LL> As mentioned in the JAM docs, other systems like USENET have equivalent
LL> constructs.  And they use system addresses as well.

HS> And as I said, JAM works only within JAM systems and USENET works
HS> only within USENET systems.  Try blending them.

they are working nicely together over here, hector...

LL> Nope.  FTS-9 is dated late '91.  JAM 1.0 is dated late '94.  The 
LL> concept obviously predates JAM.

HS> Well Mats should of known better then.

there were others involved than just mats... there are/were at least 4
people on the JAM development team...

LL> My purpose for using JAM in this discussion was to show a true-to-life
LL> implementation of FTS-9 linking.  Your "theory" about only having 
LL> ^REPLYs that ALL line up perfectly with the recipient's name DOES NOT 
LL> EXIST, net even in your own software.

HS> It sure does. I don't know what you are talking about.  REPLY
HS> association with the TO person is MORE realistic than you thinking
HS> you can CHAIN back to last months mail to follow up on THIS months
HS> messages! Gawd, get real. 

its common practise... i do it quite regularly... in fact i've been
known to go back two or three months (in some echos) and follow up on a
message...

LL> It should be patently obvious, but I guess it ain't:  You need the 
LL> address if you hope to have anything near "unique" message ids.

HS> Oh Bullshit, are you are going off the deep end too?   Whats
HS> OBVIOUSLY is that JAM took the FTS-9 and said "Well it aint' for
HS> addressing so screw it, we will just take the CRC of the line and
HS> store it".

what the heck have you been smoking, hector?? anyone who is trying to
link based on FTS-9 (like JAM) and is only taking a part of the
MSGID/REPLY lines has no idea of what they are doing... it takes BOTH
halves to make a whole... the address portion and the serial id...

)\/(ark