HS>> THATS FOR A NORMAL REPLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!   You are NOT doing a
HS>> normal reply when you do a "REPLY to the OTHER GUY"

ML> bullshit, hec... a reply is a reply is a reply is a reply [ad 
ML> nausum]... if it is so different, then why do you use the term 'reply' 
ML> in your option "REPLY to the other guy" ??

For lack of a better terminology to allow the lamen to understand,
"replying to receipient" is the more proper wording.

No, its not the same thing. Do a NETMAIL CROSSPORT to the receipient of the
an echo message and see what address you come up with with your editor?

You will see how different it is.

ML> the above is an example from TimED's screen... it shows that the 
ML> current message is a reply to #142... it shows that there are two 
ML> replies to *this* current message, #153 and #158... it also shows that 
ML> there is ANOTHER reply to the _original_ message...

Which breaks with a OFF-LINE reader, any one of them, especially QWK.
Silver Xpress will support MSGID/REPLY being imported into JAM.

ML> FTS-0009 is not ambigious WRT MSGID/REPLY generation... its been being
ML> done like this for years! i know that RemoteAccess has been doing it
ML> like this ever since FTS-0009 support was implemented...

We are talking about "Replying to a receipient" of a message which is what
steering this debate.

FTS-9 is perfect when you do a normal reply to the originator of the
message. There is no question about that.

Try doing a netmail cross post with the editors you use to the "Other Guy".
See what happens.
--- Platinum Xpress/386/Wildcat! v1.2f