On Monday February 08 2021 08:22, you wrote to me:
MvdV>> I searched the FTSC archives for the REPLYTO kludge and could MvdV>> not find it in any of the standards. It is mentioned in some MvdV>> proposals, but none of them made it into a standard.
SM> I know about it. In my opinion, this does not mean that no one is SM> using it or that it is not needed, but only that the FTSC stopped SM> working long ago.
It is a misunderstanding that the FTSC must document everything that anyone has ever used or proposed. The FTSC documents current practise in wide spread use. Incidental use does not make wide spread use. Not everything in use makes it into a formal proposal for a standard. Not everything that is proposed makes it into wide spread use. And - let's face it - many things proposed are simply bad ideas.
MvdV>> So why do you think a ping robot should honour it?
SM> Why not? If it is, then someone thinks that it is necessary, am I SM> right?
The fact that someone thinks it is necessary does not mean it /is/ necessary, let alone that all should follow.
I often get messages from people who think it is necessary I send them money. Should I always do what they say is needed?
MvdV>> What is the purpose of the REPLYTO kludge anyway for use MvdV>> /within/ Fidonet. My understanding is that it is a gating MvdV>> thing? Am I wrong?
SM> Not only. I can give you an example.
SM> The calendar is maintained by Vladimir Fyodorov 2:6035/3, an automatic SM> post is made by a robot at node 2: 5053/58. Obviously, the author of SM> the calendar wants to receive a netmail with comments or suggestions SM> to his address, and not to the robot's address.
1) Why not just put such a request in plain text instead of a kludge to be processed by a robot?
2) What does this calendar thing have to do with ping? The question was "should a ping robot take int account the @REPLYTO kludge?"
