The F I D O N E W S Volume 38, Number 07 15 Feb 2021 +--------------------------+-----------------------------------------+
| |The newsletter of the | | |
| | FidoNet community. | | Netmail attach to (POTS): |
| | | | Editor @ 2:2/2 (+46-31-960447) |
| | ____________| | |
| | / __ | Netmail attach to (BinkP): |
| | / / \ | Editor @ 2:203/0 |
| | WOOF! ( /|oo \ | |
| \_______\(_| /_) | Email attach to: |
| _ @/_ \ _ | b @ felten dot se |
| | | \ \\ | |
| | (*) | \ ))| |
| |__U__| / \// | Editor: Bj”rn Felten |
| ______ _//|| _\ / | |
| / Fido \ (_/(_|(____/ | Newspapers should have no friends. |
| (________) (jm) | -- JOSEPH PULITZER | +--------------------------+-----------------------------------------+


Table of Contents
1. FOOD FOR THOUGHT ......................................... 1
2. GENERAL ARTICLES ......................................... 2
A PING robot survey ...................................... 2
3. LIST OF FIDONET IPV6 NODES ............................... 5
List of IPv6 nodes ....................................... 5
4. JAMNNTPD SERVERS LIST .................................... 8
The Johan Billing JamNNTPd project ....................... 8
5. FIDONEWS'S FIDONET SOFTWARE LISTING ...................... 9
6. SPECIAL INTEREST ......................................... 16
Statistics from the Fidoweb .............................. 16
Nodelist Stats ........................................... 17
7. FIDONEWS INFORMATION ..................................... 19
How to Submit an Article ................................. 19
Credits, Legal Infomation, Availability .................. 21

--- Azure/NewsPrep 3.0
* Origin: Home of the Fidonews (2:2/2.0)

=================================================================
FOOD FOR THOUGHT =================================================================

The world is literally on fire -- so why is it business as usual for politicians?

Arwa Mahdawi

-----------------------------------------------------------------

--- Azure/NewsPrep 3.0
* Origin: Home of the Fidonews (2:2/2.0)

=================================================================
GENERAL ARTICLES =================================================================

A PING robot survey
By Michiel van der Vlist, 2:280/5555


Recently there was a discussion about supporting the @REPLYTO kludge
in PING robots. It did not convince me that supporting this non
standard kludge in PING robots is a good idea, but it did inspire me
to do a survey of what is around in Fidonet regarding PING.

For starters: PING is not all that popular. Nodelist.043 shows 57
nodes flying the PING flag, but if AKAs are removed only 31 unique
sytems remain. There are two systems flying the PING flag in the Z2
pointlist.

So my first step was to query all these 31 systems for a ping res-
ponse. This took a bit of patience because even in the age of Fido
over IP, some take up to a day to respond. Of the 31 tested, 7 did
not respond. Of these 7, 4 nodes appear to be down. The other 2 have
the node up and accepting calls but there seems to be no active PING
robot. 1 is a Pvt node who's status I was unable to determine.

The 2 systems in the pointlist that fly a PING flags are responding.

So far so good.

The next step was to test if the PING nodes always answer from the
address that is pinged. Many do. E.g. 2:280/0 answers from 2:28/0
and 2:280/5555 answers from 2:280/5555. But not all do. 1:18/0
answers from the "main AKA" 1:3634/12. Of course I could only test
systems that actually have and are listed with more than one AKA in
the nodelist.

The third and last step was to try to determine if the systems that
support PING also support TRACE. Ik knew that not all do, but nobody
ever bothered to check it. So what I did is send a PING to a node
that has a PING robot up and running and route it through the node
to be tested. If the ping returns and the node or one of its AKAs is
in the VIA's then I knew for sure that it had passed the node under
test. 18 of the nodes supporting PING also support TRACE. 4 nodes
support PING but do not support TRACE. For 2 nodes I was unable to
determine if they support TRACE or not.


