@MSGID: 1482.fidonetfn_sysop@4:902/26 250f1268
@PID: Synchronet 3.19a-Linux master/f6108f302 May 23 2021 GCC 6.3.0 @TZUTC: -0300
@TID: SBBSecho 3.14-Linux master/f6108f302 May 23 2021 GCC 6.3.0
@BBSID: DOCKSUD
@CHRS: UTF-8 4
Again, I do not receive traffic from the Z4
=(
--- SBBSecho 3.14-Linux
* Origin: Dock Sud BBS - http://bbs.docksud.com.ar (4:902/26)
SEEN-BY: 1/123 4/0 30/0 88/0 90/0 1 92/1 103/705 105/81 120/340 123/131 SEEN-BY: 124/5016 129/305 154/10 203/0 218/700 221/0 1 6 226/30 227/114 SEEN-BY: 227/702 229/101 200 424 426 550 664 700 981 1016 1017 240/1120 SEEN-BY: 240/5832 249/206 307 317 400 261/38 280/464 5003 5555 282/1038 SEEN-BY: 292/854 8125 301/0 1 101 103 113 123 812 310/31 317/3 322/757 SEEN-BY: 335/364 341/66 342/200 396/45 423/120 460/58 633/280 712/848 SEEN-BY: 770/1 900/0 100 105 106 107 108 902/0 6 7 10 19 26 27 100 2452/250
SEEN-BY: 5020/1042 5058/104
@PATH: 902/26 27 90/1 229/426 301/1 280/464
Hi Fernando,
On 2021-05-23 01:14:22, you wrote to Fidonet.FN_SYSOP:
@MSGID: 1482.fidonetfn_sysop@4:902/26 250f1268
@PID: Synchronet 3.19a-Linux master/f6108f302 May 23 2021 GCC
6.3.0 @TZUTC: -0300 @TID: SBBSecho 3.14-Linux master/f6108f302
May 23 2021 GCC 6.3.0 @BBSID: DOCKSUD @CHRS: UTF-8 4 Again, I do
not receive traffic from the Z4
What do you mean with "the Z4"? You are in Z4...
=(
--- SBBSecho 3.14-Linux
* Origin: Dock Sud BBS - http://bbs.docksud.com.ar (4:902/26)
229/426 301/1 280/464@PATH: 902/26 27 90/1
Bye, Wilfred.
--- FMail-lnx64 2.1.0.18-B20170815
* Origin: FMail development HQ (2:280/464)
Again, I do not receive traffic from the Z4
What do you mean with "the Z4"? You are in Z4...
It looked like 4:4/0 was not processing any mails for a couple of
days. There's some indication of a "disk full" condition, but that's a
bit of guessing. Mails are being processed now again, i've just
received 831 dupes from zone 4.
It's all bit wobbly over there...
Well maybe it's an incentive for the nodes in Z4 to route around the problem and get more links fidoweb style...
Btw: Please don't top quote in fidonet!Yeah, i know. Sometimes top-quoting is better to read, but i'll try to avoid it :-)
One of the RCs is not connectable since at least 8 hours.
Btw: Please don't top quote in fidonet!Yeah, i know. Sometimes top-quoting is better to read, but i'll try to avoid it :-)
Wilfred van Velzen wrote to Fernando Toledo <=-
Hi Fernando,
On 2021-05-23 01:14:22, you wrote to Fidonet.FN_SYSOP:
@MSGID: 1482.fidonetfn_sysop@4:902/26 250f1268
@PID: Synchronet 3.19a-Linux master/f6108f302 May 23 2021 GCC 6.3.0 @TZUTC: -0300
@TID: SBBSecho 3.14-Linux master/f6108f302 May 23 2021 GCC 6.3.0
@BBSID: DOCKSUD
@CHRS: UTF-8 4
Again, I do not receive traffic from the Z4
What do you mean with "the Z4"? You are in Z4...
