Updated to 404

http://winpoint.org/wpoint_404.zip


Fixes some missing list/combo box items (e.g., variables list in text group settings).

Also moves the filter setting next to the sorting for the compact list to make the ux more comprehensive in that respect.

Also includes some other small fixes

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-<
This message has been _forwarded_! The original message was: <
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-<
Area: *WINPOINT*
From: *Tim Schattkowsky(2:240/1120.29)*
To: *All*
Subject: *WinPoint Version 403*
Sent: *04.03.2022* *12:46:16*
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-<

Updated to 403. Should fix an issue where WP attempts to WRITE to a language file. Also, areas with inactive uplinks are now grey in the area tree.

http://winpoint.org/wpoint_403.zip

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-<
This message has been forwarded! The original message was: <
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-<
Area: WINPOINT
From: Tim Schattkowsky(2:240/1120.29)
To: All
Subject: WinPoint Version 402.1
Sent: 03.03.22 19:31:22
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-<

Hello,

in addition to IPv6 support, some People may also like the new "compact" message
list layout that comes up when you set the message pane to be on the right (rather than bottom) and make the message list small enough (about less than one
third of the screen) ...

Regards,
Tim

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-<
This message has been forwarded! The original message was: <
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-<
Area: WINPOINT
From: Tim Schattkowsky(2:240/1120.29)
To: Rinaldo Visscher
Subject: Re: IPv6 support
Sent: 03.03.22 19:23:38
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-<

Hello Rinaldo,

on 02.03.22 at 7:50:03 You wrote in Area WINPOINT
to Tim Schattkowsky about "IPv6 support".

I checked. Indeed there is a single point where the software processes
the adress that is not working for IPv6. Basically pretty easy to fix,
ONCE I find or build the necessary header files to use WinSock2 under
Delphi 2007 ...

MvdV> That is good news. :)
Works now.

When can I test it?

It is available as a binary only (including language files - just in case) from

http://winpoint.org/wpoint_402_1.zip

Just drop the files into the installation directory. I did not create an installer because I have back problems since yesterday. Probably I have been sitting for too long ...

Regards,
Tim

-+- WinPoint 402.1
@ Origin: Original WinPoint Origin! (2:240/1120.29) >-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-<

End of forwarded message <
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-< -+- WinPoint 402.1

@ Origin: Original WinPoint Origin! (2:240/1120.29) >-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-<

End of forwarded message <
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-<

Regards,
Tim
-+- WinPoint 403.0
@ Origin: Original WinPoint Origin! (2:240/1120.29) >-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-<

End of forwarded message <
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-<

Regards,
Tim
--- WinPoint 404.0
* Origin: Original WinPoint Origin! (2:240/1120.29)

Hallo Tim,

on *07.03.22* at *15:18:05* you wrote in the Area *WINPOINT*
to *All* one message with
Thema *"WinPoint Version 404"*.

Stil I am polling with a 4d adres instead of 6d. Is it win 11?

Fixes some missing list/combo box items (e.g., variables list in text group settings).

Also moves the filter setting next to the sorting for the compact list to make the ux more comprehensive in that respect.

Also includes some other small fixes

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= -=-<

This message has been forwarded! The original message was: <

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= -=-<

Area: WINPOINT
From: Tim Schattkowsky(2:240/1120.29)
To: All
Subject: WinPoint Version 403
Sent: 04.03.2022 12:46:16

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= -=-<

Updated to 403. Should fix an issue where WP attempts to WRITE to a language file. Also, areas with inactive uplinks are now grey in the area tree.

http://winpoint.org/wpoint_403.zip

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= -=-<

This message has been forwarded! The original message was: <

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= -=-<

Area: WINPOINT
From: Tim Schattkowsky(2:240/1120.29)
To: All
Subject: WinPoint Version 402.1
Sent: 03.03.22 19:31:22

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= -=-<

Hello,

in addition to IPv6 support, some People may also like the new "compact" message list layout that comes up when you set the message pane to be on the right (rather than bottom) and make the message list small enough (about less than one third of the screen) ...

Regards,
Tim

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= -=-<

This message has been forwarded! The original message was: <

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= -=-<

Area: WINPOINT
From: Tim Schattkowsky(2:240/1120.29)
To: Rinaldo Visscher
Subject: Re: IPv6 support
Sent: 03.03.22 19:23:38

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= -=-<

Hello Rinaldo,

on 02.03.22 at 7:50:03 You wrote in Area WINPOINT to Tim Schattkowsky about "IPv6 support".

I checked. Indeed there is a single point where the software
processes the adress that is not working for IPv6. Basically pretty
easy to fix, ONCE I find or build the necessary header files to use
WinSock2 under Delphi 2007 ...

MvdV> That is good news. :)
Works now.

When can I test it?

It is available as a binary only (including language files - just in
case) from

http://winpoint.org/wpoint_402_1.zip

Just drop the files into the installation directory. I did not create an installer because I have back problems since yesterday. Probably I have been sitting for too long ...

Regards,
Tim

-+- WinPoint 402.1
@ Origin: Original WinPoint Origin! (2:240/1120.29) >-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= -=-<

End of forwarded message
<

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= -=-<

-+- WinPoint 402.1
@ Origin: Original WinPoint Origin! (2:240/1120.29) >-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= -=-<

End of forwarded message
<

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= -=-<

Regards,
Tim
-+- WinPoint 403.0
@ Origin: Original WinPoint Origin! (2:240/1120.29) >-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= -=-<

End of forwarded message
<

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= -=-<

Regards,
Tim
--- WinPoint 404.0
* Origin: Original WinPoint Origin! (2:240/1120.29)

Rinaldo Visscher
--- WinPoint 404.0
* Origin: IOSmail ST Atari ST home Input Output ScanMail ... (2:280/5555.10)

//Hello Rinaldo,//

on *07.03.22* at *18:21:06* You wrote in Area *WINPOINT*
to *Tim Schattkowsky* about *"WinPoint Version 404 IPV5"*.

