FR>> Additions/Changes are marked with ">" in column 1.
AV> `diff -burN` could be much better...
You could always do it yourself. I can't because I don't have DIFF.
FR>> 5.5. Gateway Flag
AV> Deprecated.
FR>> 5.8. ISDN Capability Flags
AV> Do anyone still use it?
AV> Wrong.
AV> Must be <flag>[:<internet address>] where internet address is AV> <email | <fqdn | ipv4 | ipv6>[:<port>]>
AV> Wrong.
AV> Deprecated: no common method for delivering direct netmail to such AV> nodes.
AV> Deprecated by IFC.
AV> Should be changed to "INA-style" only.
AV> Is there some common method for delivering direct netmail to such AV> nodes? AV> Hereafter "common" implies at least "free cross-platform software".
>>> EVY Voyager-compatible
AV> Is there some common method for delivering direct netmail to such AV> nodes?
>>> EMA Everything not defined by the aforementioned individual flags
AV> So, how should one deliver direct netmail to such nodes?
FR>> sender clearly quoting all the original via-lines.
AV> s/clearly/safely/
FR>> WARNING: the sender's name (in either direction) must *NEVER* be FR>> "PING".
AV> Wrong: if the sender's name is also "PING", the message _must_ be AV> deleted without notice.
FR>> 6. User flags FR>> -------------
FR>> It is impossible to document all user flags in use. The FTSC makes FR>> no attempt at it. This document lists those flags which got at FR>> least some kind of official sanction or were deemed of technical FR>> interest by FTSC.
AV> Here should be a clear notice that user flags _may_ contain anything AV> except "standard" flags, and all unknown flags _must_ be passed AV> through without any changes.
AV> That means ,U,ENC,BEER is ok.
FR>> SDS Software Distribution System FR>> SMH Secure Mail Hub
AV> Both are deprecated.
FR>> CDP This node will accept points auto-created by the CD-point FR>> software.
AV> Is there any common implementation?
How did so many things slip by the 2016 FTSC review of this document?
--- Msged/NT 6.0.1 * Origin: Somewhere in New Hampshire's White Mountains (1:132/174)
