Text 1086, 67 rader
Skriven 2007-07-24 03:48:14 av Maurice Kinal (1:261/38.9)
   Kommentar till text 1083 av mark lewis (1:3634/12.0)
Ärende: Test
============

Hey mark!

Jul 23 20:06 07, mark lewis wrote to Maurice Kinal:

 MK>> But that implies they have a nodelist where their node is already
 MK>> an entry or they are using a tosser that doesn't use a nodelist.

 ml> no, not them... everyone else out there that's already in the 
 ml> nodelist...

Yes but given the message that started this thread got through without being in
everyone else's nodelist then my theory holds more water, which is that he is
in someone's nodelist and nobody else's software is checking and allowing it
through, or he is in absolutely no nodelist anywhere and everyone's, including
his own, is allowing it through.  However I think he is more than likely in at
least one nodelist.

 ml> echomail but if all systems in the line were testing message's 
 ml> originating nodes against the nodelist, the new guy wouldn't get 
 ml> anything other than netmail, possibly...

Right.  So then nobody else's software is checking else none of us would have
seen it seeing it wasn't in anyone else's nodelist except probably his and his
direct connection's nodelist.

 ml> checking against the nodelist might also cause problems with gated 
 ml> messages considering the way the origin lines are _supposed_ to be 
 ml> done and how some software bails at the first one they see but that's 
 ml> another programatic problem to handle elsewhere ;)

In my particular case few entries are directly reachable and 99.99% of the
flags are totally meaningless.

 ml> no i don't... you need to stop and think about the original 
 ml> comment... that being that unlisted node's echomail shouldn't travel 
 ml> anywhere...

Obviously it did and probably still will.

 ml> should be easy enough to come by... as a hint, Z2 was tunneled via 
 ml> university FTP accounts between two people on whatever schedule they 
 ml> were able to manage...

ftp is still my main method.  Has been for quite some time now, even before
Fido, and until something better shows itself it will more than likely still be
my main method.  I use it on the LAN to transfer filtered Fido messages to my
workstation.  From there I just send over raw pkt's and a corresponding BSO
control file to the 486 to sucker the binkd on there to upload it to it's fido
mail link.  I've also started doing downloads for this particular point this
way so that the 486 can unzip them before relaying it to my workstation but the
uploads to 1:261/38 are direct (raw pkt's) since we use ftp.  If it weren't for
the zipped files coming from 1:261/38 then it would be direct in both
directions.

 MK>> I honestly don't care.  However I do find it amusing that the ones
 MK>> who claim to care are the most likely to get it wrong.

 ml> that's because they're not the coders ;) ;)

Not many of those around.

Life is good,
Maurice

--- Msged/LNX 6.2.0
 * Origin: The Pointy Stick Society XXIX - Only one I in teamwork (1:261/38.9)