Hallo Tim,

on 07.03.22 at 15:18:05 you wrote in the Area WINPOINT to All one message with
Thema "WinPoint Version 404".

Stil I am polling with a 4d adres instead of 6d. Is it win 11?

Slightly puzzled by your 4d/6d IPV5 addressing !?

Regards,
Tim

--- WinPoint 404.0
* Origin: Original WinPoint Origin! (2:240/1120.29)

Hello Tim,

Monday March 07 2022 19:21, Rinaldo Visscher wrote to you:

Stil I am polling with a 4d adres instead of 6d. Is it win 11?

What I see in my binkd log is this:

- 07 Mar 22:15:33 [4052] incoming from 213.127.14.225 (17846)
+ 07 Mar 22:15:33 [1496] incoming session with
ip-213-127-14-225.ip.prioritytelecom.net [213.127.14.225]
- 07 Mar 22:15:33 [1496] SYS Rinaldo's Point
- 07 Mar 22:15:33 [1496] ZYZ Rinaldo Visscher
- 07 Mar 22:15:33 [1496] LOC Amsterdam
- 07 Mar 22:15:33 [1496] VER TCMBinkP/0.71 binkp/1.1
+ 07 Mar 22:15:33 [1496] addr: 2:280/5555.10@fidonet

I had him check that his WIN11 machine actually has IPv6. ipv6-test.com says he has a public IPv6 address.

So, he has IPv6, I have IPv6, he is using WP 404. but he still comes in with an IPv4 address. Any suggestions?


Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20170303
* Origin: http://www.vlist.eu (2:280/5555)

Hallo Michiel,

on *07.03.22* at *21:45:20* you wrote in the Area *WINPOINT*
to *Tim Schattkowsky* one message with
Thema *"WinPoint Version 404 IPV5"*.

MvdV> Hello Tim,

MvdV> Monday March 07 2022 19:21, Rinaldo Visscher wrote to you:

Stil I am polling with a 4d adres instead of 6d. Is it win 11?

MvdV> What I see in my binkd log is this:

MvdV> - 07 Mar 22:15:33 [4052] incoming from 213.127.14.225 (17846)
MvdV> + 07 Mar 22:15:33 [1496] incoming session with
MvdV> ip-213-127-14-225.ip.prioritytelecom.net
MvdV> [213.127.14.225]
MvdV> - 07 Mar 22:15:33 [1496] SYS Rinaldo's Point
MvdV> - 07 Mar 22:15:33 [1496] ZYZ Rinaldo Visscher
MvdV> - 07 Mar 22:15:33 [1496] LOC Amsterdam
MvdV> - 07 Mar 22:15:33 [1496] VER TCMBinkP/0.71 binkp/1.1
MvdV> + 07 Mar 22:15:33 [1496] addr: 2:280/5555.10@fidonet

MvdV> I had him check that his WIN11 machine actually has IPv6. ipv6-test.com
MvdV> says he has a public IPv6 address.

MvdV> So, he has IPv6, I have IPv6, he is using WP 404. but he still comes
MvdV> in with an IPv4 address. Any suggestions?


Followed the guidelines on https://streamtelly.com/nl/disable-ipv6-windows-11/

Rinaldo Visscher
--- WinPoint 404.0
* Origin: IOSmail ST Atari ST home Input Output ScanMail ... (2:280/5555.10)

//Hello Michiel,//

on *07.03.22* at *21:45:20* You wrote in Area *WINPOINT*
to *Tim Schattkowsky* about *"WinPoint Version 404 IPV5"*.

MvdV> Hello Tim,

MvdV> Monday March 07 2022 19:21, Rinaldo Visscher wrote to you:

Stil I am polling with a 4d adres instead of 6d. Is it win 11?

MvdV> What I see in my binkd log is this:

MvdV> - 07 Mar 22:15:33 [4052] incoming from 213.127.14.225 (17846)
MvdV> + 07 Mar 22:15:33 [1496] incoming session with
MvdV> ip-213-127-14-225.ip.prioritytelecom.net
MvdV> [213.127.14.225]
MvdV> - 07 Mar 22:15:33 [1496] SYS Rinaldo's Point
MvdV> - 07 Mar 22:15:33 [1496] ZYZ Rinaldo Visscher
MvdV> - 07 Mar 22:15:33 [1496] LOC Amsterdam
MvdV> - 07 Mar 22:15:33 [1496] VER TCMBinkP/0.71 binkp/1.1
MvdV> + 07 Mar 22:15:33 [1496] addr: 2:280/5555.10@fidonet

MvdV> I had him check that his WIN11 machine actually has IPv6. ipv6-test.com
MvdV> says he has a public IPv6 address.

MvdV> So, he has IPv6, I have IPv6, he is using WP 404. but he still comes
MvdV> in with an IPv4 address. Any suggestions?

As long as the host also has an IPv4 address, WP will use the IPv4. That is the common practice to aviod trouble with IPv6 infratstructure issues. WP will only use IPv6, if the host only presents an IPv6 address.

Regards,
Tim

--- WinPoint 404.0
* Origin: Original WinPoint Origin! (2:240/1120.29)

Hello Tim,

On Tuesday March 08 2022 20:24, you wrote to me:

MvdV>> So, he has IPv6, I have IPv6, he is using WP 404. but he still
MvdV>> comes in with an IPv4 address. Any suggestions?

As long as the host also has an IPv4 address, WP will use the IPv4.
That is the common practice to aviod trouble with IPv6 infratstructure issues. WP will only use IPv6, if the host only presents an IPv6
address.

