Text 26701, 58 rader
Skriven 2012-03-14 12:29:37 av Richard Webb (1:116/901.0)
  Kommentar till text 26695 av Ward Dossche (2:292/854)
Ärende: Fidonews Vol 29 No 09 February 27, 2012 Page: 2
=======================================================
Hello Ward,

On Wed 2012-Mar-14 10:28, Ward Dossche (2:292/854) wrote to Richard Webb:

WD> Also, sending mails to a Z:Z/*** address from another zone might be
WD> tricky.  
WD> I'm assuming that Ross, Bob and Janis have set it up correctly, but
WD> people who normally don't deal with that may send it into a black
WD> hole.  
WD> Personally, I'd like to believe all these administrative entries
WD> should not be used for sending netmail.

Right, which is why my routing is set up using actual
addresses.  but, here again, with all the various connection schemes out there,
our coordinators should be sure that
major mail movers *do* have such capabilities in place to
reliably route to someplace such as the Fidonews editor.
This is again an older problem than just the current
discussion.  I've always thought that with the special place FIdonews is said
to hold in FIdonet that the snooze editor
deserves a lot better support than he gets from the
coordinator structure.  Look at the complaints from past
editors "nothing from the zc's, nothing from the ic for
publication."

So, now we have, in this case, I send an article routed by
one of my usual outbound channels, embedded in the text of a netmail.

Should i have sent it to Bjorn's actual address, and sent it through 1:3634/12
there would have been a bounce because of
a nodelist issue for a long time.  I say this, because, when Bjorn sent me
acknowledgements he sent them from his 2:203
actual address.  The acknowledgement reached me, but with
appended text from a mail tracker advising me not to reply
via that route because my message would be bounced due to a
nodelist issue.

Still my articles sent to 2;2/2 routed 3634/12 to Ross made
it to him, most of the time.  When, for one reason or
another I switched routing elsehwere my communications fell
into the black hole more times than not.  As you say, it
might be an issue with bbbs and routing, because, as Janis
notes, it is rather strict in its handling rules.

Still, if FIdonet's policy document says that Fidonews is
"the glue" and we have numerous schemes of moving mail
wehrein a pots only is not going to be able to talk directly to a binkp, etc.
then it behooves the structure to look
after the Fidonews editor a little bit, and assist him/her
in doing the gig.  Don't you agree/  That's the only point
I'm making, and it's been an old complaint of Fidonews
editors, clear back to TJ iirc.


Regards,
           Richard
---
 * Origin:  (1:116/901)