• Re: Nodelist

    From Wilfred van Velzen@2:280/464 to John Dovey on Sun May 16 19:27:47 2021
    * Originally in POLITICS
    * Crossposted in FN_SYSOP

    Hi John,

    On 2021-05-16 16:42:53, you wrote to Lee Lofaso:

    My Akas will be 4:92,0,1 and 4:920,0,1 as well as 4:920/69. It'll get there :-)

    What are you going to do with the /1 AKA's? You don't really need them from a technical point of view...

    Bye, Wilfred.
    --- FMail-lnx64 2.1.0.18-B20170815
    * Origin: FMail development HQ (2:280/464)
  • From Flavio Bessa@4:80/1 to Wilfred van Velzen on Mon May 17 22:39:38 2021
    On 16 May 2021, Wilfred van Velzen said the following...

    What are you going to do with the /1 AKA's? You don't really need them from a technical point of view...

    Unfortunately that's how our ZC assigns the nodes to the regions.

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Linux/64)
    * Origin: Fidonet Brasil - R80 Internet Gateway (4:80/1)
  • From Matthias Hertzog@2:301/1 to Flavio Bessa on Tue May 18 08:34:45 2021
    Hello Flavio!

    What are you going to do with the /1 AKA's? You don't really need
    them from a technical point of view...
    Unfortunately that's how our ZC assigns the nodes to the regions.

    Having an official RC-address seperated from the personal address
    that is used for all routing etc. is not a bad idea at all. The RC
    role can move, the personal address stays. Echomail transport
    should not be done over the RC address.

    Waiting for Ward weighing in to tell me, i have pre-2k-thinking on
    that...

    Matthias
    --- GoldED+/W64-MSVC 1.1.5-b20180707
    * Origin: MHS Systems (2:301/1)
  • From Wilfred van Velzen@2:280/464 to Flavio Bessa on Tue May 18 08:49:52 2021
    Hi Flavio,

    On 2021-05-17 22:39:38, you wrote to me:

    What are you going to do with the /1 AKA's? You don't really need
    them from a technical point of view...

    Unfortunately that's how our ZC assigns the nodes to the regions.

    That is not the ZC's job, but the RC's...

    Bye, Wilfred.
    --- FMail-lnx64 2.1.0.18-B20170815
    * Origin: FMail development HQ (2:280/464)
  • From Wilfred van Velzen@2:280/464 to Matthias Hertzog on Tue May 18 08:56:55 2021
    Hi Matthias,

    On 2021-05-18 08:34:45, you wrote to Flavio Bessa:

    What are you going to do with the /1 AKA's? You don't really need
    them from a technical point of view...
    Unfortunately that's how our ZC assigns the nodes to the regions.

    Having an official RC-address seperated from the personal address
    that is used for all routing etc. is not a bad idea at all. The RC
    role can move, the personal address stays. Echomail transport
    should not be done over the RC address.

    For echomail links that's a good idea. But for netmail routing along the C based node list structure that is not the case.

    But we were talking about the RIN number 4:92/1, and he also mentioned 4:920/69 as AKA, which I assume would be his "regular" nodenumber. In which case you don't need the 4:920/1 vanity number, for the purpose you mentioned.


    Bye, Wilfred.
    --- FMail-lnx64 2.1.0.18-B20170815
    * Origin: FMail development HQ (2:280/464)
  • From Ward Dossche@2:292/854 to Flavio Bessa on Tue May 18 10:13:41 2021
    What are you going to do with the /1 AKA's? You don't really need
    them from a technical point of view...

    Unfortunately that's how our ZC assigns the nodes to the regions.

    Are you now saying that your ZC assigns nodenumbers for the whole zone?

    Does that means that RCs are not managing their region but everything is within one big text-file at the ZCs location ?

    \%/@rd
    --- DB4
    * Origin: Hou het veilig, hou vol. Het komt allemaal weer goed (2:292/854)
  • From Matthias Hertzog@2:301/1 to Wilfred van Velzen on Tue May 18 13:06:20 2021
    Hello Wilfred!

    For echomail links that's a good idea. But for netmail routing along
    the C based node list structure that is not the case.

    Basically true, but *Cs are not always the most reliable systems
    to handle mail. I know of one that tosses manually, whenever he has
    the time. And i know more than one that don't answer their netmails
    at all. That's not filling me with confidence.

    But we were talking about the RIN number 4:92/1, and he also mentioned 4:920/69 as AKA, which I assume would be his "regular" nodenumber. In which case you don't need the 4:920/1 vanity number, for the purpose
    you mentioned.

    Agree. The 4:92/1 is not needed ... and it's gone from the nodelist already:

    Region,92,Panama,Pedasi_Los_Santos,John_Dovey,-Unpublished-,300,CM,IBN:elgato.synchronetbbs.org
    Host,920,Panama,Pedasi_Los_Santos,John_Dovey,-Unpublished-,300,CM,IBN:elgato.synchronetbbs.org
    ,1,El_Gato_De_Fuego_BBS,Pedasi_Los_Santos,John_Dovey,-Unpublished-,300,CM,IBN:elgato.synchronetbbs.org

    There's no sign of 4:920/69 in the nodelist.

    His mailer tells me:
    18 May 13:10:46 [1188] rcvd msg ADR 4:920/1@fidonet 4:920/0@fidonet 4:92/0@fidonet 4:92/1@fidonet

    This is STILL not in synch with the nodelist.

    Hey, John, this is your wakeup call! :-)

    Matthias
    --- GoldED+/W64-MSVC 1.1.5-b20180707
    * Origin: MHS Systems (2:301/1)
  • From Michiel van der Vlist@2:280/5555 to Matthias Hertzog on Tue May 18 12:46:03 2021
    Hello Matthias,

    On Tuesday May 18 2021 08:34, you wrote to Flavio Bessa:

    Having an official RC-address seperated from the personal address
    that is used for all routing etc. is not a bad idea at all.

    Not so. Using the personal address for all routing is the bad idea. Ofiicial routing as in Host routed netmail should go via the /0 address, That way the routong stays intact when the sysop leaves Fidonet and the Host or RC position changes heads.

    Or when nets are rearranged, so that whan the personal address changes, the Region/0 routing stays intact.

    The RC role can move, the personal address stays.

    On a lower level you are violating that rule. You use 301/1 instead of 301/101 for your personal mail.

    I wonder why you need a backbone for a 7 node and 5 pointlike systems, but that is another story.

    Echomail transport should not be done over the RC address.

    Waiting for Ward weighing in to tell me, i have pre-2k-thinking on
    that...

    The rule that *C systems should not be used for echomail was already outdated in the POTS age. It was based on Single User, single task systems that took hours to toss the mail and could not answer calls during that time. Today systems are multitasking, tossing runs in the backgrouns and takes seconds, not even minutes. There is no technical reason any more for not using *C systems for echomail and I see no problems in using the /0 address when convenient.

    I understand it is not easy to suddenly get rid of the POTS age thinking. For me the transition was gradual...


    Cheers, Michiel

    --- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20170303
    * Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)
  • From Ward Dossche@2:292/854 to Michiel van der Vlist on Tue May 18 14:07:40 2021
    Michiel,

    I understand it is not easy to suddenly get rid of the POTS age thinking. For me the transition was gradual...

    It seems to be a problem confronting those returning sysops who were gone for a decade or two or three and have no feeling for why things have become the way they are, expecting it to be "business as usual as in 1990".

    The newest addition to that list is this John-person from Panama (previously from the RSA) who was a node for 3 months and a week in 1990 and then dropped-out. End of April he rejoined after 30+ years and has already published a manifesto in the Facebook-based Fidonet-group on everything which is wrong, what needs to be changed, has all the answers.

    The learning curve? Not needed anymore ... this is an instant society. Instant gratification ...

    \%/@rd
    --- DB4
    * Origin: Hou het veilig, hou vol. Het komt allemaal weer goed (2:292/854)
  • From Matthias Hertzog@2:301/1 to Michiel van der Vlist on Tue May 18 14:16:08 2021
    Hello Michiel!

    On a lower level you are violating that rule. You use 301/1 instead of 301/101 for your personal mail.

    One can see that this way.

    The rule that *C systems should not be used for echomail was already outdated in the POTS age. It was based on Single User, single task
    systems that took hours to toss the mail and could not answer calls
    during that time. Today systems are multitasking, tossing runs in the backgrouns and takes seconds, not even minutes.

    Again: *Cs are not always very reliable systems. One of then tossing
    manually, others seem to let their systems run fully unattended, not
    responding to netmails and therefore not able to enable a secure link.

    There is no technical
    reason any more for not using *C systems for echomail and I see no problems in using the /0 address when convenient.

    I agree, there is no TECHNICAL reason to NOT do it like this. But there
    are OPERATIONALS reasons that make it more wise to use other systems.

    I understand it is not easy to suddenly get rid of the POTS age
    thinking. For me the transition was gradual...

    That has absolutly nothing to do with POTS thinking. It's a fact, that
    not all *Cs are well operated. If they are, i route via them, it not,
    i avoid them. I will not dislose the list of non responding RCs and
    the one that tosses manually, but i have such a list. Unfortunatly.

    Matthias
    --- GoldED+/W64-MSVC 1.1.5-b20180707
    * Origin: MHS Systems (2:301/1)
  • From Wilfred van Velzen@2:280/464 to Matthias Hertzog on Tue May 18 13:22:05 2021
    Hi Matthias,

    On 2021-05-18 13:06:20, you wrote to me:

    For echomail links that's a good idea. But for netmail routing along
    the C based node list structure that is not the case.

    Basically true, but *Cs are not always the most reliable systems
    to handle mail. I know of one that tosses manually, whenever he has
    the time. And i know more than one that don't answer their netmails
    at all. That's not filling me with confidence.

    That there are problems at RC systems is true, but a different problem... And not a reason not to use the /0 nodenumbers for netmail routing.

    But we were talking about the RIN number 4:92/1, and he also
    mentioned 4:920/69 as AKA, which I assume would be his "regular"
    nodenumber. In which case you don't need the 4:920/1 vanity number,
    for the purpose you mentioned.

    Agree. The 4:92/1 is not needed ... and it's gone from the nodelist already:

    Region,92,Panama,Pedasi_Los_Santos,John_Dovey,-Unpublished-,300,CM,IBN:elga
    to.synchronetbbs.org Host,920,Panama,Pedasi_Los_Santos,John_Dovey,-Unpublis
    hed-,300,CM,IBN:elgato.synchronetbbs.org ,1,El_Gato_De_Fuego_BBS,Pedasi_Los
    _Santos,John_Dovey,-Unpublished-,300,CM,IBN:elgato.synchronetbbs.org

    There's no sign of 4:920/69 in the nodelist.

    His mailer tells me:
    18 May 13:10:46 [1188] rcvd msg ADR 4:920/1@fidonet 4:920/0@fidonet 4:92/0@fidonet 4:92/1@fidonet

    This is STILL not in synch with the nodelist.

