Just a sample of the Echomail archive
Cooperative anarchy at its finest, still active today. Darkrealms is the Zone 1 Hub.
|    SYNCHRONET    |    Rob Swindell fetishistic worship forum    |    43,341 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 40,692 of 43,341    |
|    Wilfred van Velzen to deon    |
|    Re: Newbie question    |
|    27 Nov 24 16:25:03    |
      TID: FMail-lnx64 2.3.2.4-B20240523       RFC-X-No-Archive: Yes       TZUTC: 0100       CHRS: CP850 2       PID: GED+LNX 1.1.5-b20240306       MSGID: 2:280/464 67473b73       REPLY: 50039.dove-syncdisc@12:1/2 2bace8db       Hi deon,              On 2024-11-27 21:07:32, you wrote to me:               >> It doesn't say that! It says:        >>        >> "Although the Origin line is not required by all Echomail processors, it is        >> added by the Conference Mail System to ensure complete compatibility."        >>        >> It is not very clear wording, but I read that as software that creates        >> echomail messages should always add the origin line. But software that        >> processes echomail, should be flexible when it is not present.               de> I'm not going to 100% agree with you on this one.               de> In FTS-0004, in the section about Origin lines (which is point 3), the       wording        de> as you have quoted "not required by all..." and "added... complete        de> compatibility" indicates to me that it is not (absolutely) required, but        de> rather useful if it is added.              I think that is putting it to weakly. And you leave out important parts of the       sentence: "Echomail processors"...              Echomail composing software should always add an origin line. As is made clear       in fsc-0074.               de> Further, point 1 (Area Line), and point 4 (Seen-by Lines), explicitly        de> states that these control fields are required. So if point 3 was        de> required, I would expect it to explicitly state that too.              Your expectations are irrelevant, in such a poorly drafted document! ;-)               de> Certainly I agree that FSC-0074 does make this clearer and states that        de> they are required. It probably should have been promoted to a        de> technical standard, but wasnt, for whatever reasons it never made it?              And that is probably unfortunately lost in history. But you are an ftsc       member, so you can put this on the agenda!                     Bye, Wilfred.              --- FMail-lnx64 2.3.2.4-B20240523        * Origin: FMail development HQ (2:280/464)       SEEN-BY: 103/705 105/81 106/201 124/5016 128/187 153/757 7715 154/10       SEEN-BY: 154/30 203/0 218/700 221/0 226/30 227/114 229/110 114 206       SEEN-BY: 229/317 400 426 428 470 550 700 705 240/1120 5832 266/512       SEEN-BY: 280/464 5003 5006 282/1038 291/111 292/8125 301/1 310/31       SEEN-BY: 320/219 322/757 341/66 234 342/200 396/45 423/120 460/58       SEEN-BY: 460/256 1124 467/888 633/280 712/848 770/1 902/26 5020/400       SEEN-BY: 5054/30 5075/35       PATH: 280/464 460/58 229/426           |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca