Nick Andre wrote to Dan Clough <=-

Generalize much? "...people there..."

As one of those Z1 people, I would say that nearly all do *NOT*
route netmail to their *Cs.

What are you basing that on? Have you conducted a poll of all Z1
Sysops?

Now you're doing the same thing as Drummond was... Excessive
snipping and not enough quoting.

Go back and look at the rest of the prior message that you snipped
out. The part where it says "when communicating with their *Cs".

That's what I meant there above - that people don't *ROUTE*
netmail to the *C. They send it direct/crash (to the *C).

I receive a fair amount of routed Netmail through my system
destined for all zones. Sometimes a slip-up of someone's Othernet
Netmails make their way through here. And the Nodelist Police
need someone to blame when they cannot Crash deliver something.

I have no doubt that's true. That mail is not usually destined
for a *C, though, is it? It's destined for regular node sysops,
or possibly BBS users.

It would be nice if the *C-routing structure was consistent no
matter if everyone wants to Crash deliver; because with BinkP and
everyone getting feeds from everyone else it is almost impossible
to determine the routing table for a Zone.

No argument from me on that.



... Press any key to continue or any other key to quit
=== MultiMail/Linux v0.51
--- SBBSecho 3.07-Linux
* Origin: Palantir * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL * (1:123/115)

On 01 Apr 19 17:13:00, Dan Clough said the following to Nick Andre:

Go back and look at the rest of the prior message that you snipped
out. The part where it says "when communicating with their *Cs".

That's what I meant there above - that people don't *ROUTE*
netmail to the *C. They send it direct/crash (to the *C).

I don't have to go back - I know what you said, I know what I said, and you
are still wrong.

Many people route Netmail to yours truly at 1:1/0.

Usually either just to say hi, sometimes to ask tech-questions or sometimes to file an amusing Nodelist Police complaint. They do not send crash to 1:1/131, 1:229/0 or my preferred address of 1:229/426.

Nick

--- Renegade vY2Ka2
* Origin: Joey, do you like movies about gladiators? (1:229/426)

On 2/04/2019 08:13, Dan Clough -> Nick Andre wrote:

What are you basing that on? Have you conducted a poll of all Z1
Sysops?

Now you're doing the same thing as Drummond was... Excessive
snipping and not enough quoting.

Oh yes, I am the only one guilty of that.

Go back and look at the rest of the prior message that you snipped
out. The part where it says "when communicating with their *Cs".

That's what I meant there above - that people don't *ROUTE*
netmail to the *C. They send it direct/crash (to the *C).

Then why did someone suggest sending netmail direct to their RC when that appeared to be what they had already done?

I would have thought that a node would crash their *Cs direct but the advice made it sound as if that wasn't the usual MO.

--

Gang warily
David

--- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.8.0
* Origin: Bucca, Qld, Australia (3:640/305)

That's what I meant there above - that people don't *ROUTE*
netmail to the *C. They send it direct/crash (to the *C).

That's as true as it is untrue. You simply don't know.

Judging on the volumes of netmail which I process, it certainly is untrue.

\%/@rd

--- D'Bridge 3.99 SR41
* Origin: Ceci n'est pas un courriel (2:292/854)

Re: Re: Acting local hub (Z1)
By: Nick Andre to Dan Clough on Mon Apr 01 2019 07:17 pm

Many people route Netmail to yours truly at 1:1/0.

Usually either just to say hi, sometimes to ask tech-questions or sometimes to file an amusing Nodelist Police complaint. They do not send crash to 1:1/131, 1:229/0 or my preferred address of 1:229/426.

