= Сообщение: 5950 из 7124 ====================================== FTSC_PUBLIC = От : Oli 2:280/464.47 05 Feb 22 11:57:38 Кому : Rob Swindell 05 Feb 22 11:57:38 Тема : MSGID FGHI : area://FTSC_PUBLIC?msgid=2:280/464.47+61fe581a На : area://FTSC_PUBLIC?msgid=31401.ftsc_pub@1:103/705+266392a8 = Кодировка сообщения определена как: LATIN1 ================================= ============================================================================== Rob wrote (2022-02-04):
RS> Re: MSGID RS> By: Oli to Rob Swindell on Fri Feb 04 2022 12:49 pm
>> Rob wrote (2022-02-03):
>>>> Your interpretation of a valid return address for the >>>> originating network is interesting though:
>>>> @MSGID: 31383.ftsc_pub@1:103/705 2661db4a
>>> If you send a netmail there, it'll reach me.
>> Since when is name@1:2/3 a valid address scheme in Fido? Can you >> point to the relevant FTS/FSC?
great, you found the only one and it's an irrelevant FSC that never got any real world use.
RS> But mainly, I can point you to "prior art" in the form of *thousands* of RS> MSGIDs that contain originaddr fields using that scheme from FidoNet RS> messages going back 20+ years.
Is it synchronet's prior art? Whenever I see a header like this, it's from synchronet.
And why should "prior art" (aka buggy software) override a technical standard?
RS> But that's kind of irrelevant as the field does not *have* to be a valid RS> return address for the originating networking; it can be whatever that RS> developer decides will make the message-ID the most useful. In my RS> opinion, uniqueness is the most important and useful attribute of a RS> message-ID, so anything that improves its uniqueness is a virtue.
Okay, so your MSGID doesn't follow the FTS recommendation, but now it's irrelevant anyway and ignoring the FTS is a virtue?
