On Monday February 15 2021 04:40, you wrote to me:
MvdV>> I don't know who the author of PoC is and so I do not know MvdV>> his|her reasons. Nor do I know if these reasons are good or MvdV>> bad...
AV> You can find that in FTSC archives... (TLDR: me).
A search on fstc.org gives no hits and I an not in the mood to wade through it all to find it. I don't like being send on a wild goose chase. If you think it isi mportant that I know the reasons of the author of PoC, you could just tell me. I am not ijn the habit os accepting something as fact just because someone says so.
MvdV>> What "further processing" is there to be done on a reply from a MvdV>> PING robot? It is meant to be read by a human and that is it.
AV> Mail routing.
???
AV>>> Quoting the original message back (as in FSC-0032) could be a AV>>> good solution. However, the FSC-0032 explicitly states: "Kludge AV>>> lines, including tear lines and origins lines are not normally AV>>> quoted, but when they are - they must never be quoted exactly - AV>>> this definitely causes problems with other software!"
MvdV>> 1) What "other software"? PING replys are meant to be read by a MvdV>> human.
AV> Or some other robot. You never know...
What I know is that such a hyphotecial robot runs on the system of the initiator of the PING. That is where the respons goes. If the initiator of the response insists on adding tearline en origin to the ping request while his hypothetical robot ca not deal with such a situation, he only has himself to blame.
Origin lines are for echomail. They do not belong in netmail. Of couse it does not harm, but an origin line in netmail should simply be treated as text and never be "processed".
AV> Because they don't belong to a message sent back by a robot. It can AV> either invalidate or delete them, but leaving them as they come in the AV> request is a very unwise idea.
Your opinion is noted. My opinion is that in netmail it is just text and should be dealt with as such.
