RS> I find it interesting you would cause the type 2.2 packet header RS> a "scam".
I got burned by it way back when and almost quit. However the fighting spirit later got awoken in me and it sparked a bout of backwards engineering which is still part of the routine(s) being deployed in this neck of the woods. Anyhow I will still cite it as evidence that not all is as it seems in Fidonet wrt backwards compatibilty/standards/whatever.
Are you defending it?
MK>> isn't the pktheader in fts-0001.016 not supported by ALL MK>> concerned especially the echomail movers?
RS> Isn't it?
Nope. Like I said previously I only am aware of one and it's been awhile since I tested it there so even that one may not support it anymore. He is still moving mail and it wouldn't be too hard to test it out if needed.
RS> And type 2.2 packet headers are backward compatible with type RS> 2.0/stone-age headers, so it's pretty easy to autodetect the RS> type and support all the type-2 variants of incoming packets.
Really? Have you actually tested that? Or is this some type of blind faith statement on your part? Also, while I am at it, I only found one that could handle Type 2+ pktheaders and it wasn't the same one that could do type 2 pktheaders. Most are 2.2 only and don't even know it.
RS> Whoa there skippy! What on Earth are you talking about?
:-) Nothing you need to worry about ... I think.
Life is good, Maurice
... Mon sceal... gebidan þæs he gebædan ne mæg. One must wait for what cannot be hastened. --- GNU bash, version 5.1.0(1)-release (x86_64-motorshed-linux-gnu) * Origin: Little Mikey's Brain - Ladysmith BC, Canada (1:153/7001)
