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