Hey Andrew!

Is there a plan to test pkt type headers or is going to be the usual leap of faith that everyone knows what they are talking about?

Anyhow, here is a test type 2.2 header I hope will get through. It was the only 2.2 compatible system I could find last time this particular cause was raised.

Life is good,
Maurice

-o o- o- o-
(\ /) /) /)
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
... Dæg biþ dryhtnes sond, deore mannum, mære metodes leoht.
Day is the Lord's messenger, dear to men, the glorious Ruler's light.
--- GNU bash, version 5.2.15(1)-release (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
* Origin: Little Mikey's Brain - Ladysmith BC, Canada (1:153/7001)

Hey Maurice!

the usual leap of faith that everyone knows what they are talking
about?

The above should have read, "the usual leap of faith where everyone pretends to know what they are talking about".

Hey!!! It still works. :-)

Life is good,
Maurice

o- o- o- o-
/) /) /) /)
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
... Leana forleosaþ, se þe hit lyþran deð.
He who gives to an unworthy person wastes his gifts.
--- GNU bash, version 5.2.15(1)-release (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
* Origin: Little Mikey's EuroPoint @ (2:280/464.113)

Re: type 2.2 pkt header
By: Maurice Kinal to Andrew Leary on Thu Apr 13 2023 12:15 am

Is there a plan to test pkt type headers or is going to be the usual leap of faith that everyone knows what they are talking about?

What's a "pkt type header" and how would one test it?
--
digital man (rob)

Sling Blade quote #19:
Doyle: I can't so much as drink a damn glass of water around a midget
Norco, CA WX: 57.5°F, 85.0% humidity, 7 mph SSE wind, 0.00 inches rain/24hrs

Hey Rob!

What's a "pkt type header" and how would one test it?

The latest version I have is "FSP-1042 draft 7" dated 2019-03-27, authored by Stephen Hurd of 1:103/1. The copy I have came from Andrew Leary and I assume you have a copy there given your current status in the FTSC.

Test them? That is an extremely good question. Myself I wrote a bash script that scans the first 58 bytes and looks for uniqueness between the types. So far the most used pkt type is 2+ which as far as I know isn't an accepted standard. :::snicker:::

It has been the defacto standard without ever being an actual standard. The REAL one is of course type 2 which hardly anyone can do anymore. I can. How about you?

Life is good,
Maurice

o- -o -o o-
/) (\ (\ /)
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
... Wel mon sceal wine healdan on wega gehwylcum.
One does well to keep a friend on every road.
--- GNU bash, version 5.2.15(1)-release (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
* Origin: Little Mikey's EuroPoint @ (2:280/464.113)

Re: type 2.2 pkt header
By: Maurice Kinal to Rob Swindell on Thu Apr 13 2023 12:48 am

Hey Rob!

What's a "pkt type header" and how would one test it?

The latest version I have is "FSP-1042 draft 7" dated 2019-03-27, authored by Stephen Hurd of 1:103/1. The copy I have came from Andrew Leary and I assume you have a copy there given your current status in the FTSC.

Test them? That is an extremely good question. Myself I wrote a bash script that scans the first 58 bytes and looks for uniqueness between the types. So far the most used pkt type is 2+ which as far as I know isn't an accepted standard. :::snicker:::

It has been the defacto standard without ever being an actual standard. The REAL one is of course type 2 which hardly anyone can do anymore. I can.
How about you?

Yes, SBBSecho can both generate and accept the original type 2 packet format. I still don't understand the original posted question however.
--
digital man (rob)

This Is Spinal Tap quote #24:
David St. Hubbins: You're a haughty one, saucy Jack.
Norco, CA WX: 54.1°F, 92.0% humidity, 4 mph SSW wind, 0.00 inches rain/24hrs

Hey Rob!

I still don't understand the original posted question however.

The orginal msg was a test of "Type 2.2 Packet" (FSP-1042 draft 7). The question was answered when it showed up beyond the link it was originally dumped on as a "Type 2.2 Packet" packed MSG which is the same regardless of the Type.

I am calling it a complete success.

Errrrr ... what was the question?

