PE> It doesn't fall down at all, it is simply the way it works.

RS> Thats what I SAID Paul, that you get that fucked
RS> result when that type of kludge is optional.

PE> The result is not fucked.  It is the
PE> best you can do, with an optional kludge.

RS> Thats what I SAID, and that is rather fucked, when a system part way thru
RS> the route a particular message takes can add the PATH for the first time
RS> and so its only got some of the systems that its passed thru listed.

Whether you happen to think it is fucked or not, it is CERTAINLY 
not out of spec.  It is EXACTLY as the spec was designed.

PE> There is no spec outlawing those ascii characters in user-text.

RS> Pathetic faking. Using that utterly bogus line of complete and
RS> utter bullshit you can have as many embedded origin lines and

You basically can.  Except they're not origin lines, they are
simply user-text that starts with "---" etc.  They happen to
look the same as tearlines + origin lines, but they aren't, as
there is only one each of them.

RS> tear lines as you like. UTTER tripe, its breaks the specs because
RS> the specs say you can only have one origin line if you have one.

The specs say that AN origin line is appended to the end of the
message, they do NOT say you cannot have a line starting " * Origin"
in your user-text.

PE>There IS something outlawing a nonconforming kludge line in user-text. FTS-1

RS> Smoke. Pity it doesnt outlaw that particular example.

It does.  It is fairly obvious you have understood neither FTS-1, FTS-4
or FTS-9, given the comments you have put forward on all three of
these specs.

RS> Fraid not, and even the FTS chair knows that. Soorree.

PE> Oh yeah, what does the FTS chair know?  Should be good for a laugh.

RS> Smoke.

Mindless faking.  BFN.  Paul.
@EOT:

---