56
Email-only nodes
53
Distinct addresses
15
Mail domains
0
Receipt-capable (ITX/ISE)
0
No address resolvable
Email transport flags over time
One nodelist sampled per year. A node may advertise several flags, so the series overlap and are not additive. Unlike the rest of the page, the trend counts every node with email flags, not only the email-only ones.
Show the same data as a table
| Year | IEM | IMI | ITX | ISE | IUC | EMA | EVY | Any email | Nodelist size | Share |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1986 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1161 | 0.00% |
| 1987 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2379 | 0.00% |
| 1988 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4062 | 0.00% |
| 1989 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5998 | 0.00% |
| 1990 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 9939 | 0.00% |
| 1991 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 14290 | 0.00% |
| 1992 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 20636 | 0.00% |
| 1993 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 27736 | 0.00% |
| 1994 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 35314 | 0.00% |
| 1995 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 38477 | 0.00% |
| 1996 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 32489 | 0.00% |
| 1997 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 25869 | 0.00% |
| 1998 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 20620 | 0.02% |
| 1999 | 67 | 74 | 82 | 10 | 79 | 8 | 4 | 193 | 17743 | 1.09% |
| 2000 | 104 | 103 | 100 | 16 | 113 | 6 | 4 | 256 | 14787 | 1.73% |
| 2001 | 112 | 139 | 117 | 18 | 145 | 9 | 5 | 289 | 12752 | 2.27% |
| 2002 | 114 | 123 | 122 | 15 | 133 | 7 | 4 | 292 | 11264 | 2.59% |
| 2003 | 110 | 126 | 109 | 19 | 132 | 7 | 4 | 276 | 10002 | 2.76% |
| 2004 | 94 | 141 | 83 | 20 | 120 | 19 | 4 | 263 | 8859 | 2.97% |
| 2005 | 96 | 139 | 87 | 16 | 113 | 19 | 3 | 252 | 7790 | 3.23% |
| 2006 | 116 | 129 | 80 | 14 | 94 | 15 | 3 | 246 | 6902 | 3.56% |
| 2007 | 106 | 119 | 66 | 11 | 67 | 19 | 3 | 223 | 6274 | 3.55% |
| 2008 | 97 | 114 | 47 | 8 | 50 | 18 | 3 | 198 | 5616 | 3.53% |
| 2009 | 92 | 112 | 41 | 7 | 43 | 20 | 3 | 188 | 4590 | 4.10% |
| 2010 | 82 | 102 | 38 | 4 | 30 | 24 | 4 | 173 | 3916 | 4.42% |
| 2011 | 72 | 95 | 33 | 4 | 26 | 23 | 4 | 159 | 3371 | 4.72% |
| 2012 | 70 | 100 | 30 | 4 | 24 | 22 | 5 | 163 | 3093 | 5.27% |
| 2013 | 60 | 87 | 27 | 1 | 20 | 22 | 5 | 146 | 2590 | 5.64% |
| 2014 | 58 | 82 | 25 | 1 | 20 | 20 | 5 | 140 | 2360 | 5.93% |
| 2015 | 57 | 77 | 20 | 2 | 18 | 20 | 5 | 132 | 2294 | 5.75% |
| 2016 | 52 | 73 | 16 | 2 | 15 | 19 | 6 | 124 | 1932 | 6.42% |
| 2017 | 47 | 74 | 11 | 2 | 12 | 23 | 6 | 123 | 1508 | 8.16% |
| 2018 | 47 | 72 | 9 | 2 | 13 | 28 | 6 | 126 | 1449 | 8.70% |
| 2019 | 48 | 71 | 11 | 2 | 13 | 28 | 6 | 128 | 1381 | 9.27% |
| 2020 | 46 | 73 | 7 | 1 | 10 | 31 | 6 | 130 | 1382 | 9.41% |
| 2021 | 32 | 66 | 5 | 1 | 9 | 17 | 6 | 109 | 1409 | 7.74% |
| 2022 | 32 | 64 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 13 | 6 | 98 | 1249 | 7.85% |
| 2023 | 42 | 79 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 98 | 1196 | 8.19% |
| 2024 | 46 | 77 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 0 | 96 | 1158 | 8.29% |
| 2025 | 46 | 76 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 0 | 95 | 1155 | 8.23% |
| 2026 | 47 | 78 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 0 | 97 | 1192 | 8.14% |
The flags
| Flag | Nodes | Notes | Meaning |
|---|---|---|---|
| IEM | 30 | FTS-5001 | Unspecified mail tunnelling method, or the default email address for the other email flags. On its own it names no wire format. |
| IMI | 53 | FTS-5001 | MIME encoding of mail bundles. The encoding is named; the message profile is not, so interoperability needs a peer agreement. |
| ITX | 0 | FTS-5001 ·receipts | TransX email tunnelling with receipts enabled. No complete FTSC wire specification exists for TransX. |
| ISE | 0 | FTS-5001 ·receipts | SEAT (FTS-1025), the only method here with a complete FTSC wire specification. Should accompany IUC and/or IMI. |
| IUC | 0 | FTS-5001 | UUencoding of mail bundles. As with IMI, the encoding is named but the message profile is not. |
| EMA | 0 | non-standard | Email transport, method unspecified. Not defined by any FTSC document; recorded because it occurs in real nodelists. |
| EVY | 0 | non-standard | Voyager-compatible email transport. Not defined by any FTSC document; recorded because it occurs in real nodelists. |
Mail domains (15)
Where the published addresses would deliver. The number after each domain is how many of them use it.
| Node | System Name | Location | Sysop | Flags | Mail domain | Endpoint | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2:50/5 | Moon-Station | Kirov | Anton Farafonov | IEM IMI |
mail.ru
|
✓ routable
|
History |
| 2:50/86 | UA9278SWL | Nizhnevartovsk | Ivan Zelenyi | IMI |
inbox.ru
|
✓ routable
|
History |
| 2:50/101 | Abrachass Station | Krasnodar | Vladimir Zykov | IEM IMI |
yandex.ru
|
✓ routable
|
History |
| 2:50/700 | Sleepy Rabbit | SunHill | Oleg Nazaroff | IEM IMI |
laguna.ru
|
✓ routable
|
History |
| 2:50/9999 | R50 Hold | Moscow | Alex Barinov | IEM IMI |
yandex.ru
|
✓ routable
|
History |
| 2:400/419 | Givatayim Station | Givatayim | Pavel Ferencz | IEM |
gmail.com
|
✓ routable
|
History |
| 2:5000/14 | Fox Tracks | Novosibirsk | Eugene Muzychenko | IMI |
muzychenko.net
|
✓ routable
|
History |
| 2:5000/32 | Twin Father | Novosibirsk | Victor Cheblukov | IMI |
gmail.com
|
✓ routable
|
History |
| 2:5000/63 | The Walking Station | Novosibirsk | Igor Logvinov | IMI |
gmail.com
|
✓ routable
|
History |
| 2:5000/85 | SuperNova | novosibirsk | ilia chabourov | IEM IMI |
bk.ru
|
✓ routable
|
History |
| 2:5000/99 | Jester's Station | Novosibirsk | Dmitry Kazantsev | IMI |
jester.ru
|
✓ routable
|
History |
| 2:5000/118 | Something | Novosibirsk | Konstantin Simonov | IEM IMI |
inbox.ru
|
✓ routable
|
History |
| 2:5000/222 | Mascot Station | Novosibirsk | Kostya Geniatulin | IMI |
gmail.com
|
✓ routable
|
History |
| 2:5000/283 | fido | Novosibirsk | Pavel Zhdanov | IMI |
ngs.ru
|
✓ implicit MX
|
History |
