> 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?
But mainly, I can point you to "prior art" in the form of *thousands* of MSGIDs that contain originaddr fields using that scheme from FidoNet messages going back 20+ years.
But that's kind of irrelevant as the field does not *have* to be a valid return address for the originating networking; it can be whatever that developer decides will make the message-ID the most useful. In my opinion, uniqueness is the most important and useful attribute of a message-ID, so anything that improves its uniqueness is a virtue. -- digital man (rob)
