On Tuesday September 08 2015 15:30, you wrote to me:
>> True. As far as content is concerned they are packets. >> >> RS> file *name* may be BSO/FLO specific, >> >> Exactly. And that is what distinguishes them from an ordinary .pkt.
RS> <blinks> Changing a filename does not change what the file is. They RS> are just ordinary packets.
By the same line of reasoning the *.flo files are just text files.
CFhanging the name may not change was the file /is/, it DOES change the mailer's behaviour. The names are everything, the name and extension determines how the mailer acts on the file. And THAT is what is documented in FTS-5005.
>> Both the *.?lo files and the *.?ut files direct a BSO mailer's >> outbound activity. This common factor has led the FTSC to >> categorize them both as flow files. This seemed a logical choice. >> >> And then: what's in a name?
RS> Well it confused *me* when I was reading it and while that is only a RS> sample size of one, I do consider myself to be a member of the target RS> audience and I'm not unfamiliar with the subject.
No argument there, but as you say yourself, you are not the only one.
RS> I don't think changing the definition of long-standing terms (i.e. RS> "flow files") is a good idea. Just this reader's opinion.
What definition? There seem to be several. FTS-5005 is based on FSP-1034. The FTSC has chosen to follow the definition as proposed in FSP-1034. FSP-1034 was published over a decade ago. You did not comment then AFAIK, despite the fact that you were an FTSC member at the time.
