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

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

ac>> Wrong?  How so?

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

ac> Yes, with INTL, 

And all others, too.

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

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

ac> While it isn't in common use, it is 
ac> specifying the complete network address of the originating system (as 
ac> requested by FTS-4).  

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

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

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

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

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

---