Just a test you ass hole!!!
@MSGID: 1936.fidotest@1:342/11 1b1706fb
@PID: Synchronet 3.16c-Linux Jan 11 2016 GCC 4.4.7
@TID: SBBSecho 2.27-Linux r1.261 Dec 12 2015 GCC 4.4.7
@MSGID: 1936.fidotest@1:342/11 1b1706fb
I'm too lazy to check the standards... But is this MSGID format
correct?
* Originally in FIDOTEST
* Crossposted in SYNCHRONET
Hi,
On 2016-02-03 19:26:34, Tommi Koivula wrote to Wilfred van Velzen:
about: "test":
@MSGID: 1936.fidotest@1:342/11 1b1706fb
I'm too lazy to check the standards... But is this MSGID format
correct?
Well fts-0009.001 says:
^AMSGID: origaddr serialno
The originating address should be specified in a form that
constitutes a valid return address for the originating network.
Since the second field is supposed to be a fidonet address, because
that's the originating network, I would say it's not valid according
to ftsc standards...
@MSGID: 1936.fidotest@1:342/11 1b1706fb
@PID: Synchronet 3.16c-Linux Jan 11 2016 GCC 4.4.7
@TID: SBBSecho 2.27-Linux r1.261 Dec 12 2015 GCC 4.4.7
I'm too lazy to check the standards... But is this MSGID format correct?
@MSGID: 1936.fidotest@1:342/11 1b1706fb
I'm too lazy to check the standards... But is this MSGID format
correct?
as replied in the other area, non-traditional but still within the standard...
That's what I was thinking... Well it is a problem for SoupGate. See the difference:
From: Michael Buchholz <Michael.Buchholz@f360.n221.z1936.fidonet.org>
From: Wilfred van Velzen <Wilfred.van.Velzen@f464.n280.z2.rbb.dy.fi>
Apparently SoupGate tries to read MSGID when writing ftn messages to nntp.
Not a big issue, but anyways.
"1936.fidotest@1:342/1" is not a valid return address for theoriginating
network.
"1936.fidotest@1:342/1" is not a valid return address for the
originating network.
sure it is...
No, it is not.
it is actually more detailed than required because it points to the
actual message and echo area @ the FTN address...
The originating address should be specified in a form that
constitutes a valid return address for the originating network.
It is the "more detailled" that makes it violate the requirement of "be specified in a form that constitutes a valid return address for the originating network".
[..]"1936.fidotest@1:342/1" is not a valid return address for the
originating network.
disagree...
Disagree all you want.
Try feeding it to any application that expects a Fidonet address:
D:\FIDO\BINKD>binkd -nP1936.fidotest@1:342/1 binkd.cfg'-n'
11:54 [3388] BEGIN standalone, binkd/1.1a-89/Win32 -nP1936.fidotest@1:342/1 binkd.cfg ? 11:54 [3388] `1936.fidotest@1:342/1' cannot be parsed as a Fido-style address ! 11:54 [3388] Exit on option
`1936.fidotest@1:342/1' cannot be parsed as a Fido-style address
Need I say more?
@MSGID: 1936.fidotest@1:342/11 1b1706fb
I'm too lazy to check the standards... But is this MSGID format correct?
"1936.fidotest@1:342/1" is not a valid return address for the
the format has been in use for well over a decade :shrug:
Not long enough.
Only "well over a century" makes it right. ;D
inNeed I say more?
the format has been in use for well over a decade :shrug:
FTS-0009 is just over 24 years old. Much older than Synchronet's aberrant format. If that has been in use for well over a decade, then it has been
violation of te standard for well over a dacade.
This FTS (FidoNet(r) Technical Standard) specifies an optional
standard for the FidoNet community. Implementation of the
protocols defined in this document is not mandatory, but all
implementations of these protocols are expected to adhere to this
standard.
What is the point of having a standard if everyone violating it, can
force the rules to be adapted so that the rules comply with the abbererant's behaviour? If people start running red lights, do we
change the rules so that running a red light is OK from then on?
Not while I am standing.
test
---
? Synchronet ? Eldritch Clockwork BBS - eldritch.darktech.org
Mindless wrote:
test
---
? Synchronet ? Eldritch Clockwork BBS - eldritch.darktech.org
Are you sure about that darktech.org domain name?
** server can't find eldritch.darktech.org: NXDOMAIN
test
---
þ Synchronet þ Eldritch Clockwork BBS - eldritch.darktech.org
Re: Re: test
By: Nelgin to Mindless Automaton on Fri Oct 26 2018 01:52 pm
Mindless wrote:
test
---
? Synchronet ? Eldritch Clockwork BBS - eldritch.darktech.org
Are you sure about that darktech.org domain name?
** server can't find eldritch.darktech.org: NXDOMAIN
darktech is done.
On 10-26-18 11:09, Mindless Automaton wrote toDOVE-Net.Synchronet_Discussion <=-
test
On 10-26-18 13:52, Nelgin wrote to Mindless Automaton <=-
Are you sure about that darktech.org domain name?
** server can't find eldritch.darktech.org: NXDOMAIN
Is this getting through?
Is this getting through?
From Newsgroup: alt.bbs.synchronet
Is this getting through?
--- Mystic BBS v1.11 (Windows)
* Origin: Veteran BBS (1:123/50)
--- Synchronet 3.17a-Win32 NewsLink 1.110
* Vertrauen - Riverside County, California - telnet://vert.synchro.net
--- Synchronet 3.16c-Win32 NewsLink 1.103
Is this getting through?
Yup. But the DOVE-Net Sysops conference is the preferred place to post test messages.
Is this getting through?
Is this getting through?
Yes
Joe
test
this is a test on the ham radio echo using multimail.
this is a test on the ham radio echo using multimail.
VY2XU
--- MultiMail/Win v0.52
þ Synchronet þ Do it @ the X: Sync: X-BIT.ORG <-> Spitfire:
X-BIT.ORG:2323
* Origin: Vertrauen - [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net (1:103/705)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^this is a test on the ham radio echo using multimail.
Lookin' Good. I have a friend up here in Ontario that does this kinda thing. Sadly, I only use 11m DX.
Sysop: | Ragnarok |
---|---|
Location: | Dock Sud, Bs As, Argentina |
Users: | 136 |
Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
Uptime: | 17:56:58 |
Calls: | 15,171 |
Calls today: | 4 |
Files: | 19,857 |
D/L today: |
98 files (8,283K bytes) |
Messages: | 1,692,000 |