...speaking of nodelist issues, I'm STILL not listed in the nodelist, even after talking to Janis, and a few others... 1:226/16 nor is 1:226/17. I've been
running 2 Ghost BBSes! >:(
Regards,
KrUpTiOn
--- SBBSecho 3.06-Linux
* Origin: The New Frontier ][ BBS(frontierbbs.net) - [Ohio] (1:226/17)

Hi Charles,

...speaking of nodelist issues, I'm STILL not listed in the nodelist, even
after talking to Janis, and a few others... 1:226/16 nor is 1:226/17. I've bee
running 2 Ghost BBSes! >:(
Regards,
KrUpTiOn

:( I just sent another email to Jame, hopefully you will hear from him soon. Do you have your mailer up and waiting for calls? He may be trying to contact you via binkp...

Take care,
Janis

--- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Toy-4
* Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/38)

On 03 Apr 19 19:28:55, Charles Stephenson said the following to Nick Andre:

...speaking of nodelist issues, I'm STILL not listed in the nodelist, even after talking to Janis, and a few others... 1:226/16 nor is 1:226/17. I've running 2 Ghost BBSes! >:(

Nah don't worry about it. I'm on it, it will get fixed with the RC.

Nick

--- Renegade vY2Ka2
* Origin: Joey, do you like movies about gladiators? (1:229/426)

Re: Re: Acting local hub (Z1)
By: Janis Kracht to Charles Stephenson on Wed Apr 03 2019 09:38 pm

:( I just sent another email to Jame, hopefully you will hear from him soon. Do you have your mailer up and waiting for calls? He may be trying to contact you via binkp...

I'm up 99% of the time over the last year and a half! (well, maybe not THAT high!) Yes.. I've only been down for a whole day once in the last 2-3 weeks from me 'breaking' things...

Thanks..and STILL waiting
Regards,
KrUpTiOn
--- SBBSecho 3.06-Linux
* Origin: The New Frontier ][ BBS(frontierbbs.net) - [Ohio] (1:226/17)

Re: Re: Acting local hub (Z1)
By: Nick Andre to Charles Stephenson on Wed Apr 03 2019 10:22 pm

nodelist, even after talking to Janis, and a few others... 1:226/16
nor is 1:226/17. I've running 2 Ghost BBSes! >:(

Nah don't worry about it. I'm on it, it will get fixed with the RC.

I knew you would ;) Over the last month I've been doing alot of upgrading, I wanted to make sure I had everything running smoothly and continuously again before I made a mention of it. Now everything is running great...and faster! :)
Regards,
KrUpTiOn
--- SBBSecho 3.06-Linux
* Origin: The New Frontier ][ BBS(frontierbbs.net) - [Ohio] (1:226/17)

Now everything is running great...and faster!

Considering that Fido systems are sitting idle more than 99% of the time ... is speed really an issue ?

Ward
--- AfterShock/Android 1.6.8
* Origin: Baby-Glacier (2:292/854.1)

On Sat Apr-06-2019 08:32, Ward Dossche (2:292/854.1) wrote to Charles Stephenson:

Now everything is running great...and faster!

Considering that Fido systems are sitting idle more than 99% of the
time ... is speed really an issue ?

For downloading, yes. Anything else is a waste unless you do a lot of uploading.


Regards,

Roger
--- timEd/386 1.10.y2k+
* Origin: NCS BBS - Houma, LoUiSiAna - (1:3828/7)

Considering that Fido systems are sitting idle more than 99% of the
time ... is speed really an issue ?

For downloading, yes. Anything else is a waste unless you do a lot of uploading.

You're talking about transfer speeds, not processing speed.

Ward
--- AfterShock/Android 1.6.8
* Origin: Baby-Glacier (2:292/854.1)

On Sat Apr-06-2019 19:31, Ward Dossche (2:292/854.1) wrote to Roger Nelson:

Considering that Fido systems are sitting idle more than 99% of the
time ... is speed really an issue ?

For downloading, yes. Anything else is a waste unless you do a lot of uploading.

You're talking about transfer speeds, not processing speed.

Yep! If just running Fidonet, that reduces the equation dramatically.


Regards,

Roger
--- timEd/386 1.10.y2k+ Helen Hunt
* Origin: NCS BBS - Houma, LoUiSiAna - (1:3828/7)