Michael wrote (2021-09-09):

 Ol>> The side effects are a bit confusing:

 Ol>> sub on_handshake
 Ol>> {
 Ol>>      Log(3, ">>");
 Ol>> }

 Ol>> sub after_handshake
 Ol>> {
 Ol>>      Log(3, ">> @me");
 Ol>> }


 Ol>> + 08:43 [1459] outgoing session with 127.0.0.1:24554
 Ol>> - 08:43 [1459] >>
 Ol>> + 08:43 [1459] Perl on_handshake(): @me contains no valid addresses
 Ol>> - 08:43 [1459] OPT CRAM-MD5-fffdf8c077e8c9b94ce2e83d8da0a8ee
 Ol>> [...]
 Ol>> - 08:43 [1459] session in CRYPT mode
 Ol>> - 08:43 [1459] >> 2000:1/2@fakenet
 Ol>> 4000:1/1@testnet


 Ol>> I'm not sure if this is considered to be expected behavior or a
 Ol>> bug?

 MD> Well, from my POV the binkd behavior looks logical here. If you specified
 MD> the values of the @me array, then only the AKA specified in that array
 MD> would be presented. Since you did not specify any values in @me, binkd
 MD> presented all of your AKAs during the handshake. In after_handshake()
 MD> hook, you see the AKAs that were presented during the handshake.

 MD> "Perl on_handshake(): @me contains no valid addresses" is here rather not
 MD> an error message but a warning.


What I find strange is that there is a warning message even if I don't use @me in on_handshake() at all. From my POV it would be more logical, if @me would already initialized with my AKAs and @me = () would let binkd send an "M_BSY: No AKAs in common domains or all AKAs are busy".

Anyway, even if the warning is more confusing than helping, it does work and it can be ignored.

---