 9, 2019 at 10:53 PM Brian White <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Did you not understand the part where I explained the intent of the post >>> explicitly, JUST exactly to head of exactly this completely predictable and >>> obvious sort of willful misinterpretation? >>> >>> And I did not swear. >>> >>> >> The way you head off annoying people is to not shoot off your mouth in >> the first place. You can save yourself publishing the bad opinion, and save >> yourself the need for the caveat. >> >> There is zero value to transferring in a EOF character that corrupts the >> RAM filesystem. >> >> Zero. And when I add the enhancement to LaddieAlpha, there won't be any >> warning or banner to advertise the fact that the RAM filesystem won't get >> corrupted. Or that it could have corrupted but didn't. And there won't be a >> command line switch to force the corruption just in case they really, >> really wanted it. >> >> -- John. >> > > > -- > bkw > >
