PLEASE DELETE ME FROM YOU MAILING LIST I DON'T KNOW WHO YOU ARE!!!


 On Sunday November 17 1996, Paul Edwards said to andrew clarke:

 PE> >>> LK> ---[ optionalinfo] *
Origin: optionaltext

 LK>>>>> (1:2/3.4{at}fidonet)

 PE> Adding "{at}fidonet" to the origin address is like adding
"{at}fidonet"
 PE> to the INTL line.  Wrong!

 PE> Wrong?  How so?

 PE> You can't go changing an already-defined control line.  You have to
 PE> come up with a new one.  BFN.  Paul.

 PE> Yes, with INTL,

 PE> And all others, too.

 PE> but how is adding {at}fidonet to the origin address changing
 PE> an already-defined control line?

 PE> It was not, and never was, common practice to put a domain in that
 PE> field.

 PE> While it isn't in common use, it is
 PE> specifying the complete network address of the originating system (as

 PE> requested by FTS-4).

 PE> Yes, that doesn't mean you go and take that as giving you carte
 PE> blanche
 PE> authority to change it to whatever you want.  You may as well go and
 PE> stick in the internet address of your fidonet node.  That's the
 PE> complete address too, right.  If the author of FTS-4 had heard about
 PE> domains at the time, he would likely have specified "don't put in the
 PE> domain though, as it's always the current domain".  He hadn't, and
 PE> didn't, and no-one does, and if anyone does, it's of no use anyway.
 PE> If that isn't enough to convince you, nothing will.

 PE> The authors of FSC-74 appear to agree with this.

 PE> The authors of FSC-74 have seen fit to change a lot of common
 PE> practice. I don't actually mind that, as I've got source code to most
 PE> of my software, and have the technical expertise to adjust overnight.
 PE> Changes are often good too.  I've got a long list of changes that I
 PE> would like.  One of which is to adopt RFC-822.  Actually, I must
 PE> confess, I can't handle a change as big as that overnight.

 PE> This is the first time I've heard anybody say that my origin line (or
 PE> the  origin line generated by the Xenia Mailer reader, and no doubt
 PE> numerous  other mail creation software, for that matter) is
 PE> technically invalid, I'd  like to know why.  :-)

 PE> If you can understand why whacking {at}fidonet onto the end of the INTL
 PE> line is not the correct way to solve cross-domain netmail (instead of
 PE> having to come up with the DOMAIN kludge), you understand perfectly my
 PE> argument. I expect you to understand my argument, but I don't expect
 PE> you to agree. Hector doesn't
 PE> understand that a CRC is a bad serial number either.  Who is
 PE> technically correct in both of these arguments is a different matter.
 PE> BFN.  Paul.
 PE> @EOT:

Andrew Clarke

--- Zeus BBS 1.1