Yes, SBBSecho can both generate and accept the original type 2
packet format.

How about Type 2.2? So far I can only find one that is capable ... besides myself that is.

I like Type 2.2 because it isn't dated. Fidonet has far too many outdated datetime thingies. Seeing one disppear is a breath of fresh air.

Life is good,
Maurice

-o -o o- o-
(\ (\ /) /)
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
... Lif sceal wið deaþe, leoht sceal wið þystrum.
Life must be against death, light against darkness.
--- GNU bash, version 5.2.15(1)-release (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
* Origin: Little Mikey's EuroPoint @ (2:280/464.113)

Re: type 2.2 pkt header
By: Maurice Kinal to Rob Swindell on Thu Apr 13 2023 03:17 am

Howdy,

How about Type 2.2? So far I can only find one that is capable ... besides myself that is.

I could implement it in my clrghouz project if you wanted another system to test again. (I say that given that I'm busy on a couple of projects so it might be a little bit of time until I get to it...)


...δεσ∩
--- SBBSecho 3.15-Linux
* Origin: I'm playing with ANSI+videotex - wanna play too? (3:633/509)

Hey deon!

I could implement it in my clrghouz project if you wanted another
system to test again.

Given the replies thus far I am satisfied that it is working. You might wish someone in-the-know to test it for you if and when you decide to add this functionality to your project(s).

Life is good,
Maurice

-o -o -o -o
(\ (\ (\ (\
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
... Onwald mæg wel reccean se þe ægðer ge hiene habban con ge wiðwinnan.
He wields power well who can both hold and resist it.
--- GNU bash, version 5.2.15(1)-release (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
* Origin: Little Mikey's EuroPoint @ (2:280/464.113)

Re: type 2.2 pkt header
By: Maurice Kinal to Rob Swindell on Thu Apr 13 2023 03:17 am

Hey Rob!

I still don't understand the original posted question however.

The orginal msg was a test of "Type 2.2 Packet" (FSP-1042 draft 7). The question was answered when it showed up beyond the link it was originally dumped on as a "Type 2.2 Packet" packed MSG which is the same regardless of the Type.

I am calling it a complete success.

Errrrr ... what was the question?

Yes, SBBSecho can both generate and accept the original type 2
packet format.

How about Type 2.2? So far I can only find one that is capable ... besides myself that is.

Yes, SBBSecho can generate and consume type 2.2 packets as well.

I like Type 2.2 because it isn't dated. Fidonet has far too many outdated datetime thingies. Seeing one disppear is a breath of fresh air.

The packed-messages themselves (in a type 2.2 packet) still include dates that are badly formatted/specified, but I get your point.
--
digital man (rob)

Sling Blade quote #16:
Karl Childers (to Doyle, re: lawn mower blade): I aim to kill you with it. Mmm. Norco, CA WX: 53.9°F, 98.0% humidity, 1 mph S wind, 0.02 inches rain/24hrs

13 Apr 2023 00:48, you wrote to Rob Swindell:

So far the most used pkt type is 2+ which as far as I know
isn't an accepted standard. :::snicker:::

It has been the defacto standard without ever being an actual
standard.

FSC-39 or FSC-48?

Carlos

--- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20180707
* Origin: cyberiada (2:341/234.1)

Hey Rob!

The packed-messages themselves (in a type 2.2 packet) still
include dates that are badly formatted/specified

That is true for all 3 types; 2, 2+ and 2.2. The packed msgs are exactly the same.

Life is good,
Maurice

-o o- -o -o
(\ /) (\ (\
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
... Wyrd byð swiðost... sumor sunwlitegost, swegel byð hatost.
Fate is the strongest thing... summer sun-fairest, the sun is hottest.
--- GNU bash, version 5.2.15(1)-release (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
* Origin: Little Mikey's EuroPoint @ (2:280/464.113)

Hey Carlos!

FSC-39 or FSC-48?

You tell me. Without checking out either I am going out on a limb and say neither.

