PE> Like I say, I don't know how that happens, whether just by luck
PE> the last thing on the stack was 3:711/934 so you got away with it,
PE> or whether there is some default set that I wasn't aware of.

RS> Frank appeared to be saying that a message to AREAFIX fanged his
RS> arse without a To: field yesterday, so presumably you must have
RS> changed something at your end since ALL of mine worked. And I
RS> have sent quite a few. Or thats the result of the mappings you
RS> said you didnt add for him coz he is one of the later arrivals.

PE> I haven't changed anything my end.  I did add a default
PE> destination address to PQWK222, which didn't exist in PQWK221.

Thats not relevant to what he was saying tho coz that was
certainly with a pre 2.22. I was too lazy to go back and
check what he had said tho, that comment was from memory.

PE> As far as the mappings for him are concerned, that's totally
PE> irrelevant. That mapping (if I had put it in), would have
PE> meant that any netmail TO him would have been remapped.

Hmm, well maybe the handling of a To: less message broke
between 2.02 which I use and the 2.xx he used before 2.22.

RS> Still got sweet fuck all to do with the desirability
RS> of ALWAYS having a safety net when its practical.

PE> There is in PQWK222.

RS> Thats no use for those who use something other than
RS> PQWKanything now is it ?

PE> The vast majority of points use point software,

And safety nets aint about 'vast majoritys', they are about ALL.

PE> which forces you to enter a netmail address, unlike your OLRs.

You dont even know that ALL of those do.

PE> Mind you, I am very surprised your OLRs don't force you to do that too.

QWK readers cant, they no nothing about netmail at all. The whole
To: line on the first line of the message is a kludge to get around
the fact that they dont. In fact the QWK reader knows absolutely
nothing about it it at all, its the QWK door on the BBS which handles
it. And the various QWK doors do it differently too. Some actually put
it in the subject field. Some dont use the To: style in the first
message line.

PE> Relying on some unknown defaulting mechanism rather than
PE> using PQWK222 which definitely has a default is up to you,

RS> Its not unknown if its worked every time its been used.
RS> In a situation where its always obvious if it works or not.

PE> It may be because it's the last thing on the stack.
PE> So long as you don't get an interrupt, you'll be right.

I find it rather hard to believe that mine have worked all
the time so reliably if its as fortuitous as that. I havent
got around to looking at the code tho.

PE> so long as the unknown default keeps working, all's OK.

RS> Yep, and it SHOULD default like that anyway coz not everyone
RS> uses PQWKanything. It makes absolutely no sense to fire it
RS> at random into Fido with a password in it at all.

PE> The default, if there is one, is in PQWK202,

I just dont believe it. I am sure there is actually either
a default in 2.02 too, or its defaulted back on your system
somehow. Maybe not in anything you have setup at all, just happens
with the AREAFIX system without your specific action somehow.

PE> not in anything I am doing.

I dont think you can be that certain yet.

PE> As for firing things at Fidonet, it's you that does that when you
PE> create a PKT.

I'm not even convinced of that with netmail. I find it a tad hard to
believe that Fido really does consider it acceptible to just use a zone
number for example which is completely meaningless without a murmur.

PE> Asking *me* to do anything about it is a bit like asking Dave Hatch to
PE> far do something about it. I am just another node as as you are concerned.

Nope, it aint that simple and you know it. The is the tiny matter of
the point address. And I am talking about robust software design anyway,
I am perfectly happy to agree that Fido in general has a remarkably
cavalier attitude to just chucking mail in the bin without a murmur.

PE> (or there is a latent bug in the old version),

RS> Dunno. It depends essentially on how the AREAFIX messages are handled.

PE> There is no difference on this end.

RS> Welp, there is no doubt whatever that 2.21 works somehow. And
RS> does what its supposed to too, so presumably thats not an accident.

PE> 221 works if you put a "To:" in it.  That has always worked.

So ?  We happened to be actually talking about what happens if its
not there.

PE> All the nodes and points connected to me are just normal Fidonet
PE> nodes, and my system, like all other Fidonet systems, expects them
PE> to be obeying the protocols.

RS> The AREAFIX convention aint a normal Fido protocol.

PE> It uses a normal Fido protocol, ie you send a NETMAIL message to 3:711/934.

Sophistry Paul. The practical reality is that its not just a normal
netmail to that address, its a special case which is specially handled.
Which ALSO means that a message address To: AREAFIX without an node
address can ALSO be treated as a special case TOO.

PE> And *then* a special program reads messages that are addressed
PE> to Areafix at 3:711/934.  It is your responsibility to get the
PE> first bit right.

Funny the areafix docs dont even say that. AND we happened to be
discussing safety nets, you know, those things which are used when
what isnt done perfectly inevitably occur ?  And dont howl about 2.22

PE> Squalid (the version of Areafix I use), reads my messagebase
PE> for such netmail.  If you were to send the netmail to 1:1/1
PE> instead of 3:711/934, it would be on it's way before Areafix
PE> even knew you'd sent a message.

Sounds plausible. Funny mine without To: fields work tho. It cant
be quite that simple.

PE> If you want a message to go to 3:711/934, there are a
PE> couple of fields in the PKT that need to be filled in.
PE> I can't second-guess those fields from here.

RS> Of course you can from the AREAFIX To: field. Or more legalistically
RS> the system as a whole can, which isnt the same thing as you. It does
RS> anyway by treating the AREAFIX To: field as a special case.

(Continued to next message)

--- PQWK202