Ouch! I have been playing around with IPv6 for well over a decade and I say WP is definitely NOT following common practice. Common practice is that when the host name resolves to both an IPv4 and an IPv6 address to try IPv6 first and when that fails to try IPv4.

Maybe we should discuss this in the IPv6 echo. You are welcome to join there, it is available from your Boss node.


Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20170303
* Origin: he.net certified sage (2:280/5555)

//Hello Michiel,//

on *08.03.22* at *23:07:03* You wrote in Area *WINPOINT*
to *Tim Schattkowsky* about *"WinPoint Version 404 IPV5"*.

MvdV> Hello Tim,

MvdV> On Tuesday March 08 2022 20:24, you wrote to me:

MvdV>>> So, he has IPv6, I have IPv6, he is using WP 404. but he still
MvdV>>> comes in with an IPv4 address. Any suggestions?

As long as the host also has an IPv4 address, WP will use the IPv4. That
is the common practice to aviod trouble with IPv6 infratstructure
issues. WP will only use IPv6, if the host only presents an IPv6
address.

MvdV> Ouch! I have been playing around with IPv6 for well over a decade and I
MvdV> say WP is definitely NOT following common practice. Common practice is
MvdV> that when the host name resolves to both an IPv4 and an IPv6 address to
MvdV> try IPv6 first and when that fails to try IPv4.

MvdV> Maybe we should discuss this in the IPv6 echo. You are welcome to join
MvdV> there, it is available from your Boss node.

Admittedly, when it comes to IPv6, I still live maybe even more than a decade ago, when that was a good idea. Had other things to do in between. But I agree, that the practice is now different, particularly since nowadays the OS actually takes better care about the Ipv6 connection state.

Switching this is basically easy. I will do that. However, also implementing a fallback would take longer and just made it to the end of the list.

Regards,
Tim

--- WinPoint 404.0
* Origin: Original WinPoint Origin! (2:240/1120.29)

Hello Tim,

On Wednesday March 09 2022 12:55, you wrote to me:

Admittedly, when it comes to IPv6, I still live maybe even more than a decade ago, when that was a good idea. Had other things to do in
between. But I agree, that the practice is now different, particularly since nowadays the OS actually takes better care about the Ipv6
connection state.

Ten years ago things were different indeed. While IPv6 was introduced over 20 years ago, ten years ago implemenentations were still more or less in the infant fase and ever so often IPv6 connections would fail for one reason or another. Mostly because systems advertised IPv6 connectivity but in fact did not. Nowadays that is rare. And now with DS-Lite connections, IPv4 is the inferior protocol, so IPv6 should be the preferred connection whenever possible.

Switching this is basically easy. I will do that.

Good. ;-)

However, also implementing a fallback would take longer and just made
it to the end of the list.

OK.

Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20170303
* Origin: http://www.vlist.eu (2:280/5555)

Hi Michiel,

On 2022-03-09 13:26:10, you wrote to Tim Schattkowsky:

MvdV> so IPv6 should be the preferred connection whenever possible.

I think user applications should by default not have a preferrence. They should use the order as it is presented to them by the OS...

(Of course you could have options that change the preferrence)


Bye, Wilfred.

--- FMail-lnx64 2.1.0.18-B20170815
* Origin: FMail development HQ (2:280/464)

Hello Wilfred,

On Wednesday March 09 2022 13:36, you wrote to me:

MvdV>> so IPv6 should be the preferred connection whenever possible.

I think user applications should by default not have a preferrence.
They should use the order as it is presented to them by the OS...

I fully agree. User applications should follow the OS preference unless specifically configured to not do so. Which of course normally results in IPv6 first if an IPv6 address is found because all modern OS's default to IPv6 first.

(Of course you could have options that change the preferrence)

Binkd has such an option. One can override the OS preference on a per node basis. For a point this may not be all that usefull. I can think of a few cases. Like the Boss node connecting via a 6to4 tunnel. In that cases some OS's switch the preference to IPv4 fiorst. Or a Boss node that advertises IPv6 connectivity but does not actually have it. But who would want such a node as Boss?


Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20170303
* Origin: http://www.vlist.eu (2:280/5555)

//Hello Michiel,//

on *09.03.22* at *13:59:56* You wrote in Area *WINPOINT*
to *Wilfred van Velzen* about *"WinPoint Version 404 IPV5"*.

I think user applications should by default not have a preferrence. They
should use the order as it is presented to them by the OS...

MvdV> I fully agree. User applications should follow the OS preference unless
MvdV> specifically configured to not do so. Which of course normally results
MvdV> in IPv6 first if an IPv6 address is found because all modern OS's
MvdV> default to IPv6 first.

While this would be the easiest to do (essentially delete a few lines of code), I would like to know where that is supposed to be defined.

Also, no offense ... but is this a programmers or users opinion?

Regards,
Tim

--- WinPoint 404.0
* Origin: Original WinPoint Origin! (2:240/1120.29)

//Hello Michiel,//

on *09.03.22* at *12:26:10* You wrote in Area *WINPOINT*
to *Tim Schattkowsky* about *"WinPoint Version 404 IPV5"*.

Admittedly, when it comes to IPv6, I still live maybe even more than a
decade ago, when that was a good idea. Had other things to do in
between. But I agree, that the practice is now different, particularly
since nowadays the OS actually takes better care about the Ipv6
connection state.

MvdV> Ten years ago things were different indeed. While IPv6 was introduced
MvdV> over 20 years ago, ten years ago implemenentations were still more or
MvdV> less in the infant fase and ever so often IPv6 connections would fail
MvdV> for one reason or another. Mostly because systems advertised IPv6
MvdV> connectivity but in fact did not. Nowadays that is rare. And now with
MvdV> DS-Lite connections, IPv4 is the inferior protocol, so IPv6 should be
MvdV> the preferred connection whenever possible.

