Subj : Re: Problem at your system
To   : deon
From : Wilfred van Velzen
Date : Tue Jan 24 2023 04:15 pm



Hi deon,

On 2023-01-25 00:13:10, you wrote to me:

 >> It's more redundant to also fill the message header fields with the
 >> destination address, just in case there is very old software on the
 >> route, that doesn't know about INTL kludges. And it's probably against
 >> the standards to put nulls in the message header for the destination
 >> address.

 de> I'm not sure it would be against a standard to put nulls in a field that a
 de> standard would describe "dont use in this case" (and in this particular
 de> scenario, I think we are talking about if an INTL kludge exists).

Non of the FTSC documents say that.

 de> I generally dont like filling stuff in, if its not intended to be used
 de> - perhaps that's just me.

FTS-0001 is quite clear about what is supposed to be in the packed message header.

 de> What is clear though, the standard must be vague, given more than 1
 de> software developer has implemented a different process logic for processing
 de> netmails with those fields filled. (And hence why some of Ward's messages
 de> were being processed and delivered, and some were being sent on somewhere
 de> else to be delivered - but failed.)

There can be different reasons for this, but there is room for clarification in the documents. ;-)

 de> I would normally say, lets get it clear and fixed up - but then that
 de> normally leads to a different discussion that normally doesnt end well :(

There is currently an election on going for FTSC standing members, maybe you should apply? ;-)


Bye, Wilfred.

--- FMail-lnx64 2.1.5.2-B20230114
 * Origin: FMail development HQ (2:280/464)

.