Hi! Maurice,

On 22 Mar 06 21:17, you wrote to me:

 MK> Ye ol cut n' paste of aforementioned FTS-0009.001;
 MK>      This FTS (FidoNet(r) Technical Standard) specifies an optional
 MK>      standard for the FidoNet community.  Implementation of the
 MK>      protocols defined in this document is not mandatory,  but all
 MK>      implementations of these protocols are expected to adhere to this
 MK>      standard.  Distribution of this document is unlimited.

Yep, that's it.  I'm wondering at the completeness of the copy I have,
though. It simply ends after the paragraph titled "General".  Is
yours the same?

 MK> So despite my questionable senility, I recalled correctly that the
 MK> msgid was never and still isn't required for ftn compliancy, although
 MK> I was wrong about it not being a standard, or possibly confused a
 MK> standard with compliancy.

That's what it states.  An FTS cannot ever be construed as some form of
gospel catechism, BTW.

 MK> According to the above, if one chose to not generate a msgid for their
 MK> messages, that person would be perfectly within ftn standards, moreso then
 MK> one who generates nonstandard msgids.  Right?

Yes.  However, I will be just as totally pissed-off when I cannot track
back through a message thread that does not exist through the lack of a
msgid/reply 'kludge' adherence, as with a malformed (i.e. non-conforming)
msgid that f**ks up my favourite message reader's (SemPoint v2.26 for
Windows) ability to form the senders' addresses.

A question: does your national vocabulary include a word "than"? 
In ours it is used as a comparitive presentation of two notions, as in your
proposition above (where you use "then").

Cheers,
Paul.

--- FPD v2.7.050306  GoldED+/DPMI32 1.1.5-b20060312