Vitold wrote (2020-11-09):

 VS> I do not exclude the possibility of using the 39th version of the
 VS> proposal in the future, but I need to make sure that this will work with
 VS> my nodes.

 VS> In any case, increasing count requests about support some feature is
 VS> increase chance of select one specific implementation in favor of another.

 O>> Btw, it's an FSC not an FTS.

 VS> You right. It would be convenient to have a standard that would support
 VS> every tosser to support one single same coding scheme.

I compiled a list of the supported packet formats for popular tossers 4 years ago. I don't know if anything has changed since then and it might be not 100% accurate, but it looks like FSC-0039 is the standard that most tossers use for outbound packets and that every tosser can read.

| Name              | Read       | Write  |
|-------------------|------------|--------|
| Crashmail (Amiga) | 39, 45, 48 | 39     |
| Crashmail II      | 39, 45, 48 | 39     |
| Daydream BBS      | 39, 48     | 48     |
| FastEcho          | 39, 45, 48 | 39     |
| Fidogate          | 39         | 39     |
| FMail             | 39, 48     | 39     |
| GEcho             | 39, 45, 48 | 39     |
| Husky hpt         | 39, 48     | 39     |
| ifmail            | 39         | 39     |
| LoraBBS           | 39, 45     | 39     |
| MBSE              | 39         | 39     |
| Mystic            | 39, 48     | 39     |
| OpenXP            | 39         | 39     |
| SBBSecho          | 39, 45, 48 | 45, 48 |
| Soupgate          | 39         | 39     |
| Squish            | 39         | 39     |
| Watergate         | 39, 48     | 39     |
| WWIV BBS v5       | 39         | 39     |


 VS> I review ASCII version of PKTv3 format with the text data representation,
 VS> since there is less bit field hacks, but as far as I understand today,
 VS> there are no tossers with this coding scheme support.

I don't know any tosser that support PKTv3. If there is a need for a better packet format, I would start with a new proposal for a sane binary format. ASCII formats are usually harder to parse than a clean binary format.

I guess it would be better to discuss stuff like this in NET_DEV.

---