Text 34670, 126 rader
Skriven 2006-07-26 10:27:32 av Roy Witt (1:1/22)
  Kommentar till text 34578 av Matt Bedynek (1:106/1)
Ärende: Where where you when the Towers came down?
==================================================
25 Jul 06 18:13, Matt Bedynek wrote to Roy Witt:

 MB> Hello Roy.

 MB> 25 Jul 06 12:49, you wrote to Janis Kracht:

 RW>> SA is without a net and I've found a few individuals who were
 RW>> willing to give it a try and it's been pending for a few weeks or
 RW>> so.

 MB> Your first connection attempt here in months (using nonexistent node
 MB> numbers):

That's odd, they exist here and elsewhere.

 MB> - 22 Jul 16:43:09 [8992] incoming from
 MB> adsl-69-152-224-155.dsl.snantx.swbell.net (69.152.224.155) + 22 Jul
 MB> 16:43:09 [27688] session with
 MB> adsl-69-152-224-155.dsl.snantx.swbell.net (69.152.224.155) - 22 Jul
 MB> 16:43:09 [27688] OPT MB CRC MD5 - 22 Jul 16:43:09 [27688] SYS The
 MB> Lone Star - 22 Jul 16:43:09 [27688] ZYZ Roy Witt - 22 Jul
 MB> 16:43:09 [27688] LOC South Texas, USA - 22 Jul 16:43:09 [27688] NDL
 MB> CM,MO,INA,IBN - 22 Jul 16:43:09 [27688] TIME 2006/07/22 16:43:55
 MB> -5:00 - 22 Jul 16:43:09 [27688] VER Internet Rex 2.29 Win32
 MB> (binkp/1.1) + 22 Jul
 MB> 16:43:09 [27688] addr: 1:1/22@fidonet + 22 Jul 16:43:09 [27688] addr:
 MB> 1:387/1@fidonet + 22 Jul 16:43:09 [27688] addr: 1:379/22@fidonet - 22
 MB> Jul
 MB> 16:43:09 [27688] receiving 387.OUT (721 byte(s), off 0) + 22 Jul
 MB> 16:43:09 [27688] 387.OUT -> /opt/ftn/spool/insecure/387.OUT + 22 Jul
 MB> 16:43:09 [27688] rcvd: 387.OUT (721, 721.00 CPS, 1:1/22@fidonet) + 22
 MB> Jul 16:43:09 [27688] done (from 1:1/22@fidonet, OK, S/R: 0/1 (0/721
 MB> bytes)) 22 Jul
 MB> 16:43:09 [27688] session closed, quitting...

 MB> You also dropped of something that resembles a nodelist segment.
 MB> However, I am not in the habbit of procsesing segments for nets that
 MB> do not exist.

It exists, just not in your nodelist.

 MB> If, by some chance, there are appliants, direct them to one of the
 MB> contact methods listed below on my signature.  I will make sure they
 MB> are added.

There are appliants (sic), but they're particular where they get listed.
Net387 is there preference.

 RW>> The seg isn't a lone sysop, like many are here in Texas. Besides,
 RW>> even if it were a lone sysop seg, it beats having to link up with a
 RW>> net that's out of my local calling area.

 MB> Do you have a metered internet connection?

Yeup. But what does that have to do with Fidonet?

 RW>> Yes, I do have a real phone listed under 387/0 ..

 MB> Net 387 does not exist.

Remember when your 'other' nodenumber didn't exist, but you insisted that
you be allowed to post in FN_SYSOP anyway? Net387 exists here.

 RW>> Well, he 'should' but you know Matt's a little hard headed. Course,
 RW>> I can't blame him, as he's really intimidated by my presence in
 RW>> Texas.

 MB> Apparently you landed yourself on my firewall by something you did.

A problem with Irex...when it finds a new listing in the configs, it wants
to poll it every so often. I fixed it so that your listing is no longer
active.

 MB> The IDS thought you did something bad and decided to issue a block.
 MB> It's fixed.  However, if you desire a node in R19 you will need to
 MB> send a request via netmail, e-mail, or instant messenger.  Dropping
 MB> off strange segments in the night is not a request and appears more
 MB> or less an attempt and continued defiance of established norms.

That's the node number I want and that seg is a viable net. You can ignore
it, but those listed will still get echomail from me all the same.

 MB> The door is open, you just have to make your intentions clear.  "I
 MB> don't need/want a node number" or "fuck matt" in response to the
 MB> suggestion by your ZC to contact your RC sends a mixed message.

 MB> My official stance:

 MB> Your area is serviced by Nets 382 and 397.

SA isn't within the calling area of either of those nets...It's a long
distance call and would make a hardship upon those who live within this
area.

 MB> A RI is available if you can justify the need for it.

Don't want one...

 MB>   For example,
 MB> you feel you might have
 MB> personal issues with either of those NC or its members.  What will
 MB> not happen is the creation of another net to serve nodes whose
 MB> alleged existence is questionable.  None of the other entries in that
 MB> segment left here have any contact information.

Neither do a lot of other nodes in R19 nets...yet they're listed anyway.

 MB> Also, if it is your intention to get a 379/22 entry, you cannot be
 MB> listed in R19.

That listing depends on what you do with the net387 seg I sent you...

 MB> I will not permit dual listing.

Where does it say that in P4?

 MB> You must choose one or the other. In any event, I await your reply
 MB> via netmail or e-mail.

No, I'd rather it be here in public, where you can't say one thing and do
another.


Roy
--- Twit(t) Filter v2.1 (C) 2000
 * Origin: Hacienda de Rio de Guadalupe * South * Texas, USA * (1:1/22)