= Сообщение: 10364 из 12490 ===================================== ENET.SYSOP = От : Michiel van der Vlist 2:280/5555 19 Feb 21 10:07:03 Кому : Karel Kral 19 Feb 21 10:07:03 Тема : Ping FGHI : area://ENET.SYSOP?msgid=2:280/5555+602f8326 На : area://ENET.SYSOP?msgid=2:423/39+602e1788 = Кодировка сообщения определена как: CP850 ================================== Ответ: area://ENET.SYSOP?msgid=2:423/39+602fdcbe ============================================================================== Hello Karel,
On Thursday February 18 2021 08:23, you wrote to me:
MV>> Could it be that your system does not process netmail from the MV>> unsecure inbound?
KK> Insecure:
How?
KK> for that PING option I liked the idea that is "checking" normal KK> NETMAIL path. Is that need to send it directly rather rare? FREQ KK> (FILES, etc.) is working since a while (also from other systems), but KK> then (usualy) NETMAILs are always going through my uplink.
What is "normal netmail path"? Fidonet was designed as a peer to peer network. In the very beginning mail was always delivered direct. Routing and the associated hierarchy was introduced to reduce cost. Now that the cost of direct delivery is virtually zero, why still use routing? Why make use of third parties that can delay the mail and meddle with it when there is no cost for direct delivery?
For me "normal" netmail path is "deliver as close to the destination as possible." Ever so often that is "direct".
KK> Trace: considering above, only my points can have advantage from trace KK> then.
TRACE is in integral part of the PING specification. Don't look at me, I did not invent it. Trace is useful, but I never saw the need to make it compulsory when one supports PING. But that is what the spec says.. Oddly enough the system of the Lord Of The Pings does not support TRACE...