Fully agree. However, since still the clients connects to the host, the debate becomes pointless for DS-Lite as in that case the host should only present an IPv6 address. So there is nothing to choose here anyway.

On the other hand, I still cannot see any drawbacks of using IPv4 to connect a host that supports both IPv4 and IPv6. To put it differently: there is no actual advantage in using IPv6 (other than feeling cool), so whats wrong with using IPv4 that may actually still have compatibility. Once the connection is established its all the same anyway.

Regards,
Tim

--- WinPoint 404.0
* Origin: Original WinPoint Origin! (2:240/1120.29)

Hello Tim,

On Wednesday March 09 2022 17:40, you wrote to me:

MvdV>> I fully agree. User applications should follow the OS
MvdV>> preference unless specifically configured to not do so. Which
MvdV>> of course normally results in IPv6 first if an IPv6 address is
MvdV>> found because all modern OS's default to IPv6 first.

While this would be the easiest to do (essentially delete a few lines
of code),

So what is stopping you?

I would like to know where that is supposed to be defined.

It is in line with the general principle of "do not reinvent the wheel". If the OS can take care of it, let the OS do it.

Also, no offense ... but is this a programmers or users opinion?

Both. And also the POV of the one who has studied IPv6 especially in relation to Fidonet. It is also how Binkd does it and AFAIK other Fidonet IP mailers too.

Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20170303
* Origin: http://www.vlist.eu (2:280/5555)

Hello Tim,

On Wednesday March 09 2022 17:47, you wrote to me:

MvdV>> Ten years ago things were different indeed. While IPv6 was
MvdV>> introduced over 20 years ago, ten years ago implemenentations were
MvdV>> still more or less in the infant fase and ever so often IPv6
MvdV>> connections would fail for one reason or another. Mostly because
MvdV>> systems advertised IPv6 connectivity but in fact did not. Nowadays
MvdV>> that is rare. And now with DS-Lite connections, IPv4 is the
MvdV>> inferior protocol, so IPv6 should be the preferred connection
MvdV>> whenever possible.

Fully agree. However, since still the clients connects to the host,
the debate becomes pointless for DS-Lite as in that case the host
should only present an IPv6 address. So there is nothing to choose
here anyway.

In the case of DS-Lite the host can add the IPv4 adress of a 4 to 6 proxy like feste-ip.net to make it possible for an IPv4 only client to connect. I have added such a proxy just in case my provider decides to put me on DS-Lite. Obviously in such a case the direct IPv6 connect is preferable over the 4 to 6 proxy.

http://www.vlist.eu/downloads/fidonews/myarticles/dsltxp.art http://www.vlist.eu/downloads/fidonews/myarticles/dsltxp2.art http://www.vlist.eu/downloads/fidonews/myarticles/dsltxpr2.art http://www.vlist.eu/downloads/fidonews/myarticles/dsltsol.art http://www.vlist.eu/downloads/fidonews/myarticles/dsltxp21.art

Also there are a few quircks in the Fidonet nodelist. Check out 1:134/102 and 1:134/302. They present a link local IPv4 address that can not be connected with.

One should not assume that a node that is on a DS_Lite connection never presents an IPv4 address in addition to IPv6 address(es)

On the other hand, I still cannot see any drawbacks of using IPv4 to connect a host that supports both IPv4 and IPv6. To put it
differently: there is no actual advantage in using IPv6 (other than feeling cool), so whats wrong with using IPv4 that may actually still
have compatibility. Once the connection is established its all the
same anyway.

Being connectable by both IPv4 and IPv6 is not the ultimate goal of the IPv4 to IPv6 transition. It does not end when everyone has IPv6. The next step will be to get rid of IPv4. That will take a while but that is where we are going. Anyone still being on IPv4 only or anyone giving the _impression_ of being IPv4 only is in the way of reaching that ultimate goal. To speed up the transition anyone capable of IPv6 should make IP6 connections for just this reason alone.


Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20170303
* Origin: http://www.vlist.eu (2:280/5555)

Hello Tim,

Thursday March 10 2022 21:40, I wrote to you:

To speed up the transition anyone capable of IPv6 should make IP6 connections for just this reason alone.

Infortunately the provider of my point Rinaldo saw fit to degrade his connection from DS-Lite to IPv4 only. So until that is resolved we have to suspend any IPv6 testing with him. :(


Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20170303
* Origin: http://www.vlist.eu (2:280/5555)

//Hello Michiel,//

on *10.03.22* at *20:35:51* You wrote in Area *WINPOINT*
to *Tim Schattkowsky* about *"WinPoint Version 404 IPV5"*.

While this would be the easiest to do (essentially delete a few lines of
code),

MvdV> So what is stopping you?

Did it for testing.

I would like to know where that is supposed to be defined.

MvdV> It is in line with the general principle of "do not reinvent the
MvdV> wheel". If the OS can take care of it, let the OS do it.

Well, as long as I have no indication that the result order of the OS returned has any semantics at all (rather than beeing random) relying on itmay worse than making an enducated guess. If you know some place that defines that the order is actually a suggestion on priorities that would be fine.

Regards,
Tim

--- WinPoint 405.1
* Origin: Original WinPoint Origin! (2:240/1120.29)

//Hello Michiel,//

on *10.03.22* at *20:40:47* You wrote in Area *WINPOINT*
to *Tim Schattkowsky* about *"WinPoint Version 404 IPV5"*.

Fully agree. However, since still the clients connects to the host, the
debate becomes pointless for DS-Lite as in that case the host should
only present an IPv6 address. So there is nothing to choose here anyway.

