Hi g00r00,
 
g>WD> INTL 2:292/854.1 2:292/140
 
g> An accidental point on a INTL isn't quite "royally messing up", Ward! :)
 
I beg to differ ... an INTL 2:292/854.1 is unroutable by every definition in 
the book. The only reason why I got it is because I am the de-facto outbound 
for that particular downlink. Had the message been intended for someone beyond 
my system it never would have gottten anywhere.
 
Let's not discuss FTS/routing-101 here.
 
g> Its a bug that was fixed and released immediately once it was reported to
g> me.
 
With thanks BTW for the speedy response. Was tested in the meantime and works 
just fine.
 
g> Seems to be routing okay despite this issue with just about everything
g> we're currently using, so /shrug?
 
Again, I beg to differ, it did not route just OK. But now it does.
 
Merry Xmas or whatever is important to you on this day in the year.
 
 \%/@rd

--- D'Bridge 3.99 SR40