    I get the impression there is a communication problem between the ZC (who creates the Z4 nodelist all by him self) and the RC...

    Bye, Wilfred.
    --- FMail-lnx64 2.1.0.18-B20170815
    * Origin: FMail development HQ (2:280/464)
  • From Wilfred van Velzen@2:280/464 to Michiel van der Vlist on Tue May 18 14:21:28 2021
    Hi Michiel,

    On 2021-05-18 12:46:03, you wrote to Matthias Hertzog:

    MvdV> Today systems are multitasking, tossing runs in the backgrouns and
    MvdV> takes seconds,

    Seconds is slow! This is on my system:

    # grep 'Toss Active:' fmail.log | tail -n 20
    12:00:57.852 Toss Active: 0.0046 sec.
    12:00:58.288 Toss Active: 0.152 sec.
    12:07:21.403 Toss Active: 0.0035 sec.
    12:12:52.002 Toss Active: 0.060 sec.
    12:20:37.284 Toss Active: 0.0082 sec.
    12:20:38.887 Toss Active: 0.0040 sec.
    12:21:06.655 Toss Active: 0.0040 sec.
    12:24:15.912 Toss Active: 0.0039 sec.
    12:35:53.112 Toss Active: 0.150 sec.
    12:37:44.726 Toss Active: 0.173 sec.
    12:47:57.977 Toss Active: 0.057 sec.
    12:51:56.201 Toss Active: 0.156 sec.
    13:13:54.145 Toss Active: 0.395 sec.
    13:35:27.366 Toss Active: 0.434 sec.
    13:59:03.113 Toss Active: 0.156 sec.
    13:59:33.053 Toss Active: 0.028 sec.
    14:02:54.893 Toss Active: 0.0040 sec.
    14:05:52.528 Toss Active: 0.166 sec.
    14:09:03.328 Toss Active: 0.376 sec.
    14:16:31.590 Toss Active: 0.149 sec.

    ;-)


    Bye, Wilfred.
    --- FMail-lnx64 2.1.0.18-B20170815
    * Origin: FMail development HQ (2:280/464)
  • From Matthias Hertzog@2:301/1 to Ward Dossche on Tue May 18 14:21:57 2021
    Hello Ward!

    I understand it is not easy to suddenly get rid of the POTS age
    thinking. For me the transition was gradual...

    It seems to be a problem confronting those returning sysops who were
    gone for a decade or two or three and have no feeling for why things
    have become the way they are, expecting it to be "business as usual as
    in 1990".

    Having non-responding RCs is a fact, has nothing to do with the
    pre2k-thinking you're attesting me. Feel free to try it yourself.
    I'm sure you know the "candidates".

    The newest addition to that list is this John-person from Panama (previously from the RSA) who was a node for 3 months and a week in
    1990 and then dropped-out. End of April he rejoined after 30+ years
    and has already published a manifesto in the Facebook-based
    Fidonet-group on everything which is wrong, what needs to be changed,
    has all the answers.

    I've read that facebook post as well. I knew you will reply to it, so
    i leaned back, grabbed my popcorn and started watching.

    The learning curve? Not needed anymore ... this is an instant society. Instant gratification ...

    Not true for everyone. And not everyone with a longer absence stayed on
    the knowledge level from 20 years ago. There can be learning outside
    of fidonet that helps getting on board after some absence.
    Some things have evolved to the positive, others did not.

    And: Getting educated from long-term members helps.

    Matthias
    --- GoldED+/W64-MSVC 1.1.5-b20180707
    * Origin: MHS Systems (2:301/1)
  • From Michiel van der Vlist@2:280/5555 to Matthias Hertzog on Tue May 18 16:35:55 2021
    Hello Matthias,

    On Tuesday May 18 2021 14:16, you wrote to me:

    Again: *Cs are not always very reliable systems. One of then tossing manually, others seem to let their systems run fully unattended, not responding to netmails and therefore not able to enable a secure link.

    Unfortunaltely there are a lot of sysops who's technical competence and motivation are below what is needed to run a reliable system. The sad fact is that today it also applies to sysops that have risen to an NC or even a RC position. In the past the pool was much larger and so it was easier to find competent and motivated people. That is one thing that has changed for the worse. IMNSHO one of the problems is the resistance against changing node numbers. To me it is just a number. One does not own it and there is no right to keep it or get it back when returning from absence. Today we have a lot of (very) small nets and there is difficulty in finding *Cs. IMNSHO it would benefit the smooth operation of the network if these small nets were merged into larger nets so that the pool from which to draw competent *C became bigger.

    There is no technical reason any more for not using *C systems for
    echomail and I see no problems in using the /0 address when
    convenient.

    I agree, there is no TECHNICAL reason to NOT do it like this. But
    there are OPERATIONALS reasons that make it more wise to use other systems.

    Speaking of backbones... Once in what seems another life, I was cosysop of a backbone: the Dutch TipTop gate, AKA 2:28:777. The nightly tossing run took hours. That is history. The formal rule has always been "you can get your echomail anywhere you want. In practice this was almost always cost prohibitive. So most syspos depended on the service of a "backbone". Today it is standard practice to just link wherever it is convenient.

    I understand it is not easy to suddenly get rid of the POTS age
    thinking. For me the transition was gradual...

    That has absolutly nothing to do with POTS thinking.

    Oh but it has. You just haven't seen the light yet... ;-)

    It's a fact, that not all *Cs are well operated. If they are, i route
    via them, it not, i avoid them. I will not dislose the list of non responding RCs and the one that tosses manually, but i have such a
    list. Unfortunatly.

    I am not denying that there are *Cs that perform below standards. But for echomail distributed by the FidoWeb that is not a problem. Netmail is another story. A serious problem is the nodelist. The main task of the *Cs is maintaining the nodelist. There is a lot of dead wood in the nodelist...


    Cheers, Michiel

    --- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20170303
    * Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)
  • From Matthias Hertzog@2:301/1 to Michiel van der Vlist on Tue May 18 17:16:19 2021
    Hello Michiel!

    That has absolutly nothing to do with POTS thinking.
    Oh but it has. You just haven't seen the light yet... ;-)

    And what do you think was the reason i'vee tried to get in touch
    with said sysops? Getting a link & feed like it's done nowdays.

    You know part of my setup, so you can be sure of that i've learned what
    fidoweb is.

    It's a fact, that not all *Cs are well operated. If they are, i
    route via them, it not, i avoid them. I will not dislose the list
    of non responding RCs and the one that tosses manually, but i
    have such a list. Unfortunatly.

    I am not denying that there are *Cs that perform below standards. But
    for echomail distributed by the FidoWeb that is not a problem.

    I never said that. But using fidoweb/whatever-you-want/etc. is quite
    difficult if sysops don't even answer.

    Netmail is another story. A serious problem is the nodelist. The main
    task of the *Cs is maintaining the nodelist. There is a lot of dead
    wood in the nodelist...

    That might in fact be the case.

    Matthias
    --- GoldED+/W64-MSVC 1.1.5-b20180707
    * Origin: MHS Systems (2:301/1)
  • From Michiel van der Vlist@2:280/5555 to Matthias Hertzog on Tue May 18 22:27:33 2021
    Hello Matthias,

    On Tuesday May 18 2021 17:16, you wrote to me:

    That has absolutly nothing to do with POTS thinking.

    Oh but it has. You just haven't seen the light yet... ;-)

    And what do you think was the reason i'vee tried to get in touch
    with said sysops? Getting a link & feed like it's done nowdays.

    Well.. as I mentioned beforem Fidonet has always been a cooperative anarchy and that has not changed. In fact I'd sat it has become more of that. As a conesquence there is not really one way of "how it is done nowadays"...

    You know part of my setup, so you can be sure of that i've learned
    what fidoweb is.

    I have to admit that you are a quick learner. But do not think you can compenstate in three weeks for three decades of absence.

    It's a fact, that not all *Cs are well operated. If they are, i
    route via them, it not, i avoid them. I will not dislose the
    list of non responding RCs and the one that tosses manually, but
    i have such a list. Unfortunatly.

    I am not denying that there are *Cs that perform below standards.
    But for echomail distributed by the FidoWeb that is not a
    problem.

    I never said that. But using fidoweb/whatever-you-want/etc. is quite difficult if sysops don't even answer.

    For the Fidoweb: not really. The basic of the Fidoweb is to create multiple links. As many as practical. If a sysop does not respond to a link request, just move on. linjk with those willing an able and forget about the rest.

    Netmail is another story. A serious problem is the nodelist. The
    main task of the *Cs is maintaining the nodelist. There is a lot
    of dead wood in the nodelist...

    That might in fact be the case.

    Have a look at the nodelist. In the Netherlands with 17 million inhabitants there are 9 sysop. In the UK there are 10 sysops. In Belgium there are 6 sysops.

    In Ukraine there are some 15 nets with some 200 sysops. Do you really think those figures are realistic?

    And what about nets that only list POTS only systems? Is that realistic these days?


    Cheers, Michiel
    --- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20170303
    * Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)
  • From Tommi Koivula@2:221/1 to Wilfred van Velzen on Wed May 19 05:51:30 2021
    Hello, Wilfred van Velzen.
    On 18/05/2021 15.21 you wrote:

    Hi Michiel,
    On 2021-05-18 12:46:03, you wrote to Matthias Hertzog:
    MvdV> Today systems are multitasking, tossing runs in the backgrouns and MvdV> takes seconds,
    Seconds is slow! This is on my system:
    # grep 'Toss Active:' fmail.log | tail -n 20
    12:00:57.852 Toss Active: 0.0046 sec.
    12:00:58.288 Toss Active: 0.152 sec.
    12:07:21.403 Toss Active: 0.0035 sec.
    12:12:52.002 Toss Active: 0.060 sec.
    12:20:37.284 Toss Active: 0.0082 sec.
    12:20:38.887 Toss Active: 0.0040 sec.
    12:21:06.655 Toss Active: 0.0040 sec.
    12:24:15.912 Toss Active: 0.0039 sec.
    12:35:53.112 Toss Active: 0.150 sec.
    12:37:44.726 Toss Active: 0.173 sec.
    12:47:57.977 Toss Active: 0.057 sec.
    12:51:56.201 Toss Active: 0.156 sec.
    13:13:54.145 Toss Active: 0.395 sec.
    13:35:27.366 Toss Active: 0.434 sec.
    13:59:03.113 Toss Active: 0.156 sec.
    13:59:33.053 Toss Active: 0.028 sec.
    14:02:54.893 Toss Active: 0.0040 sec.
    14:05:52.528 Toss Active: 0.166 sec.
    14:09:03.328 Toss Active: 0.376 sec.
    14:16:31.590 Toss Active: 0.149 sec.
    ;-)

    ;-) indeed. ;-)

    How many times per day do you run 'fmail toss' ?

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

    --
    Tommi

    --- FastEcho/2 1.46.1 Revival
    * Origin: nntp://rbb.fidonet.fi - Lake Ylo - Finland (2:221/1.0)
  • From Matthias Hertzog@2:301/1 to Michiel van der Vlist on Wed May 19 08:02:44 2021
    Hello Michiel!

