Support address was Re: Timezones again

[Kris Sorem Sr]

On Tue, 13 Apr 1999 22:50:06 +0100, Paul Ratcliffe wrote:

>>Why pick apart a message intended to help Dave?
>
>Because it doesn't help. The information you gave is currently
>incorrect.

I does help those who wish to be helped. The information is currently
*correct*. I have sent multiple messages to the address I gave in an
ongoing effort to nail down a bug in PMMail/2. How many have you sent?

>
>>I acknowledged that the documentation gave that address but that there
>>is now a new address.
>
>There was a new address. It no longer works, at least not as of last
>week.

There is still a new address. It does work. I have not had any messages
returned and their replies have established that a bug does exist. In the
meantime, you are busy trying to convince the list not to use an email
address that Southsoft has documented on their web site. It is
noticeable that you made no comment on the web site documentation
contained in my last post.

>
>>He responded that his message to the address I gave was returned.
>
>As did I.

Sorry, Paul. I missed that.

>
>>Hence, I provided documentation that the address is valid.
>
>*Was* valid. Have you no concept of time?

*Is* valid. My concept of time is just fine. (See message header below)

>
>>I have sent messages to the address I gave him and I intend to continue
>>using this address. Past, present, future. Your point is?.....
>
>In that case you are extremely stupid as it has been proven not to
>work. Carry on sticking your head in the sand if you so desire, but
>don't try and "help" others to do so.

Your so called case of "stupidity" has resulted in identifying a bug
that may now get fixed with the next release. It is difficult at best to
"prove" to someone who has sent multiple messages to an email
address and received multiple replies that the email address doesn't
work. Your "proof" doesn't come close to what I have provided to the
list.

>
>>"one of" means just that. I just picked one. Is it your point that the
>>address isn't valid or what?
>
>My God, I think he's got it. That is exactly my point.
>

What I've got is a workable email address that I have provided to the
list and I have support from Southsoft. What have you got?

<<header from latest reply from Southsoft>>
Received: from mailer.falcon-net.net (mailer.falcon-net.net [206.25.203.5])
        by home.humboldt1.com (Pro-8.9.2/Pro-8.9.2) with ESMTP id HAA25276
        for <norseman@humboldt1.com>; Thu, 15 Apr 1999 07:08:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from springer.bmtmicro.com ([206.25.203.32])
          by mailer.falcon-net.net (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223
          ID# 0-58942U1100L200S0V35) with SMTP id net
          for <norseman@humboldt1.com>; Thu, 15 Apr 1999 10:08:47 -0400
From: "PMMail/2 Support" <pmmailos2@southsoft.com>
To: "Kris Sorem Sr" <norseman@humboldt1.com>
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 1999 10:11:39 -0400 (EDT)
Reply-To: "PMMail/2 Support" <pmmailos2@southsoft.com>
Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: PMMail 2.00.1500 for OS/2 Warp 4.00
In-Reply-To: <199904150505.WAA16003@home.humboldt1.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: Predefined variable in a filter (PMMail/2 v2)
Message-ID: <19990415140847704.AAA147@mailer.falcon-net.net@springer.bmtmicro.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-UIDL: 2d6862a955c6db317b36f24cb5fc7b2a
Status: U
<<end header>>

Of course, Paul, almost a *whole* day has past since this message
was sent to me. See, my concept of time does work. You never know. From
your perspective, Southsoft might have "switched servers" or
"changed the support address" in the few hours since this reply. Then again,
you could take a chance that my information is valid.


ATB,
/s/~Kris