Hello Joe!

Jul 02 20:46 03, Joe Davis wrote to Bo Simonsen:

 ac>>> Another silly oversight in the world of FidoNet... :-)

 BS>> Well it's just a problem for loop detection and things.

 JD> I've run into this on occasion myself, and it causes me great 
 JD> confusion.   Especially when the inbound routed netmail has passed 
 JD> through a few systems on the way, the the "missing"
system is right 
 JD> in the middle of the list.

It's very annoying, my boss sets _sometings_ the {at}Via entry.. and him and
me use the same tosser, bug i guess his version does have a bug, because my
system does allways set {at}Via.

 JD> I have a couple links that do it now.
 JD> I'd have to go review and re-read old mail to get it down pat again, 
 JD> but basically there is a way to cause the missing {at}Via line by doing 
 JD> some of the routing with Irex, instead of doing the routing with the 
 JD> tosser/scanner software. 

Oh ok, i didn't knew that irex could do netmail routing.

 JD> I think most tosser/scanner software would 
 JD> most likely place an {at}Via stamp on the mail.  

I don't know any witch doesn't.

 JD> More on topic:   I use Squish, and do 99.99% of my routing with a 
 JD> route.cfg file in the Squish dir.  And good ol' Squish dutifully 
 JD> stamps an {at}Via line on routed netmail passing through.  :)  

I did sent a patch to Wes, with the FTSC {at}Via.

You know

\1Via Adress {at}YYYYMMDD.HHMMSS.UTC Software

Regards,
Bo

--- Msged/LNX 6.1.2 (Linux/2.4.18-586tsc (i586))