Wilfred van Velzen wrote to Matthias Hertzog <=-
What do you mean with "the Z4"? You are in Z4...
It looked like 4:4/0 was not processing any mails for a couple of
days. There's some indication of a "disk full" condition, but that's a
bit of guessing. Mails are being processed now again, i've just
received 831 dupes from zone 4.
Aha, so he probably ment to say "the ZC4 system". ;)
It's all bit wobbly over there...
Unfortunately, this seems to happen often.
Well maybe it's an incentive for the nodes in Z4 to route around the problem and get more links fidoweb style...
Wilfred van Velzen wrote to Fernando Toledo <=-
Hi Fernando,
Here at Z4, we have 4 regions:
- Argentina (R90)
- Brazil (R80)
- Chile (R88)
- Panama (R92)
Manuel is the ZC4 and RC90, so all Argentinian systems
get all of their echomail with him. Why is that? They
don't know much about Fidoweb. The discussion about it
has only recently started.
The problem is that his system has been very unstable
lately, for a variety of reasons... What we have been
asking him is to at least move the echomail hub to a
cloud provider, so a more updated and automated system
could take care of handling echomail for Argentina and
the other regions, but unfortunately he is not much
eager to do it.
If you are having problems with echo's and files you all more than
welcome to use my system as your source and I get mine from a US star system as well as others. UK based with upload speeds of 20Mb and down 70Mb.
Vince,
If you are having problems with echo's and files you all more than
welcome to use my system as your source and I get mine from a US
star system as well as others. UK based with upload speeds of 20Mb
and down 70Mb.
A US star system ... hmmm ... you're still thinking of a Fidonet from another era.
If you are having problems with echo's and files you all more than welcome to use my system as your source and I get mine from a US star system as well as others. UK based with upload speeds of 20Mb and down 70Mb.
Wilfred van Velzen wrote to Fernando Toledo <=-
Hi Fernando,
On 2021-05-23 01:14:22, you wrote to Fidonet.FN_SYSOP:
@MSGID: 1482.fidonetfn_sysop@4:902/26 250f1268
@PID: Synchronet 3.19a-Linux master/f6108f302 May 23 2021 GCC 6.3.0 @TZUTC: -0300
@TID: SBBSecho 3.14-Linux master/f6108f302 May 23 2021 GCC 6.3.0
@BBSID: DOCKSUD
@CHRS: UTF-8 4
Again, I do not receive traffic from the Z4
What do you mean with "the Z4"? You are in Z4...
Wilfred van Velzen wrote to Matthias Hertzog <=-
What do you mean with "the Z4"? You are in Z4...
It looked like 4:4/0 was not processing any mails for a couple of
days. There's some indication of a "disk full" condition, but that's a
bit of guessing. Mails are being processed now again, i've just
received 831 dupes from zone 4.
Aha, so he probably ment to say "the ZC4 system". ;)
It's all bit wobbly over there...
Unfortunately, this seems to happen often.
Well maybe it's an incentive for the nodes in Z4 to route around the problem and get more links fidoweb style...
@MSGID: 4:801/188 196b9ac3
In my case, when I took over R80 from Ioram, I raised
a MO system for the sole purpose of handling echomail
and netmail for the region, and started
looking for new feeds from day 1. Now these
instabilities only affect netmail routing, although
sometimes a few duplicate messages appear at some
echomail areas.
Thanks for the offer, for now I'm going to start connecting with the nodes of Flavio and AngelAnd I'm bringing everything in from 2:301/1 so between us I think we've got it covered for now.
with these two I think it is enough for me
nodes of Flavio and AngelAnd I'm bringing everything in from 2:301/1 so between us I think we've
with these two I think it is enough for me
got it covered for now.
And I'm bringing everything in from 2:301/1 so between us I thinkIt is very wise to crosslink even more ... you're making the "all eggs in one basket" mistake.
we've got it covered for now.
nodes of Flavio and AngelAnd I'm bringing everything in from 2:301/1 so between us I think we've got it covered for now.
with these two I think it is enough for me
It is very wise to crosslink even more ... you're making the "all eggs in one basket" mistake.
