Subj : Re: Nlcheck report
To   : Stas Mishchenkov
From : Wilfred van Velzen
Date : Sun Nov 10 2024 17:26:56

Hi Stas,

On 2024-11-10 17:46:16, you wrote to me:

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 ,1,bbsdev.net,Lake_Forest_CA,Stephen_Hurd,-Unpublished-,300,CM,XW,IB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

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

 SM> Thanks. Fixed. Is this documented or should it be documented?

It is documented in FTS-5000:

  Field 3: Node name

     Type: string.

     This is the name by which the system is known.

     Alternatively, this field may be used by IP nodes for a host
     name, static IP address or E-Mail address for email tunnelling
     programs.

     NOTE: There may be formatting limitations on this field for IP
     capable systems; consult the section on IP flags in FTS-5001.

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 ,111,Byte_Ltd,Novosibirsk,Oleg_Redut,-Unpublished-,300,XA,MO,CM,#20,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

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

 SM> Ok. How it should be logged?
 SM> Flag '#20' not defined in FTS-5001.06. Am I right to recognize it as error?

It is defined in FTS-5001! In section: "5.6. Mail Period Flags"

It is only wrong if it is the same as the default ZMH, for the zone the node is in.


Bye, Wilfred.

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

.