* Replying to a msg in netmail (netmail)

Hi All.

It seems that it is possible to send netmail without address. :)

Here you can see the result:

15 Feb 22 06:00, I wrote to ping:

@INTL 2:0/0 2:221/6
@FMPT 256
@MSGID: 2:221/6.256 343d5283
@CHRS: IBMPC 2
@TZUTC: 0200
@PID: WinPoint 398.2
ping

August, this is what may have happened to your areafix message that bounced.

'Tommi
--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20210627
* Origin: nntps://news.fidonet.fi (2:221/6)

//Hello Tommi,//

on *15.02.22* at *7:20:52* You wrote in Area *WINPOINT*
to *All* about *"netmail"*.

* Replying to a msg in netmail (netmail)

Hi All.

It seems that it is possible to send netmail without address. :)

Here you can see the result:

15 Feb 22 06:00, I wrote to ping:

@INTL 2:0/0 2:221/6
@FMPT 256
@MSGID: 2:221/6.256 343d5283
@CHRS: IBMPC 2
@TZUTC: 0200
@PID: WinPoint 398.2
ping

August, this is what may have happened to your areafix message that bounced.

Scary. Any background on this?

Regards,
Tim
--- WinPoint 399.2
* Origin: Original WinPoint Origin! (2:240/1120.29)

Hello Tim,

On Tuesday 15.02.22, you wrote to Tommi Koivula:

Hello Tommi,

on 15.02.22 at 7:20:52 You wrote in Area WINPOINT to All about "netmail".

* Replying to a msg in netmail (netmail)

Hi All.

It seems that it is possible to send netmail without address. :)

Here you can see the result:

15 Feb 22 06:00, I wrote to ping:

@INTL 2:0/0 2:221/6
@FMPT 256
@MSGID: 2:221/6.256 343d5283
@CHRS: IBMPC 2
@TZUTC: 0200
@PID: WinPoint 398.2
ping

August, this is what may have happened to your areafix message that
bounced.

Scary. Any background on this?

That was me. I dunno how that happend. Maybe I wasn't mindful of the address when building the netmail for Areafix.


../|ug
--- WinPoint 398.2
* Origin: Please write your complaint in this box [ ] - Legibly (2:221/1.59)

On 15.2.2022 23.01, Tim Schattkowsky wrote:

TK>> @INTL 2:0/0 2:221/6
TK>> @FMPT 256
TK>> @MSGID: 2:221/6.256 343d5283
TK>> @CHRS: IBMPC 2
TK>> @TZUTC: 0200
TK>> @PID: WinPoint 398.2
TK>> ping

TK> August, this is what may have happened to your areafix message that
TK> bounced.

Scary. Any background on this?

August sent a request to my areafix. It was bounced because it was to "2:0/0", not to "2:221/1".

I tried to send netmail from my WP point to "ping" and I noticed that it is possible to send netmail without entering the address. The netmail was also to "2:0/0" as you see above.

Of course this is user error but WP might check the sanity of the address. :)

'Tommi

--- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.6.0
* Origin: nntp://rbb.fidonet.fi - Lake Ylo - Finland (2:221/360.0)

On 2022 Feb 15 17:47:30, you wrote to Tim Schattkowsky:

August, this is what may have happened to your areafix message that
bounced.

Scary. Any background on this?

That was me. I dunno how that happend. Maybe I wasn't mindful of the address when building the netmail for Areafix.

you shouldn't have to be mindful of the destination address... the software should check that there is a valid destination address given... it could do that by checking the defined nodelists... maybe it can/could also offer to browse the defined nodelists and present a list of the known addresses to choose from... in any case, Z:0/0 should not ever be allowed as it is an invalid FTN address...

)\/(ark

"The soul of a small kitten in the body of a mighty dragon. Look on my majesty, ye mighty, and despair! Or bring me catnip. Your choice. Oooh, a shiny thing!"
... I am NOT Paranoid! And why are you always watching me??
---
* Origin: (1:3634/12.73)

//Hello mark,//

on *16.02.2022* at *10:33:20* You wrote in Area *WINPOINT*
to *August Abolins* about *"netmail"*.

you shouldn't have to be mindful of the destination address... ml> the software should check that there is a valid destination address given...

Fully agree, and it usually does.

it could do that by checking the defined nodelists...

Doesnt help since it is quite likele that these lists are incomplete. Simple example are points, particuarly from a different region/zone. There was a time, when this was the majority of valid addresses.

maybe it can/could also offer to browse the defined nodelists and present a list of the known addresses to choose from...

There is a button for this ;) But doint that automatically would be simply annoying (see above).

in any case, Z:0/0 should not ever be allowed as it is an invalid FTN address...

