Text 8404, 68 rader
Skriven 2007-12-18 20:32:58 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
     Kommentar till en text av Björn Felten (2:203/2)
Ärende: Netmail trackers
========================
Hello Björn,

On Tuesday December 18 2007 17:31, you wrote to me:

 MvdV>> So maybe Bob's system bounces mail to 2:203/2 as "unknown
 MvdV>> destination"?

 BF> No, it's worse than that. He uses one of those fucking netmail
 BF> trackers

Netmail trackers are useful tools, but fornicate they do not...

My former host and founder of the first net outside the Americas, Henk Wevers,
advocated that bouncing of netmail to unknown nodes should only be done by the
NC/host of the net of destination as only he/she would be aware of the true
status of the unlisted node. But then Henk's phone bill was paid by the Hobby
Computer Club....

 BF>  and has obviously set it up to reject anything he doesn't
 BF> like. The "error" is '2:203/2 does not exist in nodelist.XXX'.

Yes, that is what I meant. 2:203/2 is not in the nodelist as issued by Janis.

 BF>    And like it or not, MakeNl (the original one) *is* the de facto
 BF> standard in Fidonet. My 2:203/2 entry *is* according to MakeNl
 BF> standards.

I beg to differ. The original MakeNl is FTS-5000 compliant and it does have
some checking to help assemble an FTS-5000 compliant nodelist, but it is *not*
authoritive in the sense that any list that passes MakeNl is FTS-5000
compliant.

FTS-5000 and all its predecessors clearly state that the phone number field
should only contain digits and dashes or the exact string "-Unpublished-".

The line for 2:203/2 clearly is in violation of FTS-5000. That the original
MakeNl does not flag it as an error is an oversight. An understandable
oversight, but an oversight nevertheless. When it was written FidoNet was POTS
only and no one would dream of playing games with the phone number field and a
node flagged as Hold can not be dialled anyway, so it does not really matter if
the phone number is invalid. But an oversight it is.

You just found a loophole and are exploiting it for your own agenda. Silly
really because no respectable mailer in the whole of FidoNet will attempt to
"dial" 2:203/0. It is flagged as Hold. The best the mailers can do is route it
to the hub or host....

 BF>    Well, the problem is easily solved. Anyone now routing netmail via
 BF> Bob's system only have to set up a link to Ross' system and route
 BF> everything that way.

The solution is much simpler. Stop playing games with the nodelist and remove
2:203/2. You have a regular node number: 2:203/208. You do not need two regular
node numbers. 2:203/2 serves no purpose, it is nodelist stuffing.

 BF> For zone 2 coordinators this means *don't* route netmail via Ward's
 BF> system, since he routes all non-Z2 mail via Bob, but rather use any
 BF> other system at all (I think Ward is the only major Z2 mail mover that
 BF> insists on using Bob's inferior system) available in Z2.

Oh c'mon. A system that does not forward mail to unlisted nodes is FTSC
compliant. Besides, avoiding Bob's system is no guarantee that it won't be
bounced somewhere else. You are rowing against the stream.

Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20070503
 * Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)