Subj : Nlcheck report
To   : Carlos Navarro
From : Michiel van der Vlist
Date : Sun Sep 24 2023 11:48:23

Hello Carlos,

On Saturday September 23 2023 21:44, you wrote to me:

 MV>> An EMA flag with an email address is considered insufficient
 MV>> information as there is a "where" but no "how".

 CN> Yes, it seems so.

 CN> Do you (or anyone) know about any method that is covered by EMA? That
 CN> is, any that currently hasn't its own flag.

TTBOMK there is presently no email protocol in use in Fidonet that is not covered by the other email protocol flags listed in FTS-5001.  As I see it there is no use case for the EMA flag.

It may have been useful in the past when protocols were still under development. It may be used as a signal to say: "I am developing/testing a new e-mail protocol that is not covered by the existing flags. Wnat to help test it? Contact me for delails". In theory it could be used again for that purpose in the future. But that probably will not happen any more.

Perhaps we should treat the EMA flag as the email equivalent of the deprecated IP flag:

 >   IP      none  Mostly used during the introduction of IP capable
 >                systems to the nodelist. Denotes an unspecified
 >                protocol. (Deprecated)

In any case, IMNSHO the present use of the EMA flag should be flagged as an error.


 CN> Thanks for the info about Nlcheck.

You'r welcome.


Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20170303
 * Origin: Nodelist Police Station (2:280/5555)

.