>  There  is  neither a technical requirement nor policy that
 > requires a password  during  a  FTS1  session.  A packet in
 > an FTS1 session _may_ contain  a password, but is not
 > required.  More importantly, even if a session  password
 > and/or echomail packet security password exists for the  two
 >  systems,  there is no requirement that this password be used
 > during an FTS1 session.

Then explain to me the following:

FrontDoor calls a system for which the remote mailer requires a password.
An FTS-1 session is established, and thus the remote mailer's only method
of password verification is to check the .PKT header.

The .PKT just happens to contain several hundred NetMail messages, perhaps
even some Conference Mail messages. The remote mailer does not have any
.PKT unpacking capabilities because a .PKT "unpacker" is supplied
with the package, so the mailer exits, and the "unpacker" (which
could be compared to a Conference Mail processor I guess) starts to process
the .PKT file.

So the "unpacker" sees 2:270/17 as the originating address, looks
up the system in its database and -- would you believe it --  there's a
.PKT level password for that system. Only problem is.. they're not the
same.. whoops!

Since you seem to have achieved wisdom beyond your years, and I obviously
haven't, how are two applications that use a field for two different
purposes supposed to peacefully co-exist?

 > Frontdoor  is  an  example of software that attempts to
 > implement and enforce  the  opinions of the author as new
 > policy in it's code.  Some HUBS  have  attempted  require
 > certain  actions  on the part of their downinks,  based
 > upon  FD's  features

[..]

So by the same analogy, if someone buys a gun and commits a crime with it,
the manufacturer of the gun is liable to the victims of the crime.

I know you don't like FrontDoor, that much is obvious. But how someone
using it equals my opinions is beyond my comprehension.

 > Any  mailer  that  uses the same password for session and
 > security is somewhat  insecure,  there  are mailers, I am
 > told, that will not even allow this..  :)

We have chocolate, vanilla, and strawberry.

I guess they must be using a secret optional field in the FTS-1
specification that we haven't been given access to yet. Perhaps a
SuperInformationHighwayVirtualPasswordField?

---