> You can't say that the tosser, which don't implement FSC-46 at
 > all, violate FSC-46 since it's not mandatory.

 > We can get the situation where messages is violating the spec
 > but no programs violate the spec. Not very good I think.

In case you have a better way to formulate it, or a way to make the
document mandatory, I'm all ears.

But I'd say that it's a bit silly to scare all the people carrying the FTSC
file conference into believing there's traffic in it for a change this
small.

---