PE> Even if I wanted to, I couldn't do that.  I would then be
PE> violating FTS-1 and FTS-9 if I were to say "don't worry, you're
PE> allowed to include those kludges if you want to, they will be
PE> ignored", because it will be incompatible with programs that search
PE> for them anywhere. I cannot pit my spec against FTS-1 and win.

RS> You are having a brain fart there. You ALREADY do that stuff
RS> with the other stuff like the embedded origin line and --- etc.
RS> It makes no difference to include the MSGID etc too.

No, the spec, in this case FTS-4, does not actually say that you
can't have "---" etc in the message itself.  It just says that you
should tack one on the end.  However, there are tossers that don't
handle that very well.

PE> Rod, it is OPTIONAL to generate a PATH.
PE> I was NOT generating a PATH. I was not out of spec.

RS> Nice theory, pity that once it left Daves system, the
RS> PATH that was on the message THEN didnt meet the specs.

Hey Rod, if you think about that for more than 1 second, you
would realise that that would make PATH *not* optional.

RS> Luckily for you, no one upstream of Dave was just silently
RS> binning entire PKTs because a particular message was 'out of spec'

Since the PATH is optional, no-one is required to generate it,
and no-one on the way is required to update it.

So a message going 3:711/934, 3:711/900, 3:711/800, 3:711/700
could well get a PATH of 711/900 711/700 and be completely
in-spec.  That's what optional means Rod, as opposed to
compulsory.  PATH was something grafted on after the event, and
to not make everyone out-of-spec, they made it optional.  BFN.
Paul.
@EOT:

---