Text 36548, 60 rader
Skriven 2006-08-11 09:17:33 av mark lewis (1:3634/12.0)
  Kommentar till text 36534 av Matt Bedynek (1:106/1)
Ärende: Nodenumber?
===================
 ml> right... so if/when i decide to use my self written message software
 ml> that follows the specs and does not put in a path line because it is
 ml> optional ..

 MB> Since the path line is optional you are not 'following the spec'
 MB> either way. 

sure i am... i can implement it in my software or not... on the other hand, you
are forcing it to have to be there which is not within the standard...

 ml> then his erroneous setup will be stopping all my legitimate
 ml> messages because the first entry in the path line doesn't match the
 ml> address in the origin line...

 MB> Rather asinine attitude to attempt to create a problem where one
 MB> does not exist.

look in the mirror lately? (re: net387)  ;)

 MB> Kind of reminds me of a NC we had in Net 106 in the late 90s that 
 MB> was polling nodes in with FTS-1 and dropping them from the 
 MB> nodelist if their mailers did not establish a session with his.

hey, that is policy and it is the NC's job to ensure that, at minimum, FTS-1
connections are possible... as for dropping them from the nodelist, if he did
that based on one connection attempt and didn't contact the nodes in question
to ask why, then sure, i can see where that may have been a tab overboard...

 MB> If a 1/10 of the messages were legitimately trapped from such
 MB> methods then I would agree it is not a wise thing to do.  On the
 MB> other hand, most software, even your fastecho now add the
 MB> originating node as the first hop of the exported PATH line.

and that is barring the use of any external/outside post-processing that may be
done...

 MB> So, in a sense, it has become the standard.  

in a manner of speaking... but not something that is such that just anyone can
arbitarially decide to enforce... and need i mention that the FTSC hasn't
documented it as a standard, either?

 MB> And, even when FTS-4 was written, it mentions the fact that not 
 MB> all software at the time supported path lines (~1987).

exactly and my point...

 ml> that is not a good thing... however, i do see where he has an
 ml> exception list for systems that do follow the spec and view adding the
 ml> path line by the originating system to be optional...

 MB> There are no systems currently on the exemption list for Z1. 

beside the point, actually... however, as stated, point in your favor for
having an exemption list in the first place... the delaying of the mail hasn't
been scored as of yet ;)

)\/(ark

 * Origin:  (1:3634/12)