Hello Wilfred,  
    
  On Monday April 06 2026 21:48, you wrote to me:  
    
   MvdV>> In 1999, I thought Fidonet would be dead by the time the real  
   MvdV>> 21th century began. 1 jan 2001. That was a quarter of a century  
   MvdV>> ago. So Fidonet might live for another quarter of a century and  
   MvdV>> live to see the death of IPv4... ;-)  
    
   WV> I don't think IPv4 will ever die completely, at least not in the  
   WV> foreseeable future.  
    
  "Foreseeable future" is a tricky concept in these days where history may  
  change by the day.  
    
  Strange as it may seem, it also depends on what you consider "dead". Indeed  
  IPv4 may never die in the sense that it will be not be used at all any  
  more. But I think we may see the day that an IPv4 only system will be less  
  usefull and so IPv6 will becomse a must. A reversal of what we see today  
  where an IPv6 only system is still less usefull than an IPv4 only system.  
  After that reversal we may relatively soon get a situation where having  
  IPv4 will have little or no added value any more and some manufacturers  
  will stop supporting it for new products.. That may be the day when IPv45  
  is "dead".  
    
  It will not be relevant for Fmail. IPv4 vs IPv6 should not be relevant for  
  a tosser and the fossile SMTP function in Fmail is the only place where it  
  is relevant. Since that function isn't all that usefull anyway, the fact  
  that it will not be usable at all after the death of IPv4 is academic.  
    
   MvdV>> Speaking about extra work. In FIDOTEST a missing TZUTC kludge  
   MvdV>> was mentioned and someone called that nitpicking. Fmail has an  
   MvdV>> option to sort new incoming messages on date/time. I have  
   MvdV>> disabled it because in my experience it makes thing worse most  
   MvdV>> of the time.  
    
   WV> I have it turned on, as long as I'm using FMail I suppose. I haven't  
   WV> noticed any downside. But fidonet messages tend to come in 1 at a time  
   WV> mostly, so it won't make much difference anyway.  
    
   MvdV>> But... if it could sort on UTC instead of sender's local time  
   MvdV>> it might be useful...  
    
   WV> I'll put it on my list. I already did a similar thing in another piece  
   WV> of software (python script). I even made a Net to TZ table for  
   WV> messages that don't have a TZUTC kludge. So atleast an educated guess  
   WV> for the correct TZ could be made.  
    
  Aha. GMTA. You are ahaed of me. I was anticipating the question of "what  
  about messages without a TZUTC kludge?" My answer would have been: "make a  
  best guess based on Fidonet geography by node number. But you are alread  
  there. Even to the net level. ;-)  
    
    
  Cheers, Michiel  
    
  --- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20170303  
   * Origin: http://www.vlist.eu (2:280/5555)