PE> The MSGID address is defined to be the
PE> address in the ORIGINATING NETWORK.

RS> And THAT is more useful than the OTHER sources, like I said.

PE> Quite often, this is an internet address,

RS> Nothing remotely like quite often. 

You obviously don't get NET_DEV.

RS> And the other sources
RS> of the address suffer from the same problem too.

No they don't, they're always fidonet.

PE> but it could also be an Adultnet address, Zyxelnet
PE> address, or any other net, with numbers that are
PE> shared by another net, or maybe even a fakenet.

RS> Yes, its possible, no its not that common. Yes the other sources
RS> ALSO have that as possible *TOO*. Atleast with the MSGID its rather

No they don't, they're always fidonet.

RS> easier to be sure what the address actually is, even if you do have
RS> to allow for the possibility that its not the RIGHT address. *BUT*
RS> thats JUST as much a problem with the OTHER candidate addresses TOO,
RS> and they are harder to find *TOO*

PE> Since there is NO WAY of knowing what net it was
PE> that created the message, you HAVE to treat that
PE> as a character string that is not to be interpreted,

RS> Bullshit. You can treat it as a readily findable
RS> address, which has to be used with the SAME caution
RS> as any other address, *BUT* its more easily findable.

Nope, the other addresses are governed by appropriate specs and
guaranteed to be addresses in the current network.

PE> anything else is irresponsible.

RS> Pathetically bogus form of argument, just stick the
RS> word 'irresponsible' on it and hope that wins the day |-)

Nope, just telling you the truth.

PE> On the other hand, the address in the origin line is defined in FTS-4,

RS> And suffers from the SAME deficiencys, and is not as easy to find.

Nope, doesn't have the same deficiencies at all.

PE> and will be a fidonet address (or more to
PE> the point, an address in the CURRENT network).

RS> Nope, you cant rely on that either. Whatever FTS-4 may say.

Err Rod, it's because of FTS-4 that you can rely on it.  They
are the specs, you see.  Try looking "spec" up in the 
dictionary.

PE> The INTL line is similarly robust.

RS> And is nothing remotely like universal.

Crap.  You can't send international netmail without it, and
if you're sending inter-zone netmail, then you don't need it
anyway.

PE> unless you can change all the software in existence
PE> that dupe detects quite validly based on the FTS-9 spec.

RS> Bullshit. Your other option is better MSGID management at your end.

This is true.  Unfortunately I have no idea of the current
status of my system, having run MSGID-generating software long
before I took any notice of what algorithm it was using.

There was something I was going to respond to in the second
part of your message, but I won't bother because I can't be
bothered going and joining them together.  You know Rod, if
you weren't so anal, you'd know that the 150-line limit
causes REAL problems but only fixes IMAGINARY problems.
BFN.  Paul.
@EOT:

---