Subj : 1:10/345 To : Dale Ross From : Janis Kracht Date : Wed Nov 28 2001 09:41 am Hi Dale, >> No, I have did NOT have access to that echo. Show me that I did. > Whatever you say. Why should we expect you to say anything different? So tell You have no proof, execpt your imagination. That's what I thought. You have no 'proof' because it's another lie. >us how it worked. Did Bob Juge simply forward you posts from the echo or did h "Someone" sent me a copy of a message where Todd described his plan for the filegate. I'm not going to tell you who, I told him I wouldn't. >give you a connection OR was it passed to Ross, Bob and Brenda and one of them > gave you a connection? Perhaps Ross passed the echo to Foxy. Hmmm that one > makes sense. Or did one of them forward posts to you from the echo? Remember > you quoted a post from the echo that never appeared outside the echo. During >investigation we found that Bob Juge had access. Of course Bob never replied t > my inquiry about that. We now know how the post made it outside the echo. >>> How much time did you give Matt no real time to adjust his connection? And > wha You are getting a little frantic here Dale. I'd suggest you take a break. >>> kind of new feed did you suggest he move to? One that had technical > problems. >>> One that processed files MAYBE once a day. And if you have these bandwidth >> >> The bulk of the files come in 'once a day'. > The bulk may, this system you sent Matt to processed files AND requests to >change options MAYBE once a day. I would not call it a reliable option based o > what we saw. NodeDiffs for example were coming in two to three days late. > Saturday or Sunday is when we saw them IF we were lucky. There is a PUBLIC list of available feeds in filegate.zxx. Any one of them would have been available. Phil Kimble just took a few days to change his processing. > You never answered the question. How much time did you give Matt to make > adjustments to move his connection? Check the dates on the messages I posted. It's right there. >>> problems why didn't you take Matt up on his offer to help? He has more >>> bandwidth avaiable than yourself or any of your "hubs". >> >> He couldn't help with this. > If as you claim it was a bandwidth problem then yes he could have helped. You > could have moved some of your lesser connections (like the one that you moved > Matt to) over to Matt. You know, balance your load a little better. No, he couldn't. >> From the first I told Matt there might be problems since I monitor >> activity on my system very carefully. >If you monitor activity closely then you should have known BEFORE hand that yo >had reached your limit. Certainly you allow yourself some buffer in case one o That's why I sent him the message I sent him you idiot. Can't you read? Or do you choose to read selectivelly? > the FDN's have a higher than normal load, don't you? Adding one connection >(Matt) all of the sudden caused you processing problems. You should look close > at just how much buffer you are allowing yourself. No, not adding one more connection. Adding one more connection at the time who had an incredibly high bandwidth connection that sucked up resources here, worse than cable modems, Adsl modems, etc., and who wanted the full load. I know my system Dale. You do not. The problem went away and has not happened again since I disconnected Matt. >connections are transferring files and not just mail bundles. I've not seen th >kind of problem with BBBS that you describe. And Matt wasn't sending you stuff >to process, he was pulling files. I'm running multiple ftp servers, http servers, news servers and more here. It's not surprising that you have not seen this type of problem. >Is there some limit that we are not aware of >concerning the number of nodes that BBBS will process tic files or FidoNet mai > for? Not that Kim has told me. > when running products external to BBBS. If you are trying to run your system >where you process things every time you finish a BinkD connection then you had >better look real close at the timing of the running of your scripts to process >things. If that is how you are running then I would suggest changing to runnin > things on a timed basis, say every 5 minutes. Once again, re-read my post. > Consider this constructive criticism. Maybe you have bitten off more than you >can chew And maybe you will admit to being wrong about a number of things in this message. Janis --- BBBS/LiI v4.01 Flag-3 * Origin: Prism bbs (1:2320/38) .