\%/@rd
I am not happy to take emails from uplinks that are not from Z4 (I
just a simple node and some downlinks points).
It seems to me that it breaks with the fido topology and it should not
do it if the Z4 main hub worked without problems.
Ok. Good advice. Just want to be careful not to cause a Dupe Storm..
It is very wise to crosslink even more ... you're making the "all eggsin one basket" mistake.
I am not happy to take emails from uplinks that are not from Z4 (I just
a simple node and some downlinks points). It seems to me that it breaks with the fido topology and it should not do it if the Z4 main hub worked without problems.
As a node, if you want echos/files/netmail it is up to you to do that however you choose. Nodes can do this. ZC/RC/NCs have responsibilities
but it is not moving mail.
That's something you shouldn't worry about anymore. There are dupe-elimination techniques which work well.Fantastic
Give it a try, nobody will complain ... except Matthias ... :-)LOL.. Ok. Will do!.
As a node, if you want echos/files/netmail it is up to you to do
that however you choose. Nodes can do this. ZC/RC/NCs have
responsibilities but it is not moving mail.
100% with one exception ... you cannot dictate netmail to run via a specific route.
I know about the silly North American routing tables from days gone by
and that is pure nonsens.
Following the network-tree is the way to send netmail ... the *C-structures are vertically in touch with eachother and netmail will arrive....
You cannot dictate how netmail flows, whatever the "backbone sysops"
tell you that they can route everything from anywhere to anywhere.
Indeed, *Cs are not obligated to route but that's also an antiquated
thing from the PSTN-days and metered calls.
I started routing netmail the day I became a ZC and that has worked without complaints since day-1 ... that was now close to 27 years ago.
Feel free to disagree.
I know about the silly North American routing tables from days gone AI>WD> by and that is pure nonsens.
I think that's a valid way to do it, if folks do indeed do it.
This method is simple and effective if ZCs/RCs/NCs are setup for that,
but of course they are not required to do that and are not always ready
for that.
I think that *Cs have enough on their plate.
I still think that getting mail and files is a node thing and that we
don't need to rely on *Cs or some backbone. Make the connections and get
it done yourself.
In Z1 we have largely counted on the NAB to do that and
more recently in Z2 they use a mesh they call the the fidoweb. It's all good as long as that meshing happens.
And I'm bringing everything in from 2:301/1 so between us I
think we've got it covered for now.
It is very wise to crosslink even more ... you're making the "allOk. Good advice. Just want to be careful not to cause a Dupe Storm..
eggs in one basket" mistake.
As i've told you so some weeks ago: Use a second link, but be careful with rescans and choose your uplinks wiseley. If you found someone out there, feel free to ask here if i have a link as well so you know the flow and find problems more quickly.
Your system seems to be stable now for a while, i've not seen anything strange for some time. So: go 4 it.
Give it a try, nobody will complain ... except Matthias ... :-)
There are reasons, Fernando, why things are the way they are ... take
my word for it ... linking out of zone is a good thing, despite what "backbone people" try to feed you.
Those routing tables are a thing from the past ... Same with backbone systems, with the demise of PSTN as our prime connection method in
favour of IP. There are just a few people left with antiquated
perceptions about that calling their system "backbone" ... backbones
are gone.
Since your system is up & running, it does not seem to be frozen
like a glacier, so we can agree that a system's name has not
always something to do with it's purpose.
Becaue you asked so nice ... :-) ... Many Glacier is the english translation of the Pikuni word for the area which you can now googleThanks, added this to my travel-list.
as "Glacier National Park" in the USA in the Blackfeet indian
reservation. I stayed there in 1972, 1973, 1976, 1977, 1982 ... the mountainous beauty of the Rockies there is beyond description ...
Not all systems carry all the content
Not all systems carry all the contentThat every system should carry all the content is another POTS era
idea that you should let go of.
