| |
N5MDT > ALL 25.02.25 20:34l 23 Lines 1311 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 1365_N5MDT
Read: DJ6UX GUEST
Subj: RE: Hierarchical (P, T) vs Flood Area (B) Messages
Path: DB0FHN<DB0BLO<DB0ERF<DK0WUE<DK0WUE<K7EK<VE3CGR<GB7YEW<N5MDT
Sent: 250225/1727Z 1365@N5MDT.#STX.TX.USA.NOAM BPQ6.0.24
The problem is that not all BBS software works the same. Should it? Maybe.
A lot of things have changed since 2012 and as is admitted in the document routing to the state level has some ambiguity and so certain accommodations must be made. It specifically says in that same document:
"A simplified method would be to add the whole Hierarchical string to every message. This would remove any confusion."
And this is what my BPQ installaton appears to require. I believe that BPQ recognizes down to the country element, but not the state due to the possibility of conflicts.
Specifically, TOPIC@TX goes nowhere in a BPQ system without special forwarding entries. And TOPIC@TX.TX and TOPIC@STX.TX is recognized as an email address and sent to the RMS forwarding, if one exists. Unfotunately, things like @AMSAT, @ARRL, etc. don't get routed automatically in BPQ either and special routes must be entered if the sysop wants to forward those.
Regretfully, SYSOP@NY.USA.NOAM or any type B with a full hierarchical address is not handled in all software and it is your choice to accomodate the address or not. BBS systems are evolving and a sysop can choose to change with it or not.
In my opinion sysops just have to adapt for their own software. One size does not fit all in this world.
73,
Mark
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
