| |
SM7UZI > BPQ 07.08.99 14:18l 43 Lines 1574 Bytes #-9933 (0) @ EU
BID : SM7UZI6323
Read: GUEST
Subj: Re: SM7UZI - please give it a rest
Path: DB0AAB<DB0FSG<DB0SL<DB0RGB<DB0MAK<DB0ERF<DB0ABZ<DB0CEL<DB0VER<DB0PDF<
DB0CL<DB0CXH<DB0RDB<DB0OQ<DB0IL<OZ5BBS<OZ4PAC<OZ4BBS<OZ3BOS<OZ3PAC<
OZ6BBS<SK7WX<SK7IQ
Sent: 990807/0859Z @:SK7IQ.MALMOE.M.SWE.EU #:45873 [Malmö] $:SM7UZI6323 FBB7.00
From: SM7UZI@SK7IQ.MALMOE.M.SWE.EU
To : BPQ@EU
Hello!
>>Rich
>>sysop GB7IOM
>>using BPQ (obsolete)
>>386/33 (obsolete)
>>Icom 2e (obsolete)
>>M296 (obsolete)
>>Cleartone (obsolete)
>>F434 (obsolete)
>>Dos 6.22 (obsolete)
>>
>>sysop (obsolete)
>> but all this is still carrying your mail !
>
>Some people, not me, thinks all this is obsolete.
>But I think that if it does the job, and follows the current standard, it
>can't be obsolete.
How come and what standards?
If it is the bpq net/rom are you talking about are you wrong!
It is very obsolte, it isn't a bit good in any way.
The worst kind routing that can be used, it is very bad working, and should
never be used.
The problem with bpq is that it isn't doing a good job!
The reason for why bpq is used isn't becasue it is good!
It is no standard one are forced follow, but it is maybe that people thinks so
that is the problem.
.a&$a. .a&$a. .a&$$$$$$$$$$&a. .a&$a. Anders Lageras
$$$$$$ $$$$$$ $$$$$$$' `$$$$$$ $$$$$$ Lund Sweden JO65PQ
$' `$$ $$$$$$ `ý$$$$$s,s$$$$$ý $$$$$$ AARS Member No. 81
$s,s$$ $$$$$$ a$$$$$$ý $$' `$ Packet:
73 de SM7-$$$$$$ $$$$$$ a$$$$$$ý $$s,s$ SM7UZI@SK7IQ.MALMOE.M.SWE.EU
$$$$$$ $$' `$ a$$$$$$ý $$$$$$ E-mail: sm7uzi@qsl.net
$$$$$$a$$s,s$ a$$$' `$$$$$$&a. $$$$$$ ICQ#: 5161379
$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$s,s$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$ Homepage:
`ý&$$$$$$$$ý' `ý&$$$$$$$$$$$ý' `ý&$ý' http://zap.to/sm7uzi/
o==|=====-
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
