Daryl Stout wrote to TOMMI KOIVULA <=-

Well, I have advised all my hubs to REMOVE the CM flag from my
nodelist entry.

You should be marked as Hold in the nodelist if it's a temporary condition which it usually is with you. That's covered in FTS-5000.005.

Your CM flag has nothing to do with your status and if you're set as CM,
that's the wrong flag since you're not POTS-capable. It should be ICM.
That's covered in FTS-5001.006.

Later,
Sean

___ MultiMail/Linux v0.52

--- Maximus/2 3.01
* Origin: Outpost BBS * bbs.outpostbbs.net:10123 (1:18/200)

Your CM flag has nothing to do with your status and if you're set as CM, that's the wrong flag since you're not POTS-capable. It should be ICM. That's covered in FTS-5001.006.

Sean,
Thanks for explaining this. I have been confused with whether or not to
use the CM flag since back when I added a board that wasn't POTS. :)

Mike

---
þ SLMR 2.1a þ There is no dark side of the moon, really....
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

Sean Dennis wrote to Daryl Stout <=-

Daryl Stout wrote to TOMMI KOIVULA <=-

Well, I have advised all my hubs to REMOVE the CM flag from my
nodelist entry.

You should be marked as Hold in the nodelist if it's a temporary
condition which it usually is with you. That's covered in
FTS-5000.005.

Sean,

Not sure you noticed, but Daryl's message was a month or so old...
I think something burped/barfed somewhere and he's still not
actually online again, so he likely won't see your message...

Regards,
Dan


... 2 + 2 = 5 for extremely large values of 2.
=== MultiMail/Linux v0.52
--- SBBSecho 3.11-Linux
* Origin: Palantir * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL * (1:123/115)

Hello Mike,

On Sat May 09 2020 10:47:00, Mike Powell wrote to SEAN DENNIS:

Thanks for explaining this. I have been confused with whether or not
to use the CM flag since back when I added a board that wasn't POTS.
:)

Mike, shoot me a netmail when you get a chance. Sometime between the last netmail conversation and now you've added some extra encryption I was unaware of. I have had an outgoing netmail sitting here for you for a few days now. Please give details if you've added a session password of some sort.

Thank you mah good man!

Regards,
Nick

... "Take my advice, I don't use it anyway."
--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20181215
* Origin: thePharcyde_ distribution system (Wisconsin) (1:154/10)

Mike, shoot me a netmail when you get a chance. Sometime between the last netm
l conversation and now you've added some extra encryption I was unaware of. I ve had an outgoing netmail sitting here for you for a few days now. Please giv
details if you've added a session password of some sort.

Actually I have added nothing. I did upgrade synchronet to 3.18a, though.
I suspect that could be an issue. No passwords or encryption were added.
I will try and see what happens.

Mike


* SLMR 2.1a * I can keep a secret, it's the people I tell who can't.
--- SBBSecho 3.11-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

Mike, shoot me a netmail when you get a chance. Sometime between the last netmail conversation and now you've added some extra encryption I was unaware of. I have had an outgoing netmail sitting here for you for a few days now. Please give details if you've added a session password of some sort.

Thank you mah good man!

Hmmm... I just connected with you and sent something, but got nothing back.
Are
you sure it is addressed to 1:2320/105 ?

Mike
--- SBBSecho 3.11-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

Hello Mike,

On Tue May 12 2020 18:21:56, Mike Powell wrote to Nicholas Boel:

Hmmm... I just connected with you and sent something, but got nothing back. Are you sure it is addressed to 1:2320/105 ?

Looks like you just send a "est." body replying to an earlier netmail?

Either way, yes it was sent to 2320/105, although I may have routed it through your /0 address. It's main content was about the time/date to submit your segment, file naming scheme, and the warnings I got from your last segment. Did you receive anything on topic with that?

Regards,
Nick

... "Take my advice, I don't use it anyway."
--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20181215
* Origin: thePharcyde_ distribution system (Wisconsin) (1:154/10)

aren't you doing that binkps thing? is it a per node setting for outbound? do y
u need to run two binkp mailers, one normal and one as binkps on another port, >or inbound?

No, I have not tried testing the sbbs binkps stuff. I am running "regular" binkit on that node.

Mike


* SLMR 2.1a * True Multitasking = 3 PCs and a chair with wheels!
--- SBBSecho 3.11-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)

Either way, yes it was sent to 2320/105, although I may have routed it through >our /0 address. It's main content was about the time/date to submit your segmen
, file naming scheme, and the warnings I got from your last segment. Did you re
eive anything on topic with that?

Yes, I did. I figured out there was a bug in my config file that was
exposed after I upgraded to a newer version of sbbs. I changed it and,
just as soon as I did, your system crashed here and was able to transfer
the netmail. :)

Thanks!
Mike


* SLMR 2.1a * I'm dangerous when I know what I'm doing.
--- SBBSecho 3.11-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)