| 2:5015/35 | Rex's Lair | Nizhny Novgorod | Alexey Tsaryov | IMI |
gmail.com
|
✓ routable
|
History |
| 2:5015/61 | RooDZ!Soft BBS | Nizhny Novgorod | Anton Poletayev | IMI |
softart.ru
|
✓ routable
|
History |
| 2:5015/147 | Zevs Station | Nizhny Novgorod | Yevgeny Zolotnitsky | IEM |
mail.ru
|
✓ routable
|
History |
| 2:5015/8818 | Forest station | Nizhny Novgorod | Andrey Volkov | IEM |
mail.ru
|
✓ routable
|
History |
| 2:5020/378 | klug | Moscow | Mikhail Markovskiy | IMI |
mail.ru
|
✓ routable
|
History |
| 2:5020/614 | Pirates | Moscow | Slawa Alexeew | IMI |
mail.ru
|
✓ routable
|
History |
| 2:5020/846 | Topinambur | Moscow | Denis Chebyshev | IMI |
mail.ru
|
✓ routable
|
History |
| 2:5020/961 | cemehob | Moscow | Denis Semenov | IMI |
yandex.ru
|
✓ routable
|
History |
| 2:5020/1067 | SerZ Soft | Moscow | Serge Zakharov | IEM IMI |
yandex.ru
|
✓ routable
|
History |
| 2:5020/1960 | Count Varg Dipsysh | Moscow | Sergey Zemsky | IMI |
gmail.com
|
✓ routable
|
History |
| 2:5020/2880 | Flipper Mail Station | Moscow | Alexander Morozov | IMI |
gmail.com
|
✓ routable
|
History |
| 2:5020/4040 | Blackfire | Moscow | Valerij Kozhevnikoff | IEM IMI |
yandex.ru
|
✓ routable
|
History |
| 2:5030/553 | TSRGP | St.Petersburg | Vladimir Ignatov | IEM IMI |
yandex.ru
|
✓ routable
|
History |
| 2:5030/671 | Install BBS | St.Petersburg | Konstantin Rogushin | IEM IMI |
gmail.com
|
✓ routable
|
History |
| 2:5030/931 | SOt | Peterhof | Dmitry Isotmin | IEM IMI |
s0t.ru
|
✓ routable
*
|
History |
| 2:5030/1243 | Reanimation Station | St.Petersburg | Vadim Sorokin | IEM IMI |
yandex.ru
|
✓ routable
|
History |
| 2:5030/1481 | PaaLadin St | St.Petersburg | Pavel Semenov | IEM IMI |
paaladin.ru
|
✓ routable
|
History |
| 2:5030/2361 | Dybenko | St.Petersburg | Igor Bovdy | IEM IMI |
gmail.com
|
✓ routable
|
History |
| 2:5030/9999 | N5030 Hold | Peterhof | Alexey Antonyuk | IEM IMI |
s0t.ru
|
✓ routable
*
|
History |
| 2:5031/21 | Trantor's Machine | Murmansk | Sergey Kostin | IEM IMI |
mail.ru
|
✓ routable
|
History |
| 2:5031/43 | Forester XIII station | Murmansk | Anatoly Vesnin | IEM IMI |
avesnin.ru
|
✓ routable
|
History |
| 2:5036/0 | Lipetsk Net | Lipetsk Russia | Sergey Strukov | IEM IMI |
mail.ru
|
✓ routable
|
History |
| 2:5036/2 | Baken | Elets Russia | Pavel Zolotarev | IMI |
yandex.ru
|
✓ routable
|
History |
| 2:5036/4 | MasterLess Warrior | Lipetsk | Leonid Matsak | IMI |
bk.ru
|
✓ routable
|
History |
| 2:5036/26 | Zomby | Gryazi Russia | Gennadij Pastuhov | IMI |
yandex.ru
|
✓ routable
|
History |
| 2:5036/32 | NoName | Lipetsk Russia | Stas Kornienko | IMI |
mail.ru
|
✓ routable
|
History |
| 2:5036/33 | Beer Wave | Lipetsk Russia | DeN Tatyanin | IMI |
gmail.com
|
✓ routable
|
History |
| 2:5036/44 | SSV | Lipetsk Russia | Sergey Strukov | IMI |
mail.ru
|
✓ routable
|
History |
| 2:5055/37 | DiAl | Volgograd | Alex Zyuzin | IEM IMI |
hotbox.ru
|
✓ routable
|
History |
| 2:5055/85 | lmdlmd | Volgograd | Andy Ogol | IEM IMI |
inbox.ru
|
✓ routable
|
History |
| 2:5057/71 | Yuriy | Samara | Yuriy Vasilyev | IMI |
gmail.com
|
✓ routable
|
History |