That every system should carry all the content is another POTS era MH>MV> idea that you should let go of.
If someone wants to have every echo, getting all of them from at least
two other nodes can be a lot of work. Connecting with "have everything"-nodes makes life much more easy. Obviously, these are quite seldom, which is interesting.
managing echo protection is manual work.
If someone wants to have every echo, getting all of them from atMichiel is right, live with it. Michiel is often painfully right.
least two other nodes can be a lot of work. Connecting with "have
everything"-nodes makes life much more easy. Obviously, these are
quite seldom, which is interesting.
Your backbone concept from 20 years of nothingness and then inflating yourself to the proportions which you have in not time at all ...
we've seen it before. They're all gone because such backbone services
are no longer necessary.
managing echo protection is manual work.I call that bullshit.
That every system should carry all the content is another POTS
era idea that you should let go of.
If someone wants to have every echo,
Not that i'm personally reading all of the crap that i'm transporting here,
getting all of them from at least two other nodes can be a lot of
work. Connecting with "have everything"-nodes makes life much more
easy.
Obviously, these are quite seldom, which is interesting.
but as you've mentioned: We're no longer on POTS and cost is no longer
a factor.
Carrying * is hassle free if you have the right tools to handle it.
I'm offering all i have to my links, if i'm allowed to pass it ...
In case you forgot: ZCC and Z1C was leaked due to lack of care by
sysops. I was the one who helped fix that.
In case you forgot: ZCC and Z1C was leaked due to lack of care byAnd you think everyone is grateful for that <s>help</s> interference
sysops. I was the one who helped fix that.
of yours?
If someone wants to have every echo,"if someone wants to have every echo.." Why would anyone want that?
Why do YOU want to have every echo?
Not that i'm personally reading all of the crap that i'mRight, you do not want it for yourself. Understandable, it is just too much. So why do you want all of it?
transporting here,
Obviously, these are quite seldom, which is interesting.The reason they are rare is obvious. Most have come to the conclusion
that there is not much point in having everything for the sake of
making life easier for those who want to have everything.
It is only those locked in in the POTS era conception of backbones
that carry everything.
Carrying * is hassle free if you have the right tools to handleI do not carry everything. I only carry the echos that I am interested
it.
in myself. I know the cost of carrying more is neglegible. But it
clogs up my areamanager config and makes it harder for me to keep
track of what is interesting for me. Those who want an echo that I do
not carry can link it elsewhere at zero cost.
I want to keep my areamanager config clean.
I'm offering all i have to my links, if i'm allowed to pass itSo you still want to play "backbone". Let go of that idea. AD 2021 backbomes are no longer needed and moreover: they are no longer
...
wanted.
Please reread this: http://www.vlist.eu/downloads/fidonews/myarticles/nads.txt
Search for "control".
If someone wants to have every echo,
"if someone wants to have every echo.." Why would anyone want that?
Why do YOU want to have every echo?
In case you forgot: ZCC and Z1C was leaked due to lack of care
by sysops. I was the one who helped fix that.
And you think everyone is grateful for that <s>help</s>
interference of yours?
Probably not.
But doing things the correct way is always better than offending
others by ignoring the rules.
"if someone wants to have every echo.." Why would anyone want
that? Why do YOU want to have every echo?
ok, so my primary reason is to have every echo is the bbs and its
users.
i also enjoy reading some ESP and GER echoes to polish
my language-skills,
Hello Daniel,
On Tuesday June 08 2021 14:03, you wrote to me:
"if someone wants to have every echo.." Why would anyone want
that? Why do YOU want to have every echo?
ok, so my primary reason is to have every echo is the bbs and its
users.
BBS users? Hmmm I thought they became an extinct species in the fall
of 1996. At least in Z2.
The odd thing os that with all te returnees I often hear sysops claim
they have BBS users. But I never see these users in echomail. The only user I have seen in the last five yers is Lee Lofaso in Fidonews...
i also enjoy reading some ESP and GER echoes to polish
my language-skills,
For that you do not need them all. I have a few German echos too, but certainly not all of them. I even have some Russian echos. French
echos are extinct AFAIK.
