On 15 Jun 2021, g00r00 said the following...
The reason I didn't want to support it in the past was because it means that no user with the handle "Ping" will ever be able
to use Fidonet-style netmail. I felt like it was a pretty poorly
thought out idea to respond to "Ping"...
That seems reasonable.
If pursued, I wonder if this should be something that could be switched on instead of enabled by default? If enabled a check could be executed to see if a "ping" user already exists on the system, if it doesn't "ping" could then automatically added to trashcan.dat.
Do you know if its documented somewhere?
Looks like it:
http://ftsc.org/docs/fts-5001.006
5.10. Robot flags
-----------------
PING
----
Specified as exactly "PING" with no arguments. Nodes flying this
flag will adhere to the following functionality:
1) PING-function:
If a message destined to "PING" arrives at its final destination
and this final destination flies the "PING"-flag, then the
receiving node will bounce the message back to the original sender
clearly quoting all the original via-lines.
If a message destined to "PING" arrives at its final destination
but this final destination does _not_ fly the "PING"-flag then the
message may be deleted from the inbound-queue without further
follow-up.
2) TRACE-function:
If a message destined to "PING" arrives at a node which flies the
PING-flag but is merely passing-through to another destination
then the in-transit node will notify the sender of this occurrence
and will forward the original mail unaltered towards its final
destination.
WARNING: the sender's name (in either direction) must *NEVER* be
"PING".
That last line would seem to justify your concerns.
Jay
--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A47 2021/06/07 (Raspberry Pi/32)
* Origin: Northern Realms (77:1/156)