Hi Bj”rn,

On 2019-04-19 22:46:33, you wrote to me:

 BF> @MSGID: 2:203/2 5cba33a6
 BF> @REPLY: 2:280/464 5cba29ca
 BF> @PID: JamNNTPd/Win32 1
 BF> @CHRS: CP437 2
 BF> @TZUTC: 0200
 BF> @TID: CrashMail II/Win32 0.71
 BF> Wilfred van Velzen -> mark lewis skrev 2019-04-19 22:04:
 WvV>> Inconclusive. We need more data... ;)

 BF> FWIW, I've been adding lots of empty lines in my recent messages here
 BF> lately. This one for instance had five empty lines before the
 BF> "Wilfred.." line. Did SquishMail remove all of them?

It seems so. Above is how it arrived here. No empty line(s) between the last
kludge line, and the first line with text.

But this wasn't an intransit mail when it was changed, because it hadn't left
the system of the author yet when it was changed... So you might still not like
it, but this is a different case than what we are discussing here. ;)

 BF> And if so, what "spec" does it violate?

I don't know if there is a ftsc document that states this specifically. But it
seems common sense to me, that the text part of a message shouldn't be changed
while it is intransit, because that is not how the author of the message
intended it to be and it could in a worse case scenario change the meaning of
the text. What if a mailman opened letters and fixed spelling errors? He would
argue he was providing a service, but I don't think the sender and recipient
would agree. ;)

Bye, Wilfred.

--- FMail-lnx64 2.1.0.18-B20170815