FB> I did it, got no response, but by my system the 2:5058/0 address is FB> routed via Ward's system, so I don't know if it's ok to do a ping via FB> routing.
Of course it is, that's how I defined the PING-flag just over 20 years ago (March 26 2001) ...
***************************************************************************** ;S If a message destined to "PING" arrives at its final destination ;S and this final destination flies the "PING"-flag, then the ;S receiving node will bounce the message back to the original ;S sender clearly displaying all the original via-lines. *****************************************************************************
Straightforward, no ?
Btw, I noticed you sent your routed-PING for 5058/0 twice ...
***************************************************************************** ---------- Sat 10 Apr 21, O/T-Track+ 2.85 = 14:58:59 Processing path C:\DB\NETMAIL\ = 14:58:59 reading 10504.MSG $ 14:58:59 | MSG from Fabio Bizzi [2:335/364] to Ewgenij Matuhin [2:5058/0] í 14:58:59 | Via 2:335/364 @20210410.125406.UTC hpt/lnx 1.9.0-cur 2020-04-15 í 14:58:59 | Via D'Bridge 4 2:292/854 04/10 14:56 | 14:58:59 All done
---------- Sat 10 Apr 21, O/T-Track+ 2.85 = 18:13:59 Processing path C:\DB\NETMAIL\ = 18:13:59 reading 10505.MSG $ 18:13:59 | MSG from Fabio Bizzi [2:335/364] to PING [2:5058/0] í 18:13:59 | Via 2:335/364 @20210410.160815.UTC hpt/lnx 1.9.0-cur 2020-04-15 í 18:13:59 | Via D'Bridge 4 2:292/854 04/10 18:11 | 18:13:59 All done *****************************************************************************
These PING-messages were delivered to 2:5020/715 at 14:59:20 and 18:14:21 ...
