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

PE> It's the ONLY specification.

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 documentation from an old outdated program...

So, it's still the ONLY authorized specification of fidonet echomail.

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

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

There is no other way to interpret "is inserted" and "ensure
complete compatibility".

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.

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

I meant change the technical contents of FTS-4, no matter how you do that.
BFN.  Paul.
@EOT:

---