MvdV> In the case of DS-Lite the host can add the IPv4 adress of a 4 to 6
MvdV> proxy like feste-ip.net to make it possible for an IPv4 only client to
MvdV> connect. I have added such a proxy just in case my provider decides to
MvdV> put me on DS-Lite.

Nice workaround and indeed worse than the direct connection. However, I suppose this uses a different hostname than the IPv6 address of the same node and thus again is no case where the client can choose?

MvdV> Also there are a few quircks in the Fidonet nodelist. Check out
MvdV> 1:134/102 and 1:134/302. They present a link local IPv4 address that
MvdV> can not be connected with.

Ouch. Why?

MvdV> One should not assume that a node that is on a DS_Lite connection never
MvdV> presents an IPv4 address in addition to IPv6 address(es)

For the same host name?

On the other hand, I still cannot see any drawbacks of using IPv4 to
connect a host that supports both IPv4 and IPv6. To put it differently:
there is no actual advantage in using IPv6 (other than feeling cool), so
whats wrong with using IPv4 that may actually still have compatibility.
Once the connection is established its all the same anyway.

MvdV> Being connectable by both IPv4 and IPv6 is not the ultimate goal of the
MvdV> IPv4 to IPv6 transition. It does not end when everyone has IPv6. The
MvdV> next step will be to get rid of IPv4. That will take a while but that
MvdV> is where we are going. Anyone still being on IPv4 only or anyone giving
MvdV> the impression of being IPv4 only is in the way of reaching that
MvdV> ultimate goal. To speed up the transition anyone capable of IPv6 should
MvdV> make IP6 connections for just this reason alone.

All true, but than again there will simply be no IPv4 address to choose ;)

Regards,
Tim

--- WinPoint 405.1
* Origin: Original WinPoint Origin! (2:240/1120.29)

Hi Tim,

On 2022-03-10 23:01:40, you wrote to Michiel van der Vlist:

Well, as long as I have no indication that the result order of the OS returned has any semantics at all (rather than beeing random) relying
on itmay worse than making an enducated guess. If you know some place
that defines that the order is actually a suggestion on priorities
that would be fine.

It took some google-ing, but I got your answer.

There is an extensive RFC written about this subject:

https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3484.txt
(See paragraph 10.3 if you are in a hurry ;-))

Windows implements this RFC:

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/troubleshoot/windows-server/networking/configure-ipv6-in-windows

Bye, Wilfred.

--- FMail-lnx64 2.1.0.18-B20170815
* Origin: FMail development HQ (2:280/464)

Hello Tim,

On Thursday March 10 2022 23:01, you wrote to me:

While this would be the easiest to do (essentially delete a few
lines of code),

MvdV>> So what is stopping you?

Did it for testing.

And?

I would like to know where that is supposed to be defined.

MvdV>> It is in line with the general principle of "do not reinvent
MvdV>> the wheel". If the OS can take care of it, let the OS do it.

Well, as long as I have no indication that the result order of the OS returned has any semantics at all (rather than beeing random) relying
on itmay worse than making an enducated guess. If you know some place
that defines that the order is actually a suggestion on priorities
that would be fine.

Oh, there is logic behind the choices made by the WIndows OS. It certainly isn't random. Wilfred already gave you some links. Let me add this one:

https://techjourney.net/how-to-change-ip-address-prefix-policies-precedence-to-use-ipv4-o ver-ipv6-address/

It tells you how to play around with the netsh command to alter the default IPv6 prefernces. Try something like this:

D:\FIDO>netsh int ipv6 show prefixpolicy
Der aktive Status wird abgefragt...

Vorg„nger Label Pr„fix
---------- ----- --------------------------------
5 5 2001::/32
10 4 ::ffff:0:0/96
20 3 ::/96
30 2 2002::/16
40 1 ::/0
50 0 ::1/128

It shows the order for choosing when more than one choice can be made. The highest value in the first colum comes first. ::ffff:0:0/96 is the IPv4 mapped space. Note that 2001::/16 (6to4 tunnel adresses have a lower priority than IPv4. So by default Windows selects IPv4 if the IPv6 address is a 6to4 tunnel address.

You can play around with the values with:

netsh int ipv6 set prefixpolicy address preference label

For the complete syntax:

netsh int ipv6 set prefixpolicy ?

Hope this helps.

Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20170303
* Origin: http://www.vlist.eu (2:280/5555)

Hello Tim,

On Thursday March 10 2022 23:09, you wrote to me:

MvdV>> In the case of DS-Lite the host can add the IPv4 adress of a 4
MvdV>> to 6 proxy like feste-ip.net to make it possible for an IPv4
MvdV>> only client to connect. I have added such a proxy just in case
MvdV>> my provider decides to put me on DS-Lite.

Nice workaround and indeed worse than the direct connection. However,
I suppose this uses a different hostname than the IPv6 address of the
same node and thus again is no case where the client can choose?

Presently I have the 4to6 proxy on a different host name. In one of my DS-Lite emulation experiments I put it on the same host name as my IPv6 address. When push comes to shove and my provider puts me on DS-Lite, I will add the 4to6 proxy on my normal host name. This works as intended because "everyone" in Fidonet connects via IPv4 whenever possible. That is until I met Winpoint...

MvdV>> Also there are a few quircks in the Fidonet nodelist. Check out
MvdV>> 1:134/102 and 1:134/302. They present a link local IPv4 address
MvdV>> that can not be connected with.

Ouch. Why?

Rumour has it that is is a (temporary?) problem with dyndns. They support dynamic IPv6 but their system will not allow to configure an IPv6 address without an IPv4 address. So their DS-Lite cuistomers have no choice but to add a fake IPv4 address. This works because "everyone" connects via IPv6 when possible...

