Subj : Re: Join DiscipleNet To : Wilfred van Velzen From : Dan Clough Date : Thu Oct 08 2026 01:11 pm -=> Wilfred van Velzen wrote to Gary McCulloch <=- GM> I think there is a misunderstanding regarding how you are scanning the GM> network. Your report states you processed 13 IP nodes, but DiscipleNet GM> only has 9 active nodes. WvV> Well there are 10 nodes + 3 administrative entries in the most current WvV> nodelist. That makes a total of 13. GM> The "No such AKA," connection refused, and timeout errors you are GM> seeing are happening because your script is scanning stale, GM> unassigned, or completely unrelated test entries that do not belong to GM> our active routing table. WvV> I don't have access to your routing table. I used the most recently WvV> published nodelist. GM> For example, the BinkP "Unsecured session not allowed" errors just GM> mean a system is correctly enforcing security policies. WvV> No that is never correct. How else could one deliver crash mail to a WvV> node? WvV> A node that isn't accepting crashmails from "unsecure" systems, should WvV> be marked Private in the nodelist (without any connection flags). Or WvV> even better: be removed from the nodelist and use a point number. GM> Before judging the implementation as "sloppy," it helps to ensure your GM> own testing parameters match the actual network topology. WvV> The test used the most recent published nodelist. What other public WvV> "parameters" are there, that could be used? GM> The 9 active nodes are perfectly stable and working together fine. WvV> The test proves otherwise, or the current nodelist needs a big WvV> update... Wow. Can you believe this guy is the "ZC" of *FIVE* networks? All of them just as misconfigured as the one in this discussion. Hard to understand how somebody has such little ... understanding. .... Gone crazy, be back later, please leave message. === MultiMail/Linux v0.52 --- SBBSecho 3.37-Linux * Origin: Palantir * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL * (1:135/115) .