Subj : Re: binkd cfg question.
To   : Wilfred van Velzen
From : Nicholas Boel
Date : Sat Nov 16 2024 04:00 pm

Hello Wilfred,

On Sat, Nov 16 2024 11:34:04 -0600, you wrote:

> Hi Nicholas,

> On 2024-11-16 10:35:03, you wrote to me:

> I'm not trying to stir the pot. I'm just trying to point out that sometimes
> someone with a mailer publicly online 24/7, doesn't need, or want, or can't
> have a full blown node number, a point number will suffice, and is much
> easier to obtain...

Point taken. However, what I originally said briefly covered this, but I didn't want to go too far into it, especially if it had nothing to do with what he was trying to do.

> That's it. And of course these are exceptions to the normal, although still
> valid use cases.  And if a sender doesn't have the connection info for such a
> point, although publicly available, he has no choice and has to route as you
> say...

Yeah. I wasn't talking about exceptions, though. I was trying to help someone fix their issue with normal operations. No need to go into extravagant, very minor use-case, abnormal circumstances (unless the original poster would have brought something like that up) that could possibly confuse the original poster even more. Do you agree?

> Btw: Why doesn't your message have a REPLY: kludge?

Probably because it was posted via NNTP with a very old linux console based client (slrn) that has no idea what an FTN REPLY kludge is. However, if this one does have a REPLY kludge, and while I'm using the same client via the same method, we can thank Rob (Synchronet) for fixing it. :)

Regards,
Nick

.... He who laughs last, thinks slowest.
--- SBBSecho 3.22-Linux
 * Origin: _thePharcyde telnet://bbs.pharcyde.org (Wisconsin) (1:154/700)

.