Hey Rob!

 RS> I find it interesting you would cause the type 2.2 packet header
 RS> a "scam".

I got burned by it way back when and almost quit.  However the fighting spirit
later got awoken in me and it sparked a bout of backwards engineering which is
still part of the routine(s) being deployed in this neck of the woods.  Anyhow
I will still cite it as evidence that not all is as it seems in Fidonet wrt
backwards compatibilty/standards/whatever.

Are you defending it?

 MK>> isn't the pktheader in fts-0001.016 not supported by ALL
 MK>> concerned especially the echomail movers?

 RS> Isn't it?

Nope.  Like I said previously I only am aware of one and it's been awhile since
I tested it there so even that one may not support it anymore.  He is still
moving mail and it wouldn't be too hard to test it out if needed.

 RS> And type 2.2 packet headers are backward compatible with type
 RS> 2.0/stone-age headers, so it's pretty easy to autodetect the
 RS> type and support all the type-2 variants of incoming packets.

Really?  Have you actually tested that?  Or is this some type of blind faith
statement on your part?  Also, while I am at it, I only found one that could
handle Type 2+ pktheaders and it wasn't the same one that could do type 2
pktheaders.  Most are 2.2 only and don't even know it.

 RS> Whoa there skippy! What on Earth are you talking about?

:-)  Nothing you need to worry about ... I think.

Life is good,
Maurice

... Mon sceal... gebidan þæs he gebædan ne mæg.
    One must wait for what cannot be hastened.
--- GNU bash, version 5.1.0(1)-release (x86_64-motorshed-linux-gnu)