MvdV>> One should not assume that a node that is on a DS_Lite
MvdV>> connection never presents an IPv4 address in addition to IPv6
MvdV>> address(es)

For the same host name?

Yes, See above.

On the other hand, I still cannot see any drawbacks of using
IPv4 to connect a host that supports both IPv4 and IPv6. To put
it differently: there is no actual advantage in using IPv6
(other than feeling cool), so whats wrong with using IPv4 that
may actually still have compatibility. Once the connection is
established its all the same anyway.

MvdV>> Being connectable by both IPv4 and IPv6 is not the ultimate
MvdV>> goal of the IPv4 to IPv6 transition. It does not end when
MvdV>> everyone has IPv6. The next step will be to get rid of IPv4.
MvdV>> That will take a while but that is where we are going. Anyone
MvdV>> still being on IPv4 only or anyone giving the impression of
MvdV>> being IPv4 only is in the way of reaching that ultimate goal.
MvdV>> To speed up the transition anyone capable of IPv6 should make
MvdV>> IP6 connections for just this reason alone.

All true, but than again there will simply be no IPv4 address to
choose ;)

When the transition is completed. I am referring to the fase that "everyone" already has IPv6 but IPv4 is not switched off yet. When providers start thinking "can we switch off IPv4 yet? they will look at their customers. They will see: Hmm. customer Schattkowsky still uses IPv4. So we can not switch off IPv4 yet..."


Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20170303
* Origin: he.net certified sage (2:280/5555)

//Hello Wilfred,//

on *11.03.22* at *8:31:29* You wrote in Area *WINPOINT*
to *Tim Schattkowsky* about *"Re: WinPoint Version 404 IPV5"*.

It took some google-ing, but I got your answer.

There is an extensive RFC written about this subject:

https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3484.txt
(See paragraph 10.3 if you are in a hurry ;-))

Windows implements this RFC:

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/troubleshoot/windows-server/networking/ configure-ipv6-in-windows

Great. That helps a lot. Thanks for your efforts!

I have changed WP to use the first address returned by the OS. We have to test if that works as expected.

Regards,
Tim

--- WinPoint 406.0
* Origin: Original WinPoint Origin! (2:240/1120.29)

//Hello Michiel,//

on *11.03.22* at *9:42:07* You wrote in Area *WINPOINT*
to *Tim Schattkowsky* about *"WinPoint Version 404 IPV5"*.

Did it for testing.

MvdV> And?

It's in and seems to work for me.

MvdV> ...
MvdV> Hope this helps.

It does. Thanks!

Regards,
Tim

--- WinPoint 406.0
* Origin: Original WinPoint Origin! (2:240/1120.29)

Hi Tim,

On 2022-03-11 13:07:04, you wrote to me:

I have changed WP to use the first address returned by the OS. We have
to test if that works as expected.

And if the first fails or times out, it should move on to the next (that's what binkd does)...

Bye, Wilfred.

--- FMail-lnx64 2.1.0.18-B20170815
* Origin: FMail development HQ (2:280/464)

Hello Tim,

On Friday March 11 2022 13:09, you wrote to me:

Did it for testing.

MvdV>> And?

It's in and seems to work for me.

Good. Let's see if iworks for others too.

MvdV>> Hope this helps.

It does. Thanks!

You'r welcome.

Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20170303
* Origin: he.net certified sage (2:280/5555)

//Hello Wilfred,//

on *11.03.22* at *13:29:26* You wrote in Area *WINPOINT*
to *Tim Schattkowsky* about *"Re^2: WinPoint Version 404 IPV5"*.

Hi Tim,

On 2022-03-11 13:07:04, you wrote to me:

I have changed WP to use the first address returned by the OS. We have
to test if that works as expected.

And if the first fails or times out, it should move on to the next (that's what binkd does)...

Yes, that is the idea. But this is a little more work and thus not something I do right now. Again, this currently makes preferring IPv4 over IPv6 probably the better choice, as it addresses exactly the scenario where the fallback would be needed.

I still keep thinking (and nothing brought forward so far has been a valid argument against it) that in practice there are usually only benefits and no drawbacks of preferring IPv4 over IPv6 when both are available. On the other side, there usually exists absolutely no benefit for the user in choosing IPv6 in that scenario.

Regards,
Tim

--- WinPoint 406.0
* Origin: Original WinPoint Origin! (2:240/1120.29)

//Hello Michiel,//

on *11.03.22* at *16:02:56* You wrote in Area *WINPOINT*
to *Tim Schattkowsky* about *"WinPoint Version 404 IPV5"*.

MvdV> Hello Tim,

MvdV> On Friday March 11 2022 13:09, you wrote to me:

Did it for testing.

MvdV>>> And?

It's in and seems to work for me.

MvdV> Good. Let's see if iworks for others too.

Will release it shortly. However, I changed a LOT of crucial code (90% of anything related to packet output) and still want to test that a little longer first. It scares me most that apperently NOTHING broke ...

Regards,
Tim

--- WinPoint 406.0
* Origin: Original WinPoint Origin! (2:240/1120.29)

Hello Tim,

On Saturday March 12 2022 02:11, you wrote to Wilfred van Velzen:

I have changed WP to use the first address returned by the OS.
We have to test if that works as expected.

And if the first fails or times out, it should move on to the
next (that's what binkd does)...

Yes, that is the idea. But this is a little more work and thus not something I do right now. Again, this currently makes preferring IPv4
over IPv6 probably the better choice, as it addresses exactly the
scenario where the fallback would be needed.