    For the Fidoweb: not really. The basic of the Fidoweb is to create multiple links. As many as practical. If a sysop does not respond to a link request, just move on. linjk with those willing an able and
    forget about the rest.

    I did so, but my OCD prevents me of throwing out an unfinshed list.

    Have a look at the nodelist. In the Netherlands with 17 million inhabitants there are 9 sysop. In the UK there are 10 sysops. In
    Belgium there are 6 sysops.
    In Ukraine there are some 15 nets with some 200 sysops. Do you really think those figures are realistic?

    I once was a member in an organsation where one country paid
    more membership fees than they had members, only to increase
    their voting rights at the general assembly. That's not the
    case here, so cleaning out would be a good idea or at least discuss
    it with the *Cs of the affected regions/nets. But then: Who cares...

    And what about nets that only list POTS only systems? Is that
    realistic these days?

    Not at all.

    I have some russian echos here and they have traffic. As i cannot read
    it, i can't tell if it's real traffic or just rubbish gated from somewhere
    or automated stuff. Meaning: I cannot tell if there are people behind the numbers.

    Matthias
    --- GoldED+/W64-MSVC 1.1.5-b20180707
    * Origin: MHS Systems (2:301/1)
  • From Wilfred van Velzen@2:280/464 to Tommi Koivula on Wed May 19 08:52:13 2021
    Hi Tommi,

    On 2021-05-19 05:51:30, you wrote to me:

    MvdV> Today systems are multitasking, tossing runs in the backgrouns
    and
    MvdV> takes seconds,
    Seconds is slow! This is on my system:
    # grep 'Toss Active:' fmail.log | tail -n 20
    12:00:57.852 Toss Active: 0.0046 sec.
    12:00:58.288 Toss Active: 0.152 sec.
    12:07:21.403 Toss Active: 0.0035 sec.
    12:12:52.002 Toss Active: 0.060 sec.
    12:20:37.284 Toss Active: 0.0082 sec.
    12:20:38.887 Toss Active: 0.0040 sec.
    12:21:06.655 Toss Active: 0.0040 sec.
    12:24:15.912 Toss Active: 0.0039 sec.
    12:35:53.112 Toss Active: 0.150 sec.
    12:37:44.726 Toss Active: 0.173 sec.
    12:47:57.977 Toss Active: 0.057 sec.
    12:51:56.201 Toss Active: 0.156 sec.
    13:13:54.145 Toss Active: 0.395 sec.
    13:35:27.366 Toss Active: 0.434 sec.
    13:59:03.113 Toss Active: 0.156 sec.
    13:59:33.053 Toss Active: 0.028 sec.
    14:02:54.893 Toss Active: 0.0040 sec.
    14:05:52.528 Toss Active: 0.166 sec.
    14:09:03.328 Toss Active: 0.376 sec.
    14:16:31.590 Toss Active: 0.149 sec.
    ;-)

    ;-) indeed. ;-)

    How many times per day do you run 'fmail toss' ?

    That depends on the number of times my links deliver pkt files on my system. ;)

    But you can see at these speeds there is no need to delay tossing, or do it only periodically. ;)

    Bye, Wilfred.
    --- FMail-lnx64 2.1.0.18-B20170815
    * Origin: FMail development HQ (2:280/464)
  • From Tommi Koivula@2:221/6 to Wilfred van Velzen on Wed May 19 10:37:40 2021
    Hello, Wilfred van Velzen.
    On 19/05/2021 8.52 you wrote:

    Hi Tommi,
    On 2021-05-19 05:51:30, you wrote to me:
    MvdV> Today systems are multitasking, tossing runs in the backgrouns
    and
    MvdV> takes seconds,
    Seconds is slow! This is on my system:
    # grep 'Toss Active:' fmail.log | tail -n 20
    12:00:57.852 Toss Active: 0.0046 sec.
    12:00:58.288 Toss Active: 0.152 sec.
    12:07:21.403 Toss Active: 0.0035 sec.
    12:12:52.002 Toss Active: 0.060 sec.
    12:20:37.284 Toss Active: 0.0082 sec.
    12:20:38.887 Toss Active: 0.0040 sec.
    12:21:06.655 Toss Active: 0.0040 sec.
    12:24:15.912 Toss Active: 0.0039 sec.
    12:35:53.112 Toss Active: 0.150 sec.
    12:37:44.726 Toss Active: 0.173 sec.
    12:47:57.977 Toss Active: 0.057 sec.
    12:51:56.201 Toss Active: 0.156 sec.
    13:13:54.145 Toss Active: 0.395 sec.
    13:35:27.366 Toss Active: 0.434 sec.
    13:59:03.113 Toss Active: 0.156 sec.
    13:59:33.053 Toss Active: 0.028 sec.
    14:02:54.893 Toss Active: 0.0040 sec.
    14:05:52.528 Toss Active: 0.166 sec.
    14:09:03.328 Toss Active: 0.376 sec.
    14:16:31.590 Toss Active: 0.149 sec.
    ;-)
    ;-) indeed. ;-)
    How many times per day do you run 'fmail toss' ?
    That depends on the number of times my links deliver pkt files on my system. ;)

    I know. But how many? Statistics please? ;)

    But you can see at these speeds there is no need to delay tossing, or do it only periodically. ;)
    Bye, Wilfred.

    --
    Tommi

    ---
    * Origin: nntp://news.fidonet.fi (2:221/6.0)
  • From Wilfred van Velzen@2:280/464 to Tommi Koivula on Wed May 19 09:55:21 2021
    Hi Tommi,

    On 2021-05-19 10:37:40, you wrote to me:

    How many times per day do you run 'fmail toss' ?
    That depends on the number of times my links deliver pkt files on my
    system. ;)

    I know. But how many? Statistics please? ;)

    Why?

    But here are some figures:

    # grep 'Toss Active: ' fmail.log | wc -l
    1841

    And my current fmail.log spans from:

    ------------ Mon 2021-05-10, FMail-lnx64-2.1.0.18-Beta20170815
    10:58:39.574 Toss

    To:

    ------------ Wed 2021-05-19, FMail-lnx64-2.1.0.18-Beta20170815
    09:39:40.665 Toss

    You do the math... ;)


    Bye, Wilfred.
    --- FMail-lnx64 2.1.0.18-B20170815
    * Origin: FMail development HQ (2:280/464)
  • From Michiel van der Vlist@2:280/5555 to Matthias Hertzog on Wed May 19 09:50:06 2021
    Hello Matthias,

    On Wednesday May 19 2021 08:02, you wrote to me:

    For the Fidoweb: not really. The basic of the Fidoweb is to
    create multiple links. As many as practical. If a sysop does not
    respond to a link request, just move on. link with those willing
    an able and forget about the rest.

    I did so, but my OCD prevents me of throwing out an unfinshed list.

    OCD??

    I have links with all Regions in Z2 with the exception of R48. That didn't happen overnight. Patience is a virtue. It took years. I also have many links to other zones. Many of these links are a relic from my time as FTSC chairman. I have no urge to publish a list of all my links.

    Have a look at the nodelist. In the Netherlands with 17 million
    inhabitants there are 9 sysop. In the UK there are 10 sysops. In
    Belgium there are 6 sysops.
    In Ukraine there are some 15 nets with some 200 sysops. Do you
    really think those figures are realistic?

    I once was a member in an organsation where one country paid
    more membership fees than they had members, only to increase
    their voting rights at the general assembly. That's not the
    case here, so cleaning out would be a good idea or at least discuss
    it with the *Cs of the affected regions/nets. But then: Who cares...

    I care. I always say: "if there is garbage in the nodelist it affects us all". I do care. But not enough to spend the rest of my life chasing down dead wood and trying to wake comatose *Cs. There is more to life than Fidonet...

    And what about nets that only list POTS only systems? Is that
    realistic these days?

    Not at all.

    I have some russian echos here and they have traffic. As i cannot read
    it, i can't tell if it's real traffic or just rubbish gated from
    somewhere or automated stuff. Meaning: I cannot tell if there are
    people behind the numbers.

    Google translate is your friend. I have a few Russian echos as well. As far as I can judge most of the traffic there is indeed real. There are real people behind the numbers. I would go as far as to claim that for the last two decades the vast majority of what was written in Fidonet was written in Cyrillic.


    Cheers, Michiel
    --- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20170303
    * Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)
  • From Tommi Koivula@2:221/6 to Wilfred van Velzen on Wed May 19 11:13:40 2021
    Hello, Wilfred van Velzen.
    On 19/05/2021 8.52 you wrote:

    Hi Tommi,
    On 2021-05-19 05:51:30, you wrote to me:
    MvdV> Today systems are multitasking, tossing runs in the backgrouns
    and
    MvdV> takes seconds,
    Seconds is slow! This is on my system:
    # grep 'Toss Active:' fmail.log | tail -n 20
    12:00:57.852 Toss Active: 0.0046 sec.
    12:00:58.288 Toss Active: 0.152 sec.
    12:07:21.403 Toss Active: 0.0035 sec.
    12:12:52.002 Toss Active: 0.060 sec.
    12:20:37.284 Toss Active: 0.0082 sec.
    12:20:38.887 Toss Active: 0.0040 sec.
    12:21:06.655 Toss Active: 0.0040 sec.
    12:24:15.912 Toss Active: 0.0039 sec.
    12:35:53.112 Toss Active: 0.150 sec.
    12:37:44.726 Toss Active: 0.173 sec.
    12:47:57.977 Toss Active: 0.057 sec.
    12:51:56.201 Toss Active: 0.156 sec.
    13:13:54.145 Toss Active: 0.395 sec.
    13:35:27.366 Toss Active: 0.434 sec.
    13:59:03.113 Toss Active: 0.156 sec.
    13:59:33.053 Toss Active: 0.028 sec.
    14:02:54.893 Toss Active: 0.0040 sec.
    14:05:52.528 Toss Active: 0.166 sec.
    14:09:03.328 Toss Active: 0.376 sec.
    14:16:31.590 Toss Active: 0.149 sec.
    ;-)
    ;-) indeed. ;-)
    How many times per day do you run 'fmail toss' ?
    That depends on the number of times my links deliver pkt files on my system. ;)

    I know. But how many? Statistics please? ;)

    But you can see at these speeds there is no need to delay tossing, or do it only periodically. ;)
    Bye, Wilfred.

    --
    Tommi

    ---
    * Origin: nntp://news.fidonet.fi (2:221/6.0)
  • From Matthias Hertzog@2:301/1 to Michiel van der Vlist on Wed May 19 10:15:53 2021
    Hello Michiel!

    I did so, but my OCD prevents me of throwing out an unfinshed
    list.
    OCD??

    Google is your friend :-) Ofcessive Compulsive Disorder.
    I don't have that, but i like to have things done right and complete.

    I have links with all Regions in Z2 with the exception of R48. That
    didn't happen overnight. Patience is a virtue. It took years. I also
    have many links to other zones. Many of these links are a relic from
    my time as FTSC chairman. I have no urge to publish a list of all my links.