So here are the results:


Node nr. Reply by/ Always answers from addressed AKA
Status | Supports Trace
| | AKAs
| | |

1:19/10 Mailguard Y
1:229/101 Diskshop Tracker N Y 1:12/0 1:12/1

1:320/119 Ping Service Y Y 1:320/0 1:142/0

1:320/219 Ping Service Y Y 1:1/19

1:320/319 Ping Service Y Y 1:1/119

1:3634/12 SBBSecho N N 1:1/120 18/0 3634/0 3634/12

2:221/1 O/T-Track N Y 2:221/0 2:221/360

2:221/6 Pong @ hpt Y

2:2432/200 Pvt, No Reply

2:2432/920 Node Down

2:2448/1021 PING * N 2:2448/0

2:280/464 Fmail Y Y

2:280/464.112 Fmail Y Y

2:280/5555 Fmail Y Y

2:280/5555.1 Fmail Y Y

2:292/854 Lord of the Ping N N 2:2/0 2/1000 2/1002 292/80

2:292/8125 Fmail Y Y 2:29/0

2:460/58 Crazy Mail Robot Y

2:463/68 Craxy Mail Robot Y

2:461/79 Node Down

2:463/2223 Ping Robot 2:46/200

2:4642/7 Node Down

2:5019/40 Netmail Daemon N Y 2:5019/0

2:5020/545 ping.pl Y

2:5020/601 Node Down

2:5020/846 Ping-Pong Robot

2:5020/1042 RNTrack Y

2:5020/2065 FTrack

2:5021/46 Candle Y Y 2:5021/0

2:5053/58 Ping Down

2:5080/102 Ping Down

2:6035/3 Ping Robot Y

3:712/848 Mailer-daemon Y Y 3:3/0 3:712/0


* 2:2448/0 is an AKA of 2:2448/1021. But only 2:2448/1021 flies the
PING flag and answers on a PING request.



-----------------------------------------------------------------

--- Azure/NewsPrep 3.0
* Origin: Home of the Fidonews (2:2/2.0)

=================================================================
LIST OF FIDONET IPV6 NODES =================================================================

