Subj : MSGID
To   : Rob Swindell
From : Oli
Date : Sat Feb 05 2022 11:57 am

Rob wrote (2022-02-04):

 RS>    Re: MSGID
 RS>    By: Oli to Rob Swindell on Fri Feb 04 2022 12:49 pm

 >> Rob wrote (2022-02-03):

 >>>> Your interpretation of a valid return address for the
 >>>> originating network is interesting though:

 >>>> @MSGID: 31383.ftsc_pub@1:103/705 2661db4a

 >>> If you send a netmail there, it'll reach me.

 >> Since when is name@1:2/3 a valid address scheme in Fido? Can you
 >> point to the relevant FTS/FSC?

 RS> Here's one:
 RS> http://ftsc.org/docs/fsc-0058.002

great, you found the only one and it's an irrelevant FSC that never got any real world use.

 RS> But mainly, I can point you to "prior art" in the form of *thousands* of
 RS> MSGIDs that contain originaddr fields using that scheme from FidoNet
 RS> messages going back 20+ years.

Is it synchronet's prior art? Whenever I see a header like this, it's from synchronet.

And why should "prior art" (aka buggy software) override a technical standard?

 RS> But that's kind of irrelevant as the field does not *have* to be a valid
 RS> return address for the originating networking; it can be whatever that
 RS> developer decides will make the message-ID the most useful. In my
 RS> opinion, uniqueness is the most important and useful attribute of a
 RS> message-ID, so anything that improves its uniqueness is a virtue.

Okay, so your MSGID doesn't follow the FTS recommendation, but now it's irrelevant anyway and ignoring the FTS is a virtue?

So your definition of SHOULD is SHOULD NOT.

---
 * Origin: Birds aren't real (2:280/464.47)

.