But doing things the correct way is always better than offending"Correct way" according tho whom? The "rules"? What rules? who's
others by ignoring the rules.
rules?
As I have already explained Fidonet is a cooperative anarchy.
Ever so often it is better to let sleeping dogs lie.
You better talk to Nick about that. I'm not a fan of restricted echos,
but there are people who are. Ward an Nick at least are fans of
them, speaking of ZCC.
An Nick is fan of it, speaking of Z1C which is open only for Z1 nodes.
You better talk to Nick about that. I'm not a fan of restricted echos,
but there are people who are. Ward an Nick at least are fans of
them, speaking of ZCC.
An Nick is fan of it, speaking of Z1C which is open only for Z1 nodes.
If there will be a movement to open ZCC and Z1C to the public, i'm in immediatly. But until it's publicly open, i follow the rules of the
people who belong in there.
You better talk to Nick about that. I'm not a fan of restricted
echos, but there are people who are. Ward an Nick at least are
fans of them, speaking of ZCC. An Nick is fan of it, speaking of
Z1C which is open only for Z1 nodes.
I believe I already explained to you very politely about this in
Netmail.
You may not be a fan but cooperative anarchy decided that its good to
have nice things... there is just something nice about having an echo
for Zone 1 Sysops only, just as its equally nice that theres an echo
for Zone 2 Sysops only. The audience participating in both think its
nice.
Its not nice for someone to come along with a new "backbone" system,
get their hands on every echo just because "they can" and then start altering the intended audience of these echoes by opening them up to
the world. If you're going to do this, why stop there? Why not gate
every single echo to Usenet?
You better talk to Nick about that. I'm not a fan of restrictedPlease talk about items you know something about.
echos, but there are people who are. Ward an Nick at least are
fans of them, speaking of ZCC.
An Nick is fan of it, speaking of Z1C which is open only for Z1That is a decision by the Z1-sysops and Nick respects that, he didn't decide that. I'm not even certain if he approves.
nodes.
Mind you, I found it shocking myself to find out the behaviour af
another ZC...
What more can i do? I'm on your side in this.
What more can i do? I'm on your side in this.It doesn't really seem like it, based on your response to Michiel it sortof came off as singling me out in particular because I want to
keep Z1C restricted.
Then you appear to make silly uninformed remarks
at the end about supporting a "movement" to open up access to ZCC and
Z1C.
Yeah its fine that you disconnect yourself from Z1C but it just
doesn't seem to occur to you for a moment that maybe I know what I'm
doing by keeping it restricted, that maybe things are what they are
for a good reason.
The mere presence of certain non-Zone 1 systems in Z1C is enough to
cause a flame war I wish to avoid. I try very hard to respect Zone 1 Sysop's wishes and not rock a boat that is smooth sailing in quiet
water since July 2018.
But anyway... moving on... the bigger problem is ZC4.
You better talk to Nick about that. I'm not a fan of restricted echos,
but there are people who are. Ward an Nick at least are fans of
them, speaking of ZCC.
An Nick is fan of it, speaking of Z1C which is open only for Z1 nodes.
Ever so often it is better to let sleeping dogs lie.
I did under the title "cooperative" you've mentioned earliers.
The asymmetry annoys me. These things should be based on reciprocity. If Z1
You better talk to Nick about that. I'm not a fan of restricted
echos, but there are people who are. Ward an Nick at least are
fans of them, speaking of ZCC.
You are wrong about that, but Ward already explained that himself.
An Nick is fan of it, speaking of Z1C which is open only for Z1
nodes.
I have no problem with resticted echos an sich. We have always had restricted echos in Fidonet and I have been a member of quit a number
of such "clubs" and even been the moderator of some restricted echos.
So if the Z1 sysops wish to have an echo for members only I have no problem with it.