List of IPv6 nodes
By Michiel van der Vlist, 2:280/5555

Updated 1 Feb 2021


Node Nr. Sysop Type Provider Remark

1 2:280/464 Wilfred van Velzen Native Xs4All f
2 2:280/5003 Kees van Eeten Native Xs4All f
3 2:5019/40 Konstantin Kuzov T-6in4 he.net f
4 2:280/5555 Michiel van der Vlist Native Ziggo f
5 1:320/219 Andrew Leary Native Comcast f
6 2:221/1 Tommi Koivula T-6in4 he.net f
7 2:221/6 Tommi Koivula Native OVH
8 2:5053/54 Denis Mikhlevich Native TTK-Volga
9 2:5030/257 Vova Uralsky Native PCextreme
10 1:154/10 Nicholas Bo‰l Native Spectrum f
11 2:203/0 Bj”rn Felten T-6in4 he.net
12 2:280/5006 Kees van Eeten Native Xs4All f INO4
13 3:712/848 Scott Little T-6in4 he.net f
14 2:5020/545 Alexey Vissarionov Native Hetzner f
15 1:103/17 Stephen Hurd T-6in4 he.net
16 2:5020/9696 Alexander Skovpen T-6in4 TUNNELBROKER-0
17 2:421/790 Viktor Cizek T-6in4 he.net
18 2:222/2 Kim Heino Native TeliaSonera
19 3:633/280 Stephen Walsh Native AusNetServers f
20 2:463/877 Alex Shuman Native Nline f IO
21 1:19/10 Matt Bedynek T-6in4 he.net
22 3:770/1 Paul Hayton T-6in4 he.net
23 2:5053/58 Alexander Kruglikov Native TTK-Volga f
24 1:103/1 Stephen Hurd Native Choopa
25 3:633/281 Stephen Walsh Native Internode
26 2:310/31 Richard Menedetter Native DE-NETCUP f
27 3:633/410 Tony Langdon Native IINET
28 2:5020/329 Oleg Lukashin Native Comfortel f
29 2:246/1305 Emil Schuster Native TAL.DE
30 2:2448/4000 Tobias Burchhardt Native DTAG IO
31 2:331/51 Marco d'Itri Native BOFH-IT
32 1:154/30 Mike Miller Native LINODE
33 1:282/1031 Jeff Smith T-6in4 he.net
34 2:5001/100 Dmitry Protasoff Native Hetzner
35 2:5059/38 Andrey Mundirov T-6in4 he.net
36 2:240/5853 Philipp Giebel Native Hetzner
37 2:5083/444 Peter Khanin Native OVH
38 2:2452/413 Ingo Juergensmann Native RRBONE-COLO f
39 1:123/10 Wayne Smith T-6in4 he.net
40 2:4500/1 Eugene Kozhuhovsky Native DATAHATA6
41 1:135/300 Eric Renfro Native Amazon.com
42 1:103/13 Stephen Hurd Native Choopa
43 2:5020/1042 Michael Dukelsky Native FORPSI Ktis f
44 2:5095/0 Sergey V. Efimoff T-6in4 he.net
45 2:5095/20 Sergey V. Efimoff T-6in4 he.net
46 4:902/26 Fernando Toledo T-6in4 he.net
47 2:5019/400 Konstantin Kuzov Native LT-LT
48 2:467/239 Mihail Kapitanov T-6in4 he.net f
49 2:463/1331 Andrei Dzedolik Native DIGITALOCEAN
50 2:5010/275 Evgeny Chevtaev T-6in4 TUNNELBROKER-0 f
51 2:5020/736 Egor Glukhov Native RUWEB f
52 2:280/2000 Michael Trip Native Xs4All
53 2:230/38 Benny Pedersen Native Linode
54 2:460/58 Stas Mishchenkov T-6in4 he.net f
55 1:135/367 Antonio Rivera Native RRSW-V6
56 2:5020/2123 Anton Samsonov T-6in4 he.net
57 2:5020/2332 Andrey Ignatov Native ru.rtk
58 2:5005/49 Victor Sudakov T-6in4 he.net f
59 2:5005/77 Valery Lutoshkin T-6in4 NTS f
60 2:5005/106 Alexey Osiyuk T-6in4 he.net f
61 2:5057/53 Ivan Kovalenko Native ER-Telecom f
62 2:5010/352 Dmitriy Smirnov Native EkranTV f
63 2:292/854 Ward Dossche Native Proximus OO
64 2:469/122 Sergey Zabolotny T-6in4 he.net f
65 2:5053/400 Denis Mikhlevich Native TTK-Volga
66 1:135/371 Eric Renfro Native Cox Cmmunctns
67 2:421/21 Stepan Gabriel Native NETDATACOMM
68 2:5030/1997 Alexey Fayans T-6in4 he.net
69 1:220/70 Joseph Werle T-6in4 he.net
70 2:5061/15 Eugene Gladchenko Native ARUBAUK-NET
71 2:2452/502 Ludwig Bernhartzeder Native DTAG
72 2:423/39 Karel Kral Native WEDOS
73 2:5080/102 Stas Degteff T-6to4 NOVATOR
74 2:280/1049 Simon Voortman Native Solcon
75 1:102/127 Bradley Thornton Native Hetzner
76 2:335/364 Fabio Bizzi Native IT-ALBACOM
77 1:124/5016 Nigel Reed Native DAL1-US
78 2:5020/843 Peter Antonov Native BelCloud
79 2:5075/37 Andrew Komardin Native IHC-NET
80 1:153/146 Erich Bublitz Native LINODE-US
81 2:263/5 Martin List-Petersen Native TuxBox
82 1:106/633 William Williams Native LINODE-US PM *1
83 2:5030/1520 Andrey Geyko T-6in4 he.net f
84 1:229/664 Jay Harris Native Rogers OO
85 1:142/103 Brian Rogers T-6in4 he.net
86 1:342/17 Kostie Muirhead Native Hurricane El.
87 2:280/2030 Martien Korenblom Native Transip
88 3:633/509 Deon George Native Telstra
89 2:5020/4441 Yuri Myakotin Native SOVINTEL
90 1:320/319 Andrew Leary Native Comcast f
91 2:240/5824 Anna Christina Nass T-6in4 he.net f
92 2:460/5858 Stas Mishchenkov T-6in4 he.net f INO4
93 1:105/5 Michael Pierce Native Comcast
94 1:218/401 James Downs Native ORG-TT1


