| TIP: Click on subject to list as thread! | ANSI |
| echo: | |
|---|---|
| to: | |
| from: | |
| date: | |
| subject: | Squish enhancement |
Hi Bob,
Now that you know what I ran into, is there any hope of some sort of
enhancement, whereby Squish -when handling netmail with the ATT bit and the
In-Transit bit set - can somehow decide if it needs to reduce a fully
qualifed path down to just a filename.ext ?
Squish performed fine for me when just the filename.ext was on the subject
line, using the ForwardTo verb.
Now that I think about it, I think Mike said it did not when he tried the
ForwardFrom verb. As I didn't experiment with that one, I won't pursue it
here now.
Does anybody know if there is a standard? a "normal"?
I d/d'd what I believe to be the FTSC docs. They are not the easiest
thing for a layman to find his way around in. :)
I'm going to post a snippet, and hopefully I won't get it out of context.
===begin===
File Specifications
If one or more of FileAttached, FileRequest, or FileUpdateReq are
asserted in an AttributeWord, the subject{72} field is interpreted as
a list of file specifications which may include wildcards and other
system-dependent data. This list is of the form
FileList = [ FileSpec { Sep FileSpec } ] Null
FileSpec = (* implementation dependent file specification. may
not contain Null or any of the characters in Sep. *)
Sep = ( " " | "," ) { " " }
There are deviations from and additions to these specifications
===end===
To me, that reads: There ain't no standard as to whether or not the sender's
software includes the FQPath in the .pkt or not.
What do you make of it?
I'm sure there will be comments on this soon. :)
Thank you
......Joe
--- Msged/2 TE 05
* Origin: Cairdeas (1:261/1380)SEEN-BY: 633/267 270 @PATH: 261/1380 10/3 106/2000 633/267 |
|
| SOURCE: echomail via fidonet.ozzmosis.com | |
Email questions or comments to sysop@ipingthereforeiam.com
All parts of this website painstakingly hand-crafted in the U.S.A.!
IPTIA BBS/MUD/Terminal/Game Server List, © 2025 IPTIA Consulting™.