Subj : Female Spam is *not*
To   : Sean Rima
From : Bennie Hutto
Date : Fri Feb 15 2002 09:59 am

Hello Sean.

15 Feb 02 20:46, you wrote to Bob Adkins:

BA>> No it is not gating just another way for user to read mail. I
BA>> take it Then MY HTTP access to the echos are also Gating?? What
BA>> about the lastest Work on useing XML and SQL to make a complete
BA>> BBS Are you saying anything sent VIA sent VIA XWL will be gating
BA>> it BBS 'S are changing.. New ways are comeing up to Better get
BA>> the word out NNTP is only another way to do this.. It is not
BA>> gating.

SR> You are missing the point that I hav made. Sending messages via a NNTP
SR> server, whether built into the BBS package or not, requires that the
SR> messages are converted to that format. My whole problem is that I
SR> specially requested that the echo was not available via NNTP.

Someone who runs the new build of WC! or Synch please correct me if I'm
wrong here.
Would it be safe to say, that in order to restrict certain echoes from
being available via the internal NNTP servers, you would have to shut
them down totally and offer NO Fidonet echoes at all?

My thinking on this is, if you make an echo available for telnet or dial-up
callers, it is also available for NNTP callers, if you restrict those echoes
FROM telnet and dial-up callers, you also would restrict it from NNTP
callers. So you would have to take the echoes away from everyone to keep
NNTP'ers from having access. Would this be a correct assumption? Or is there
a setting in WC! and/or Synch not to allow access to an echo via POTS or
Telnet and not NNTP?

If this is the case, Sean, I can't see anyone wanting to do that...

Regards,
Bennie


--- WildCat! * ViaMail! * GoldED+! *
 * Origin: The Wall BBS, Augusta Ga: Where the fun *never* ends!  (1:360/5)

.