RS> The other big deficiency is the inconsistency, the netmail
RS> being quite different in detail to the echomail etc.

BL> Yair! That's what gives me the shits most of all. You have
BL> to actually write two different headers and footers for the
BL> message. I can't imagine why they did that, especially when
BL> it introduces a conflict over the "AREA:" line.

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

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

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

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

AWL> A NetMail message with "AREA:" in the first line *is* echomail.

Nope, its an echomail message. It gets routed quite differently to
how a netmail does, there other differences like the PATH and SEENBYs
and the Origin etc too.

AWL> That's how you tell that a NetMail message isn't just ordinary NetMail...

Says sweet fuck all about how thats now a fucked approach which has
resulted in things being kludged over time tho. It makes far more
sense for netmail to have an AREA: NETMAIL too now if you could have
your druthers instead of having to kludge.

As I say, there are very substantial differences between netmail and
echo mail messages, much more than the AREA kludge. Its an abortion
caused by the original design not even considering the need for echomail.

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.

Typical fucked abortion so common in amateur designed protocols.

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

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

Of course robust protocols would be nice too.

--- PQWK202