> RS> On the document's contents, I noticed something that glared at me and > RS> I thought I should share in hopes it may (if you agree) be changed in > RS> a future rev: *.?ut (i.e. .out, .cut, .hut, .dut) files are FTN > RS> packets, not flow files. The contents of these files conform with the > RS> "Packet Header" and "Packed Message" definitions in FTS-1. > > 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.
<blinks> Changing a filename does not change what the file is. They are just ordinary packets.
> RS> "Flow files" are the *.?lo files used to direct a BSO mailers outbound > RS> activity which are plain text files and held in contrast to packets, > RS> which are binary. > > Yes, the *.?lo files are text files as far as content is concerned. > > RS> If you need references, see the BinkleyTerm docs (e.g. BT-USER.TXT, > RS> BT-REF.TXT) which clearly differentiate between "packets" and "flow > RS> files". They're not synonymous. > > As you can see at the end of the document, the Binkleyterm manual is in the > reference list. So the document was considered for input. The FTSC however > choose to not follow the file classification of the author of BinkleyTerm, > that > is based on content. Instead she choose to classify based on /function/. > > 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?
Well it confused *me* when I was reading it and while that is only a sample size of one, I do consider myself to be a member of the target audience and I'm not unfamiliar with the subject. I don't think changing the definition of long-standing terms (i.e. "flow files") is a good idea. Just this reader's opinion. --- SBBSecho 2.27-Win32 * Origin: Vertrauen - vert.synchro.net (1:103/705)
