Are we having fun yet Rob?


Oct 14 03:28 04, Rob Swindell wrote to Paul Westell:

 >> I have no direct knowledge of this, but have followed several 
 >> conversations where your message ids were discussed regarding existing 
 >> fido standards. Whe you appeared here I thought I would like to hear 
 >> your side. I was under the impression this had already been brought to 
 >> your attention some time ago and dismissed, but perhaps I am mistaken.

 RS> That's pretty much what happened. Only, no one has yet to point out 
 RS> any
 RS> specific piece of software that actually has a problem with the 
 RS> Synchronet FTN
 RS> MSGID format, so I continue to maintain that it's not a problem.

 RS> I think it's only really a problem for those users that actually 
 RS> *see* the
 RS> MSGID and recognize it as "different". FTN MSGID's were
not designed 
 RS> for human
 RS> consumption, and as such, should not be judged by humans (IMHO). :-)

If the kludge lines were not meant to be available they would not be 
human readable, and I believe should not be denied to any user. They 
comprise part of the message and can be on occasion, enlightening.

I frequently judge my softwear with the delete key, this end is often 
hastened by intransigence as well as poor programming.


You have stated that the third field in the message ID is necessary 
to overcome some deficiencies in the accepted FTN format. Please 
detail these and how this third field avoids them. Although I am not 
a programmer I have some grasp of the concepts, and I know there are 
some as yet unheard from programmers following this.



It could be worse ...
Paul

--- Msged/LNX 6.1.1