TID: FMail-lnx64 2.1.0.18-B20170815
RFC-X-No-Archive: Yes
TZUTC: 0100
CHRS: UTF-8 2
PID: GED+LNX 1.1.5-b20161221
MSGID: 2:280/464 60185b49
REPLY: 1:229/664 2b6d55d6
Hi Jay,

On 2021-02-01 12:07:09, you wrote to August Abolins:

 AA>> No guarantee that it would get delivered. Not many systems fly
 AA>> the ENC flag.

 JH> ENC   This node accepts inbound encrypted mail and will route it
 JH>       like other mail

 JH> I'm having trouble understanding what there would be to support.  For PGP
 JH> you're just pasting a blob of ascii text into a netmail.  I don't think it
 JH> would be treated any differently than a normal netmail, unless it's maybe
a
 JH> size limitation.  In that case, Mystic anyway, will split the message up
 JH> into multiple parts, 1/3, 2/3 & 3/3.

 JH> Was the ENC flag intended for some other purpose?

The ENC flag isn't really a technical flag. It's more a statement the node
will forward encrypted mail.

In the distant past when this first became an issue, people were afraid they
would be held responsible for the content of the netmail they forwarded. If it
was encrypted it could be anything, without them being able to checkup on it.
So they actively filtered out/bounced any routed netmails their system would
detect containing encrypted content.

Bye, Wilfred.

--- FMail-lnx64 2.1.0.18-B20170815
 * Origin: FMail development HQ (2:280/464)
SEEN-BY: 1/123 90/1 105/81 120/340 123/131 124/5016 129/305 154/10
SEEN-BY: 203/0 221/0 226/30 227/114 702 229/101 424 426 664 1016 1017
SEEN-BY: 240/5832 249/110 206 317 400 280/464 5003 288/100 292/854
SEEN-BY: 292/8125 310/31 317/3 322/757 342/200 396/45 423/120 712/848
SEEN-BY: 770/1 2452/250
PATH: 280/464 229/101 426