    Same here regarding regions an other zones, but still working on it.

    discuss it with the *Cs of the affected regions/nets. But then:
    Who cares...
    I care. I always say: "if there is garbage in the nodelist it affects
    us all". I do care. But not enough to spend the rest of my life
    chasing down dead wood and trying to wake comatose *Cs. There is more
    to life than Fidonet...

    Which means: You don't care :-) I understand it, fully.

    Google translate is your friend.

    It's not THAT important to me.

    I have a few Russian echos as well.
    As far as I can judge most of the traffic there is indeed real. There
    are real people behind the numbers. I would go as far as to claim that
    for the last two decades the vast majority of what was written in
    Fidonet was written in Cyrillic.

    As long the technology is used, that's fine. If it helps people, even better.

    Best wishes,
    Matthias
    --- GoldED+/W64-MSVC 1.1.5-b20180707
    * Origin: MHS Systems (2:301/1)
  • From Michiel van der Vlist@2:280/5555 to Matthias Hertzog on Wed May 19 10:49:14 2021
    Hello Matthias,

    On Wednesday May 19 2021 10:15, you wrote to me:

    but i like to have things done right and complete.

    A recipe for disappointment. Doing things right is hard enough. Doing things right AND complete is impossible. Ever heard of Gdel's incompleteness theorem? ;-)

    I have links with all Regions in Z2 with the exception of R48.
    That didn't happen overnight. Patience is a virtue. It took
    years. I also have many links to other zones. Many of these links
    are a relic from my time as FTSC chairman. I have no urge to
    publish a list of all my links.

    Same here regarding regions an other zones, but still working on it.

    You will keep working on it. It is a work in progress that is never finished. Nodes come and go an so do the links come and go.

    discuss it with the *Cs of the affected regions/nets. But then:
    Who cares...

    I care. I always say: "if there is garbage in the nodelist it
    affects us all". I do care. But not enough to spend the rest of
    my life chasing down dead wood and trying to wake comatose *Cs.
    There is more to life than Fidonet...

    Which means: You don't care :-) I understand it, fully.

    No, it does not mean that I do not care. But I know my limits and cleaning up the entire nodelist is beyond my capacity. I keep my bailiffwick clean of dead wood. All the nodes in R28 are up and running. If I see an obvious anomaly across the fence, I will report it. But that is it. Besides... it is not in my job description.

    I have a few Russian echos as well. As far as I can judge most of the
    traffic there is indeed real. There are real people behind the
    numbers. I would go as far as to claim that for the last two decades
    the vast majority of what was written in Fidonet was written in
    Cyrillic.

    As long the technology is used, that's fine. If it helps people, even better.

    Not only is the technology used, a lot of today's Fidonet technology /comes/ from sysops who's native language is written in Cyrillic.


    Cheers, Michiel

    --- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20170303
    * Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)
  • From Matthias Hertzog@2:301/1 to Michiel van der Vlist on Wed May 19 11:09:44 2021
    Hello Michiel!

    A recipe for disappointment. Doing things right is hard enough. Doing things right AND complete is impossible. Ever heard of Gdel's incompleteness theorem? ;-)

    I've workd three years in a company where one of the board colleagues
    pushed the opinion, that getting 90% of the customers happy is more
    than enough.

    While it's clear, that never all customers can be happy, he forced
    10% of a happy client base to be unhappy after his actions took place.

    His actions failed on a regular basis which he excused by saying "One can
    never get 100% of the clients happy", forgetting that he was the cause for their unhappyness.

    Me as the then-CTO of the company had to take care of the rest. Being
    customer focussed as CTO while having a non-customer focussed
    marketing guy was not an easy job ... and i was happy to leave after
    three years. That was nerve-wrecking.

    However: I know, that 100% ("complete") is not possible, but i keep
    it my goal to try and try again. I'm not disappointed, if i don't
    succedd because i know, i've tried as hard and as good as i can.

    This is set in relation of time and ressources. My results are
    usually a bit better as others', but it takes more ressources.

    Speaking of ressources means time ... and i have plenty of it ...
    but as mentioned earlier, retired people never have time. THAT
    is a real dilemma.

    You will keep working on it. It is a work in progress that is never finished. Nodes come and go an so do the links come and go.

    True.

    But is not in my job description.

    At least you have a job description.

    As long the technology is used, that's fine. If it helps people,
    even better.
    Not only is the technology used, a lot of today's Fidonet technology /comes/ from sysops who's native language is written in Cyrillic.

    Which is great!

    Matthias
    --- GoldED+/W64-MSVC 1.1.5-b20180707
    * Origin: MHS Systems (2:301/1)
  • From Flavio Bessa@4:80/1 to Ward Dossche on Wed May 19 09:31:21 2021
    On 18 May 2021, Ward Dossche said the following...

    Are you now saying that your ZC assigns nodenumbers for the whole zone?

    Does that means that RCs are not managing their region but everything is within one big text-file at the ZCs location ?

    No Ward, I am not telling that.

    Whenever he has a new region to assign to someone or there is a change
    into the current RC, he already configures his system to export mail to
    4:XX/1.
    In my case, it was convenient as I have created a separated system to distribute mail to Brazilian systems. I agree that it should have been
    4:80/0, but that was how he had configured it so I carried on.
    The Brazil Internet hub (this system) is MO (as you can see at the nodelist), and has both 4:80/0 and 4:80/1 as AKAs. To me, that's convenient,
    as if I have to stand down as being RC80 I can simply hand over the system to the next coordinator.
    In case of R92, we tried to argument, but fell on deaf ears.

    Regarding segments, I have R80 nodelist segment, Patricio does have his
    for R88, and John has R92. We send our updates to the ZC and he publishes
    every Wednesday, so it takes a few days for it to be completed.
    The initial register for John had his system wrongly located at Panama City, when the correction was done to Pedasi the 4:92/1 disappeared and he
    had to get this fixed.

    In addition, I check the nodelist periodically for typos and errors and suggest changes, not only for my region but also for the other R90, R88 and R92. There are a few typos at R90 nodelist that will be corrected soon.

    I will discuss with Manuel again on the feasibility of changing this way
    of working, let's see how it goes. If I can at least make the change from
    80/1 to 80/0 I will be happy. Again, I am sorry for the mess, but I am new to this and am trying to tidy up things down here.

    Regards,
    Flavio.

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Linux/64)
    * Origin: Fidonet Brasil - R80 Internet Gateway (4:80/1)
  • From Flavio Bessa@4:80/1 to Matthias Hertzog on Wed May 19 09:33:14 2021
    On 18 May 2021, Matthias Hertzog said the following...

    Agree. The 4:92/1 is not needed ... and it's gone from the nodelist already:

    There's no sign of 4:920/69 in the nodelist.

    There is now. He is preparing another system as you can see at the
    nodelist from latest Wednesday update.

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Linux/64)
    * Origin: Fidonet Brasil - R80 Internet Gateway (4:80/1)
  • From Flavio Bessa@4:80/1 to Michiel van der Vlist on Wed May 19 09:37:19 2021
    On 18 May 2021, Michiel van der Vlist said the following...

    The rule that *C systems should not be used for echomail was already outdated in the POTS age. It was based on Single User, single task
    systems that took hours to toss the mail and could not answer calls
    during that time. Today systems are multitasking, tossing runs in the backgrouns and takes seconds, not even minutes. There is no technical reason any more for not using *C systems for echomail and I see no problems in using the /0 address when convenient.

    I agree with your thoughts. Unfortunately here at Z4 we had a huge
    amount of systems being disconnected, coordinators retiring, and
    we had literally to collect the pieces and start over.

    I can say that we are still learning, and due to cultural reasons,
    not having a good command of English generally in our zone is a
    major problem and a drawback when it comes to administrative work.

    We will get there, we just need some time. I could say that we have
    improved already when comparing to 5 years ago.

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Linux/64)
    * Origin: Fidonet Brasil - R80 Internet Gateway (4:80/1)
  • From Flavio Bessa@4:80/1 to Matthias Hertzog on Wed May 19 09:43:18 2021
    On 18 May 2021, Matthias Hertzog said the following...

    That has absolutly nothing to do with POTS thinking. It's a fact, that
    not all *Cs are well operated. If they are, i route via them, it not,
    i avoid them. I will not dislose the list of non responding RCs and
    the one that tosses manually, but i have such a list. Unfortunatly.

    As said before, I am learning. I have even created a flood of
    old messages here due to a mishap recently, but that added to
    my learning curve. I really appreciate each and every feedback
    I have received from you, Ward, Wilfred, Michiel and so many
    others that have helped me along the way here.

    Unfortunately there are also some people that do not take
    feedbacks lightly and are not willing to learn... These are
    the major challenges of these century, I could say..

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Linux/64)
    * Origin: Fidonet Brasil - R80 Internet Gateway (4:80/1)
  • From Flavio Bessa@4:80/1 to Wilfred van Velzen on Wed May 19 09:44:11 2021
    On 18 May 2021, Wilfred van Velzen said the following...

    I get the impression there is a communication problem between the ZC (who creates the Z4 nodelist all by him self) and the RC...

    It definetely was, but I hope we will tidy this up along the way.

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Linux/64)
    * Origin: Fidonet Brasil - R80 Internet Gateway (4:80/1)
  • From Flavio Bessa@4:80/1 to Michiel van der Vlist on Wed May 19 09:48:12 2021
    On 18 May 2021, Michiel van der Vlist said the following...

    And what about nets that only list POTS only systems? Is that realistic these days?

    Believe me or not, there is ONE guy in Argentina running a BBS with
    only a POTS line. He has RemoteAccess/FrontDoor, and refuses to use
    any technological update away from the 1990s.

    We have been trying to hook him back into Fidonet, but unfortunately
    most of the lines there have been switched to digital (his is an
    exception) and we can't feed him. We are even considering exchanging
    packets over floppy disks...

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Linux/64)
    * Origin: Fidonet Brasil - R80 Internet Gateway (4:80/1)
  • From Matthias Hertzog@2:301/1 to Flavio Bessa on Wed May 19 15:23:54 2021
    Hello Flavio!

    As said before, I am learning. I have even created a flood of
    old messages here due to a mishap recently, but that added to
    my learning curve. I really appreciate each and every feedback
    I have received from you, Ward, Wilfred, Michiel and so many
    others that have helped me along the way here.

    :-) we all learn. Don't worry, i was not blaming you for the mishap.
    And you're not one of the guys that never responds. I prefer people
    doing things, learn, analyze mishaps and stay active over the ones who don't answer at all. "Learning by doing" is great and as long there is progres, everything's fine.

    Go ahead with your work. If i can be of any help, just let me know.

    I'm in contact with John Dovey via Telegram, so if i can help indirectly,
    just get in touch with me.

