Replies in echomail areas through Synchronet's NNTP server include "All" in the To: field. I had assumed this was standard behavior for SBBS, similar to the old NNTP-FTN gateways. (However, the REPLY kludge appears to be functioning correctly, allowing messages to be properly threaded.)

After reviewing the source code of nntpservice.js, I discovered a function named getReferenceTo. If I'm not mistaken, this function should return the recipient's name, but it defaults to "All" when a recipient isn't found.

Could it be that this function isn't working as intended?

Carlos

--- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20180707
* Origin: cyberiada (2:341/234.1)
ï¿­ Synchronet ï¿­ Vertrauen ï¿­ Home of Synchronet ï¿­ [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net

Re: NNTP and To: field
By: Carlos Navarro to digital man on Tue Nov 04 2025 05:07 pm

Replies in echomail areas through Synchronet's NNTP server include "All" in the To: field. I had assumed this was standard behavior for SBBS, similar to the old NNTP-FTN gateways. (However, the REPLY kludge appears to be functioning correctly, allowing messages to be properly threaded.)

After reviewing the source code of nntpservice.js, I discovered a function named getReferenceTo. If I'm not mistaken, this function should return the recipient's name, but it defaults to "All" when a recipient isn't found.

Could it be that this function isn't working as intended?

If a recipient isn't found, "All" seems like a sensible default. Are you saying the failure to find a recipient is a bug? Feel free to play with it and offer up a patch if you have one.
--
digital man (rob)

Rush quote #63:
He's got a problem with his poisons, but you know he'll find a cure
Norco, CA WX: 77.6øF, 47.0% humidity, 5 mph NW wind, 0.00 inches rain/24hrs
---
þ Synchronet þ Vertrauen þ Home of Synchronet þ [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net

On Tue, 4 Nov 2025 14:01:03 -0800
"Digital Man" (VERT) <VERT!Digital.Man@endofthelinebbs.com> wrote:

Re: NNTP and To: field
By: Carlos Navarro to digital man on Tue Nov 04 2025 05:07 pm

Replies in echomail areas through Synchronet's NNTP server include
"All" in the To: field. I had assumed this was standard behavior
for SBBS, similar to the old NNTP-FTN gateways. (However, the
REPLY kludge appears to be functioning correctly, allowing
messages to be properly threaded.)

After reviewing the source code of nntpservice.js, I discovered a
function named getReferenceTo. If I'm not mistaken, this function
should return the recipient's name, but it defaults to "All" when
a recipient isn't found.

Could it be that this function isn't working as intended?

If a recipient isn't found, "All" seems like a sensible default. Are
you saying the failure to find a recipient is a bug? Feel free to
play with it and offer up a patch if you have one.

I like the Synchronet "You touch it, you own it" model :)
--
End Of The Line BBS - Plano, TX
telnet endofthelinebbs.com 23
---
* Synchronet * End Of The Line BBS - endofthelinebbs.com

Hey Digital!

On Tue, 04 Nov 2025 14:01:02 -0800, you wrote:

Replies in echomail areas through Synchronet's NNTP server include
"All" in the To: field. I had assumed this was standard behavior for
SBBS, similar to the old NNTP-FTN gateways. (However, the REPLY
kludge appears to be functioning correctly, allowing messages to be
properly threaded.)

After reviewing the source code of nntpservice.js, I discovered a
function named getReferenceTo. If I'm not mistaken, this function
should return the recipient's name, but it defaults to "All" when a
recipient isn't found.

Could it be that this function isn't working as intended?

If a recipient isn't found, "All" seems like a sensible default. Are you saying the failure to find a recipient is a bug? Feel free to play with
it and offer up a patch if you have one.

I think what he was saying, is that even when there /is/ a recipient (doesn't just about every 'reply' message have a recipient?), it still uses "All" (and I don't disagree that is indeed how NNTP has always worked). I believe I came across that as well awhile back, and may have even tried to change "All" to 'hdr.to' or something (which of course didn't work because I don't know what I'm doing), but with Thunderbird and slrn I am able to stuff an "X-Comment-To" field into the headers so that they both reply to the specific person all of the time.