What I do have a poblem with in the specific case of Z1C and
ENET.SYSOP is the asymetry. ENET.SYSOP is open for read to anyone and
it is relatively easy to become an invited guest. When I was till a
point, I discovered the magic word and Ron Dwight, then then ZC2
accepted me as an invited guest. An arrangement that I also have no problem with.
But the situation is asymetric. Every Z1 sysop can read ENET.SYSOP.
Many are an invited guest. Z1C is closed. Not open for reading ouside
Z1 and getting an invitation is extremely difficult.
The asymmetry annoys me. These things should be based on reciprocity.
If Z1 sysops are welcome in ENET.SYSOP then the favour should be
returned and Z2 sysops should be welcome in Z1C. Or the other way
around, if Z2 sysops are not welcome in Z1C, then Z1 sysops should not have invitations for ENET.SYSOP.
i don't really get this. if they want to talk privately, why not? do you think that they're solving the watergate scandal there? :)
but if you want a private echo, you can make your own and you can invite
as many sysops as you would like.
The asymmetry annoys me. These things should be based on
reciprocity. If Z1 sysops are welcome in ENET.SYSOP then the
favour should be returned and Z2 sysops should be welcome in Z1C.
Or the other way around, if Z2 sysops are not welcome in Z1C,
then Z1 sysops should not have invitations for ENET.SYSOP.
i don't really get this. if they want to talk privately, why not?
The asymmetry annoys me. These things should be based on reciprocity.
Not all invitations were denied... I didn't yank Vince's access.
You were a whiner "then" and still a whiner "now". Z1C doesn't need
that.
When you discovered you had accidentially gained acces to a restricted echo, you could just have delinked it, removed it from your system and left it at that. No need to to expose the sysops who - by design or by accident - leaked the echo.
I may add that The UK, or what will be left of it in the near future has be drifting west for a couple of decades already. So maybe net 250 should be moved to Z1 anyway...
You were a whiner "then" and still a whiner "now". Z1C doesn't need that.
To which I reciprocate: You were an arrogant asshole "then" and still are a arrogant asshole "now". ENET.SYSOP does not need that.
but if you want a private echo, you can make your own and you can invite
as many sysops as you would like.
Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Daniel Path <=-
The odd thing os that with all te returnees I often hear sysops claim they have BBS users. But I never see these users in echomail. The only user I have seen in the last five yers is Lee Lofaso in Fidonews...
BBS users? Hmmm I thought they became an extinct species in the fall of 1996. At least in Z2.
The odd thing os that with all te returnees I often hear sysops claim they have BBS users. But I never see these users in echomail. The only user I have seen in the last five yers is Lee Lofaso in Fidonews...
Yeah its fine that you disconnect yourself from Z1C but it just doesn't seem to occur to you for a moment that maybe I know what I'm doing...
There's a bit of a reputation for fido echoes to be full of toxic arguments and condescending "old-timers." If we want to see more
traffic there, we need to try and avoid falling into those traps so
that new and returning blood isn't immediately scared away.
Fidonet lacks of good content. It's more or less a tech-talk between sysop A network for the only reason, that there is a network.
Could not agree more. Just lost a node because of to exactly this. :-(
Fidonet lacks of good content. It's more or less a tech-talk between sysops. A network for the only reason, that there is a network.
It's really sad that it did not evolve better during all these years.
Hello Matthias,
On Thursday June 10 2021 07:40, you wrote to Kostie Muirhead:
Could not agree more. Just lost a node because of to exactly
this. :-(
Shit happens. The average half time for retunees is under a year. One
may expect deviations. The reasons so many left decades ago are still valid. It is to be expected.
Fidonet lacks of good content. It's more or less a tech-talk
between sysops. A network for the only reason, that there is a
network.
That is the reality. At the height Fidonet had over 30.000 nodes, over half a million registered points and only Jaweh knows how many users.
