ML> proper usage of those control lines is what is better... you are trying
ML> to use them for something that they are NOT DESIGNED to do...

HS> You are completely NOT making any sense whatsoever.  Your
HS> intepretation simply without a DOUBT breaks the addressing sequence

i am not intrepreting anything in FTS-0009 ... you are and you are doing
it erroneously... the spec says that the REPLY line is an exact copy of
the MSGID line that the message is a reply to...

HS> and with that ILL logic of not properly using the REPLY, the NEXT
HS> guy in the system reading the MAIL loses the functionality of
HS> contacting either person.   Hey the fact is, NO ONE uses threads and
HS> ADDRESSING is more important.  We can't go back to the FIRST message
HS> of this thread using the REPLY/MSGID system even if you wanted too.

another two incorrect assumptions...

 1. many people use true threading via MSGID lines... JAM is only one...
    SQUISH can, TBBS does, almost all internet news readers... what more
    do you want?

 2. =*I*= can go back to the FIRST message of this thread using the
    MSGID/REPLY linking... the only thing stopping me at this time is
    that i only hold 10000 messages max or 30 days max in this base... i
    went back to _this_ message quite easily...

=====
Date : Thu Feb 08, 16:11      >8287 8318 (8330)
From : Mats Wallin                                2:270/19.11
To   : HECTOR SANTOS
Subj : An political question
ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ
 hs> Who said making a netmail reply was a mandatory feature? That
 hs> is why the MSGID and REPLYID is used.  With our reader, you
 hs> can do:

 hs>     Netmail Reply to Receipient:  (Check for REPLYID)

The REPLYID does _not_ contain the address of the recipient of a message. It
does only contain the address of the sender of another message.

In many cases, this just happens to be the same person, but there is not a
guarantee that this is true. Just check the next message for instance.

        Mats
        mw{at}findata.se

___
 - Origin: Absolute APX (2:270/19.11)
=====

HS> But if I wanted to do a netmail reply to either party, I can do it. 
HS> SX will do it correct 100%. But thats only TRUE until you do a
HS> FOLLOW UP with this ILL logic of yours. At reach point, all NORMAL
HS> REPLIES will be completely off and eventually, the addressing will
HS> be the same! 

HS> You guys are doing it all wrong.

no... you are interpreting when you are supposed to be reading... the
FTSC made the statement a long time ago that the removed the
'addressing' part from FTS-0009 before they accepted it... READ the
spec... do NOT interpret it... if you can't do that, write your own...
but please DO NOT break existing (and proper) implementations of the
spec...

)\/(ark