Life is good,
Maurice

-o -o o- -o
(\ (\ /) (\
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
... Forbær oft ðæt þu eaðe wrecan mæge.
Forbear often where you might easily take vengeance.
--- GNU bash, version 5.2.15(1)-release (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
* Origin: Little Mikey's EuroPoint @ (2:280/464.113)

Re: type 2.2 pkt header
By: Maurice Kinal to Rob Swindell on Thu Apr 13 2023 06:46 pm

Hey Rob!

The packed-messages themselves (in a type 2.2 packet) still
include dates that are badly formatted/specified

That is true for all 3 types; 2, 2+ and 2.2. The packed msgs are exactly the same.

Yup.
--
digital man (rob)

Synchronet "Real Fact" #75:
Rob's alias "digital man" was inspired by a song on Rush's 1982 "Signals" album Norco, CA WX: 59.0°F, 76.0% humidity, 6 mph ESE wind, 0.02 inches rain/24hrs

Re: type 2.2 pkt header
By: Maurice Kinal to Carlos Navarro on Thu Apr 13 2023 06:50 pm

Hey Carlos!

FSC-39 or FSC-48?

You tell me. Without checking out either I am going out on a limb and say neither.

So *I* call FSC-48 compliant packets "Type 2+" and FSC-39 comliant packets as "Type 2e". Any packet claiming to be 2+ is likely FSC-48 compliant, but *might* be just 2e compliant.

The details/differences are itemized here: http://wiki.synchro.net/ref:fidonet_packets
--
digital man (rob)

Breaking Bad quote #36:
Clearly his taste in women is the same as his taste in lawyers...
Norco, CA WX: 59.0°F, 76.0% humidity, 6 mph ESE wind, 0.02 inches rain/24hrs

Hey Rob!

So *I* call FSC-48 compliant packets "Type 2+"

Okay.

and FSC-39 comliant packets as "Type 2e".

That doesn't match any of the Types in the document in question.

but *might* be just 2e compliant.

Gotta love when that happens.

http://wiki.synchro.net/ref:fidonet_packets

How does that compare to "FSP-1042 draft 7"?

Speaking of which, [aside to Andrew Leary], is it okay to post said document to other echoareas that have a vested interest in this subject. I haven't seen an official link to the document and having that available would be a good idea I would suggest.

Life is good,
Maurice

-o -o o- o-
(\ (\ /) /)
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
... Wyrd oft nereð unfægne eorl þonne his ellen deah.
Fate often saves an undoomed man, when his courage is good.
--- GNU bash, version 5.2.15(1)-release (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
* Origin: Little Mikey's Brain - Ladysmith BC, Canada (1:153/7001)

13 Apr 2023 12:24, you wrote to Maurice Kinal:

FSC-39 or FSC-48?

You tell me. Without checking out either I am going out on a limb
and say neither.

So *I* call FSC-48 compliant packets "Type 2+" and FSC-39 comliant
packets as "Type 2e". Any packet claiming to be 2+ is likely FSC-48 compliant, but *might* be just 2e compliant.

My tosser calls FSC-39 packets "Type 2+"...

The details/differences are itemized here: http://wiki.synchro.net/ref:fidonet_packets

Yeah, that's an excellent reference guide.

My question was about the "defacto standard" that Maurice mentioned. It may seem that the most common is FSC-39: hpt, FMail, Squish, Mystic, etc.

Carlos

--- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20180707
* Origin: cyberiada (2:341/234.1)

Re: type 2.2 pkt header
By: Maurice Kinal to Rob Swindell on Thu Apr 13 2023 07:48 pm

Hey Rob!

So *I* call FSC-48 compliant packets "Type 2+"

Okay.

and FSC-39 comliant packets as "Type 2e".

That doesn't match any of the Types in the document in question.

Which document is that?

but *might* be just 2e compliant.

Gotta love when that happens.

http://wiki.synchro.net/ref:fidonet_packets

How does that compare to "FSP-1042 draft 7"?