T-6in4 Static 6in4
T-AYIY Dynamic AYIYA
T-6to4 6to4
T-6RD 6RD
Remarks:

f Has a ::f1d0:<zone>:<net>:<node> style host address.
(zone, net, node in decimal notation)
IO Incoming only (Node can not make outgoing IPv6 calls)
OO Outgoing only (Node can not accept incoming IPv6 calls).
INO4 No IPv4 (Node can not accept incoming IPv4 calls).
PO4 Prefers Out on 4 (Node can make outgoing IPv6 calls,
but is configured to try IPv4 first)
6DWN The IPv6 connectivity of this node is temporarely down.
NO6 The node no longer presents an IPv6 address in the nodelist
and will soon be removed from this list.
DOWN This node is temporarely down for both IPv4 and IPv6.
PM Prospective Member. The node has demonstrated IPv6
capability but is not listed or does not advertise an
IPv6 address in the Fidonet nodelist yet.

PM *1 [2600:3c01::f03c:91ff:fe2b:c319]

Notes:

To make an IPv6 connection to a node connected via 6to4 tunneling
one may have to force the mailer into IPv6 (-6 option in binkd's
node config for binkd up to 1.1a-96, -64 option for binkd 1.1a-97
and up when compiled with AF_FORCE=1). If the destination address
is a 6to4 tunnel address (2002::/16) many OSs default to IPv4 if
an IPv4 address is present.


Submitted on day 045

-----------------------------------------------------------------

--- Azure/NewsPrep 3.0
* Origin: Home of the Fidonews (2:2/2.0)

=================================================================
SPECIAL INTEREST =================================================================

Last week's statistics from the Fidoweb
By EchoTime, 2:203/0

(Some nets may have lost their last
digit for technical reasons)

pkt (toss-toss) msg (write-toss)
nodes mean dev no mean dev no

154/* 12.3m 14.2m 906 1.0h 4.7h 906
221/* 9.0m 13.6m 1029 6.1h 5.3h 1029
280/* 6.8m 12.2m 1238 6.2h 6.7h 1238
292/* 17.6m 14.3m 50 8.2h 6.0h 50
320/* 9.5m 13.9m 624 2.0h 5.9h 624
502/* 0.6m 0.4m 6 5.3h 7.9h 6

Sigma 9.2m 13.5m 3853 4.3h 6.2h 3853

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nodelist Stats

Input nodelist nodelist.043
size 184.3kb
date 2021-02-12

The nodelist has 1000 nodes in it
and a total of 1460 non-comment entries

including 4 zones
31 regions
172 hosts
67 hubs
admin overhead 274 ( 27.40 %)

and 104 private nodes
37 nodes down
45 nodes on hold
off line overhead 186 ( 18.60 %)


Speed summary:

>9600 = 50 ( 5.00 %)
9600 = 204 ( 20.40 %)
(HST = 3 or 1.47 %)
(CSP = 0 or 0.00 %)
(PEP = 0 or 0.00 %)
(MAX = 0 or 0.00 %)
(HAY = 0 or 0.00 %)
(V32 = 82 or 40.20 %)
(V32B = 19 or 9.31 %)
(V34 = 97 or 47.55 %)
(V42 = 83 or 40.69 %)
(V42B = 21 or 10.29 %)
2400 = 1 ( 0.10 %)
1200 = 0 ( 0.00 %)
300 = 745 ( 74.50 %)