1200 Nodes and 5500 points alone in The Netherlands. Back then Fidonet
was the only game in town for the man and woman in the street. And
then we got affordable InterNet for everyone and the users left for greener pastures.
Fidonet became a shipping company without passengers and cargo, but
we, the diehards formed a skeleton crew to keep the ships going
because we like to keep ships going. That has been the situation for
the last quarter of a century.
It's really sad that it did not evolve better during all these
years.
So you say. But who are you? When the InterNet became affordable for
the masses many left Fidonet. But /I/ stayed around to keep it going.
Ward stayed around. Wilfred and Kees stayed around. Janis, Andew,
mark, Marc and Sean stayed around. Björn, Tommi, Stephan, Torsten,
Scott, both Pauls, Dallas and Carol stayed around. A couple of hundred other sysops stayed around to keep it going against all odds. Yes, it
is not what it was and for content you have to go elsewhere. But at
least it is still here. It is still here because we, the so called old condescending farts stayed around and kept it going.
And where where you? Admit it, you too left for greener pastures in
1997. You had your reasons and I am not saying those reasons were
wrong. But the fact is you left and left it to others to keep the
ships going.
And now after almost a quarter of a century you have the audacity to
come back storming in to tell us it is sad that Fidonet did not evolve better during all those years.
I and and a couple of hundred others stayed around during all those
years and kept going. You didn't.
Cheers, Michiel
And where where you? Admit it, you too left for greener pastures in
1997. You had your reasons and I am not saying those reasons were
wrong. But the fact is you left and left it to others to keep the
ships going.
And now after almost a quarter of a century you have the audacity to
come back storming in to tell us it is sad that Fidonet did not evolve better during all those years.
I and and a couple of hundred others stayed around during all those
years and kept going. You didn't.
Fidonet is great at telling motivated people like me to shut up and sit down ... and exactly THAT is one of the core problems: People are unwilling to change perspective, allow new ideas to be discussed and let the network evolve.
I've not sent in a single proposal and not a single new idea as it simply makes no sense at all: If the idea is good, it will be trampled down for different resaons.LOL. I tried. I've had a lot of experience making all sorts of wierd networks happen in strange places with strange combinations of hardware and software. Apparently that experience doesn't count. <shrug>
However, i'm thankful the network still exists. Thank you all for the time and energy that has been devoted towards fidonet in all these years. Let's continue the work - together.
But what is already dead may never die!I and and a couple of hundred others stayed around during allAnd what all of you have achieved over the years? A lot of effort,
those years and kept going. You didn't.
but no results. The best will is useless if too little enthusiasm
can be generated. At some point you have to understand that it no
longer makes sense to keep something dead alive.
I and and a couple of hundred others stayed around during all
those years and kept going. You didn't.
And what all of you have achieved over the years? A lot ofBut what is already dead may never die!
effort, but no results. The best will is useless if too little
enthusiasm can be generated. At some point you have to understand
that it no longer makes sense to keep something dead alive.
I and and a couple of hundred others stayed around during all
those years and kept going. You didn't.
And what all of you have achieved over the years?
A lot of effort, but no results.
The best will is useless if too little enthusiasm can be generated.
At some point you have to understand that it no longer makes sense to
keep something dead alive.
And where where you? Admit it, you too left for greener pastures
in 1997. You had your reasons and I am not saying those reasons
were wrong. But the fact is you left and left it to others to
keep the ships going.
I've already informed about the personal and technical reasons for my leaving back then.
I've passed everything to my successor and was not amused to learn
years later, that r30 was abadoned.
And now after almost a quarter of a century you have the audacity
to come back storming in to tell us it is sad that Fidonet did
not evolve better during all those years.
I'm just telling the truth. Not blaming anyone, it's simply a fact.
Glad that you don't disagree.
I and and a couple of hundred others stayed around during all
those years and kept going. You didn't.
Look, when i was a school we had teachers telling us kids, that people down in africa die of hunger. Today, 35 years later, people down in
africa die of hunger.
