Text 5388, 122 rader
Skriven 2012-12-27 10:19:10 av Ward Dossche (2:292/854)
   Kommentar till text 5385 av mark lewis (1:3634/12.42)
Ärende: Re: Z4 is dead
======================
ml> you are not understanding what i'm saying...
 
I perfectly do, but you're trying to make a case for something which isn't.
 
ml> the first attempt to connect, whether successful or not, starts the count
ml> and the timer... each connection attempt after that increments the count
ml> while the timer ticks... at X connection attempts within Y time, an alert
ml> is raised and a block rule is generated... from then on, you won't
ml> connect at all even if the system is up and ready to receive... why?
ml> because your system is blocked with a "drop" rule which means "no
ml> response at all" so all attempts wil garner the same apparent "nothing is
ml> up on the remote end" failures...
 
My IP-address changes frequently.
 
ml> i tried to point this out to you previously when you posted a "connection
ml> was refused" log entry... that was when i tried to point out that
ml> "connection refused" message is not always indicative of the remote not
ml> being "alive"...
 
"None" of Z4's ICMs can be reached except Z4C at some intervals. None of the
phone-numbers give a "CONNECT" during Z4-ZMH ... try it, see for yourself.
Don't take my word for it ...
 
I've asked several times from someone claiming connects to demonstrate such a
connection ... I've seen 2 excerpts from logs, none of 'm containing the word
"incoming".
 
It's obvious ...
 
ml>WD> my system gets ten of thousands of calls on a daily basis
 
ml> tens of thousands of inbound connections daily? really?? the shear number
ml> leads to a huge doubt about that...
 
There are at least 7 systems polling here every minute 24/7 whether or not
there is something waiting that needs to be delivered or picked-up ... that
alone caters for :
 
       60 * 24 * 7  = 10,080
 
ml> sorry... while you may run a busy FTN
ml> system, it is very doubtful that it is that busy with legitimate FTN
ml> connections...
 
All of 'm legit, no rejects. Although ... one of 'm is not in the routing table
for netmail, not connected to any echo, not connected to any file ... just
polls ... every minute ... like a Swiss clock.
 
ml> 1Mb, is that all?? geez, my system is nowhere near as busy as yours and i
ml> see FTN logs at least 2 or 3 times that size each month for just binkp
ml> connections...
 
I'm talking "daily" and the size of your log is greatly influenced by what you
place in the "loglevel <?>" entry. I'm not as curious as some.
 
ml>WD> At that pace my system would run out of drive-space in 111 years.
ml>WD> I'm certain similar parameters apply for you.
 
ml> ummhumm... what are you running over there? multiple terabyte drives? my
ml> main system, which handles all of my FTN traffic, has only 30Gigs of
ml> drive space...
 
Just checked ... 38GB
 
ml> please don't fall into the trap of thinking that everyone
ml> else is playing that "keep up with the dossches" game ;) my main system
ml> was just recently upgraded from a PII 300mhz 112M RAM to a PIII 800mhz
ml> with 512M RAM...
 
I'm using a fairly low-level motherboard which has been there now for ... 8
years or so? Don't know anymore. 1GB memory. 2x80GB drives of which 38GB can be
used by Fido. Not really that impressive. The motherboard is so old it doesn't
support serial hard discs.
 
ml> i'm sure it would be... just like when the one fidonet system figured out
ml> that they could bring down another fidonet system by file attaching
ml> $CLOCK... that even made the snooze...
 
You are bypassing the fact that in over a month I even haven't reached any
system once ... Fidonet has never become involved ... so such a complaint of
something that never happened indeed would be fun, it would be rejected at
"any" level.
 
ml>WD> A system listing "ICM" should live up to that. Nodes can be down
ml>WD> for short periods for whatever reason ... maintenance, back-up,
ml>WD> power out, software upgrade ... but it shouldn't last a month ...
 
ml> agreed... to a point... see above... as the operator of my system(s), it
ml> is up to me to decide what is abuse and what is not... polling my system
ml> more than once an hour without delivering any mail is abusive in my world
ml> (right now)... especially since my system only processed mail once an
ml> hour...
 
My system processes mail within at most 5 minutes of arrival (usually less) and
will mail-out immediately or keep on hold as per previous agreements.
 
ml> bullshit... i have a point that is CM 24x7 unless the software it is
ml> running shits the sheets for some reason that my scripts don't currently
ml> catch and recycle... it should be a node by your reconing...
 
It "should" not, but by your explanation it "could".
 
ml>WD> I've also communicated with Gamey Garcia ... that was 10 years ago.
 
ml> i don't know who that is...
 
A former, very reliable, very competent, always friendly and cooperative Z4C.
 
ml> but i also wasn't talking about only fidonet
ml> stuff... in fact, what i was speaking of was completely network security
ml> related... you wouldn't believe the hen's teeth pulling that has to be
ml> done to get all the necessary information from a system admin complaining
ml> about problems with something... even with working crystal balls, (e)WAGs
ml> are only successful < 10% of the time...
 
Please do not consider me ignorant in IT-matters, especially not.
 
 \%/@rd

--- D'Bridge 3.9
 * Origin: Many Glacier / Protect - Preserve - Conserve (2:292/854)