On Thu, 26 Feb 2015, Michiel van der Vlist wrote to mark lewis:

 ml>> the ?lo file is a zero byte file unless

 MvdV>> I would rather put it the other way around. It is a file
 MvdV>> containing a list of files that should be send. Unless...

 ml> i stated the way i did because a flo file can be zero bytes to 
 ml> trigger a poll...

 MvdV> It can, but thatis the exception.

really? when most systems use XXXXYYYY.mo1 naming for their mail bundles?

 ml>  only if there is something to be sent that is not in XXXXYYYY.??? 
 ml> naming does that something need to be listed in the flo file...

 MvdV> Which is the normal situation. 99.99% of the *.?lo files created 
 MvdV> are not empty. 

you get your statistics from which gov't agency?

 MvdV>> One of the ways to initiate a connection is to have the sending
 MvdV>> system force a poll by creating a reduced flo file.

 ml> true...

 MvdV>> To me this is illogical. Let the *.req initiate the connect on
 MvdV>> its own.

 ml> then you loose the timing capability...

 MvdV> I can not loose what I never had.

you've always had it... dynamic mailers built on it in their feature
capabilities... just because you didn't know you had it doesn't mean that you
haven't had it the whole time... binkleyterm based operations are a real
throwback to the stone age when one comes from dynamic mailers with their
intelligent behavior... behavior that has to be scripted or otherwise
externally managed in the binkley-style environment...

 MvdV> As it is and always has been on my system, binkd does not 
 MvdV> differentiate bewteen flo, dlo, ilo and clo. Except fpr hold, it 
 MvdV> just initiates the connect ans sends the files at the next scan 
 MvdV> of the oubound. On my system, within the next 60 seconds.

exactly... the timing is controlled by the naming of the flo file... direct,
immediate and crash are affected by the event manager... so the timing is
performed by having a hlo until the desired time is reached when it is renamed
to flo, dlo, ilo, or clo...

 ml>  you cannot create a req file with hold, normal or crash status...
 ml> there's no such thing as a ?eq file where the '?' may be 'h', 'f', or
 ml> 'c'...

 MvdV> A omission due to an illogical choice.

assumption based on opinion...

 MvdV> I do not miss it, I never had it anyway.

another assumption... you always had it... you just didn't know it...

 MvdV> But that does not alter the fact that whoever created this made
 MvdV> an illogical choice.

opinion...

 MvdV> What we now have is that *.req files are an illogical mix of a 
 MvdV> flow control file and an ordinary file that needs an 
 MvdV> accompanying flow control file in order to be send.

req files are not any kind of flo file... they cannot be... what makes you
think that they are? their name? how else are you supposed to keep them
separated if there's more than one in your outbound? XXXYYYY.mo1 files aren't
flo files, either...

 MvdV> It isn't the first time time that we are stuck with illogical 
 MvdV> choices made in the past, but that does not remove the fact that 
 MvdV> is WAS an illogical choice. 

again, opinion... your logic is not the logic of others... there is more than
one way to do things ya know? ;) 

)\/(ark