JdBP>> It's also stretching it to give FTS 0004 the status of a
JdBP>> formal specification.

 PE> It's the ONLY specification.

no... it is =called= a spec but it is not... it is slightly modified
documentation from an old outdated program...

 PE> The REALITY is that they have NEVER been user text, they are a
 PE> REQUIRED CONTROL LINE.

where does FTS-0004 say that tearlines are REQUIRED?? it doesn't... no
where, no shape, no how...

JdBP>> _are_ control lines on QWK networks (they serve to differentiate
JdBP>> between user text lines above the tearline, and network control
JdBP>> lines below the tearline) but, in case anyone was unsure,
JdBP>> Fidonet is _not_ a QWK-based network, and does not hold to most
JdBP>> of the braindamaged QWK standards.

 PE> Fidonet has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with QWK, I'm not sure why you
 PE> are bringing it up.

because MANY of the things that were done were done because of the QWK
networks... both fidonet and QWK networking were developing at the same
time... ideas were swiped from both sides... the tearline is but one...

 PE> contrary, COMPLETE COMPATIBILITY means REQUIRED.  Whether you like
 PE> it or not.  I hate them, I hate FTS-4, but it's WAY WAY too late to
 PE> change FTS-4.

see? you don't change FTS-0004... you give it back to the guy that holds
the copyright on it and you put into place another one that really
documents current practise and standards. no one owns the name FTS-0004 but
someone does own the text in that document...

)\/(ark