Oli wrote:

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

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

It look like 39-th proposal most popular than each other.
I think that I should come back on 39-th proposal.

But it may take a few days or even week to revert code back
and perform "Parma Tosser" compatibility checks.

Also I will check with HPT. If some one can help me with
checks on another one tossers it will be awsome.

 O> I don't know any tosser that support PKTv3. 
 O> ASCII formats are usually harder to parse than a clean binary format.

Right now I complete TIC build/parse in 1.2.16 and found it well debugging
and well human readable. It good advantage on debugging of course ;)

I think ASCII format may by well designed and does not harder than binary.
I assume binary provide speed and memory advantages.

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

I already got caught up in the poisonous debate at RU.FIDONET.TODAY

I propose make screencast video reviews on GP instead write documentation and
announced idea replace UUE image in place. As a result, I lost my home time,
review thausend reasons use or avoid to use this features and ruined my mood.

I am sure many people will find hundreds of reasons to use or escape use various
feature and packing structure scheme and I want to avoid participating in such
debates. I does not see essential complexity for consumers and see increase
accidental complexity instead.

I see in your statistics report that most tosser system already use 39-th
proposal and by compatible reason I will implement it.

P.S. May I mention your name "Oli" in the Golden Point contributors list
as thanks for clarification of the most popular standards for me?

--- Golden/Windows-amd64 1.2.16 2020-11-03 23:07 MSK (master)