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

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

 PE> Presumably for the same reason you break common practice WRT the
 PE> tear line.

maybe you presume too much? your blinders are covering your eyes lately...

 PE> specify the format.  BOTH control lines are compulsory (there is no
 PE> safer interpretation of "complete compatibility").

compatibility with WHAT ?? what is it (confmail, since that is where these
docs came from) trying to be compatible with? if you do not know for sure,
then don't say anything... OB-)

i don't know and i can't even begin to speculate on it...

)\/(ark