True, but has not been an issue so far. Usually, when people find a way to not specify an address in WP, it ends up as all zeros. So its firsthand interesting, how that one got in. One easy way could be an invalid uplink entry (I did thtat tom myself accidentally during testing). WP has automatic mechanics to choose the "best" uplink for netmail replies (e.g., for an echo message in badmail) that may automatically insert an invalid address from the uplink although the uplink is not really used otherwise.

Regards,
Tim
--- WinPoint 399.2
* Origin: Original WinPoint Origin! (2:240/1120.29)

//Hello Tommi,//

on *16.02.2022* at *6:00:17* You wrote in Area *WINPOINT*
to *Tim Schattkowsky* about *"netmail"*.

August sent a request to my areafix. It was bounced because it was to "2:0/0", not to "2:221/1".

I tried to send netmail from my WP point to "ping" and I noticed that it is possible to send netmail without entering the address. The netmail was also to "2:0/0" as you see above.

Of course this is user error but WP might check the sanity of the
address. :)

It should. Will check. Did so many changes to the editor that small things like those checks sometimes break without me noticing it.

Regards,
Tim
--- WinPoint 399.2
* Origin: Original WinPoint Origin! (2:240/1120.29)

Hi Tim.

16 Feb 22 13:32, you wrote to me:

August sent a request to my areafix. It was bounced because it was to
"2:0/0", not to "2:221/1".

I tried to send netmail from my WP point to "ping" and I noticed that it
is possible to send netmail without entering the address. The netmail was
also to "2:0/0" as you see above.

Of course this is user error but WP might check the sanity of the
address. :)

It should. Will check. Did so many changes to the editor that small things like those checks sometimes
break without me noticing it.

I checked the unprocessed .pkt from my backups. Actually there are two INTL lines:

=== Cut ===
PktInfo/lnx 1.9 2022-02-13

Packet header ============================================================================== Filename : 0414ca72.pkt
OrigAddr : 2:221/6.256
DestAddr : 2:221/6.0
AuxNet : 0
CapWord : 0x0001
DateCreation : Tue 2022-02-15 06:00:41
Password : "xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx"
ProdCode : 00fe
ProdVersion : 0.0

7 15:17:37 Mail without INTL-Kludge. Assuming 2:221/6.256 -> 2:0/0.0
Message header -+---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From : "Tommi Koivula"
To : "ping"
Subject : "ping"
DateTime : "15 Feb 22 06:00:29"
Attr : 0x0001 -> Private
OrigAddr : 221/6
DestAddr : 0/0

Message text -+---------------------------------------------------------------------------- @INTL 2:0/0 2:221/6
@INTL 0:0/0 2:221/6
@FMPT 256
@MSGID: 2:221/6.256 343d5283
@CHRS: IBMPC 2
@TZUTC: 0200
@PID: WinPoint 398.2
ping
=== Cut ===

'Tommi

--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20210627
* Origin: nntps://news.fidonet.fi (2:221/6)

Hello mark!

### Wednesday 16.02.22 at 05:33, mark lewis wrote to August Abolins:

August, this is what may have happened to your areafix message that
bounced.

Scary. Any background on this?

That was me. I dunno how that happend. Maybe I wasn't mindful of the
address when building the netmail for Areafix.

you shouldn't have to be mindful of the destination address... the software should check that there is a valid destination address given...

Yes absolutely but unfortunately, in this instance, it doesn't appear to
do that. I've just managed to write and export a crash netmail message to "Joe Blogs" at 0:0/0, with relative ease. WinPoint created "Outbound.000"
and wrote the .flo and .pkt file to that directory =8{

Regards,
Martin

--- OpenXP 5.0.51
* Origin: Sitting on the fence (2:310/31.3)

//Hello Tommi,//

on *16.02.2022* at *13:18:54* You wrote in Area *WINPOINT*
to *Tim Schattkowsky* about *"netmail"*.

I checked the unprocessed .pkt from my backups. Actually there are two INTL lines:

Interesting.

By reproducing the original problem (WP no longer detects invalid receiver addresses in the editor - fixed now), I also checked the outgoint packet and there is only the all-zeros INTL included. I would suspect that *some other software stumbled upon it and inserted an INTL line*, presumably because the underlying logic is that *old software sometimes does not distinguish between "no value" and "valie, but all zero"*, so reading all zero might lead such software to misinterpret this internally as "no INTL found" and feeling like inserting one based on all known information (default zone and node/net from message header, which is consistently also all zeroes).

Anyway, WP should now again make sure there is a valid address given before sending a netmail message.

