=keep an exception for NEW only ... Not just *another* exception please !!
Agreed. I used dots for a reason ;-). I would prefer to use another uncommon word or a clear separator. I just don't like case sensitivity lazy as I am...
How about 'createobj'? Not very likely to be a common word in subject lines. the other possibility is to do away with the subject line stuff and create a real command interface. Actually I prefer the latter.
Again, I don't support throwing in more tests at random. Instead I'd like to see structural tests that can be defined ...
Agreed. That was the reason I added the generic warning for large ranges, that should only occur occassionaly for people that really know what they are doing (usually at least 'allocation' sized objects) while catching most of this kind of problems. Your test is even better but at this point probably a bit to labor intensive compared to other more necessary work as things like the 'non-existing references' checks.
I agree with Wilfried. Let's look at consistency in a structured manner. We have the folks of the free university doing just that and we will report in January. from a practical standpoint the 'large range' warning is cateches very embarrassing mistakes and generates not too many false warnings. So it should be kept for now.
This is the way the software behaves since the stone age of the RIPE database and as specified in the appropriate RIPE document. This discussion also came up about a year ago, and it was then decided to keep it as it was. It can easily be changed (It's a one letter change) and I am happy to send the patch to Ambrose ;-) since I also don't like this case-sensititive feature and case-sensitivity in general (but you already knew that ;-)),
Keep it. Changing it will break people's schemes and the errors can be corrected easily. Daniel About the stuff from ripe-181: Ambrose, please draft a short(!) note saying what changed since then database wide and publish it as a RIPE document updateing 181. Daniel