    Matthias
    --- GoldED+/W64-MSVC 1.1.5-b20180707
    * Origin: MHS Systems (2:301/1)
  • From Michiel van der Vlist@2:280/5555 to Flavio Bessa on Wed May 19 16:30:00 2021
    Hello Flavio,

    On Wednesday May 19 2021 09:48, you wrote to me:

    And what about nets that only list POTS only systems? Is that
    realistic these days?

    Believe me or not, there is ONE guy in Argentina running a BBS with
    only a POTS line.

    If it is just one system, I can believe it. A whole net is another story.

    He has RemoteAccess/FrontDoor, and refuses to use any technological
    update away from the 1990s.

    I wonder if he gets any users...

    We have been trying to hook him back into Fidonet, but unfortunately
    most of the lines there have been switched to digital (his is an exception) and we can't feed him. We are even considering exchanging packets over floppy disks...

    I don't think that is going to work. It may work for him, but in this day and age people are used to get an answer the same day if not sooner. A floppy disk express will take days and not many will be interested in communcating with him or his users under those conditions. It is a recipe for deception.

    Perhaps you could try via VOIP. Some sysops have tried that and the milage varies. But I am afraid that this is not going to work anyway. Someone who is locked in in the 90 ways of thinking will probalby not fit in anyway. Sometimes one just has to say: "this is not going to work" and move on...


    Cheers, Michiel

    --- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20170303
    * Origin: http://www.vlist.eu (2:280/5555)
  • From Ward Dossche@2:292/854 to Flavio Bessa on Wed May 19 20:23:30 2021
    Flavio,

    We will get there, we just need some time. I could say that we have improved already when comparing to 5 years ago.

    100%.

    \%/@rd
    --- DB4
    * Origin: Hou het veilig, hou vol. Het komt allemaal weer goed (2:292/854)
  • From Ward Dossche@2:292/854 to Matthias Hertzog on Wed May 19 20:33:38 2021
    Matthias,

    I'm in contact with John Dovey via Telegram, so if i can help indirectly, just get in touch with me.

    Haaaaa ... one sysop with a 20yr Fidonet-hiatus talking to one with a 30yr one whose total Fidonet experience since his first listing in 1990 is something like 121 calendar days ... there must be a lot talk about ...

    \%/@rd
    --- DB4
    * Origin: Hou het veilig, hou vol. Het komt allemaal weer goed (2:292/854)
  • From Matthias Hertzog@2:301/1 to Ward Dossche on Wed May 19 21:11:07 2021
    Ward!

    Are you done with humiliating people for today? At least i try to help.

    Matthias


    19 May 21 20:33, you wrote to me:

    Matthias,

    I'm in contact with John Dovey via Telegram, so if i can help
    indirectly, just get in touch with me.

    Haaaaa ... one sysop with a 20yr Fidonet-hiatus talking to one with a
    30yr one whose total Fidonet experience since his first listing in
    1990 is something like 121 calendar days ... there must be a lot talk about ...

    \%/@rd
    --- DB4
    * Origin: Hou het veilig, hou vol. Het komt allemaal weer goed (2:292/854)

    Matthias
    --- GoldED+/W64-MSVC 1.1.5-b20180707
    * Origin: MHS Systems (2:301/1)
  • From BoonDock@4:92/69 to Ward Dossche on Wed May 19 14:37:05 2021
    Re: Re: Nodelist
    By: Ward Dossche to Matthias Hertzog on Wed May 19 2021 20:33:38

    Haaaaa ... one sysop with a 20yr Fidonet-hiatus talking to one with a 30yr one whose total Fidonet experience since his first listing in 1990 is something like 121 calendar days ... there must be a lot talk about ...
    <eyeroll>

    BoonDock
    ===
    * El Gato de Fuego * 4:92/69 (FidoNet) * Pedasi, Panama


    John
    --- SBBSecho 3.11-Win32
    * Origin: El Gato de Fuego - Pedasi, Panama (4:92/69)
  • From Michiel van der Vlist@2:280/5555 to Matthias Hertzog on Wed May 19 23:37:10 2021
    Hello Matthias,

    On Wednesday May 19 2021 11:09, you wrote to me:

    But is not in my job description.

    At least you have a job description.

    False logic.

    The absence of a certain property of an element is not proof of the existance of that element. ;-)


    Cheers, Michiel
    --- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20170303
    * Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)
  • From Ward Dossche@2:292/854 to Matthias Hertzog on Thu May 20 00:24:25 2021
    Matthias,

    Are you done with humiliating people for today? At least i try to help.

    It's another day now.

    Are you done pouncing upon everyone who posts? Not every second message in any echo (in a matter of speech) needs to come from you ...

    John doesn't seem to need help, judging by his manifesto in the FB Fidonet group which identifies him as the inventor of the Fidonet-wheel, the -fire and -hot water ... all on the same day.

    Take care.

    \%/@rd
    --- DB4
    * Origin: Hou het veilig, hou vol. Het komt allemaal weer goed (2:292/854)
  • From Ward Dossche@2:292/854 to BoonDock on Thu May 20 00:25:49 2021
    John,

    Haaaaa ... one sysop with a 20yr Fidonet-hiatus talking to one with a B>WD> 30yr one whose total Fidonet experience since his first listing in 1990 B>WD> is something like 121 calendar days ... there must be a lot talk about.
    <eyeroll>

    Please publish your manifesto here ... The Fidonet FB group is populated by mostly former sysops who are not present here.

    You can only get your ideas some attention by going public 'inside' Fidonet.

    \%/@rd
    --- DB4
    * Origin: Hou het veilig, hou vol. Het komt allemaal weer goed (2:292/854)
  • From David Drummond@3:640/305 to Michiel van der Vlist on Thu May 20 12:40:58 2021
    On 19/05/2021 00:35, 2280/5555 wrote to Matthias:

    MvdV> There is a lot of dead wood in the nodelist...
    Bring out your dead. Bring out your dead...

    --
    Regards
    David

    --- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbi
    * Origin: Pittsworth, QLD (3:640/305)
  • From Andrew Leary@1:320/219 to Wilfred van Velzen on Wed May 19 11:13:46 2021
    Hello Wilfred!

    19 May 21 09:55, you wrote to Tommi Koivula:

    But here are some figures:

    # grep 'Toss Active: ' fmail.log | wc -l
    1841

    And my current fmail.log spans from:

    ------------ Mon 2021-05-10, FMail-lnx64-2.1.0.18-Beta20170815 10:58:39.574 Toss

    To:

    ------------ Wed 2021-05-19, FMail-lnx64-2.1.0.18-Beta20170815 09:39:40.665 Toss

    You do the math... ;)

    In almost 9 days, 1841 toss runs, or a little over 200 times per day.

    Andrew

    --- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20180707
    * Origin: Phoenix BBS * phoenix.bnbbbs.net (1:320/219)
  • From Matthias Hertzog@2:301/1 to Ward Dossche on Thu May 20 06:39:20 2021
    Hello Ward!

    John doesn't seem to need help, judging by his manifesto in the FB
    Fidonet group which identifies him as the inventor of the
    Fidonet-wheel, the -fire and -hot water ... all on the same day.

    He's installing ErrFlags now, he didn't know it before someone told him about. In my case, you've told me. In John's case, i've told him.

    Case closed.

    Matthias
    --- GoldED+/W64-MSVC 1.1.5-b20180707
    * Origin: MHS Systems (2:301/1)
  • From Ward Dossche@2:292/854 to Matthias Hertzog on Thu May 20 07:26:38 2021
    Matthias,

    He's installing ErrFlags now, he didn't know it before someone told him about. In my case, you've told me. In John's case, i've told him.

    In which case, tell him about the ERRFLAGS.ZC2 configuration-file and suggest he gets the file-echo linked-up as well ... either from you or direct from the source.

    Take care,

    \%/@rd
    --- DB4
    * Origin: Hou het veilig, hou vol. Het komt allemaal weer goed (2:292/854)
  • From Matthias Hertzog@2:301/1 to Ward Dossche on Thu May 20 08:09:58 2021
    Hello Ward!

    He's installing ErrFlags now, he didn't know it before someone
    told him about. In my case, you've told me. In John's case, i've
    told him.
    In which case, tell him about the ERRFLAGS.ZC2 configuration-file and suggest he gets the file-echo linked-up as well ... either from you or direct from the source.

    I've told him yesterday already, but added him to that area as well. The
    last file was sent to him manually just now.

    Matthias
    --- GoldED+/W64-MSVC 1.1.5-b20180707
    * Origin: MHS Systems (2:301/1)
  • From Wilfred van Velzen@2:280/464 to Andrew Leary on Thu May 20 09:13:11 2021
    Hi Andrew,

    On 2021-05-19 11:13:46, you wrote to me:

    But here are some figures:

    # grep 'Toss Active: ' fmail.log | wc -l
    1841

    And my current fmail.log spans from:

    ------------ Mon 2021-05-10, FMail-lnx64-2.1.0.18-Beta20170815
    10:58:39.574 Toss

    To:

    ------------ Wed 2021-05-19, FMail-lnx64-2.1.0.18-Beta20170815
    09:39:40.665 Toss

    You do the math... ;)

    In almost 9 days, 1841 toss runs, or a little over 200 times per day.

    Cool! Isn't it... Mail is flowing, who said fidonet was dead... And I'm not even connected to the busy file-announce and cooking areas. ;)


    Bye, Wilfred.
    --- FMail-lnx64 2.1.0.18-B20170815
    * Origin: FMail development HQ (2:280/464)
  • From Wilfred van Velzen@2:280/464 to Ward Dossche on Thu May 20 09:04:41 2021
    Hi Ward,

    On 2021-05-20 07:26:38, you wrote to Matthias Hertzog:

    He's installing ErrFlags now, he didn't know it before someone told
    him about. In my case, you've told me. In John's case, i've told him.

    In which case, tell him about the ERRFLAGS.ZC2 configuration-file and suggest he gets the file-echo linked-up as well ... either from you or direct from the source.

    Can ErrFlags filter out all those stupid ,999,...,new_sysop,... entries?

    Bye, Wilfred.
    --- FMail-lnx64 2.1.0.18-B20170815
    * Origin: FMail development HQ (2:280/464)
  • From Ward Dossche@2:292/854 to Wilfred van Velzen on Thu May 20 13:01:17 2021
    Wilfred,

    Can ErrFlags filter out all those stupid ,999,...,new_sysop,... entries?

    Yes.

    \%/@rd
    --- DB4
    * Origin: Hou het veilig, hou vol. Het komt allemaal weer goed (2:292/854)
  • From Morgul@1:123/126 to David Drummond on Thu May 20 07:25:21 2021
    BY: David Drummond(3:640/305)


    MvdV> There is a lot of dead wood in the nodelist...
    Bring out your dead. Bring out your dead...

    Better yet, bring out your matches and your marshmellows!

