Subj : Re: Problem at your system
To   : Wilfred van Velzen
From : deon
Date : Wed Jan 25 2023 12:13 am

 Re: Re: Problem at your system
 By: Wilfred van Velzen to deon on Tue Jan 24 2023 01:31 pm

>  de> But I also think that the 'router' should "route" it to the correct
>  de> destination in the first place.
>
> True but that was a different matter and a (fixed) bug in d'Bridge.

I get that - so putting that case aside, the "purpose" of the packed message header, especially the destination address...

> It's more redundant to also fill the message header fields with the
> destination address, just in case there is very old software on the route,
> that doesn't know about INTL kludges. And it's probably against the
> standards to put nulls in the message header for the destination address.

I'm not sure it would be against a standard to put nulls in a field that a standard would describe "dont use in this case" (and in this particular scenario, I think we are talking about if an INTL kludge exists). I generally dont like filling stuff in, if its not intended to be used - perhaps that's just me.

What is clear though, the standard must be vague, given more than 1 software developer has implemented a different process logic for processing netmails with those fields filled. (And hence why some of Ward's messages were being processed and delivered, and some were being sent on somewhere else to be delivered - but failed.)

I would normally say, lets get it clear and fixed up - but then that normally leads to a different discussion that normally doesnt end well :(


...����
--- SBBSecho 3.15-Linux
* Origin: I'm playing with ANSI+videotex - wanna play too? (3:633/509)

You are viewing proxied material from cvs.synchro.net. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.