Re: Test
  By: Michiel van der Vlist to mark lewis on Sun Jun 07 2020 11:40:50


 ml>> but anyway, here... read this and take your argument up with the main
 ml>> developer(s)...

 ml>>   http://wiki.synchro.net/faq:misc#ftn_msgid

 MvdV> It is YOU using the software. YOU are responsible for messages
 MvdV> originating from your system.

yup... i absolutely am and i fully stand by it, too...

 MvdV> That the software is broken is no excuse.

sorry but the software is not broken in this case... in other cases, yeah
possibly... you, yourself, have stated that all software has bugs... in this
case, though, this is not a bug or a defect... it is specifically a design
decision... read the above link if you haven't already...

 ml>> please also note the highly important use of the word "should" in
 ml>> FTS-0009... note that FTS-1006 provides the definition for it ;)

 MvdV> You are talking kike a lwayer end you might even get away with that in
 MvdV> a US court.

says he who did the same in the FTSC echo for years...

 MvdV> If it weren't for the fact that FTS-0009 does not mention that it
 MvdV> follows FTS-1006.

ok... so you're saying that FTS-1009 does not state that FTA-1006 is to be
applied to it... if that's the case then the same can also be applied to sbbs'
msgid format since sbbs' documentation does not state that it implements
FTS-1009... make up your mind... you cannot have it both ways... be careful,
too, because this could open a monstrous can of worms that should not be
opened...

these "statements of implementation" have been used for decades with software
that is and has been used in FTNs... if software's documentation states that it
implements FTS-XXXX or FSP-YYYY then it was called to task when the
implementation was broken or non-standard... if the software documentation has
not stated that it implements FTS-XXXX or FSP-YYYY, then it was not called to
task if it was called to task at all... the lack of "statement of
implementation" in a software package's documentation has always been its "out"
when something has been different than what a FTN standard or proposal
documented... this was when software documentation actually meant something and
developers were quite proud to write that their software supported and
implemented FTS-XXXX or FSP-YYYY...

  no statement of implementation == no fault or defect

 MvdV> Which makes sense because there is no FTS-1006. If you meant
 MvdV> FTA-1006,

yes, that was a typo... 'A' and 'S' are right beside each other on US QWERTY
keyboards...

 MvdV> that was written AFTER FTS-0009 was published, so of course it does
 MvdV> not apply to the "should" in FTS-0009.

i call bullshit because the argument has been used the opposite way numerous
times in the FTSC echo over the years i've been a member of the FTSC... you've
done it yourself as have others...

FTA-1006 was written during Odin Sorensen's time as the FTSC administrator
(1997) along with numerous other similar documents to clarify a lot of things
written in FTN documents... FTA-1006 has been applied to ALL FTSC documents
since it was written... even those written before FTA-1006 came into being...

one should also specifically note Section 6 of FTA-1006...


6. Guidance in the use of these imperatives
-------------------------------------------

  Imperatives of the type defined in this document must be used with
  care and sparingly. In particular, they MUST only be used where it
  is actually required for interoperation or to limit behavior which
  has potential for causing harm. For example, they must not be used
  to try to impose a particular method on implementors where the
  method is not required for interoperability.



)\/(ark
--- SBBSecho 3.11-Linux