A fallback is in order when there is more than one IP adress to choose from and the attempt to connect with the first choice fails for one reason or another. This is not related to IPv6 vs IPv4 per s‚. It could be that the host presents several IPv4 addresses but no IPv6 address. Or the other way around, it presents more than one IPv6 address but no IPv4 address. Or it could produce a mix of IPv4 and IPv6 addresses. But let us focus on the case that the choice is between IPv6 and IPv4.

Your conjecture that IPv4 is the better choice instead of the choice presented by the OS in case there is no fallback mechanism is based on the assumption that in general IPv4 has a better chance of resulting in a connection than IPv6. As we discussed before, that may have been a valid assumption ten years ago, but it certainly does not hold today. Yes, one may still run into a situation where an IPv6 connection fails and an IPv4 connection can be established. But one may just as well run into the reverse situation. I have no personal experience with the latter situation. My system always tries the OS choice first, which (nearly) always is IPv6. So I do not know if it ever happens that an IPv4 connect fails and a subsequent IPv6 succeeds. My binkd does not try to outsmart the OS in choosing between IPv4 and IPv6. But I have no reason to think that the one will happen more often than the other. In this case I do not think it is a good idea to try to outsmart Windows...

I still keep thinking (and nothing brought forward so far has been a
valid argument against it) that in practice there are usually only benefits and no drawbacks of preferring IPv4 over IPv6 when both are available.

I already mentioned the situation that the Winpoint user is on a DS-Lite connection and the BOSS node is Dual Stack. I also mentioned the situation that the BOSS node is on a DS-LIite connection but presents an (invalid) IPv4 address nevertheless.

On the other side, there usually exists absolutely no benefit for the
user in choosing IPv6 in that scenario.

Maybe not from the POV of the user, but for the internet as a whole choosing IPv4 where IPv6 is possible is detrimental regarding the transition from IPv4 to IPv6. That transition is unavoidable and the faster it is completed, the better.


Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20170303
* Origin: http://www.vlist.eu (2:280/5555)

Hello Tim,

On Saturday March 12 2022 02:12, you wrote to me:

MvdV>> Good. Let's see if iworks for others too.

Will release it shortly. However, I changed a LOT of crucial code (90%
of anything related to packet output) and still want to test that a
little longer first. It scares me most that apperently NOTHING broke
...

:-)


Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20170303
* Origin: http://www.vlist.eu (2:280/5555)

//Hello Michiel,//

on *12.03.22* at *14:16:05* You wrote in Area *WINPOINT*
to *Tim Schattkowsky* about *"WinPoint Version 404 IPV5"*.

MvdV> A fallback is in order when there is more than one IP adress to choose
MvdV> from and the attempt to connect with the first choice fails for one
MvdV> reason or another. This is not related to IPv6 vs IPv4 per s‚. It could
MvdV> be that the host presents several IPv4 addresses but no IPv6 address.
MvdV> Or the other way around, it presents more than one IPv6 address but no
MvdV> IPv4 address. Or it could produce a mix of IPv4 and IPv6 addresses. But
MvdV> let us focus on the case that the choice is between IPv6 and IPv4.

All true, but currently unimplemented in WP and from an implementation perspective all the same. I agree, it would be nice to have that in, but currently I see little practical benefit for the user and thus focus on other stuff. It will rest on the list until the more urgent stuff is done.

MvdV> Your conjecture that IPv4 is the better choice instead of the choice
MvdV> presented by the OS in case there is no fallback mechanism is based on
MvdV> the assumption that in general IPv4 has a better chance of resulting in
MvdV> a connection than IPv6.

Indeed.

MvdV> As we discussed before, that may have been a
MvdV> valid assumption ten years ago, but it certainly does not hold today.

While I agree that this has become much less of an issue, I still don't see what should tip the gauge into the other direction.

MvdV> Yes, one may still run into a situation where an IPv6 connection fails
MvdV> and an IPv4 connection can be established. But one may just as well run
MvdV> into the reverse situation. I have no personal experience with the
MvdV> latter situation.

I (just like you) so far have never seen IPv6 work while IPv4 failed. Sure, this can happen. But its just a cheap heuristics anyway.

MvdV> My system always tries the OS choice first, which
MvdV> (nearly) always is IPv6. So I do not know if it ever happens that an
MvdV> IPv4 connect fails and a subsequent IPv6 succeeds. My binkd does not
MvdV> try to outsmart the OS in choosing between IPv4 and IPv6. But I have no
MvdV> reason to think that the one will happen more often than the other.

I still would bet that there are more IPv6 issues in the wild. However, since the OS now tries to detect these and disables IPv6 automatically, less users run into it.

MvdV> In this case I do not think it is a good idea to try to outsmart
MvdV> Windows...

Actually this is still an implication read in the wrong direction. Just because windows now has less trouble using IPv6, there is no way to conclude that IPv4 has gotten worse than IPv6 now.

I still keep thinking (and nothing brought forward so far has been a
valid argument against it) that in practice there are usually only
benefits and no drawbacks of preferring IPv4 over IPv6 when both are
available.

MvdV> I already mentioned the situation that the Winpoint user is on a
MvdV> DS-Lite connection and the BOSS node is Dual Stack.

Where ist the problem? DS-Lite will work fine from the client (WP) side.

MvdV> I also mentioned the situation that the BOSS node is on a DS-LIite
MvdV> connection but presents an (invalid) IPv4 address nevertheless.

Not an argument either way. Could equally be that the IPv6 is invalid, but the IPv4.

On the other side, there usually exists absolutely no benefit for the
user in choosing IPv6 in that scenario.

MvdV> Maybe not from the POV of the user,

That is my perspective for the implementation: What benefits the user.

MvdV> but for the internet as a whole choosing IPv4 where IPv6 is possible is
MvdV> detrimental regarding the transition from IPv4 to IPv6. That transition
MvdV> is unavoidable and the faster it is completed, the better.

