Wednesday February 10 2021 14:05, you wrote to me:
MvdV> Oh Boy. Now you have a maimed version of @REPLYTO implementation....
MvdV> Your original question was:
SM>> Should the Ping Robot take into account the ^aREPLYTO kludge?
MvdV> My guess is that your answer now is: "Only a maimed version that ignores MvdV> the address part but honours the user name part".
Let it go as you say. ;)
MvdV> Regarding the @REPLYTO kludge... My understanding is that this MvdV> kludge takes care of translating the user name into the Telegram MvdV> user idea. On the receiving end that is.
Yes.
MvdV> But why bother the Fidonet receiver of the message with the burden MvdV> of this transalation? Why not let the gate handle it? I am not MvdV> familiar with the inner workings of the Telegram system, but what I MvdV> glean is that users are identified by a 9? digit decimal number. So MvdV> why not let the gate do the translation? The Fidonet end need never MvdV> know about it.
It is much more pleasant to receive a message from John Carpenter, but not from 31254657345 and at the same time be able to answer automatically.
MvdV> Conversely, in the case of a ping request originating from a MvdV> Telegram user, instead of putting the TGUID in de @TGUID and the MvdV> @REPLYUTO kludge, put the TGUID in the From: field of the message. MvdV> The ping robot does not care and will put the TGUID in the To: field MvdV> of the retuning pong. Optionally use the @RealName: kludge for the MvdV> user's real name. MvdV> Developers of ping robots need not be bothered with the question if they MvdV> should support @REPLYTO.
I think this is not a necessary toy. It is quite enough that my ping will recognize the name substitution when responding. Other sysops do not need to strain for this, and even more so to respond to pings not from fido or from BBS users.
Have a nice night. Stas Mishchenkov.
--- Have You daily sexual life? Hide it proper from Your wife! ;) * Origin: Lame Users Breeding. Simferopol, Crimea. (2:460/5858)