I think the differentiation I've done between FSC-39 and FSC-48 compliant packets is important, to me at least, and I don't think that's well covered in the FSP-1042 draft. I recall finding a hole/error in FSP-1042 draft when I was updating the SBBSecho type-2 packet parsing/generation logic and creating that wiki page, but I seem to have lost that detail to time. I'll keep doing comparisons between the docs and my code see if that'll jar it loose.
--
digital man (rob)

This Is Spinal Tap quote #5:
Nigel Tufnel: Authorities said... best leave it... unsolved.
Norco, CA WX: 57.7°F, 69.0% humidity, 4 mph E wind, 0.00 inches rain/24hrs

Re: type 2.2 pkt header
By: Carlos Navarro to Rob Swindell on Fri Apr 14 2023 11:46 am

13 Apr 2023 12:24, you wrote to Maurice Kinal:

FSC-39 or FSC-48?

You tell me. Without checking out either I am going out on a limb
and say neither.

So *I* call FSC-48 compliant packets "Type 2+" and FSC-39 comliant packets as "Type 2e". Any packet claiming to be 2+ is likely FSC-48 compliant, but *might* be just 2e compliant.

My tosser calls FSC-39 packets "Type 2+"...

What does your tosser call FSC-48 formatted packets?

The details/differences are itemized here: http://wiki.synchro.net/ref:fidonet_packets

Yeah, that's an excellent reference guide.

Thanks!

My question was about the "defacto standard" that Maurice mentioned. It may seem that the most common is FSC-39: hpt, FMail, Squish, Mystic, etc.

My recollection was that most packets that I see are in FSC-48 format (i.e. include the auxNet field), but I'll double-check that.
--
digital man (rob)

Synchronet/BBS Terminology Definition #28:
ETX = End-of-Text (ASCII 3, Ctrl-C)
Norco, CA WX: 57.6°F, 65.0% humidity, 7 mph S wind, 0.00 inches rain/24hrs

Re: type 2.2 pkt header
By: Rob Swindell to Carlos Navarro on Fri Apr 14 2023 11:48 am

My question was about the "defacto standard" that Maurice mentioned. It may seem that the most common is FSC-39: hpt, FMail, Squish, Mystic, etc.

My recollection was that most packets that I see are in FSC-48 format (i.e. include the auxNet field), but I'll double-check that.

I checked the Squish source code (s_misc.c) and it's definitely writes the FSC-48 auxNet field to packet headers:
ph->aux_net=us->net;
But curiously, has the src-point indicator magic-net-value hack commented out:
/*if (us->point)*/ /* Kludge using the pkt.aux_net field */
/* ph->orig_net=-1;*/ /* for compatibility with other<tm> progs */

So Squish appears to generate packets that are not exactly FSC-39 or FSC-48 compliant. This conclusion was made from the source code released on GitHub (https://github.com/sdudley/maximus/blob/master/squish/s_misc.c) so it's always possible that earlier released versions of Squish did something different.
--
digital man (rob)

Rush quote #50:
I've always been a big sponge. - Neil Peart
Norco, CA WX: 57.8°F, 64.0% humidity, 3 mph SSE wind, 0.00 inches rain/24hrs

Hey Rob!

and FSC-39 comliant packets as "Type 2e".

That doesn't match any of the Types in the document in question.

Which document is that?

Same as it always was, FSP-1042 draft 7. I only see Type 2, Type 2+ and Type 2.2. Beats me what Type 2e is although I probably have seen a document somewhere describing it, along with a bunch of others that I have never run across in a functional tosser ... yet.

I think the differentiation I've done between FSC-39 and FSC-48
compliant packets is important

For sure but only if it doesn't muddy the waters of compatibilty. There is a big hole that exists that requires patching and I believe that is what FSP-1042 draft 7 attempts to fill.

I'll keep doing comparisons between the docs and my code see if
that'll jar it loose.

That sounds like a very good plan to me.

Life is good,
Maurice

-o -o o- -o o- -o o- -o -o o- -o -o o- o- -o -o
(\ (\ /) (\ /) (\ /) (\ (\ /) (\ (\ /) /) (\ (\
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ... Fidonet 4K - Sweet Sixteen Penguins of the Apocalypse.
--- GNU bash, version 5.2.15(1)-release (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
* Origin: One of us @ (1:153/7001.2989)

Re: type 2.2 pkt header
By: Maurice Kinal to Rob Swindell on Fri Apr 14 2023 09:36 pm

Hey Rob!

and FSC-39 comliant packets as "Type 2e".

