Hello Rob,

On Tuesday September 08 2015 00:42, you wrote to All:

 RS> First off, it's great that a specification like this is finally being
 RS> published. I've been going off 20+ year scraps of docs (e.g.
 RS> BT-REF.TXT) for our BSO/FLO support in SBBSecho and it's nice to see
 RS> something more formal and potentially more current or accurate. So,
 RS> thanks!

Glad to be of service. ;-)

 RS> On the document's contents, I noticed something that glared at me and
 RS> I thought I should share in hopes it may (if you agree) be changed in
 RS> a future rev: *.?ut (i.e. .out, .cut, .hut, .dut) files are FTN
 RS> packets, not flow files. The contents of these files conform with the
 RS> "Packet Header" and "Packed Message" definitions in FTS-1.

True. As far as content is concerned they are packets.

 RS> file *name* may be BSO/FLO specific,

Exactly. And that is what distinguishes them from an ordinary .pkt.

 RS> "Flow files" are the *.?lo files used to direct a BSO mailers outbound
 RS> activity which are plain text files and held in contrast to packets,
 RS> which are binary.

Yes, the *.?lo files are text files as far as content is concerned.

 RS> If you need references, see the BinkleyTerm docs (e.g. BT-USER.TXT,
 RS> BT-REF.TXT) which clearly differentiate between "packets" and "flow
 RS> files". They're not synonymous.

As you can see at the end of the document, the Binkleyterm manual is in the
reference list. So the document was considered for input. The FTSC however
choose to not follow the file classification of the author of BinkleyTerm, that
is based on content. Instead she choose to classify based on /function/.

Both the *.?lo files and the *.?ut files direct a BSO mailer's outbound
activity. This common factor has led the FTSC to categorize them both as flow
files. This seemed a logical choice.

And then: what's in a name?

 RS> No insult or offense intended, so I hope none is perceived. Thanks,

Non taken.


Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20130111