>> >> Sorry, you are right in this. I overlooked a part defining it as >> subject to configuration. >> I still think this can't be done without numerous problem. >> > > Ok, I might forget your bullying... and You might try to look again and > reconsider, with the rfc3920-1 and also the bis variants (as I will of > course do also, but I don't have so much time, you can imagine). > > I recommend to finish this thread... and start a new one, rather > concentrating on the technical points and correct reasoning. >
If that works for you. I think I'll just wait until I have some time to code it. Seems that some people don't settle for simple description of the idea and problems.