That doesn't match any of the Types in the document in question.

Which document is that?

Same as it always was, FSP-1042 draft 7.

Ah, that wasn't clear in the context.

I only see Type 2, Type 2+ an Type 2.2. Beats me what Type 2e is although I > probably have seen a document
somewhere describing it, along with a bunch of others that I have never run across in a functional tosser ... yet.

'2e' is the term I introduced with https://wiki.synchro.net/ref:fidonet_packets to describe packets conforming to FSC-39 ("A Type-2 Packet Extension Proposal"), so the 'e' stands for "extension".

I think the differentiation I've done between FSC-39 and FSC-48 compliant packets is important

For sure but only if it doesn't muddy the waters of compatibilty. There is a big hole that exists that requires patching and I believe that is what FSP-1042 draft 7 attempts to fill.

The FSP-1042 draft definitely seems to focus on the FSC-48 packet extensions (this is the document that introduced the term "Type 2+") and just skips over FSC-39 (what I've coined "Type 2e").
--
digital man (rob)

Synchronet "Real Fact" #83:
Donations to the Synchronet project are welcome at wiki.synchro.net/donate Norco, CA WX: 60.5°F, 63.0% humidity, 5 mph E wind, 0.00 inches rain/24hrs

14 Apr 2023 11:48, you wrote to me:

My tosser calls FSC-39 packets "Type 2+"...

What does your tosser call FSC-48 formatted packets?

"Type 2+" too. That is what it shows in the toss logs.

My question was about the "defacto standard" that Maurice
mentioned. It may seem that the most common is FSC-39: hpt, FMail,
Squish, Mystic, etc.

My recollection was that most packets that I see are in FSC-48 format (i.e. include the auxNet field), but I'll double-check that.

IIUC, FSC-39.4 and FSC-48 packets are identical unless they are generated by a point system.
I have PKTs from points using FMail, WinPoint, OpenXP, HotdogEd, Aftershock. All of them are FSC-39. Will try to get some from other tossers/packages.

I got the idea that FSC-39 may be more common from a message by Oli (posted some years ago):

=== Cut ===
I compiled a list of the supported packet formats for popular tossers 4 years ago. I don't know if anything has changed since then and it might be not 100% accurate, but it looks like FSC-0039 is the standard that most tossers use for outbound packets and that every tosser can read.

| Name | Read | Write | |-------------------|------------|--------|
| Crashmail (Amiga) | 39, 45, 48 | 39 |
| Crashmail II | 39, 45, 48 | 39 |
| Daydream BBS | 39, 48 | 48 |
| FastEcho | 39, 45, 48 | 39 |
| Fidogate | 39 | 39 |
| FMail | 39, 48 | 39 |
| GEcho | 39, 45, 48 | 39 |
| Husky hpt | 39, 48 | 39 |
| ifmail | 39 | 39 |
| LoraBBS | 39, 45 | 39 |
| MBSE | 39 | 39 |
| Mystic | 39, 48 | 39 |
| OpenXP | 39 | 39 |
| SBBSecho | 39, 45, 48 | 45, 48 |
| Soupgate | 39 | 39 |
| Squish | 39 | 39 |
| Watergate | 39, 48 | 39 |
| WWIV BBS v5 | 39 | 39 |
=== Cut ===

Carlos

--- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20180707
* Origin: cyberiada (2:341/234.1)

14 Apr 2023 12:20, you wrote to me:

I checked the Squish source code (s_misc.c) and it's definitely writes
the FSC-48 auxNet field to packet headers:

[...]

So Squish appears to generate packets that are not exactly FSC-39 or FSC-48 compliant. This conclusion was made from the source code
released on GitHub (https://github.com/sdudley/maximus/blob/master/squish/s_misc.c) so
it's always possible that earlier released versions of Squish did something different.

I can confirm that. I have some packets from a Maximus/Squish node that have the network number both in origNet and auxNet.

