BF> @MSGID: 2:203/2 5cba33a6 BF> @REPLY: 2:280/464 5cba29ca BF> @PID: JamNNTPd/Win32 1 BF> @CHRS: CP437 2 BF> @TZUTC: 0200 BF> @TID: CrashMail II/Win32 0.71 BF> Wilfred van Velzen -> mark lewis skrev 2019-04-19 22:04: WvV>> Inconclusive. We need more data... ;)
BF> FWIW, I've been adding lots of empty lines in my recent messages here BF> lately. This one for instance had five empty lines before the BF> "Wilfred.." line. Did SquishMail remove all of them?
It seems so. Above is how it arrived here. No empty line(s) between the last kludge line, and the first line with text.
But this wasn't an intransit mail when it was changed, because it hadn't left the system of the author yet when it was changed... So you might still not like it, but this is a different case than what we are discussing here. ;)
BF> And if so, what "spec" does it violate?
I don't know if there is a ftsc document that states this specifically. But it seems common sense to me, that the text part of a message shouldn't be changed while it is intransit, because that is not how the author of the message intended it to be and it could in a worse case scenario change the meaning of the text. What if a mailman opened letters and fixed spelling errors? He would argue he was providing a service, but I don't think the sender and recipient would agree. ;)
Bye, Wilfred.
--- FMail-lnx64 2.1.0.18-B20170815 * Origin: FMail development HQ (2:280/464)