AWL> Ummm.... Netmail is the only kind of mail.

RS> Bullshit, thats just semantic hair splitting. Yes, netmail
RS> is how things started, yes, the world moved on to echomail
RS> TOO, no, that does not mean that the only kind of mail is
RS> netmail. We now have TWO forms of mail, netmail and echomail.

AWL> We have too ways of looking at netmailed messages, normal
AWL> NetMail and EchoMail.

We have two types of messages, NetMail and EchoMail. With quite
different detail in the messages themselves, and the way they
are handled by the mail systems.

AWL> the "AREA:" kludge was added to allow the tossing
AWL> of mail to echo conferences and through feeds.

RS> Or more validly, the addition of AREA allowed echomail.
RS> There is a lot more difference between echomail and
RS> netmail than just the AREA kludge. The whole of the
RS> routing fundamentals are completely different.

AWL> Not so,

Fraid so.

AWL> EchoMail predates the AREA kludge (or so I'm lead to believe.

Well, thats splitting hairs. The whole system was designed
around netmail, it then had echomail kludged onto that.

AWL> Also what is different about the routing of EchoMail?
AWL> (In a technical sense).

Very simple really, its got the PATH and SEENBY stuff and the general
principle is that whether a particular BBS gets a message depends on
whether it gets mail with a particular AREA: value or not.

Netmail OTOH gets routed by routing data which is specific to the
destination address. The routing detail is completely different.

Even the stuff added to the bottom of the message recording the
progress is completely different.

AWL> If the user enters "AREA:" as his/her first line, and
AWL> the software doesn't fix it, then too bad for the user.

RS> Typical fucked abortion so common in amateur designed protocols.

AWL> There are some similar hairies in usenet and the M$ thing
AWL> (according to my comms guru).

You are missing the point here, its not kludges in general I was
talking about being a fucked abortion, clearly if you are moving on
from what the system was originally designed to do and dont want to
do a complete rewrite, kludges are inevitable and have the advantage
that if they are done properly you can migrate without too much pain.

What I was sneering at was the 'too bad for the user' mentality.
If the mail aint perfect, toss the mail in the bin, dont bother
to tell anyone, just let the user work out that something must
have gone wrong if there was no response. It aint good enough,
particularly doing that due to some minor formatting problem like
expecting the user to know that he cant have that as the first
line in his message. How is the average user supposed to know that ?

RS> The real world is about robust protocols which atleast allow decent
RS> protocol checking and dont assume 'that things are going to be done
RS> right or who case, it can spray the world with shrapnel for all I care'

AWL> Of course the software *should* fix it...

RS> Of course robust protocols would be nice too.

AWL> The software forms part of the protocol, stop playing silly games boy! ...

Stop playing with yourself Alex. YOU said it was fine to just dump it
if it wasnt formatted right, fuck the user, who cares about the message.
It aint good enough.

--- PQWK202