    /-------------------------------------------------------------\
    he Trading Post [SOUTH] BBS - Telnet: ttps.dyndns.org:2323
    WWIVNet - Fidonet - StarNet - FSXNet - SFNet
    HobbyNet - PiNet \-------------------------------------------------------------/


    --- WWIV 5.7.1.0001
    * Origin: ** The Trading Post [SOUTH] BBS -=- Columbia, SC ** (1:123/126)
  • From Wilfred van Velzen@2:280/464 to Ward Dossche on Thu May 20 14:04:19 2021
    Hi Ward,

    On 2021-05-20 13:01:17, you wrote to me:

    Can ErrFlags filter out all those stupid ,999,...,new_sysop,...
    entries?

    Yes.

    And would you be willing to implement that? ;)

    Bye, Wilfred.
    --- FMail-lnx64 2.1.0.18-B20170815
    * Origin: FMail development HQ (2:280/464)
  • From Ward Dossche@2:292/854 to Wilfred van Velzen on Thu May 20 17:54:53 2021
    Wilfred,

    Can ErrFlags filter out all those stupid ,999,...,new_sysop,...
    entries?

    Yes.

    And would you be willing to implement that? ;)

    Have a guess ... it would be the uncanning of the can of worms ... no ?

    \%/@rd
    --- DB4
    * Origin: Hou het veilig, hou vol. Het komt allemaal weer goed (2:292/854)
  • From Wilfred van Velzen@2:280/464 to Ward Dossche on Thu May 20 18:21:43 2021
    Hi Ward,

    On 2021-05-20 17:54:53, you wrote to me:

    Can ErrFlags filter out all those stupid ,999,...,new_sysop,...
    entries?

    Yes.

    And would you be willing to implement that? ;)

    Have a guess ... it would be the uncanning of the can of worms ... no ?

    That's what I'm hoping for... ;)

    Bye, Wilfred.
    --- FMail-lnx64 2.1.0.18-B20170815
    * Origin: FMail development HQ (2:280/464)
  • From Fabio Bizzi@2:335/364.3 to Wilfred van Velzen on Thu May 20 20:31:28 2021
    Hello, Wilfred van Velzen.
    On 20/05/21 18:21 you wrote:

    Can ErrFlags filter out all those stupid
    ,999,...,new_sysop,... Wv>> entries? WD> Yes. And would you be
    willing to implement that? ;)
    Have a guess ... it would be the uncanning of the can of worms
    ... no ?
    That's what I'm hoping for... ;)
    Sadist! :P
    --
    Ciao.
    Fabio.
    --- Hotdoged/2.13.5/Android
    * Origin: ]\/[imac Boss Android Point (2:335/364.3)
  • From Boondock@4:920/1 to All on Thu May 20 23:17:45 2021
    Ward Dossche <ward.dossche@2:292/854> wrote:
    Matthias,

    He's installing ErrFlags now, he didn't know it before someone told him
    about. In my case, you've told me. In John's case, i've told him.

    In which case, tell him about the ERRFLAGS.ZC2 configuration-file and
    suggest he gets the file-echo linked-up as well ... either from you or
    direct from the source.


    Got it, thank you.
    --- SBBSecho 3.12-Linux
    * Origin: El Gato de Fuego - elgato.synchronetbbs.org (4:920/1)
  • From Ward Dossche@2:292/854 to Wilfred van Velzen on Fri May 21 11:27:43 2021
    Wilfred,

    And would you be willing to implement that? ;)

    Have a guess ... it would be the uncanning of the can of worms ...
    no ?

    That's what I'm hoping for... ;)

    Are you a fish? Or a bird? ...

    Besides ... there's only one case of "new_sysop" in zone-2.

    \%/@rd
    --- DB4
    * Origin: Hou het veilig, hou vol. Het komt allemaal weer goed (2:292/854)
  • From Wilfred van Velzen@2:280/464 to Ward Dossche on Fri May 21 12:23:43 2021
    Hi Ward,

    On 2021-05-21 11:27:43, you wrote to me:

    And would you be willing to implement that? ;)

    Have a guess ... it would be the uncanning of the can of worms ...
    no ?

    That's what I'm hoping for... ;)

    Are you a fish? Or a bird? ...

    Neither, maybe I'm a fisher? ;)

    Besides ... there's only one case of "new_sysop" in zone-2.

    One too many...

    I understood the "uncanning of the can of worms", in this regard, as a hint to a particular other zone, with many 999 nodes, where this filter would really clean things up!


    Bye, Wilfred.
    --- FMail-lnx64 2.1.0.18-B20170815
    * Origin: FMail development HQ (2:280/464)
  • From Ward Dossche@2:292/854 to Wilfred van Velzen on Fri May 21 14:30:49 2021
    Wilfred,

    I understood the "uncanning of the can of worms", in this regard, as a
    hint to a particular other zone, with many 999 nodes, where this filter would really clean things up!

    Not my monkey, not my circus.

    Different zones have different ways of conducting business.

    I agree, the 999- or 9999-entries are ridiculous.

    \%/@rd

    --- DB4
    * Origin: Hou het veilig, hou vol. Het komt allemaal weer goed (2:292/854)
  • From Kurt Weiske@1:218/700 to Ward Dossche on Fri May 21 07:00:00 2021
    Ward Dossche wrote to Wilfred van Velzen <=-

    I agree, the 999- or 9999-entries are ridiculous.

    Ridiculous, but there is a purpose. In R10, I've seen a handful of people
    who apply via email but never get to polling. I've started checking to see
    if they have a mailer active before proceeding nowadays.

    By getting an application via netmail from /9999, I know that the applicant
    at least has a basic understanding of the net structure, has a nodelist configured, and understands the tech. While it's a barrier to entry that
    some people may find excessive, it does help ensure that the applicant knows what he/she is doing.


    ... Start where you are. Use what you have. Do what you can.
    --- MultiMail/DOS v0.52
    * Origin: http://realitycheckbbs.org | tomorrow's retro tech (1:218/700)
  • From Wilfred van Velzen@2:280/464 to Kurt Weiske on Fri May 21 17:11:06 2021
    Hi Kurt,

    On 2021-05-21 07:00:00, you wrote to Ward Dossche:

    I agree, the 999- or 9999-entries are ridiculous.

    Ridiculous, but there is a purpose. In R10, I've seen a handful of people who apply via email but never get to polling. I've started checking to see if they have a mailer active before proceeding nowadays.

    By getting an application via netmail from /9999, I know that the applicant at least has a basic understanding of the net structure, has
    a nodelist configured, and understands the tech. While it's a barrier
    to entry that some people may find excessive, it does help ensure that
    the applicant knows what he/she is doing.

    We were talking about listing those 999 nodes in the nodelist. Not about the usage by new nodes, that of course is usefull.


    Bye, Wilfred.
    --- FMail-lnx64 2.1.0.18-B20170815
    * Origin: FMail development HQ (2:280/464)
  • From Daniel Path@2:371/52 to Flavio Bessa on Fri May 21 18:31:23 2021
    Hello Flavio.

    19 May 21 09:48, you wrote to Michiel van der Vlist:

    On 18 May 2021, Michiel van der Vlist said the following...

    And what about nets that only list POTS only systems? Is that
    realistic these days?

    Believe me or not, there is ONE guy in Argentina running a BBS
    with
    only a POTS line. He has RemoteAccess/FrontDoor, and refuses to
    use
    any technological update away from the 1990s.

    We have been trying to hook him back into Fidonet, but
    unfortunately
    most of the lines there have been switched to digital (his is an
    exception) and we can't feed him. We are even considering
    exchanging
    packets over floppy disks...

    wow. that rocks! i think this is the retroest thing i heard in the last few years, and i have to tell you it's great. if you have the opportunity for
    this, you should go for it :)

    i don't know if i can help. but i have an old modem hooked on to the bbs via a voip box. i don't know if we can connect it to a local provider in Brasil :)

    --
    Daniel

    --- GoldED/2 3.0.1
    * Origin: Roon's BBS - Budapest, HUNGARY (2:371/52)
  • From Björn Felten@2:203/2 to Flavio Bessa on Fri May 21 20:58:04 2021
    We have been trying to hook him back into Fidonet, but unfortunately
    most of the lines there have been switched to digital (his is an
    exception) and we can't feed him. We are even considering exchanging
    packets over floppy disks...

    It would be interesting to hear if he is able to connect to 2:203/0. I have a POTS line answering there. The speed will probably be higher than floppy-mail.



    ..
    --- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; sv-SE; rv:1.9.1.16) Gecko/20101125
    * Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)
  • From Kurt Weiske@1:218/700 to Wilfred van Velzen on Sat May 22 06:58:00 2021
    Wilfred van Velzen wrote to Kurt Weiske <=-

    We were talking about listing those 999 nodes in the nodelist. Not
    about the usage by new nodes, that of course is usefull.

    Oh, my mistake. That doesn't make sense, unless the NC/RC don't accept mail from unlisted nodes?


    ... Is the style right?
    --- MultiMail/DOS v0.52
    * Origin: http://realitycheckbbs.org | tomorrow's retro tech (1:218/700)
  • From Michiel van der Vlist@2:280/5555 to Kurt Weiske on Sun May 23 15:27:05 2021
    Hello Kurt,

    On Saturday May 22 2021 06:58, you wrote to Wilfred van Velzen:

    We were talking about listing those 999 nodes in the nodelist.
    Not about the usage by new nodes, that of course is usefull.

    Oh, my mistake. That doesn't make sense, unless the NC/RC don't accept mail from unlisted nodes?

    An NC that does not accept mail from unlisted nodes is not doing his job. There is no rule that says an applicant MUST use net/999, net/9999 or -1/-1. An NC doing his job should process an application coming from any number.

    But... if the NC wishes to only accept applications form net/999 and not accept mail from unlisted nodes (s)he should make use of a private nodelist with that entry. No need to bother the entire Fdionet community.

    Cheers, Michiel
    --- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20170303
    * Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)
  • From Mike Powell@1:2320/105 to MICHIEL VAN DER VLIST on Mon May 24 10:21:00 2021
    But... if the NC wishes to only accept applications form net/999 and not accep
    mail from unlisted nodes (s)he should make use of a private nodelist with that
    ntry. No need to bother the entire Fdionet community.

    Pardon my ignorance, but does listing the /999 in the nodelist cause a
    bother for others in the community? Are there some softwares that don't like those entries?


    * SLMR 2.1a * ETHERNET - A device for catching the ether bunny.
    --- SBBSecho 3.12-Linux
    * Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)
  • From Vincent Coen@2:250/1 to Mike Powell on Mon May 31 13:33:04 2021
    Hello Mike!

    Monday May 24 2021 10:21, you wrote to MICHIEL VAN DER VLIST:

    But... if the NC wishes to only accept applications form net/999 and
    not accep mail from unlisted nodes (s)he should make use of a
    private nodelist with that ntry. No need to bother the entire
    Fdionet community.

    Pardon my ignorance, but does listing the /999 in the nodelist cause a bother for others in the community? Are there some softwares that
    don't like those entries?


    I have to use it along with /9990 for a new budding sysop but it does help if they turn of any password security as my system will ignore them - cannot find
    a way around that !