ISDN = 33 ( 3.30 %)

-----------------------------------------------------
IP Flags Protocol Number of systems -----------------------------------------------------
IBN Binkp 766 ( 76.60 %) ----------------------------------
IFC Raw ifcico 83 ( 8.30 %) ----------------------------------
IFT FTP 60 ( 6.00 %) ----------------------------------
ITN Telnet 163 ( 16.30 %) ----------------------------------
IVM Vmodem 15 ( 1.50 %) ----------------------------------
IP Other 4 ( 0.40 %) ----------------------------------
INO4 IPv6 only 2 ( 0.20 %) ----------------------------------

CrashMail capable = 843 ( 84.30 %)
MailOnly nodes = 318 ( 31.80 %)
Listed-only nodes = 23 ( 2.30 %)



[Report produced by NETSTATS - A PD pgm]
[ Revised by B Felten, 2:203/2]
[ NetStats 3.8 2014-11-23]

-----------------------------------------------------------------

--- Azure/NewsPrep 3.0
* Origin: Home of the Fidonews (2:2/2.0)

FidoNews wrote:

Recently there was a discussion about supporting the @REPLYTO kludge
in PING robots. It did not convince me that supporting this non
standard kludge in PING robots is a good idea, but it did inspire me
to do a survey of what is around in Fidonet regarding PING.

All recently Synchronet BBS's should support PING. I assked Digital Man to add support a couple of years ago maybe. I expect a numebr of sysops are not even aware. I don't even know if I have the PING flag, but I'll check later and I can always get it added. I have found it a somewhat useful tool in debugging some issues in getting messages from A to B.

Maybe you could try sending a PING to the entire nodelist and see what shakes out.

Now as for TRACE, I've never heard of this one so will have to research it a bit.
--- SBBSecho 3.12-Linux
* Origin: End Of The Line BBS - endofthelinebbs.com (1:124/5016)

Hi! Nigel,

On 15 Feb 2021, Nigel Reed said the following...

Now as for TRACE, I've never heard of this one so will have to research
it a bit.

It's the secondary function of a PING 'bot: responding to in-transit requests to anywhere else.

Cheers,
Paul.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Linux/32)
* Origin: Quinn's Rock - stuck in another Linux VM, again! (3:640/1384)

Hello Nigel,

On Monday February 15 2021 16:08, you wrote to FidoNews Robot:

All recently Synchronet BBS's should support PING. I assked Digital
Man to add support a couple of years ago maybe. I expect a numebr of sysops are not even aware. I don't even know if I have the PING flag,

You do not fly the PING flag in today's nodelist but I have tested your system and it does indeed supports PING. Good ;-)

So maybe you should ask your NC to have the PING flag added.

Maybe you could try sending a PING to the entire nodelist and see what shakes out.

Hmmm.. I think that would be a bit too much. Systems that fly the PING flag can be considered to have an open invitation to test it but we know that long toes are not uncommon in Fidonet. So some not flying a PING flag may consider it mildly annoying if their logs are contaminated by unsollicited PING attempts...

Now as for TRACE, I've never heard of this one so will have to
research it a bit.

TRACE is part of the PING specs, but not all PING implementationes support it. My test indicates that your system does not support TRACE.


Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20170303
* Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)

On 15 Feb 21 16:08:38, Nigel Reed said the following to Fidonews Robot:

Maybe you could try sending a PING to the entire nodelist and see what shak out.

Pointless busybody work, totally unnecessary.

