Subj : Re: Problem at your system
To   : deon
From : Wilfred van Velzen
Date : Thu Jan 26 2023 04:15 pm



Hi deon,

On 2023-01-25 08:34:56, you wrote to me:

>>  de> I'm not sure it would be against a standard to put nulls in a
>> field
>>  de> that a standard would describe "dont use in this case" (and in this
>>  de> particular scenario, I think we are talking about if an INTL kludge
>>  de> exists).
>>
>> Non of the FTSC documents say that.

de> So I was going to re-view the standard (but the website is down).

It's up again. ;)

de> Does it say ignore the packed message header and use INTL if it exists
de> instead?

It doesn't say either way, if anything at all about how to apply the INTL kludge in conjuction with the message header fields. You should consider the INTL kludge was "invented", when zones (and zone gates) were introduced in fidonet, and they needed a way to sent netmail to other zones. Since the message header doesn't contain zone information.

So FTS-0001 just says:

     o INTL <dest z:n/n> <orig z:n/n> - used for inter-zone address

FTS-0004 doesn't say much more.

So we are left with common sense and logic, how to apply them. ;-)
And it's not logical to forward a routed netmail to a zone-gate when it has already arrived at it's ultimate destination! Or has arrived in the destination zone.

And if you apply the reality of the modern fidonet, without zone-gates. You could just ignore the message header fields, if an INTL kludge is present.


Bye, Wilfred.

--- FMail-lnx64 2.1.5.2-B20230114
* Origin: FMail development HQ (2:280/464)

You are viewing proxied material from vert.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.