Re: FTS-5005
  By: Michiel van der Vlist to Rob Swindell on Wed Sep 09 2015 03:59 pm

 > 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.

.flo files have a specific format. Any old text file won't suffice as a .flo
file, it has to be formatted in a specific way - that's what makes it a flow
file (not the file name).

 > 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.

Interesting take.

 >  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?

The definition in the BinkleyTerm documentation. From BT-USER.TXT, v2.60 dated
april 1996:

             File attach files are also
             called 'flow files' - named after the .FLO file extension.

             Other flow file extensions are:

                 .HLO             Hold these files for pickup by the
                                  remote system.
                 .CLO             The other system can receive
                                  Continuous Mail.
                 .DLO             Direct, meaning the other system
                                  can NOT receive Continuous Mail.

             A flow file is just a text file. It contains a list of files that
             are to be sent to another system:

 > 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.

I never noticed FSP/FRL-1034 before. Not that it really matters, but I wasn't
an FTSC member in 2014. Anyway, I provided my feedback. Do with it what you
will.

-Rob
--- SBBSecho 2.27-Win32