From ZaInternetHistory

Received 04/01/89 at 15:21:19
Date:    Wed, 04 Jan 89 15:21:05 +0200 (SAST)
To:      CCML
From:    <CCFJ@RURES>
Subject: comments/suggestions #1
A list of MAILER ideas and problems as well as comments on the smtpdoc.
1 - The method by which mail gets delivered/distributed is different
    according to whether it is internally generated mail being delivered
    on the same node or whether it is external mail destined for the
    node doing the processing. This is going to cause a problem because
    for example mail destined to MAILER and MAILER@RURES are going to
    be processed by totally different mechanisms on the node RURES. This
    delivery mechanism needs to be clarified and somehow unified.
2 - There is a lack of concrete actual examples of the addressing scheme.
    The average user doesn't want to think about principles - he wants an
    easy to follow recipe, and this is best provided by practical examples.
    The examples in 3.1.1-3.1.3 are great, but the others confusing.
3 - Paragraphs 1.2 and 1.3 do not yet follow the convention of sending to
    mailer@rures and then having the imbedded To: as part of the message.
    Surely this should follow the principles of paragraph 2.2?
4 - Shouldn't paragraph 1.3 and 2.3 use the addressing scheme
    in order to stick as closely as possible to the scheme laid out in
    paragraph 3.1? It is bad enough having to learn one fidonet addressing
    scheme, let alone two. The general idea is not to let users near a real
    Fido BBS anyway, so using fidonet standards is not particularly relevant.
    To the program it makes no odds, so lets make it easy for the user.
    The dedicated Fidonet standalone user knows (?) about the addressing
    mechanism anyway and is not the user being addressed in this document.
    Doesn't the 'f' stand for node? e.g. f19n490z2 reads node 19 of network
    490 in zone 2.
Next note contains critique of system overview.