= Сообщение: 4112 из 7124 ====================================== FTSC_PUBLIC = От : Carol Shenkenberger 1:275/100 09 Dec 18 14:56:42 Кому : Markus Reschke 09 Dec 18 14:56:42 Тема : What would YOU do? FGHI : area://FTSC_PUBLIC?msgid=6927.ftsc_pub@1:275/100+2072c489 На : area://FTSC_PUBLIC?msgid=2:240/1661+5bfd8f7b = Кодировка сообщения определена как: ASCII ================================== Ответ: area://FTSC_PUBLIC?msgid=1:3634/12.73+5c0e8384 ============================================================================== Re: What would YOU do? By: Markus Reschke to Carol Shenkenberger on Sun Dec 09 2018 07:04 pm
CS>> Not if we align them. Take what is in existing use, see what the CS>> differences are, then what tools already use them and see what CS>> works.
MR> The FTSC documented one: MR> - if there's an address in the IBN flag use that one and only that one MR> - if the IBN flag doesn't include an address take all the addresses from MR> all INA flags
MR> The undocumented standard: MR> - take all addresses in IBN and INA flags
We have mailers who use the second one already. That practice does not harm a mailer using just IBN and defaulting back to the INA flag.
It could be the wording is bad. When it was written, the FTSC meant is there was an address on IBN, it would priority over the INA address. If no address on IBN, it would use INA. If only a port on IBN, use INA but the port on IBN.