    Vincent

    --- Mageia Linux v7.1 X64/Mbse v1.0.7.21/GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20180707
    * Origin: Air Applewood, The Linux Gateway to the UK & Eire (2:250/1)
  • From Carol Shenkenberger@1:275/100 to Flavio Bessa on Mon May 31 14:09:00 2021
    Re: Re: Nodelist
    By: Flavio Bessa to Matthias Hertzog on Wed May 19 2021 09:43 am

    On 18 May 2021, Matthias Hertzog said the following...

    That has absolutly nothing to do with POTS thinking. It's a fact, that not all *Cs are well operated. If they are, i route via them, it not,
    i avoid them. I will not dislose the list of non responding RCs and
    the one that tosses manually, but i have such a list. Unfortunatly.

    As said before, I am learning. I have even created a flood of
    old messages here due to a mishap recently, but that added to
    my learning curve. I really appreciate each and every feedback
    I have received from you, Ward, Wilfred, Michiel and so many
    others that have helped me along the way here.

    Unfortunately there are also some people that do not take
    feedbacks lightly and are not willing to learn... These are
    the major challenges of these century, I could say..


    I am with you Flavio. I think Z4 is making good strides over time. People who want it all 'right now' need to recognize that it takes time.

    I like what I see.

    xxcarol
    --- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
    * Origin: SHENK'S EXPRESS (1:275/100)
  • From Carol Shenkenberger@1:275/100 to Andrew Leary on Mon May 31 14:16:05 2021
    Re: Nodelist
    By: Andrew Leary to Wilfred van Velzen on Wed May 19 2021 11:13 am

    Hello Wilfred!

    19 May 21 09:55, you wrote to Tommi Koivula:

    But here are some figures:

    # grep 'Toss Active: ' fmail.log | wc -l
    1841

    And my current fmail.log spans from:

    ------------ Mon 2021-05-10, FMail-lnx64-2.1.0.18-Beta20170815 10:58:39.574 Toss

    To:

    ------------ Wed 2021-05-19, FMail-lnx64-2.1.0.18-Beta20170815 09:39:40.665 Toss

    You do the math... ;)

    In almost 9 days, 1841 toss runs, or a little over 200 times per day.

    Andrew


    Thats a little under what I run but not by much. BRE leage here.

    xxcarol
    --- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
    * Origin: SHENK'S EXPRESS (1:275/100)
  • From Flavio Bessa@4:801/188 to Wilfred van Velzen on Fri Jun 4 09:08:14 2021
    Wilfred van Velzen wrote to Nighthawk <=-

    Unfortunately that's how our ZC assigns the nodes to the regions.

    That is not the ZC's job, but the RC's...

    I meant when a region is created or restored, our ZC creates an
    mail/netmail export point to the XX/1 address of that specific
    region.

    Of course when I as RC have a new node on my region, I assign
    the nodenumber based on my criteria.



    ... MultiMail, the new multi-platform, multi-format offline reader!
    ___ MultiMail/Mac v0.52
    --- Mystic BBS/QWK v1.12 A42 2019/02/01 (Windows/64)
    * Origin: Saturn's Orbit BBS - Rio de Janeiro, Brasil (4:801/188)
  • From Flavio Bessa@4:801/188 to Michiel van der Vlist on Fri Jun 4 09:08:14 2021
    Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Nighthawk <=-

    Believe me or not, there is ONE guy in Argentina running a BBS with
    only a POTS line.

    If it is just one system, I can believe it. A whole net is another
    story.

    Correct.

    He has RemoteAccess/FrontDoor, and refuses to use any technological
    update away from the 1990s.

    I wonder if he gets any users...

    He does have one or two, believe me. I used to dial-in from
    Brazil but my laptop (which has a modem) had a disk drive
    failure and I stopped to access. Even internationally, I was
    able to connect at 9600 bps.

    We have been trying to hook him back into Fidonet, but unfortunately
    most of the lines there have been switched to digital (his is an exception) and we can't feed him. We are even considering exchanging packets over floppy disks...

    I don't think that is going to work. It may work for him, but in this
    day and age people are used to get an answer the same day if not
    sooner. A floppy disk express will take days and not many will be interested in communcating with him
    or his users under those conditions. It is a recipe for deception.

    Perhaps you could try via VOIP. Some sysops have tried that and the milage varies. But I am afraid that this is not going to work anyway. Someone who is locked in in the 90 ways of thinking will probalby not
    fit in anyway. Sometimes
    one just has to say: "this is not going to work" and move on...

    Indeed. Anyway regular phone lines are in extinction in Argentina,
    and the local VoIP terminals do not seem to work with data calls.

    I thought on setting up a MO node with my Windows98-with-modem
    laptop and feeding him from Brazil but then my laptop got this
    hard drive issue I have to fix.

    Nevertheless, we can always set it up just for the fun of it.

    ... Quero a alegria, a melancolia me mata aos poucos - Clarice Lispector
    ___ MultiMail/Mac v0.52
    --- Mystic BBS/QWK v1.12 A42 2019/02/01 (Windows/64)
    * Origin: Saturn's Orbit BBS - Rio de Janeiro, Brasil (4:801/188)
  • From Flavio Bessa@4:801/188 to Daniel Path on Fri Jun 4 09:08:14 2021
    Daniel Path wrote to Nighthawk <=-

    wow. that rocks! i think this is the retroest thing i heard in the last few years, and i have to tell you it's great. if you have the
    opportunity for this, you should go for it :)

    i don't know if i can help. but i have an old modem hooked on to the
    bbs via a voip box. i don't know if we can connect it to a local
    provider in Brasil :)

    Every now and then we get a request at the local Facebook groups:

    "Hey, I have a modem here and want to dial in somewhere"

    Quickly one of our sysops set up a sexpots point, we share the
    phone number, but nobody ever dials... ;)



    ... Heisenberg may have slept here.
    ___ MultiMail/Mac v0.52
    --- Mystic BBS/QWK v1.12 A42 2019/02/01 (Windows/64)
    * Origin: Saturn's Orbit BBS - Rio de Janeiro, Brasil (4:801/188)
  • From Flavio Bessa@4:801/188 to Björn Felten on Fri Jun 4 09:08:14 2021
    Bjrn Felten wrote to Nighthawk <=-

    We have been trying to hook him back into Fidonet, but unfortunately
    most of the lines there have been switched to digital (his is an
    exception) and we can't feed him. We are even considering exchanging
    packets over floppy disks...

    It would be interesting to hear if he is able to connect to 2:203/0.
    I have a POTS line answering there. The speed will probably be higher
    than floppy-mail.

    Oh yes, but the cost of that call would be good. ;)



    ... Quero a alegria, a melancolia me mata aos poucos - Clarice Lispector
    ___ MultiMail/Mac v0.52
    --- Mystic BBS/QWK v1.12 A42 2019/02/01 (Windows/64)
    * Origin: Saturn's Orbit BBS - Rio de Janeiro, Brasil (4:801/188)
  • From Michiel van der Vlist@2:280/5555 to Flavio Bessa on Sun Jun 6 09:47:27 2021
    Hello Flavio,

    On Friday June 04 2021 09:08, you wrote to me:

    Perhaps you could try via VOIP. Some sysops have tried that and the
    milage varies. But I am afraid that this is not going to work
    anyway. Someone who is locked in in the 90 ways of thinking will
    probalby not fit in anyway. Sometimes one just has to say: "this is
    not going to work" and move on...

    Indeed. Anyway regular phone lines are in extinction in Argentina, and
    the local VoIP terminals do not seem to work with data calls.

    Decommisioning PSTN is a process that is going on all over the world. Here in The Netherlands ISDN was discontinued some three years ago IIRC and analog POTS last year. If one insists on "keeping everything as it was", KPN will give you an E-POTS line. That means you are connected to the VOIP network, but the ATA is located at the exchange, so that to the customer it still looks like a good old POTS line. Works fine for voice, but not so fine for data.

    Makes sense. VOIP is optimised for VOICE. Voice is highly redundant itself so a little bit of jitter or a small gap in the stream is barely audiable. That nobody wants to invest in making voice more suitable for data makes sense. Data over voice is like putting a man on a horse, put that horse on a trailer, hooking the trailer up behind a car and use that to get from A to B. If the goal is to get a man from A to B, that makes no sense. Forget about he horse, forget about the trailer and just use the car.

    Same for data over VOIP. To get the data from A to B, forget about the modem, forget about the VOIP ATA, just use the digital highway to get the data from A to B.

    I thought on setting up a MO node with my Windows98-with-modem
    laptop and feeding him from Brazil but then my laptop got this hard
    drive issue I have to fix.

    Even if you can fix this probem, maintaining such a setup will only become harder and harder. My last laptop that supported modems went the way of the Dodo five years ago. Modern equipment no longer has a serial port. Yes, I know, there are such things as USB to serial convertors. But is that really worth all the trouble? Just to support an outdated technology?

    Nevertheless, we can always set it up just for the fun of it.

    I suppose you could. I for myself have decided to leave that part of the museum to others. I have new toys to play with... ;-)


    Cheers, Michiel
    --- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20170303
    * Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)
  • From Carlos Navarro@2:341/234.1 to Michiel van der Vlist on Wed Jun 16 16:37:48 2021
    18 May 2021 12:46, you wrote to Matthias Hertzog:

    Echomail transport should not be done over the RC address.

    Waiting for Ward weighing in to tell me, i have pre-2k-thinking
    on that...

    The rule that *C systems should not be used for echomail was already outdated in the POTS age. It was based on Single User, single task
    systems that took hours to toss the mail and could not answer calls
    during that time. Today systems are multitasking, tossing runs in the backgrouns and takes seconds, not even minutes. There is no technical reason any more for not using *C systems for echomail and I see no problems in using the /0 address when convenient.

    I understand it is not easy to suddenly get rid of the POTS age
    thinking. For me the transition was gradual...

    I must admit that my eyes hurt when I see /0 addresses in SEEN+BY's and PATHs.

    I had noticed this and intended to ask about it. So, why or when could be convenient using any /0 address *for echomail*?

    Carlos
    --- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20180707
    * Origin: Costa Blanca, Spain (2:341/234.1)
  • From Björn Felten@2:203/2 to Carlos Navarro on Wed Jun 16 17:34:03 2021
    I must admit that my eyes hurt when I see /0 addresses in SEEN+BY's and PATHs.

    Why? What do YOU expect the use of one's admin number to be?

    Everything distributed to or from N203, and since a number of years back to/from R20, goes via 2:203/0. My 2:20/0 node entry is another one of those totally non technically needed ones that I have to uphold.

    In Sweden (formerly R20) we always made sure to use our admin numbers for what they were intended. That way, whenever a Host or Hub wanted to resign, it took minimal of work to make the transfer. All the connections and passwords just could be copied to new one, and the downlinks didn't have to change anything -- they could even make the transfer over night without lifting a finger.

    But then again, we didn't use our BBSs with all their shortcomings to transfer mail via, we had the /0 address setup in a totally separate different computer space, with usually everything on pass through.


