storm@texas.dk (Kim F. Storm) (09/20/89)
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!