Nick

--- Renegade vY2Ka2
* Origin: Joey, do you like movies about gladiators? (1:229/426)

Re: Re: FidoNews 38:07 [02/08]: General Articles
By: Nigel Reed to FidoNews Robot on Mon Feb 15 2021 16:08:38

Now as for TRACE, I've never heard of this one so will have to research it a bit.

http://ftsc.org/docs/fts-5001.006

section 5.10 - Robot Flags

there was also something written that originally described the PING function but i don't recall where it was written... i've not found anything about it in my FTSC documents library, either...

i remember implementing it in my netmgr configs quite a while back... after a little searching, i see that it was also available in OTTrack, a netmail tracker tool... i might have had to manually add it there like i did with
netmgr, though...


)\/(ark
--- SBBSecho 3.11-Linux
* Origin: SouthEast Star Mail HUB - SESTAR (1:3634/12)

Hello mark,

On Tuesday February 16 2021 05:50, you wrote to Nigel Reed:

there was also something written that originally described the PING function but i don't recall where it was written... i've not found anything about it in my FTSC documents library, either...

FTS-5001.005 par 5.10

5.10. Robot flags
-----------------

PING
----

Specified as exactly "PING" with no arguments. Nodes flying this
flag will adhere to the following functionality:

1) PING-function:

If a message destined to "PING" arrives at its final destination
and this final destination flies the "PING"-flag, then the
receiving node will bounce the message back to the original sender
clearly quoting all the original via-lines.

If a message destined to "PING" arrives at its final destination
but this final destination does _not_ fly the "PING"-flag then the
message may be deleted from the inbound-queue without further
follow-up.

2) TRACE-function:

If a message destined to "PING" arrives at a node which flies the
PING-flag but is merely passing-through to another destination
then the in-transit node will notify the sender of this occurrence
and will forward the original mail unaltered towards its final
destination.

WARNING: the sender's name (in either direction) must *NEVER* be
"PING".


What more needs to be said?

i remember implementing it in my netmgr configs quite a while back...

Your implementation does not support the TRACE part.


Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20170303
* Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)

Re: FidoNews 38:07 [02/08]: General Articles
By: Michiel van der Vlist to mark lewis on Tue Feb 16 2021 12:42:45

there was also something written that originally described the PING function but i don't recall where it was written... i've not found anything about it in my FTSC documents library, either...

MvdV> FTS-5001.005 par 5.10

i already pointed there... i was speaking of elsewhere as in some other document that the FTSC used to create that section...


)\/(ark
--- SBBSecho 3.11-Linux
* Origin: SouthEast Star Mail HUB - SESTAR (1:3634/12)

i remember implementing it in my netmgr configs quite a while back...

I never added it to *my* NetMailManager:

http://eljaco.se/FILES/DEV/NMMGR.ZIP

Probably since it was developed in 1992, 24 years earlier than 5001.005... 8-)




..

--- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; sv-SE; rv:1.9.1.16) Gecko/20101125
* Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)

Re: FidoNews 38:07 [02/08]: General Articles
By: Bj”rn Felten to mark lewis on Tue Feb 16 2021 17:32:46

i remember implementing it in my netmgr configs quite a while back...

I never added it to *my* NetMailManager:

i don't know what NetMailManager is... adding the functionality to Gerard van Essen's netmgr tool was quite easy, though...

[quote]
===================================================================

NetMgr - "The Swiss Army Knife for Netmail"

Copy, move, delete, file, change and bounce netmail..

(c) 1992,93,94,95,96 Gerard van Essen (2:280/408)

===================================================================


! NetMgr uses the Squish MSGAPI by Scott Dudley.

! Squish is a trademark of Scott J. Dudley

! JAM(mbp) - Copyright 1993 Joaquim Homrighausen, Andrew Milner,
Mats Birch, Mats Wallin.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.


