Hi andrew,

 ac>> If you want a free-format, then you're probably better off
 ac>> ignoring the PID spec and sticking with the tearline.  PID was
 ac>> designed "to minimize the excessive amount of information some
 ac>> programs put on the tear lines ...".  While I agree with this
 ac>> principle, I don't think FSC-46 should go as far as specifying a
 ac>> distint sub-identifiers for a program identifier as does the
 ac>> current version of the specification.

And what exactly should be _on_ the tearline. I see some people change
thier mail tosser's tearline to read something like:

--- SBBS 1.17-2/InterMail 2.29/GEcho 1.11+ etc.

The BBS certainly plays a part in the message writing, however, the sysop
may not use thier BBS to do it, it's more likely that a mail reader like
TimEd is used. The mailer software doesn't really play a part in the
'packing' of the mail, it simply sends it, it doesn't do anything to the
packets.

The program that _does_ modify packets etc is the mail tosser/scanner,
which is ultimately the only _real_ program that does any processing to the
message(s).

I think the tearline spec (?!) should limit it to about 20 characters (if
you can't explain enough in 20 characters, you've either got software with
a very long title, or you're running a version like 0.0992748.A82719.223058
).

What do you think?

Regards,
Grant

Internet: arj{at}dbgate.bnc.com.au

--- FMail 1.01a beta+