While I welcome that transition, WP is certainly not the place to enforce it.

Regards,
Tim

--- WinPoint 407.0
* Origin: Original WinPoint Origin! (2:240/1120.29)

Hello Tim,

On Tuesday March 15 2022 19:14, you wrote to me:

All true, but currently unimplemented in WP and from an implementation perspective all the same. I agree, it would be nice to have that in,
but currently I see little practical benefit for the user and thus
focus on other stuff. It will rest on the list until the more urgent
stuff is done.

OK.

In the meantime Rinaldo and I finally managed to complete a fully functional IPv6 session: :-)

+ 16 Mar 18:10:28 [1852] incoming session with 2a02:a210:3040:55a1:b598:bb45:6bd6:17e6
- 16 Mar 18:10:28 [1852] SYS Rinaldo's Point
- 16 Mar 18:10:28 [1852] ZYZ Rinaldo Visscher
- 16 Mar 18:10:28 [1852] LOC Amsterdam
- 16 Mar 18:10:28 [1852] VER TCMBinkP/0.71 binkp/1.1
+ 16 Mar 18:10:28 [1852] addr: 2:280/5555.10@fidonet
+ 16 Mar 18:10:28 [1852] pwd protected session (plain text)
- 16 Mar 18:10:29 [1852] receiving 05C9D5E4.pkt (1194 byte(s), off 0)
+ 16 Mar 18:10:29 [1852] 05C9D5E4.pkt -> d:\fido\secure\05C9D5E4.pkt
16 Mar 18:10:29 [1852] got *, creating d:\fido\sema\binkdgot.now
16 Mar 18:10:29 [1852] got *.PKT, creating d:\fido\sema\toss.now
16 Mar 18:10:29 [1852] got *, delayed starting d:\fido\batch\mailrcvd.bat
+ 16 Mar 18:10:29 [1852] rcvd: 05C9D5E4.pkt (1194, 1194.00 CPS, 2:280/5555.10@fidonet)
+ 16 Mar 18:10:29 [1852] done (from 2:280/5555.10@fidonet, OK, S/R: 0/1 (0/1194 bytes))

There was a delay because Rinaldo's ISP decided in their wisdom to switch him from DS-Lite to IPv4 only. Fortunately we managed to undo that, but it took almost a week.

To make an IPv6 connect to my Dual Stack system we deployed a work-around. Fidonet sysops are good at work-arounds. Instead of the nodelisted hostname fido.vlist.eu, I have the alternative of fido6.vlist.eu. That host name only resolves to an IPv6 address. That is the one that is now in Rinaldo's WinPoint config. And so he now makes IPv6 connections with me.


Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20170303
* Origin: http://www.vlist.eu (2:280/5555)

on *11.03.22* at *9:57:46* You wrote in area *WINPOINT*
to *Tim Schattkowsky* about *"WinPoint Version 404 IPV5"*.

MvdV> When the transition is completed. I am referring to the fase that
MvdV> "everyone" already has IPv6 but IPv4 is not switched off yet. When
MvdV> providers start thinking "can we switch off IPv4 yet? they will look at
MvdV> their customers. They will see: Hmm. customer Schattkowsky still uses
MvdV> IPv4. So we can not switch off IPv4 yet..."

If that is going to be the determining factor, I suspect it will be decades before it happens. There are hundreds of thousands of security systems, thermostats, ATMs, POS systems, refrigerators, TVs, vending machines, etc. that currently populate the IPV4 space, and will likely last for quite some time. A push to force all of those users to upgrade their device for no benefit to them will meet a lot of resistance.

--- WinPoint 400.2
* Origin: What's the Point (1:229/426.27)

Hello Al,

On Saturday March 26 2022 02:58, you wrote to me:

MvdV>> They will see: Hmm. customer Schattkowsky still uses IPv4. So we
MvdV>> can not switch off IPv4 yet..."

If that is going to be the determining factor, I suspect it will be decades before it happens. There are hundreds of thousands of
security systems, thermostats, ATMs, POS systems, refrigerators, TVs, vending machines, etc. that currently populate the IPV4 space, and
will likely last for quite some time. A push to force all of those
users to upgrade their device for no benefit to them will meet a lot
of resistance.

It will not be THE determining factor, and IPv4 will never completely disappear just as IPX has not disapeared completely yet. But there will come a time when IPv4 can no longer be used to connect systems across the Internet. It takes cost and effort to support a dual stack environment and in the foreseeable futute someone will come to the conclusion that the benefits of maintaining IPv4 will no longer justify the cost. And that will be the start of the end of IPv4. I expect to see this in the coming decade. Tough luck for those that still use IPv4 only stuff. But h‚ IPv6 had been around for a while, and those that have still been buying IPv4 only stuff for the last five years have only themselves to blame. Forunately WinPoint now supports IPv6, so Winpoint users have nothing to fear.

Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20170303
* Origin: http://www.vlist.eu (2:280/5555)

You wrote to All about print-test of Your post, Tim Schattkowsky.
It's ok.

And how about Russian letters, Tim?



--- WinPoint Beta 5 (359.1)
* Origin: WinPoint (1:153/757.1315)

//Hello Denis,//

on *17.05.22* at *5:20:44* You wrote in Area *WINPOINT*
to *All* about *"WinPoint print-test"*.

You wrote to All about print-test of Your post, Tim Schattkowsky.
It's ok.

And how about Russian letters, Tim?

Printing anythin beyond ASCII is currently broken since I have updated WP to use Unicode internally. Will fix the print function to support unicode (so anything should go), but its not a priority.

Regards,
Tim

--- WinPoint 408.3
* Origin: Original WinPoint Origin! (2:240/1120.29)