=== Cut ===
PktInfo/lnx 1.9 2022-02-13

Packet header ========================================================================= =====
Filename : 0414ca72.pkt
OrigAddr : 2:221/6.256
DestAddr : 2:221/6.0
AuxNet : 0
CapWord : 0x0001
DateCreation : Tue 2022-02-15 06:00:41
Password : "xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx"
ProdCode : 00fe
ProdVersion : 0.0

7 15:17:37 Mail without INTL-Kludge. Assuming 2:221/6.256 -> 2:0/0.0 Message header -+----------------------------------------------------------------------- -----
From : "Tommi Koivula"
To : "ping"
Subject : "ping"
DateTime : "15 Feb 22 06:00:29"
Attr : 0x0001 -> Private
OrigAddr : 221/6
DestAddr : 0/0

Message text -+----------------------------------------------------------------------- -----
@INTL 2:0/0 2:221/6
@INTL 0:0/0 2:221/6
@FMPT 256
@MSGID: 2:221/6.256 343d5283
@CHRS: IBMPC 2
@TZUTC: 0200
@PID: WinPoint 398.2
ping
=== Cut ===

'Tommi
--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20210627
* Origin: nntps://news.fidonet.fi (2:221/6)

Regards,
Tim
--- WinPoint 399.2
* Origin: Original WinPoint Origin! (2:240/1120.29)

Hi Tim.

16 Feb 22 16:18:44, you wrote to me:

//Hello Tommi,//

on *16.02.2022* at *13:18:54* You wrote in Area *WINPOINT*
to *Tim Schattkowsky* about *"netmail"*.

I checked the unprocessed .pkt from my backups. Actually there are two
INTL lines:

Interesting.

In fact there is only one INTL line. PktInfo fails! I checked with hex editor, there is only one INTL line: "INTL 0:0/0". Sorry for false information. :)

'Tommi

---
* Origin: rbb.fidonet.fi (2:221/360)

//Hello Tommi,//

on *16.02.22* at *16:47:40* You wrote in Area *WINPOINT*
to *Tim Schattkowsky* about *"netmail"*.

I checked the unprocessed .pkt from my backups. Actually there are two
INTL lines:

Interesting.

In fact there is only one INTL line. PktInfo fails! I checked with hex editor, there is only one INTL line: "INTL 0:0/0". Sorry for false information. :)

Ok. Thanks for the update!

Regards,
Tim
--- WinPoint 399.3
* Origin: Original WinPoint Origin! (2:240/1120.29)

Hello mark,

On Wednesday 16.02.22, you wrote to August Abolins:

=======variables test========
% sendday = Wednesday: Original day of week
% tossday = Thursday: Arrivel [sic] day of week
% storeday = Thursday: Day of week
=====================

On 2022 Feb 15 17:47:30, you wrote to Tim Schattkowsky:

August, this is what may have happened to your areafix message that
bounced.

Scary. Any background on this?

That was me. I dunno how that happend. Maybe I wasn't mindful of the
address when building the netmail for Areafix.

you shouldn't have to be mindful of the destination address... the software should check that there is a valid destination address given... it could do that by checking the defined nodelists... maybe it can/could also offer to browse the defined nodelists and present a list of the
known addresses to choose from... in any case, Z:0/0 should not ever be allowed as it is an invalid FTN address...

)\/(ark

"The soul of a small kitten in the body of a mighty dragon. Look on my majesty, ye mighty, and despair! Or bring me catnip. Your choice. Oooh, a shiny thing!" ... I am NOT Paranoid! And why are you always watching me?? ---
* Origin: (1:3634/12.73)

Good to hear from you!

I concur.. The thing like 2:0/0 shouldn't have to happen. Winpoint has only recently arisen from the ashes to be reworked. Hopefully Tim will focus on the overlooked issues in netmail addressing.

I kinda wondered why wouldn't Zone0 be allowed. Afterall, it's just another number. I imagined that a zone 0 could solve the diversity problem. ;)



../|ug
--- WinPoint 398.2
* Origin: Please write your complaint in this box [ ] - Legibly (2:221/1.59)

On 2022 Feb 17 09:01:28, you wrote to me:

I kinda wondered why wouldn't Zone0 be allowed. Afterall, it's just another number. I imagined that a zone 0 could solve the diversity problem. ;)

IIRC, it is a math problem... there's is/was a bit of math used in assigning FTN nets to regions... some software won't recognize nets with values less than the zone number... i don't recall any other specifics but yeah... math...

)\/(ark

"The soul of a small kitten in the body of a mighty dragon. Look on my majesty, ye mighty, and despair! Or bring me catnip. Your choice. Oooh, a shiny thing!"
... When you get to the top of the mountain, keep climbing - Zen proverb
---
* Origin: (1:3634/12.73)

Hello mark,

On Saturday 19.02.22, you wrote to August Abolins:

=======variables test========
% sendday = Saturday: Original day of week
% tossday = Sunday: Arrivel [sic] day of week
% storeday = Sunday: Day of week
=====================

... some software won't recognize nets with
values less than the zone number... i don't recall any other specifics
but yeah... math...

Ah.. interesting. But there is nothing ftsc-specific that prohibits 2:0/0 or even 0:0/0?


../|ug
--- WinPoint 398.2
* Origin: Please write your complaint in this box [ ] - Legibly (2:221/1.59)