Subj : ERRORS in Route List! To : Carl Austin Bennett From : Ross Cassell Date : Mon May 07 2001 01:40 pm Hello Carl! 07 May 01 19:52, you wrote to me: RC>> Now tell me what a echo hijacker like yourself has to do with a RC>> route list, you a big time router or have you lost confidence RC>> that your uplink wont be able to find you? CB> As a moderator, wouldn't Bobby require access to reliable routed CB> netmail to all of the millions of sysops and echo participants who CB> carry his many echos? Not his problem perse, but that of his uplink. Bobby's main concern as a end node is to hope mail meant for him is routed ok, and I know of no issue with 379. RC>> Do you have a clue on how routing works Bobby, I dont think you RC>> do, you want folk to route down to the node level, route files RC>> are monstrous enough as it is, you want to make them even more RC>> complicated? CB> In some cases, the independent feed is the only one still up. Well Sir, my route.cfg is 211 lines long as it is, I'd rather not have it 900+ lines long. Now that aint to big of a deal with GREP this and grep that, but the more parts you add to a machine the more likely it is to break, in this instance a monstrous route file leads to more monstrous errors or possibility of errors, but tell you what, if you want to route to the node level, knock yourself out. :) Comparing this list to the last known hatch, I say Bobby took it upon himself to add all the crap in with no guidance, ergo, Bobby hasnt a clue as to how the hubs have done their routing, he merely guessed.. I am rather surprised Dale didnt try to educate him, Dale knows better. Of course I am assuming Dale proofread it before hatch? CB> NC's have been known to disappear without warning; that at least two CB> NC's in Region 14 alone answer voice as wrong numbers, two more are CB> numbers that are out of service and a few others just don't answer at CB> all isn't news to anyone. Thats not Bobbys or Foxy's problem, sounds like a problem for the R14C if not the Z1C. CB> A large part of the reason for using RVIA to flag independent feeds is CB> as an informational tool for use in finding links to bypass any *C's CB> who go AWOL. To which requires a C to update that info to begin with, totally not apllicable to R14, which isnt using this flag. CB> Would be great if they weren't necessary, but if that one independent CB> link is overlooked, it is possible to conclude (incorrectly) that the CB> whole net's gone A conclusion to be made by the relevant RC. RC>> Why in the hell are you using echomail conference tag names as RC>> source data? Thats a mighty big assumption there fella CB> Why do the other lists use data as old as 1999, much of it routing CB> through nodes that don't exist any more? An echo path might be the CB> only valid data. Key word: Might! What if the node happens to coincedentally be using a secondary redundant link that s/he doesnt always use? Bobby uses that info and ERN goes into a holding pattern for a undetermined amount of time? Better to take source data from the horses mouth and not the pasture. RC>> What you gonna do Bobby, if ERN routing info is inaccurate, blame RC>> it on HOLYSMOKE or FN_SYSOP??????? CB> I'd put more faith in HOLYSMOKE than in the most recent ROUTELST.R14 CB> (1999) and there are other regions that are lagging close to half a CB> year behind too. Yours was to until you took over. Thats why there is a zonal list and as to why I dont rely on regional route lists by themselves. Of course even if you properly route NM to a destination, there is still no guarantee of delivery.. Maybe you can explain why Steve Winter hasnt picked up his ERN, his mailer is answering, I just aint crashing. RC>> N 18 1:365/ALL 1:365/1 1:18/500 2001O502 RC>> FLAME While the above info is correct, he was pulling a few RC>> echoes from me and most of his echo in addition to his ERN from RC>> 18/500, the above info is pretty recent, I dont see how FLAME RC>> could have given you substantial and reliable info. CB> It's correct and pretty recent? I meant to refer to 18/600, but relying on a echotag as source data is ludicrous, in this nodes case, he was only drawing my admin echo at that time and polled infrequently, now what if? CB> Let recent and correct info sneak in to the routing and those nodes CB> might actually be able to get netmail from Bobby the moderator Queen. CB> Oh no! It be nice if Bobby would care to fix his own backyard full of errors instead of trouncing around over what he calls errors elsewhere, he walked into it and I took the openning. NODE LEVEL routing wont cut it.. RC>> The world --> 379/1 excepting direct linkages you might have CB> That passes the buck to Dale; it doesn't provide a solution to the CB> whole "no route found" mess. Instead of him listing ECHOMAIL tags as source data, how bout a DIRECT netmail to the node and ask? CB> I don't like it, but it's time to stop pretending that replacing "no CB> route found" with the default route is going to get the mail to its CB> destination. There are no guarantee's anywhere in life. == Ross http://www.the-estar.com:8080 ross@the-estar.com or rcassell@home.com ICQ = 5305939 .... R12B: Drunk Sailor, Cloned Parrot, Fat Queen & A Flock Of Peacocks. --- GoldED/W32 3.0.1 * Origin: The Eastern Star [Mail Hub] - 864.573.7069 (1:18/500) .