>  As  a  point  of  interest,  JoHo  has  indicated  he
 > indended  the  first interpretation.   He  has  consistantly
 > ignored all questions as to why the caller  is  required  to
 > indicate an order of preference.  The spec remains
 > unchanged,  despite the fact that most mailers have
 > implemented the second interpretation.

So sorry, what's the airport closest to your location? I'll fly out there
straight away and we'll sit down over a caffeine free diet lite slice
special decarbonated 7-down and discuss this matter which seems to be of
utmost importance to you.

The EMSI spec. (oh, sorry, I meant to say "proposal") needs to be
updated, yes. Arjen Lentz and I are working on a few corrections and
additions, if you have something to add, feel free to send me ONE NetMail
message with your so-called "EMSI-II" (that's a
"specification", right?) notes and I'll be happy to look at it
when I've either managed to extend my nights to 48 hours or things have
settled around here a bit.

And I'm sure there's a reason why the subject field of this message says
"PID", would it be to indicate that we're talking about the EMSI
"proposal" by any chance?

My turn, GMAFB(tm - Is Mark around here these days? ;-)

---