Carlos

--- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20180707
* Origin: cyberiada (2:341/234.1)

Re: type 2.2 pkt header
By: Carlos Navarro to Rob Swindell on Sun Apr 16 2023 09:48 am

14 Apr 2023 11:48, you wrote to me:

My tosser calls FSC-39 packets "Type 2+"...

What does your tosser call FSC-48 formatted packets?

"Type 2+" too. That is what it shows in the toss logs.

SBBSecho used to do that too, but I found that to be kind of confusing, and since FSC-39 makes no mention of "Type 2+", I just call/log FSC-39 packets as "Type 2e" instead.

My question was about the "defacto standard" that Maurice
mentioned. It may seem that the most common is FSC-39: hpt, FMail,
Squish, Mystic, etc.

My recollection was that most packets that I see are in FSC-48 format (i.e. include the auxNet field), but I'll double-check that.

IIUC, FSC-39.4 and FSC-48 packets are identical unless they are generated by a point system.

Or unless the FSC-48 compliant tosser *always* writes the originating net to the auxNet field (ala SBBSecho and Squish). Oddly, Squish (at least the code on github) has the generation and parsing of the magic (65535) value in the orignet field disabled (commented out), so it's actually more FSC-39 compliant than FSC-48.

I have PKTs from points using FMail, WinPoint, OpenXP, HotdogEd, Aftershock. All of them are FSC-39. Will try to get some from other tossers/packages.

I got the idea that FSC-39 may be more common from a message by Oli (posted some years ago):

=== Cut ===
I compiled a list of the supported packet formats for popular tossers 4 years ago. I don't know if anything has changed since then and it might be not 100% accurate, but it looks like FSC-0039 is the standard that most tossers use for outbound packets and that every tosser can read.

| SBBSecho | 39, 45, 48 | 45, 48 |

I was trying to remember who it was that inspired me to add explicit type-39 support to SBBSecho, and that report I think was the inspiration. Looks like I made that change back in 2017.
--
digital man (rob)

Synchronet "Real Fact" #102:
Alternate and loadable font support was added to Synchronet in February 2018 Norco, CA WX: 63.9°F, 67.0% humidity, 5 mph ESE wind, 0.00 inches rain/24hrs

Hey deon!

I could implement it in my clrghouz project if you wanted another
system to test again.

The one test was all I needed seeing it is an actual link to here.

I already called it a resounding success, which it was. What remains to be seen is whether or not any of this goes anywhere.

Life is good,
Maurice

o- -o -o -o o- o- -o -o -o -o o- o- o- -o o- -o /) (\ (\ (\ /) /) (\ (\ (\ (\ /) /) /) (\ /) (\ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ... Fidonet 4K - Sweet Sixteen Penguins of the Apocalypse.
--- GNU bash, version 5.2.15(1)-release (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
* Origin: One of us @ (1:153/7001.2989)

Re: type 2.2 pkt header
By: Maurice Kinal to deon on Mon Apr 17 2023 02:49 am

Howdy,

I already called it a resounding success, which it was. What remains to be seen is whether or not any of this goes anywhere.

We'll I'll certain implement it in my project - better aligned with my design.

But alas, it might take me a little while, work has taken me to the Philippines this week...


...δεσ∩
--- SBBSecho 3.15-Linux
* Origin: I'm playing with ANSI+videotex - wanna play too? (3:633/509)

Hey deon!

We'll I'll certain implement it in my project - better aligned
with my design.

I think Type 2.2 is a keeper despite the few that appear to be deploying it.

But alas, it might take me a little while, work has taken me to
the Philippines this week

Never been myself. Vancouver Island - and a few surrounding smaller islands - is as close as I have been thus far to an official Pacific island.

Life is good,
Maurice

o- o- o- o- o- -o o- -o o- -o -o -o -o -o -o o- /) /) /) /) /) (\ /) (\ /) (\ (\ (\ (\ (\ (\ /) ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ... Fidonet 4K - You load sixteen penguins and what do you get?
--- GNU bash, version 5.2.15(1)-release (x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
* Origin: One of us @ (1:153/7001.2989)