"Hi arb, sparkes did apologise, so for you to carry on referring to the subject was not good form." 

Allow Arb to make his comments. I do not believe in limiting someone's right to express an opinion. It only restricts debate and limits the free flow of ideas that could resolve a problem. 

"Not sure where the apology has gone of course, but whoever arranged for it's removal has proven to me that eBay do most certainly NOT screen any reports, as there was nothing in the apology to warrant removal." 

Um apparently it was rule 14: Posting item listing reports or member violations. I have contacted Arb privately and apologised. 

I notice that patchoo has made a comment several times that if a buyer went into Harvey normals and looked at the software they wouldnt be covered as they are expected to check the minimum specs. 

True enough but as the buyer can pick the item up and turn it over and read the information on the box and examine it personally, they do not have to rely upon the seller being their eyes and providing all of the information that is written on the box. 

And a retail outlet still has to honour returns on products that are not fit for purpose. ( damaged and incomplete) 

But back to the DSR's. IMO The system should be revised as I do not think it is the best way for a buyer to judge the performance of a seller. 

The postage rating should have two components to it.

1.time taken to recieve item.

2.postage charges.

An composite score could then be calculated. 

Sellers would likely have details of length of time to post from receipts for postage and could use this with eBay reviews if they feel the score is unfair. This could help to highlight delays in the postal system or in their poor preformance of posting in a timely manner.