NetMgr version : 1.00
Last update of this document : Nov 8, 1996
[/quote]


)\/(ark
--- SBBSecho 3.11-Linux
* Origin: SouthEast Star Mail HUB - SESTAR (1:3634/12)

Hello Bj”rn,

On Tuesday February 16 2021 17:32, you wrote to mark lewis:

I never added it to *my* NetMailManager:

So you /never/ did it.

http://eljaco.se/FILES/DEV/NMMGR.ZIP

Probably since it was developed in 1992, 24 years earlier than 5001.005... 8-)

Question: sinds when does "never" need a starting date? ;-)


Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20170303
* Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)

Michiel wrote:

Hello Nigel,

On Monday February 15 2021 16:08, you wrote to FidoNews Robot:

All recently Synchronet BBS's should support PING. I assked Digital
Man to add support a couple of years ago maybe. I expect a numebr of sysops are not even aware. I don't even know if I have the PING flag,

You do not fly the PING flag in today's nodelist but I have tested your system and it does indeed supports PING. Good ;-)

I know.

So maybe you should ask your NC to have the PING flag added.

I did, yesterday. He'll get to it when he has power.

Maybe you could try sending a PING to the entire nodelist and see what shakes out.

Hmmm.. I think that would be a bit too much. Systems that fly the PING flag can be considered to have an open invitation to test it but we know that long toes are not uncommon in Fidonet. So some not flying a PING flag may consider it mildly annoying if their logs are contaminated by unsollicited PING attempts...

I wish PING attempts was all I had to worry about. If any sysop is concerned about PING attempts, then they must have a rather cozy life.

Now as for TRACE, I've never heard of this one so will have to
research it a bit.

TRACE is part of the PING specs, but not all PING implementationes support it. My test indicates that your system does not support TRACE.

I thought as much. I don't know if Digital Man would implement it or not,
maybe if enough people asked for it.
--- SBBSecho 3.12-Linux
* Origin: End Of The Line BBS - endofthelinebbs.com (1:124/5016)

Michiel wrote:

Hello Nigel,

Hmmm.. I think that would be a bit too much. Systems that fly the PING flag can be considered to have an open invitation to test it but we know that long toes are not uncommon in Fidonet. So some not flying a PING flag may consider it mildly annoying if their logs are contaminated by unsollicited PING attempts...

BTW, why are you sending an unsolicited ping to my BBS if I don't have the
PING flag? :)
--- SBBSecho 3.12-Linux
* Origin: End Of The Line BBS - endofthelinebbs.com (1:124/5016)

Hello mark,

On Tuesday February 16 2021 11:00, you wrote to me:

there was also something written that originally described the
PING function but i don't recall where it was written... i've not
found anything about it in my FTSC documents library, either...

MvdV>> FTS-5001.005 par 5.10

i already pointed there...

I figured it would be easier for Nigel to just quote the relevant part. It says all a developer ot a user needs to know.

i was speaking of elsewhere as in some other document that the FTSC
used to create that section...

I don't know about that, it was before my FTSC time. What I do know is that the PING flag was introduced in the Z2 nodelist on 26 March 2001. (As documented in the ERRFLAGS history) My guess is that the paragraph in FTS-5001 was just copied from the Z2 nodelist epilog. It is almost the same except for the part that the sender must never be "Ping".

But as I said, that's just a guess.


Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20170303
* Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)

Hello Nigel,

On Tuesday February 16 2021 13:03, you wrote to me:

So maybe you should ask your NC to have the PING flag added.

I did, yesterday. He'll get to it when he has power.

Ah, I see, he is in Texas... Ik hope that power problem will be solved soon..

I wish PING attempts was all I had to worry about. If any sysop is concerned about PING attempts, then they must have a rather cozy life.

It would seem that some do...

TRACE is part of the PING specs, but not all PING implementationes
support it. My test indicates that your system does not support TRACE.

I thought as much. I don't know if Digital Man would implement it or
not, maybe if enough people asked for it.

We'll see.


Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20170303
* Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)

i don't know what NetMailManager is... adding the functionality to
Gerard van Essen's netmgr tool was quite easy, though...

Well, obviously NetMailManager != netmgr. DUH.

Adding any functionality in my (as in produced by me) NetMailManager is a piece of cake. Albeit it needs FrontDoor's SETUP.FD as most of my programs did by that time...


..

--- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; sv-SE; rv:1.9.1.16) Gecko/20101125
* Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)

Re: FidoNews 38:07 [02/08]: General Articles
By: Bj”rn Felten to mark lewis on Tue Feb 16 2021 23:00:38

i don't know what NetMailManager is... adding the functionality to
Gerard van Essen's netmgr tool was quite easy, though...

Well, obviously NetMailManager != netmgr. DUH.

exactly why i told you what netmgr is, DUUUH!


)\/(ark
--- SBBSecho 3.11-Linux
* Origin: SouthEast Star Mail HUB - SESTAR (1:3634/12)

exactly why i told you what netmgr is, DUUUH!

What made you think I wanted to know that?



..

--- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; sv-SE; rv:1.9.1.16) Gecko/20101125
* Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)

Re: FidoNews 38:07 [02/08]: General Articles
By: Bj”rn Felten to mark lewis on Tue Feb 16 2021 23:57:42

exactly why i told you what netmgr is, DUUUH!

What made you think I wanted to know that?

because you obviously confused your tool with netmgr otherwise why even bring that tool up in the conversation in the first place? ;)


)\/(ark
--- SBBSecho 3.11-Linux
* Origin: SouthEast Star Mail HUB - SESTAR (1:3634/12)

mark,

i already pointed there... i was speaking of elsewhere as in some other document that the FTSC used to create that section...

"PING" was created by yours truly and included into the nodelist March 26th 2001, some 10 days shy of 20 years ago.

The description which I gave was the following ....

If a message destined to "PING" arrives at its final destination
and this final destination flies the "PING"-flag, then the
receiving node will bounce the message back to the original
sender clearly displaying all the original via-lines.

If a message destined to "PING" arrives at its final destination
but this final destination does _not_ fly the "PING"-flag then the
message may be deleted from the inbound-queue without further follow-up.

Seems very straightforward to me and not what certain individuals try to make it into.

\%/@rd

--- DB4 - Dec.21 2020
* Origin: Hou het veilig, hou vol. Het komt allemaal weer goed (2:292/854)

Hello Nigel,

Hmmm.. I think that would be a bit too much. Systems that fly the PING

flag can be considered to have an open invitation to test it ...

And there really is not that much wrong with it ...

So some not flying a PING
flag may consider it mildly annoying if their logs are contaminated by unsollicited PING attempts...

The argument of disc-overflows is not valid anymore with the capacities now available ... and the spec mentions that onsollicited PINGs to a system which does not fly that flag should end in the bit-bucket.

There are more important things in life to get upset about ...

BTW, why are you sending an unsolicited ping to my BBS if I don't have
the PING flag? :)

Look at what I'm getting ...

**************************************************************************** Date: 11 Feb 21 11:19:54
From: Michiel van der Vlist on 2:280/5555 Nieuw Schnoord in Driebergen
To: Ping on 2:292/854 Many-Glacier (043) in Mortsel

Date: 13 Feb 21 11:03:18
From: Michiel van der Vlist on 2:280/5555 Nieuw Schnoord in Driebergen
To: Ping on 2:2/0 Eur (043) in B

Date: 13 Feb 21 11:03:48
From: Michiel van der Vlist on 2:280/5555 Nieuw Schnoord in Driebergen
To: Ping on 2:2/1000 International Coordinator in Belgium ****************************************************************************

Nothing to be upset about has happened.

\%/@rd

--- DB4 - Dec.21 2020
* Origin: Hou het veilig, hou vol. Het komt allemaal weer goed (2:292/854)

Hello Nigel,

On Tuesday February 16 2021 13:04, you wrote to me:

PING flag can be considered to have an open invitation to test it
but we know that long toes are not uncommon in Fidonet. So some not
flying a PING flag may consider it mildly annoying if their logs are
contaminated by unsollicited PING attempts...

BTW, why are you sending an unsolicited ping to my BBS if I don't have
the PING flag? :)

I figured I was invited. ;-)


Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20170303
* Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)