PE> It is the responsibility of each node to have their software set up
PE> correctly.  Failure to follow the EOT spec is the same as failing to
PE> follow the MSGID spec.  That's your problem.  A PCable offence, too. 

FM> Is it? Does SOT/EOT have the same status as ^aMSGID & ^aREPLYID?
FM> The latter occur in a FTS document, the former FSC. And while
FM> I don't really understand the difference yet, I thought FSC
FM> had some sort of lesser status?

PE> No, I meant it was the same as in "failure to follow specs" is
PE> "failure to follow specs".  Only the MSGID is PCable in the above.

Its completely fanciful to claim that less than absolutely immaculate
adherence to FTS-0009 on the MSGID is in fact PCable. If it was a trivial
problem that did not 'cause a problem for the network' you could in fact
be told to go and fuck yourself and flushed right out of Fido.

Say you could prove that the same serial number in 3 years rule was breached.

Whether you can grasp that or not.
@EOT:

---