    ..
    --- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; sv-SE; rv:1.9.1.16) Gecko/20101125
    * Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)
  • From Nick Andre@1:229/426 to Carlos Navarro on Wed Jun 16 14:17:18 2021
    On 16 Jun 21 16:37:48, Carlos Navarro said the following to Michiel Van Der Vli

    I must admit that my eyes hurt when I see /0 addresses in SEEN+BY's and PAT

    I had noticed this and intended to ask about it. So, why or when could be convenient using any /0 address *for echomail*?

    Dude... its 2021, not 1991.

    Nick
    --- Renegade vY2Ka2
    * Origin: Joey, do you like movies about gladiators? (1:229/426)
  • From Ward Dossche@2:292/854 to Daniel Path on Wed Jun 16 23:08:51 2021
    we are doing the same here N371, i've received only one complainment till today
    :)

    Who is it from ?

    \%/@rd
    --- DB4 - Jun 14 2021
    * Origin: Hou het veilig, hou vol. Het komt allemaal weer goed (2:292/854)
  • From Michiel van der Vlist@2:280/5555 to Carlos Navarro on Wed Jun 16 23:30:56 2021
    Hello Carlos,

    On Wednesday June 16 2021 16:37, you wrote to me:

    So, why or when could be convenient using any /0 address *for
    echomail*?

    It is convenient when the sysops concerned find it convenient.


    Cheers, Michiel
    --- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20170303
    * Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)
  • From Daniel Path@2:371/52 to Björn Felten on Wed Jun 16 21:39:01 2021
    Hello Bjrn.

    16 Jun 21 17:34, you wrote to Carlos Navarro:

    I must admit that my eyes hurt when I see /0 addresses in
    SEEN+BY's and PATHs.

    Why? What do YOU expect the use of one's admin number to be?

    Everything distributed to or from N203, and since a number of years back to/from R20, goes via 2:203/0. My 2:20/0 node entry is another
    one of those totally non technically needed ones that I have to
    uphold.

    In Sweden (formerly R20) we always made sure to use our admin
    numbers for what they were intended. That way, whenever a Host or Hub wanted to resign, it took minimal of work to make the transfer. All
    the connections and passwords just could be copied to new one, and the downlinks didn't have to change anything -- they could even make the transfer over night without lifting a finger.

    But then again, we didn't use our BBSs with all their shortcomings
    to transfer mail via, we had the /0 address setup in a totally
    separate different computer space, with usually everything on pass through.

    we are doing the same here N371, i've received only one complainment till today :)

    Daniel

    ... BBS: Uptime is 00d 21h 25m 55s (BT-Uptime/OS2, V1.5)
    --- GoldED+/EMX 1.1.4.7
    * Origin: Roon's BBS - Budapest, HUNGARY (2:371/52)
  • From David Drummond@3:640/305 to Nick Andre on Thu Jun 17 08:46:16 2021
    On 17/06/2021 05:17, 1229/426 wrote:

    I had noticed this and intended to ask about it. So, why or when could be
    convenient using any /0 address *for echomail*?

    Dude... its 2021, not 1991.

    And yet some insist on using 1991 hardware and/or protocols...

    --
    Regards
    David
    --- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbi
    * Origin: Bucca, QLD (3:640/305)
  • From Nick Andre@1:229/426 to David Drummond on Wed Jun 16 19:28:59 2021
    On 17 Jun 21 08:46:16, David Drummond said the following to Nick Andre:

    Dude... its 2021, not 1991.

    And yet some insist on using 1991 hardware and/or protocols...

    Who cares... haven't heard from you in awhile, how are ya?

    Nick
    --- Renegade vY2Ka2
    * Origin: Joey, do you like movies about gladiators? (1:229/426)
  • From David Drummond@3:640/305 to Nick Andre on Thu Jun 17 11:15:36 2021
    On 17/06/2021 10:28, 1229/426 wrote:

      NA> Dude... its 2021, not 1991.

    And yet some insist on using 1991 hardware and/or protocols...

    Who cares...

    Those bitching about things not working perhaps.

    haven't heard from you in awhile, how are ya?

    I'm OK for a bloke of my limited years.

    I've been here most of the time, just lurking...

    --
    Regards
    David
    --- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbi
    * Origin: Bucca, QLD (3:640/305)
  • From Carlos Navarro@2:341/234.1 to Bj÷rn Felten on Thu Jun 17 06:52:57 2021
    16 Jun 2021 17:34, you wrote to me:

    I must admit that my eyes hurt when I see /0 addresses in
    SEEN+BY's and PATHs.

    It was meant to be a joke. I was exaggerating, my eyes don't hurt. I should have added a smiley.

    I'm not criticising, just a bit surprised to see so many /0's in echomail and want to understand why.

    Why? What do YOU expect the use of one's admin number to be?

    Default host routing for netmail.

    Carlos

    --- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20180707
    * Origin: Costa Blanca, Spain (2:341/234.1)
  • From Carlos Navarro@2:341/234.1 to Nick Andre on Thu Jun 17 06:53:49 2021
    16 Jun 2021 14:17, you wrote to me:

    I must admit that my eyes hurt when I see /0 addresses in
    SEEN+BY's and PAT

    I had noticed this and intended to ask about it. So, why or when
    could be convenient using any /0 address *for echomail*?

    Dude... its 2021, not 1991.

    Not so long ago... I come from the early 2000s... :-)

    In the first paragraph I was joking.

    The second was a sincere question, I want to understand how some things work now.

    Carlos

    --- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20180707
    * Origin: Costa Blanca, Spain (2:341/234.1)
  • From Carlos Navarro@2:341/234.1 to Daniel Path on Thu Jun 17 06:54:20 2021
    16 Jun 2021 21:39, you wrote to Bjrn Felten:

    we are doing the same here N371, i've received only one complainment
    till today
    :)

    I was not complaining, just asking.

    Carlos

    --- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20180707
    * Origin: Costa Blanca, Spain (2:341/234.1)
  • From Ward Dossche@2:292/854 to Daniel Path on Thu Jun 17 09:25:15 2021
    Daniel,

    we are doing the same here N371, i've received only one
    complainment till today :)

    Who is it from ?

    :) i don't want to expose. it was not a big deal.

    I was hoping to unearth something critical hindering the growth into millions of nodes for Fidonet...

    \%/@rd
    --- DB4 - Jun 14 2021
    * Origin: Hou het veilig, hou vol. Het komt allemaal weer goed (2:292/854)
  • From Daniel Path@2:371/52 to Ward Dossche on Thu Jun 17 09:11:40 2021
    Hello Ward.

    17 Jun 21 09:25, you wrote to me:

    Daniel,

    we are doing the same here N371, i've received only one
    complainment till today :)

    Who is it from ?

    :) i don't want to expose. it was not a big deal.

    I was hoping to unearth something critical hindering the growth into millions of nodes for Fidonet...

    maybe next time ;)

    Daniel

    ... BBS: Uptime is 01d 08h 59m 41s (BT-Uptime/OS2, V1.5)
    --- GoldED+/EMX 1.1.4.7
    * Origin: Roon's BBS - Budapest, HUNGARY (2:371/52)
  • From Björn Felten@2:203/2 to Carlos Navarro on Sat Jun 19 12:11:30 2021
    Why? What do YOU expect the use of one's admin number to be?

    Default host routing for netmail.

    So, the reason that we have (according to the .169 nodelist) 175 host related /0 numbers are for netmail routing? Well, some people surely still lives in the backwards, backbone thinking from the last century. :-)

    Hows about crashmail? Works for me...


    ..

    --- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; sv-SE; rv:1.9.1.16) Gecko/20101125
    * Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)
  • From Carlos Navarro@2:341/234.1 to Michiel van der Vlist on Sat Jun 19 08:05:53 2021
    16 Jun 2021 23:30, you wrote to me:

    So, why or when could be convenient using any /0 address *for
    echomail*?

    It is convenient when the sysops concerned find it convenient.

    Ok, I think I got it.

    Carlos
    --- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20180707
    * Origin: Costa Blanca, Spain (2:341/234.1)
  • From Carlos Navarro@2:341/234.1 to Bj÷rn Felten on Sat Jun 19 17:35:55 2021
    19 Jun 2021 12:11, you wrote to me:

    Why? What do YOU expect the use of one's admin number to be?

    Default host routing for netmail.

    So, the reason that we have (according to the .169 nodelist) 175
    host related /0 numbers are for netmail routing?

    Yes, host-routed inbound netmail.

    That doesn't mean that /0 entries can't be used for other stuff, e.g. echomail backbone, like you told me you do in your net. That's ok, but is not the default use of a Host node (regarding mail).

    Well, some people surely still lives in the backwards, backbone
    thinking from the last century. :-)

    Are you talking about me?

    Hows about crashmail? Works for me...

    For me too.

    Carlos
    --- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20180707
    * Origin: Costa Blanca, Spain (2:341/234.1)
  • From Carol Shenkenberger@1:275/100 to Carlos Navarro on Sun Jul 18 09:30:12 2021
    Re: Nodelist
    By: Carlos Navarro to Nick Andre on Thu Jun 17 2021 06:53 am

    16 Jun 2021 14:17, you wrote to me:

    I must admit that my eyes hurt when I see /0 addresses in
    SEEN+BY's and PAT

    I had noticed this and intended to ask about it. So, why or when
    could be convenient using any /0 address *for echomail*?

    Dude... its 2021, not 1991.

    Not so long ago... I come from the early 2000s... :-)

    In the first paragraph I was joking.

    The second was a sincere question, I want to understand how some things work now.

    Carlos


    Carlos, this is more one of those 'zone differences'. I don't think there is any true advantage to it but some configurations common in some of Z2 use it. In Z1, they'd be more apt to use the /1 for echomail. (it can be configured to do the same 'passthruogh' that another mentioned here). More 'just what you are used to'.

    Most use their own personally assigned address. 1:261/38, 1:275/100 etc.

    Yes, 1:275/100 is 'supposed' to be a hub asignment by convention but a former NC275 put me on it as my personal one and I never bothered to swap it. Had too many connections very fast to make that an easy task. Among other things, I was the backbone draw for 275/271 within months of arrival (though never listed as an NEC).


    In the late 90's, people weren't too concerned about such trivia. It's like when I became RC13, I didn't step down from the FTSC. Some didn't like that. Then Bin Li (Z6C) preassigned me as RC?74? (Japan, Phillippenes, Guam). I wasn't there yet. Some didn't like that but I was just as suprized as aanyone else when I was told about it. It may have been a week before another took over officially as RC13? It was in progress at the time. Still FTSC, Later Z6C and FTSC. Then dissolved the zone as I left via vote to move Z6 to Z3. Unanimous so I modem checked all Z3 then asked Scott Little if we could shift them to the most connectable site for their needs and he was agreeable. So, what I say there, is a lot of what is done now, is by common agreement with variations as needed. It some find /0 use for echomail, go for it! Harms no one!

    xxcarol

    --- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
    * Origin: SHENK'S EXPRESS (1:275/100)