I simply wish, that this wasn't the case, but it is. Noone who tried
to help can be blamed for the facts, but they remain (sad) facts.
See the analogy? fine.
Fidonet is great at telling motivated people like me to shut up and
sit down ... and exactly THAT is one of the core problems: People are unwilling to change perspective, allow new ideas to be discussed and
let the network evolve.
Instead we are talking about the wording of a system and BEER flags in
the nodelist. That's rubbish. It's fun for a couple of days, but these topics wash off quickly.
I've not sent in a single proposal and not a single new idea as it
simply makes no sense at all: If the idea is good, it will be trampled down for different resaons.
Not saing, that this is not important (it was and it is) and we all
can be thankful that fidonet still exists. But i'm not predicting a
bright future if the mentality towards "newcomers and re-joiners of
any age" does not change significantly.
.... and that's why some othernets (okay, few of them) have
interesting traffic with people working out ideas, bad or not.
just from a technical perspective: what is the difference between a
normal mailer over telnet and binkp? (ok, maybe encryption)
because in '90something i was already using my xenia over IP and
carried a huge amount of international traffic to the hungarian backbone
just from a technical perspective: what is the difference between a
normal mailer over telnet and binkp? (ok, maybe encryption)
because in '90something i was already using my xenia over IP and
carried a huge amount of international traffic to the hungarian backbone
ITN or IFC mailers use the EMSI protocol used by mailers like FrontDoor, BinkleyTerm and others we used back in the day.
Those mailers never had any idea about binkp.
Those mailers never had any idea about binkp.
yep. but they are transferring pkts and tic+files. so whats the difference?
i can do the same with it :)
just from a technical perspective: what is the difference between a
normal mailer over telnet and binkp? (ok, maybe encryption)
because in '90something i was already using my xenia over IP
and carried a huge amount of international traffic to the hungarian backbone
ITN or IFC mailers use the EMSI protocol used by mailers like FrontDoor, BinkleyTerm and others we used back in the day.
ITN or IFC mailers use the EMSI protocol used by mailers like FrontDoor,
BinkleyTerm and others we used back in the day.
Out of curiousity, if I set up BinkleyTerm in a dosemu session where the
com port is redirected to a listener, does this mean I could transfer mail that way over the internet?
Out of curiousity, if I set up BinkleyTerm in a dosemu session where the com port is redirected to a listener, does this mean I could transfer mail that way over the internet?
Portal of Power and FrontDoor with it. Couldnt get DBridge to work with it, seems it's EMSI implementation is different somehow which I need to debug further.
Portal of Power and FrontDoor with it. Couldnt get DBridge to work with it, seems it's EMSI implementation is different somehow which I need to debug further.Its not different.
Yeah, I dont expect it to be - since there are multiple references to the E implementation being created for DBridge and FrontDoor. But I've had a lot trouble trying to get DBridge to talk to anything with EMSI - that said I'm
Hello Ward!
There are reasons, Fernando, why things are the way they are ... take my word for it ... linking out of zone is a good thing, despite what "backbone people" try to feed you.
I fully agree with you, Ward.
Not all systems carry all the content and not all even reply to netmails. Bu there are a lot of well maintained and very complete systems around.
Fernando: Get a second link, it's easy and as long as your system does not m with seen by lines, extra-zone traffic is hassle free.
I have several links to zone 4 and i'm happy to connect to you as well. But feel free to get another link as well. One by one, not everything together a this can make debugging hard.
Matthias
On 08 Jun 21 23:38:42, Daniel Path said the following to Michiel Van Der Vlist:
i don't really get this. if they want to talk privately, why not? do you think that they're solving the watergate scandal there? :)
but if you want a private echo, you can make your own and you can invite as many sysops as you would like.
Thank you... you might just get an invite. ;)
Nick
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 412 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 109:03:58 |
| Calls: | 8,597 |
| Calls today: | 10 |
| Files: | 13,229 |
| Messages: | 5,935,186 |