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...
What are you going to do with the /1 AKA's? You don't really needUnfortunately that's how our ZC assigns the nodes to the regions.
them from a technical point of view...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
I understand it is not easy to suddenly get rid of the POTS age thinking. For me the transition was gradual...
On a lower level you are violating that rule. You use 301/1 instead of 301/101 for your personal mail.
The rule that *C systems should not be used for echomail was already outdated in the POTS age.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...
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: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 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 ...
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.
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...
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.
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)
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.
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?
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' ?
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. ;-)That depends on the number of times my links deliver pkt files on my system. ;)
How many times per day do you run 'fmail toss' ?
But you can see at these speeds there is no need to delay tossing, or do it only periodically. ;)
Bye, Wilfred.
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? ;)
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.
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.
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. ;-)That depends on the number of times my links deliver pkt files on my system. ;)
How many times per day do you run 'fmail toss' ?
But you can see at these speeds there is no need to delay tossing, or do it only periodically. ;)
Bye, Wilfred.
I did so, but my OCD prevents me of throwing out an unfinshedOCD??
list.
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.
discuss it with the *Cs of the affected regions/nets. But then:I care. I always say: "if there is garbage in the nodelist it affects
Who cares...
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...
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.
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.
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.
A recipe for disappointment. Doing things right is hard enough. Doing things right AND complete is impossible. Ever heard of G”del's incompleteness theorem? ;-)
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.
But is not in my job description.
As long the technology is used, that's fine. If it helps people,Not only is the technology used, a lot of today's Fidonet technology /comes/ from sysops who's native language is written in Cyrillic.
even better.
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 ?
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.
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.
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.
I get the impression there is a communication problem between the ZC (who creates the Z4 nodelist all by him self) and the RC...
And what about nets that only list POTS only systems? Is that realistic these days?
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.
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...
We will get there, we just need some time. I could say that we have improved already when comparing to 5 years ago.
I'm in contact with John Dovey via Telegram, so if i can help indirectly, just get in touch with 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)
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>
But is not in my job description.
At least you have a job description.
Are you done with humiliating people for today? At least i try to help.
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>
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... ;)
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.
He's installing ErrFlags now, he didn't know it before someoneIn 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.
told him about. In my case, you've told me. In John's case, i've
told him.
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.
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?
MvdV> There is a lot of dead wood in the nodelist...
Bring out your dead. Bring out your dead...
Can ErrFlags filter out all those stupid ,999,...,new_sysop,...
entries?
Yes.
Can ErrFlags filter out all those stupid ,999,...,new_sysop,...
entries?
Yes.
And would you be willing to implement that? ;)
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 ?
Sadist! :P,999,...,new_sysop,... Wv>> entries? WD> Yes. And would you beCan ErrFlags filter out all those stupid
willing to implement that? ;)
Have a guess ... it would be the uncanning of the can of wormsThat's what I'm hoping for... ;)
... no ?
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.
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... ;)
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.
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!
Ward Dossche wrote to Wilfred van Velzen <=-
I agree, the 999- or 9999-entries are ridiculous.
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.
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...
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...
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.
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?
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.
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?
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..
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
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...
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.
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...
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 :)
Bj”rn 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.
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.
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 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*?
we are doing the same here N371, i've received only one complainment till today
:)
So, why or when could be convenient using any /0 address *for
echomail*?
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.
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.
Dude... its 2021, not 1991.
And yet some insist on using 1991 hardware and/or protocols...
 NA> 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?
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?
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.
we are doing the same here N371, i've received only one complainment
till today
:)
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.
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...
Why? What do YOU expect the use of one's admin number to be?
Default host routing for netmail.
So, why or when could be convenient using any /0 address *for
echomail*?
It is convenient when the sysops concerned find it convenient.
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...
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
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 409 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 57:03:08 |
| Calls: | 8,572 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 13,223 |
| Messages: | 5,929,690 |