Hello Rob,

On Tuesday September 08 2015 15:30, you wrote to me:

 >> 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>  Changing a filename does not change what the file is. They
 RS> are just ordinary packets.

By the same line of reasoning the *.flo files are just text files.

CFhanging the name may not change was the file /is/, it DOES change the
mailer's behaviour. The names are everything, the name and extension determines
how the mailer acts on the file. And THAT is what is documented in FTS-5005.

 >> 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> Well it confused *me* when I was reading it and while that is only a
 RS> sample size of one, I do consider myself to be a member of the target
 RS> audience and I'm not unfamiliar with the subject.

No argument there, but as you say yourself, you are not the only one.

 RS> I don't think changing the definition of long-standing terms (i.e.
 RS> "flow files") is a good idea. Just this reader's opinion.

What definition? There seem to be several. FTS-5005 is based on FSP-1034. The
FTSC has chosen to follow the definition as proposed in FSP-1034. FSP-1034 was
published over a decade ago. You did not comment then AFAIK, despite the fact
that you were an FTSC member at the time.


Cheers, Michiel

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