> I don't like the fact that the command line options > (lsppp /?) look so strange (like they've not even been > checked) as that suggests implemented code that has > not been tested.
Indeed, one gets a draft-like feeling from the number and size of command line options. They easily surpass the 128 characters-per-line dos limit, especially if one uses the dialer of LSPPP. Consequently, one has to use the LSPPP variable to specify some options, and the command line for all the rest. Surely an `ini' file is more efficient. I have confirmed the LSPPP-Pine problem many times not. I can not infer from this, for sure, the existance of an LSPPP but, since the Pine people consider Pine 3.91 buggy and slow. But I can confirm I do not get the problem with epppd. LSPPP is an important TSR, for Dos's ability to access the internet without fear of MS-macro viruses and so on. To bad, there is not a beta test group for it, or is there? To unsubscribe from SURVPC send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe SURVPC in the body of the message. Also, trim this footer from any quoted replies. More info can be found at; http://www.softcon.com/archives/SURVPC.html
