Monday February 08 2021 00:16, you wrote to Alexey Vissarionov:
AV>> That would be just a waste of time... briefly: it allows the sender AV>> to affect the routing,
MvdV> Or more accurate: the destination for the response.
Yes. And I consider it a useful.
MvdV> Eerlier today I sent two messages to PING at 2:460/58. The first one MvdV> was a message as I always sent. The second message had a "@REPLYTO MvdV> 2:460/5858" kludge added to it.
Yes.
MvdV> I received a reply from the first message within minutes. The MvdV> second one ... no reply yet.
Of course. The answer went to 2:460/5858, as you indicated in the @REPLYTO.
MvdV> I hope this experiment demonstrates that a PING robot honouring a MvdV> REPLYTO kludge may not be such a good idea.