ML>> then why tell me to fix my software (left quoted above> ?

HS>> Because you LET a DUPE get out!!!

ML> maybe someone upstream from you had to retoss the PKT that that message
ML> was in?

Whatever, it came from your system! Its still a dupe!

ML> you may be 'right' as far as addressing is conerned but you are
ML> DEFINITELY =WRONG= when it comes to using FTS-0009 for addressing... 
ML> you are also wrong about me not authoring any software... you don't 
ML> know what i have out there ;)

Well, if its UNKNOWN, its useless.   And as far as being wrong for
FTS-0009, i am not, because NOTHING in FTS-9 says it is NOT for ADDRESSING.
So please STOP instigating the IDEA that FTS-9 is NOT for ADDRESSING. It
doesn't SAY that in FTS-9 and you are creating an ATMOSHPERE for future
developers to BELIEVE that ok's to put ANYTHING in that FIELD.

ML> then what FIDONET standard or proposal are you (going) to use for 
ML> this?? FTS-0009 =PLAINLY= states what it is for... Message 
ML> Identification and Message Linking... nothing else...

Thats right, it says MESSAGE IDENTIFICATION!!!!!!!

It says its a way for AN AUTHOR TO IDENTIFY the MESSAGE to WHICH HE WROTE,
NOT WHAT YOU WROTE or the OTHER GUY WROTE, BUT WHAT HE, THE AUTHOR,
WROTE!!!!!! That way by IDENTIFYING THE MESSAGE, I CAN CONTACT THAT PERSON,
NOT or in the FUTURE without ANY CONCERN for TIME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It WORKS 100% of the TIME.......until YOUR FOLLOW UP INTERPRETATION comes
into play.

ML> do what you want to, hector... you always do... however, i suggext that
ML> you also make them aware of what the standard you are butchering really
ML> says... if you don't, others will and once again, your software will
ML> come out looking on the bad side of things...

BS. I am not butchering FTS-9 and YOU CAN'T PROVE that I am.  The end
result, is that if you do a REPLY with my software, the NEXT guy, THE
WORLD, will still be able to CONTACT an INDIVIDUAL.   WIth your SOFTWARE,
it will NOT happen.  In the END, the END USERS will see that what works
BEST is correct and they will NOT understand your REASONING for breaking an
address.

ML> you still haven't corrected your software to stop violating FSC-0046 
ML> and that's been over a year ago that you were specifically notified...

What are you talking about?  your GECHO corrects it for me by tampering
with the email system.

ML> i'm not going to alter the way any of my software uses FTS-0009.

What software? You ain't got no software

HS>> How far you do you want to take this Mark?

ML> the question is how far do you want to take it... you are wrong in your
ML> use of FTS-0009 and you are trying to justify it with this addressing
ML> argument... i suppose you tell the policeman that you are hungry and
ML> that that gives you the right to exceed the speed limit while going
ML> home, eh? it's the same argument...

Thats a Paul Edwards jello brain analogy.  But let me correct it for you:

  "But officer, look at the street sign?. Do you see it was TAMPERED?  Some
  kids turned the direction around. It use to point that way, now it points
  this way."  The officer will say.... "your right.... Luckily you didn't
  follow the sign, otherwise it would lead you in the WRONG direction and
  COST you money (fido-bucks)"

No, YOU ARE JUSTIFYING A BAD ADDRESS FOR MAKING JAM THREADING WORK ON YOUR
BBS ALITTLE BETTER.  You are selfish and you are sacrificing the GOOD of
the electronic mail world for your broken chaining logic.
--- Platinum Xpress/386/Wildcat! v1.2j