| 2:5057/76 | MSII Station | Samara | Sergey Mironenkov | IMI |
gmail.com
|
✓ routable
|
History |
| 2:5057/77 | Max | Samara | Max Vasilyev | IMI |
gmail.com
|
✓ routable
|
History |
| 2:5057/78 | Cenzor Station | Samara | Ilya Krestin | IMI |
gmail.com
|
✓ routable
|
History |
| 2:5063/0 | Kuban Net | Krasnodar | Vladimir Zykov | IEM IMI |
yandex.ru
|
✓ routable
|
History |
| 2:5063/101 | Zykov Station | Krasnodar | Vladimir Zykov | IEM IMI |
yandex.ru
|
✓ routable
|
History |
| 2:5083/90 | UFO777 Station | Almaty Kazakhstan | Mikhail Matveyev | IMI |
zoho.com
|
✓ routable
|
History |
| 2:6056/32 | II | Volgograd | Ilya Ivanov | IEM IMI |
yandex.ru
|
✓ routable
|
History |
| 2:6056/51 | Terminal Uranix | Kamyshin | Evgeniy Yudin | IEM IMI |
yandex.ru
|
✓ routable
|
History |
| 2:6056/99 | Vic | Kamyshin | Victor Talanin | IEM IMI |
yandex.ru
|
✓ routable
|
History |
| 2:6056/207 | Vadevil Station | Kamyshin | Vadim Tabolin | IEM IMI |
yandex.ru
|
✓ routable
|
History |
| 2:6090/14 | dmklkv313 | Krasnoyarsk-26 | Dmitriy Kulikov | IEM IMI |
gmail.com
|
✓ routable
|
History |
Email-only nodes. A node is counted as email-only when its nodelist entry offers no other way to deliver mail: no Internet session flag (IBN, IFC, ITN, IVM, IFT or the generic IP) and no dialable phone number. INA does not count — it is an address, not a transport. Such a node may still pick mail up from its host or hub; the nodelist simply publishes nothing that could deliver to it except email.
What these flags mean. FTS-5001 defines five flags for carrying FidoNet mail over Internet email: IEM, ITX, IUC, IMI and ISE. They are capability advertisements, not a single protocol — a flag may name an encoding without defining a complete message format. EMA and EVY appear in real nodelists but in no FTSC document, and are shown here as non-standard.
Receipts. Only ITX and ISE promise proof of delivery; FTS-5001 requires a node advertising either to send receipts within 24 hours. The other flags carry no acknowledgement, so SMTP acceptance says nothing about whether the FidoNet bundle was ever imported.
Only ISE is fully specified. SEAT (FTS-1025) is the one method in this group with a complete FTSC wire specification. IMI and IUC name an encoding — MIME, UUencode — but leave subject format, part ordering, filenames and duplicate detection undefined, so two implementations need a prior agreement to interoperate.
How the address is found. An address attached to the flag is used first; otherwise IEM supplies the default, per FTS-5001 (“sets the default email address for other flags”); otherwise an address published on another email flag is used, since the standard says to “look for addresses under any flag of the same type”. INA is never used — it is defined as the default for non-email flags only. Where the address came from something other than the flag itself, the row says so.
Field fallback is on. Addresses are also being recovered from the Location and System Name fields (FSP-1012 §2.3.4). FTS-5001 warns these fields are easily mistaken for Internet data, so treat those rows as guesses. Turn it off.