RG> {at}MSGID: 2:348/603.16{at}fidonet 32d8e72d
 RG> {at}REPLY: 1:3634/12{at}fidonet 049660c3
 RG> {at}PID: GED2 3.0.a1221 167SP2
 RG> {at}CHRS: ASCII 2
 RG> {at}TID: FastEcho 1.45a 5197

hummm... i'm curious how you got FE to not put in the origin line... are
you stripping stuff after it's been packed by the tosser? IMO, that is not
proper... once the mail has been packed by the tosser, it should not be
screwed with as the tosser is the last thing to manipulate the mail before
the mailer transmits it to the feed... the above would point to FE
performing brokenly by not putting an origin line in the messages and i do
not believe this is true. i'm on the FE beta team, FWIW...

 RG> (Ref. 09/01/97, mark lewis > Rafa Gawenda)

 RG> Gu-gu mark...

RG>>> So you think we haven't one?
RG>>> Tell me why I couldn't write my address, at the origin line
RG>>> field, as shown:

RG>>> + Origin: (p16.f603.n348.z2.fidonet.org)

>> because its NOT a recognized format =in= fidonet... it is,
>> however, a valid "remake" of the address in internet notation...

 RG> Well, AFAIK fts-0004, the document which defines how echomail
 RG> should be, and defines the optional origin line, doesn't say
 RG> how the address should be written... :?

yes, i suppose that this is true... it does give an example, though and it
was the ONLY format supported when that document was written. any other
format should be considered "illegal" unless one is following an
FSC which uses a different format. to my knowledge, all FSC's that do
anything with the origin line maintain the standard zone:net:node.point
format with domain information added before or after this format... i am
unaware of any FSC or FTS documents that allow for origin line addresses to
be formatted differently than that...

>> i sure am glad i'm not trying to send you netmail... it'd never
>> get there... please fix this...

 RG> I won't, I'm thinking to strip the MSGID too.

why? the MSGID is NOT any place to get ADDRESSING information from... it is
to help prevent duplicate messages in the network...

 RG> --
 RG> Rafa Gawenda, 

 RG> {at}SEEN-BY: 170/1 2 400 285/26 396/1 440/410 2448/400 3634/12
 RG> {at}PATH: 348/603 440/410 170/400

i see that your PATH has changed between here and there, as well... your
messages do not contain enough information to reply by netmail... what,
exactly, is your point??? we ALL know that FTS-0004 should never have been
made a FTS and there are numerous reasons why this is so. so, tell us...
what is your point in breaking the standard practise WRT the origin line?

)\/(ark