Nп/п : 5 из 100
От : Wilfred van Velzen 2:280/464 18 апр 26 14:26:46
К : Chris Jacobs 18 апр 26 15:35:01
Тема : Re: GUUCP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@MSGID: 2:280/464 69e37a02
@REPLY: 2:280/5555.11 6070cb06
@TID: FMail-lnx64 2.3.3.1-B20260417
@RFC-X-No-Archive: Yes
@TZUTC: 0200
@CHRS: CP850 2
@PID: GED+LNX 1.1.5-b20240604
Hi Chris,
On 2026-04-18 09:08:30, you wrote to All:
CJ> ;S The following flag defines gateways to other domains (mail
CJ> networks):
CJ> ;S
CJ> ;S Flag Meaning
CJ> ;S
CJ> ;S Gx..x Gateway to domain `x..x`, where `x..x` is a string
CJ> ;S of alphanumeric characters.
CJ> ;S
CJ> ;S NOTE: Valid values for `x..x` are assigned by the FidoNet
CJ> ;S International Coordinator or the person appointed as
CJ> ;S Internetworking Coordinator by the FidoNet
CJ> ;S International Coordinator. Current valid values of
CJ> ;S `x..x` may usually be found in the notes at the end
CJ> ;S of the current FidoNet nodelist. The most common
CJ> ;S gateway flag is "GUUCP", to denote a gateway to the
CJ> ;S Internet mail system that gates on behalf of the
CJ> ;S fidonet.org internet domain.
CJ> ;S
CJ> ;S Registered domain gateways include:
CJ> ;S
CJ> ;S UUCP to be used only for nodes with an MX-entry
CJ> ;S in the internet dns-table of the
CJ> z2.fidonet.org ;S domain. It implies a
CJ> willingness to act as a ;S gateway both
CJ> inbound and outbound.
CJ> I see no MX entries for z2.fidonet.org but
CJ> ,5,R19_Internet_Gate,AR_LA_OK_TX,UUCP,1-256-895-4786,33600,CM,XA,V34,
CJ> V42B,GUUCP
CJ> ,3,Internet_Gateway_Net396,Huntsville_AL,Postmaster,1-256-895-4786,336
CJ> 00,CM,XA,V42B,V34,INA:sursum-corda.com,ITN,IBN,IFT,GUUCP
These 2 nodes are in Z1 so what is in the footer of the Z2
nodelist isn`t relevant to them.
CJ> ,10,Internet,Finland,UUCP,-Unpublished-,300,CM,XX,IBN:f10.n221.z2.fido
CJ> net.fi,GUUCP,INO4,U,ENC
CJ> ,128,R46_Fidonet<->email&usenet_gate,Kyiv_Ukraine,Pavel_Gulchouck,-Unp
CJ> ublished-,300,CM,MO,IBN,INA:fido.happy.kiev.ua,GUUCP
CJ> So either the uses of the GUUCP flag are wrong or the comment at the end of
CJ> the nodelist is wrong. Which of both is it?
Unfortunately lots of flags in the nodelist are used wrong... But
in this case the Z2C and/or the mentioned nodes are the ones that can
explain what is going on. The Z2C normally doesn`t read this area. The
sysop of node 10 above, does, so maybe he cares to comment?... ;-)
Bye, Wilfred.
--- FMail-lnx64 2.3.3.1-B20260417
* Origin: NPC Station (2:280/464)
SEEN-BY: 124/5016 153/757 154/30 203/0 221/0
240/1120 5832 263/1 280/464 5003
SEEN-BY: 280/5555 292/854 8125 301/1 310/31 335/364
341/66 234 396/45 455/19
SEEN-BY: 460/58 5015/255 5019/40 5020/400 715 848
1042 4441 12000 5030/49 722
SEEN-BY: 5030/1081 5053/58 5061/133 5075/35 128
@PATH: 280/464 5555 5020/1042 4441