Subj : Re: Nlcheck report
To   : Stas Mishchenkov
From : Wilfred van Velzen
Date : Wed Nov 06 2024 08:47:26

Hi Stas,

On 2024-11-06 09:25:30, you wrote to me:

 SM> 1:103/1
 SM> ,1,bbsdev.net,Lake_Forest_CA,Stephen_Hurd,-Unpublished-,300,CM,XW,IBN
 SM> Non Pvt node has no connection info.
 SM> Am I right?

No. The host name is in the system name. Of course it would be better/more clear to have it behind the IBN flag or as an INA. But this line is not wrong.

 SM> 1:214/0
 SM> Host,214,San_Joaquin_Valley_Net,Visalia_CA,Ray_Quinn,1-559-429-8280,9600,CM,XX
 SM> , V32b,IBN,INA:bbs.quinnnet.org Unknown flag 'V32b'. Mat mix case be used?

FTS-5001 First defines it with a lower case 'b', but later in the document it is only mentiond with uppercase 'B'. The Z2 nodelist defines it with an uppercase 'B'. Errflags that Ward uses corrects it to uppercase 'B' (but there is a problem right now on Wards system with this). So it's unclear if both are correct, or that only the uppercase version should be used. FTS-5001 should be improved in my opinion: Either specifically allow both, or define it as all uppercase.

 SM> 1:138/395
 SM> ,395,Black_Lodge_Research_BBS,Redmond_WA,Emory_Balmer,-Unpublished-,300,CM,XA,
 SM> I BN:blacklodgeresearch.org,ITN:4022 Flag 'ITN:4022' has no meaning if no INA
 SM> flag. Am I right?

Mostly. But the host name for ITN could also be specified in the system name field, or behind the ITN flag it self.

 SM> ,111,Byte_Ltd,Novosibirsk,Oleg_Redut,-Unpublished-,300,XA,MO,CM,#20,IB
 SM> N,IFC,IN
 SM> A :fido.byte.ru,INA:byte.nsk.su,U,NC Flag 'CM' implies Mail Period
 SM> Flags. Unknown flag '#20'. Am I right?

No, But the CM flag and any #nn flag are mutually exclusive. So there is a problem, but your wording is wrong.

Bye, Wilfred.

--- FMail-lnx64 2.3.2.4-B20240523
 * Origin: NPC Station (2:280/464)

.