HS>> TO OTHER GUY usage of FTS-9 does not break the addressing sequence,
HS>> while the others do.  Which is better?

ML> proper usage of those control lines is what is better... you are trying
ML> to use them for something that they are NOT DESIGNED to do...

You are completely NOT making any sense whatsoever.  Your intepretation
simply without a DOUBT breaks the addressing sequence which is NORMALLY
KEEP intact during the normal reply process.  But with "follow up" concept,
you break the address, WHY?  For what reason?  No, you did it all WRONG to
begin with and now you are trying to JUSTIFY IT because JAM threading was
based on this FLAW thinking.

HS>> Its easy Mark.  Just do normal replies to a Message. Have everyone
HS>> do a normal reply and have a long thread with NO one doing a FOLLOW
HS>> UP. In each and every message, no matter how deep in the Tree Level
HS>> you go, the addressing is always correct and the MSGID always points
HS>> to the messag author and the REPLY points to the other guy.

ML> simply a coincidence... nothing more...

Coincidence?  It works EACH and EVERY TIME. No coincidence.

ML> the REPLY line points to the
ML> MESSAGE that this message is a reply to... NOT to the individual that
ML> wrote the message... read the spec... do not interpret it...

It will ALWAYS point to the TO point until it reachese your SOFTWARE
which breaks it.

HS>> Sorry, hey, SX was the first off-line reader to do FTS-9 [...]

ML> ^incorrectly

Baloney. Proof is in the pudding.  Normal REPLYS are always correct.
Replying to the OTHER guy will always be CORRECT.  Your EDITOR will send
the mail to the wrong node. I can prove it each and every time.  Its ALL
right there.  End users will not buy your argument. They will by my
argument that says:

     "REPLY addressing to either party is 100% solid and can be used
      reliably 100%, until GoldEd, Intermail, Frontend, Blue Wave, etc does
      a "Follow up" reply, at which point, the potential to reply to the
      other person is completely wrong".

Thats whats going in my Documentation.  Users will not buy an argument that
breaks addressing.

ML> the REPLY line is NOT for addressing...

Where does it say that in the SPEC?  No where!  If you interpreted
something that doesn't say that, thats wrong.

NL> its SOLE
ML> purpose is linking the current message directly back to its parent
ML> message that it is a reply to... whether that reply is a 'reply to the
ML> guy that wrote the parent message' or whether that reply is a 'followup
ML> to the same guy that the parent message author is writting to' ...

So what?  you still can do that without you breaking the address sequence.
Oh, I see. JAM breaks!  Well, we are starting to see now the truth.  Well,
JAM breaks in more ways than one so lets not get into that.

ML> sure RA does... you can always change the To: name... that's all that a
ML> followup is anyway... it is nothing more than taking the To: line from
ML> the parent message and carrying it on to this child message being
ML> written...

and with that ILL logic of not properly using the REPLY, the NEXT guy in
the system reading the MAIL loses the functionality of contacting either
person.   Hey the fact is, NO ONE uses threads and ADDRESSING is more
important.  We can't go back to the FIRST message of this thread using the
REPLY/MSGID system even if you wanted too.

But if I wanted to do a netmail reply to either party, I can do it.  SX
will do it correct 100%. But thats only TRUE until you do a FOLLOW UP with
this ILL logic of yours. At reach point, all NORMAL REPLIES will be
completely off and eventually, the addressing will be the same!

You guys are doing it all wrong.
--- Platinum Xpress/386/Wildcat! v1.2g