Hello Mark!

In a message to Hector Santos  Mark Lewis wrote:

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 versions 
ML> of your software, the answer is easy to come by...

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

      1) SX will use the MSGID for the REPLY in now reply system. Just
         like everyone else.  For a REPLY to other guy, it will use the
         current REPLY if any, for the new REPLY line.

      2) PX Sysop Editor, does not have a FOLLOW up logic.  It only has
         a normal REPLY system.  When I add the FOLLOW up logic, I will
         use the same SX method because it MAKES SENSE.  I will not
         INTRODUCE BAD ADDRESSING into the system.

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

This would SOLVE the issue for ALL parties and if all other software
followed my suggestion, the WORLD will benefit from it.  Not just the sysop
mark.

HS>> In the END, the END USERS will
HS>> see that what works BEST is correct and they will NOT understand
HS>> your REASONING for breaking an address.

ML> fidonet was not built around the users.

Man, I am talking to nonsense. No wonder this get no where ECHO is for the
birds. This is not the ATTITUDE that belongs in this echo.  But of course,
you not being a developer, I can understand your attitude.

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

ML> i do not run GEcho... please don't insinuate that i do... the software
ML> that i run does not correct your errors, either... most of the messages
ML> originating from your software have both PID and tearlines in them. 
ML> that is wrong and in violation of FSC-0046... please fix your 
ML> software...

There is TWO distinct products here:

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

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

Neither are in VIOLATION of anything!

Mark, you don't understand fidonet. You don't write software. You don't
understand FTS or any of its FSC documentations and how it relates to real
products, its circumstances, its nuasances, its idiosynchronies, its
relationship with other products.

As you admit, you are self-enclosed sysop whose only wish is to make the
"world" seem better for yourself - screw everyone else.  Developers think
about PEOPLE and its END USERS.

You really have a BAD habit of dictating policy or specifications when you
are not qualified to do so.  Even so, I am not so close minded to feel
that one has to write software to qualified. But you haven't shown to have
any common sense to even qualify to comment to anything.

With statements from you like "Fidonet was not built around users", well,
it says it all about you and the "essense" of what is wrong with this this
conference.

Maybe the solution to this ECHO is to get a real NET_DEV with REAL
DEVELOPERS in it with one QUALIFICATION - you need to have a PRODUCT in the
market, free or otherwise, but in active USE, by atleast 100 or more
systems. This way we can GET some REAL experience and REAL discussions
about the ISSUES of fidonet and how to FIX them and/or IMPROVE it.    But
when we have selfish people like yourself who are only worry about his
"RA BBS and JAM THREADING", who don't write software and dictates policy
and specs, then there will be problems - as it have proved to be the case
in this echo.
--- Platinum Xpress/386/Wildcat! v1.2j