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

Presumably for the same reason you break common practice WRT the tear line.
Proving for some insanical reason that mailprocessors can deliver a message
from A to B in the absence of an origin line.  True, but SO BLOODY WHAT?
The control line is used by message readers.  Yes, no FTS spec says that
message readers use the origin line or tear line.  So bloody what?  They
don't need to, they just specify the format.  BOTH control lines are
compulsory (there is no safer interpretation of "complete
compatibility"). BFN.  Paul.
@EOT:

---