Regards,
Nick

... Sarcasm: because beating people up is illegal.
--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20250409
* Origin: _thePharcyde telnet://bbs.pharcyde.org (Wisconsin) (723:1/1)
ï¿­ Synchronet ï¿­ _thePharcyde telnet://bbs.pharcyde.org (Wisconsin)

Re: NNTP and To: field
By: Accession to Digital Man on Wed Nov 05 2025 05:08 pm

Hey Digital!

On Tue, 04 Nov 2025 14:01:02 -0800, you wrote:

Replies in echomail areas through Synchronet's NNTP server include
"All" in the To: field. I had assumed this was standard behavior for
SBBS, similar to the old NNTP-FTN gateways. (However, the REPLY
kludge appears to be functioning correctly, allowing messages to be
properly threaded.)

After reviewing the source code of nntpservice.js, I discovered a
function named getReferenceTo. If I'm not mistaken, this function
should return the recipient's name, but it defaults to "All" when a
recipient isn't found.

Could it be that this function isn't working as intended?

If a recipient isn't found, "All" seems like a sensible default. Are you saying the failure to find a recipient is a bug? Feel free to play with it and offer up a patch if you have one.

I think what he was saying, is that even when there /is/ a recipient (doesn't just about every 'reply' message have a recipient?), it still uses "All" (and I don't disagree that is indeed how NNTP has always worked).

No, not all USENET replies have a recipient. X-Comment-to is not a requirement or universally used.
--
digital man (rob)

Synchronet "Real Fact" #31:
The Synchronet IRC server (ircd) was written in JS by Randy Sommerfeld (Cyan) Norco, CA WX: 61.1øF, 72.0% humidity, 5 mph WNW wind, 0.00 inches rain/24hrs ---
þ Synchronet þ Vertrauen þ Home of Synchronet þ [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net

nelgin wrote to All <=-

If a recipient isn't found, "All" seems like a sensible default. Are
you saying the failure to find a recipient is a bug? Feel free to
play with it and offer up a patch if you have one.

I like the Synchronet "You touch it, you own it" model :)

I thought NNTP didn't have a to: field?



--- MultiMail/Win v0.52
þ Synchronet þ .: realitycheckbbs.org :: scientia potentia est :.

Hey Digital!

On Wed, 05 Nov 2025 18:03:00 -0800, you wrote:

I think what he was saying, is that even when there /is/ a recipient
(doesn't just about every 'reply' message have a recipient?), it
still uses "All" (and I don't disagree that is indeed how NNTP has
always worked).

No, not all USENET replies have a recipient.

Correct, however /this/ (as in what I'm fairly certain we're discussing) isn't USENET. We're using NNTP to access our message bases (which may or may not actually carry USENET). I think this conversation was much more pointing towards BBS/FTN messages. Most local and FTN messages (particularly replies) on a BBS usually have a recipient (do they not?), unless it's specifically sent to "All".

X-Comment-to is not a requirement or universally used.

You're right. However, in the hobby we are involved in, it makes the normal "To" and "From" fields look like everyone elses that aren't using NNTP. I also wasn't stating that Synchronet needed to do that, I was just mentioning that's how I got around all of my messages posted with a newsreader being addressed to "All".

What (I think?) the question from the OP was, was asking why /all/ messages are addressed to "All" when it seems like there's something already in the code that is looking for a recipient it could be filling the "To" field with on a reply?

Regards,
Nick

... Sarcasm: because beating people up is illegal.
--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20250409
* Origin: _thePharcyde telnet://bbs.pharcyde.org (Wisconsin) (723:1/1)
ï¿­ Synchronet ï¿­ _thePharcyde telnet://bbs.pharcyde.org (Wisconsin)

If a recipient isn't found, "All" seems like a sensible default. Are
you saying the failure to find a recipient is a bug? Feel free to
play with it and offer up a patch if you have one.

I like the Synchronet "You touch it, you own it" model :)

I thought NNTP didn't have a to: field?

In the early 1990s when I first started using Usenet, IIRC just about every
(if not all) messages ported over to my BBS were "To: All" and responses
from the BBS side, while showing a To: receipient locally, were posted to usenet as if "To: All."

Now, most of the messages that come across the Usenet gates have a
receipient listed. Very few replies still come across as "To: All."

Not sure if that answers you question or not. ;)


* SLMR 2.1a * Thesaurus: prehistoric reptile with a great vocabulary.
---
þ Synchronet þ CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP