On 23 Mar 96 07:57pm, HECTOR SANTOS wrote to MARK LEWIS:

 HS> .MSGID: 1:135/382.0 766ab554
 HS> .REPLY: 1:3634/12.0 1537c722

Compare these to the current ones produced by SX in this message.
Besides the questionable serialno, everything should be kosher.

 HS> BS. I am not butchering FTS-9 and YOU CAN'T PROVE that I am.  The

 ML> by your own statements and testing with publically available
 ML> versions  of your software, the answer is easy to come by...

Actually, he's not violating FTS-9's reply logic.  He's just forgetful
and seems to have some difficulty with the language.

 HS> Thats right. Go ahead!!! PROVE YOURSELF WRONG!  I will tell you
 HS> whats going on for the 100th time:

 HS>       1) SX will use the MSGID for the REPLY in now reply system. Just
 HS>          like everyone else.

Yep.  It follows FTS-9.

 HS>                               For a REPLY to other guy, it will use the
 HS>          current REPLY if any, for the new REPLY line.

Nope.  It follows FTS-9.

Whether a .REPLY exists or not is totally irrelevant because his
software uses an identical copy of the target messages .MSGID for the
.REPLY.

 HS>       2) PX Sysop Editor, does not have a FOLLOW up logic.  It only has
 HS>          a normal REPLY system.  When I add the FOLLOW up logic, I will

Hmmmm... "FOLLOW up logic" vs. "normal REPLY system."   Sounds
impressive, doesn't it?  Let's examine how the two really differ.

normal REPLY system.                  FOLLOW up logic.

  TO: Original Poster                   TO: Original Recepient

That's not particularly impressive, is it?

 HS>          use the same SX method because it MAKES SENSE.  I will not
 HS>          INTRODUCE BAD ADDRESSING into the system.

The Platinum Express Editor generated message with ".MSGID: 1:135/382.0
499e920e" posted in this echo by Hector proves that isn't the case.
This SX generated message proves it too.  Neither message has the the
recipient's address in the .REPLY line.  Therefore Hectors software will
gladly netmail replies to the wrong address.

 HS> Now if there is any "compromise" here, in order to
"satisfy" your
 HS> current JAM threading logic mail processor or whatever, I can keep the
 HS> address intact but use the CRC from the MSGID for the new REPLY line.

That breaks FTS-9.  And Hector still hasn't identified any software that
actually does that.

 HS> There is TWO distinct products here:

 HS>         1) PXEDIT - sysop editor which DOESN'T SUPPORT TEAR LINES and
 HS>         only understands FSC-46

 HS>         2) PXECHO - mail processor which doesn't support FSC-46 and only
 HS>                     supports FTS-1.

 HS> Neither are in VIOLATION of anything!

Actually that's true.  It only breaks the spirit of the FSC-46 because
he's capable of correcting the problem.  However, Hector is completely
sidestepping the fact that the Silver Express system does a tearline and
.PID.  Again, use this message as an example.

 HS> --- Courtesy of Silver Xpress

Tearline stripping "Courtesy of Silver Xpress".  Hector flamed me for
claiming that his doors and reader tamper with tearlines.  It's true
though.  And he even admitted so to Paul Edwards within messages of
spouting the flames.
--- Via Silver Xpress V4.3P RB10294