🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <837639050snz@wash.demon.co.uk>
           john@wash.demon.co.uk "John Washington" writes:

> On Wednesday, in article <837582170snz@pdlmail.demon.co.uk>
>      pete@pdlmail.demon.co.uk "Peter Disdale" wrote:
> ..
> PD> I believe the confusion occurs when a genuine <\nFrom > appears
> PD> in the text body (and possibly in a malformed header too - I
> ..
> But something (?) would have to put such lines in your
> .txt file.  Ka9q doesn't.  Any From within the body is
> prefixed with '>'.  If you go into your mail
> file with a text editor and hack in some spurious lines,
> well, <shrug>.

That'll teach me to jump in with both feet :(

There are no '>From ' lines in any of my .txt files, so I
presume PCElm removes them (can't say I've ever looked at
a raw, "freshly delivered from ka9q" .txt file).

> PD> through ~spool/mail/pete.txt there is no consistent pattern
> PD> of <\n\nFrom > between articles, ie. ka9q seems not to inject
> PD> a <\n\n> between articles when filing them.
> 
> Oh.  In that case either I've misunderstood or you're
> not using 2.16d.  Likely I've not figured out the source,

Probably not.  See above.  I was speaking from the point of
view of a PCElm'd file; I can quite believe that ka9q behaves
as you say, and that PCElm subsequently does its own thing.

> I still think the perfect solution would not be for Malcolm (nor
> anyone else) to spend his time upgrading PcElm, but for someone
> to produce something similar (or extend Snews) under GPL.
> We've all seen the enormous benefit of having source readily
> available, and that's impossible with PcElm.

Talking of which, ISTR Malcolm saying that the source could 
not be released because of the terms of the source licence
agreement.  Presumably Demon has such a source licence; if no
further developments by Demon are planned, is this licence
transferable?

Malcolm?
-- 
Pete