= Сообщение: 10539 из 12492 ===================================== ENET.SYSOP = От : Michiel van der Vlist 2:280/5555 12 Apr 21 15:47:03 Кому : Ward Dossche 12 Apr 21 15:47:03 Тема : Why am I getting this ... #3 FGHI : area://ENET.SYSOP?msgid=2:280/5555+6074562d На : area://ENET.SYSOP?msgid=2:292/854+10211349 = Кодировка сообщения определена как: CP850 ================================== Ответ: area://ENET.SYSOP?msgid=2:292/854+04173749 ============================================================================== Hello Ward,
On Monday April 12 2021 12:29, you wrote to Alexey Vissarionov:
AV>> WD> ;S If a message destined to "PING" arrives at its final AV>> destination WD> ;S and this final destination flies the "PING"-flag, AV>> then the WD> ;S receiving node will bounce the message back to the AV>> original WD> ;S sender clearly displaying all the original via-lines.
AV>> Were there any working implementations in those days?
WD> Is that necessary?
WD> When someone flies the PING-flag, upon receiving such a message, WD> manually replies and clearly displays the inbound via-lines, then the WD> above requirement is fulfilled.
In theory... Yes.
But how about the second part of the PING specification?
2) TRACE-function:
If a message destined to "PING" arrives at a node which flies the PING-flag but is merely passing-through to another destination then the in-transit node will notify the sender of this occurrence and will forward the original mail unaltered towards its final destination.
WD> If someone writes a PING-bot, that's fine too.
Without a robot the TRACE part can only be honoured if the sysop monitors ALL in transit netmail. Would you consider that "fine" too?
And now that we have mentioned the TRACE part...
My PING survey *1) shows that of the 33 unique systems that fly the PING flag in the nodelist, 7 have not implemented the TRACE part. The system of the Lord Of The Pings is included in that 7. Some would argue that current practice is that TRACE is optional.
Maybe we should consider the introduction of a TRACE flag, so that we can split the PING and TRACE functions in the specs. From then on systems flying only the PING flag advertise PING, but not TRACE.
Or as an alternative, allow TRACE as a parameter in the PING flag. -> PING:TRACE
