Subj : Something new... To : Richard Webb From : mark lewis Date : Thu Oct 15 2009 06:48 pm RW> RW> AS for routing, squish or his mail processor would handle RW> that as Bink is a static mailer. SAme inbound/outbound dirs though RW> pointed to by all versions. ml> hummm... therein lays the problem... can tossers handle multiple ml> routings for static mail bundles?? FD can because it is dynamic in ml> building its outbound stuffs but if a BSO style tosser cannot build ml> multiple ?lo files indicating different "status'" for the same ml> static outbound bundles for separate nodes, this may be a problem... RW> not an option. Instead, what you do is process the RW> nodelist. EXample, you've got a node you regularly connect RW> with and crash packets to. This node has both pots and your other RW> common scheme. YOu don't want to dial pots to send RW> those crash bundles. so, you replace that node's pots phone no RW> with unpublished using your favorite nodelist compiler. RW> Need to change your mind and dial him pots? Grab the right RW> phone number from the raw nodelist as distributed, recompile RW> nodelist, you're happening. Other scheme comes back live, RW> switcharoo your nodelist compiler control file back, RW> recompile. ugh... i really do like FD's nodelist compiling stuff... all FD does is generate b-tree indexes on the nodelist and then if there are overrides for any nodes, those go into the b-tree index so they are used instead of the default nodelist data... with FD being able to use environment variables for nodelist entries, one simply replaces the phone number with the environment variable and then the mailer (FD) looks to the environment variable for the number to use... since each node maintains its own environment settings, one node can have set foo=1-800-555-0100 and another node can have set foo=some.domain.whatever where "foo" is the EV (environment variable) assigned for the override for a node's phone number... if i have stuff for a node that has both POTS and FTN over telnet, and i want to "crash" (i use immediate instead of crash) what i have waiting for them via POTS, i simply go to one of the POTS nodes, look at that mailer's outboud queue and change the flavor of that destination system's bundle(s) from hold to "normal", "crash" or "immediate"... all the other nodes still retain their settings for that destination... the one mailer node then does the connection and signals the others when it is successful so they will rescan and rebuild their outbound control files... i don't have to shut down all the mailers, take the few minutes to recompile the nodelist and restart all the mailers... RW> Most nodelist compilers that create a nodelist binkley can RW> use will let you do the above quite handily iirc. i'm sure ;) ml> i guess FD's dynamic stuff is similar to having it build its own ?lo ml> files but those ?lo files are also specific to the node as well as ml> to the destination system... FD uses the file extension to denote ml> the node number the file is for and the content of the file denotes ml> the addresses and "flavor"... RW> YEp, similar. YOur tosser and other utilities build the RW> *.*lo files. There will be a file in my outbound when I RW> write this message created/updated by squish with a file RW> name of 0e32000c.clo detailing paths and filenames to be RW> sent to you. right... and there's the main difference... there's only one ?lo file for all the mailer nodes to see and use... it cannot be a hlo, flo and clo all at the same time so that individual mailer nodes can act on it the way they need to... RW> so, if you and I had multiple connection schemes between us RW> such as telnet and pots and I were running multinode I'd RW> possibly want to prefer the telnet connection. But, in my RW> case maybe I"d prefer the pots, only use the telnet if there were RW> trouble on lines between us. IF I want to prefer the RW> telnet I change your pots entry to unpublished so that bt RW> pots doesn't try to dial you. right... that is one method... it can also be done like this with FD but it is much easier and simpler to simply set that mailer node's routing table to hold that mail during that scheduled event... so these mailer nodes see that mail as "hold" and those see that exact same stuff as "normal" (or "immediate" or "crash" or whatever) and each can act on it separately... RW> But, if I want to prefer the pots as primary I"ll want to RW> change your nodelist flags entry, again doable with my RW> nodelist compiler to not show the telnet capability. Or, I RW> can leave the nodelist alone, and the mode that gets there RW> first transacts a session with yours. Meanwhile, if RW> assuming I"m running other processes since I"m running RW> multinode those other processes are aware of which one's RW> talking with you and won't touch mail bundles to/from your RW> system. yup... i've had times where i've had more than one POTS node pick up the line and dial to the remote while at the same time, more than one of the internet nodes also went to connect to the same destination... in that case, it is the luck of the draw as to which one gets the first connection and makes the transfer ;) RW> RW> Bob Juge would have been your guy for that as he was doing RW> it. Also the other MR. LEwis might be of some assistance to SEan RW> in this regard. THink he's running bt. ml> yup and yup on both accounts... RW> When I helped a friend get it all going I referred to things I"d RW> seen in this echo quite a bit, but that was way back in RW> the day . as was with many echos in fidonet, there was a huge amount of information on almost any subject that traveled between all of our systems... it really is sad that folk have folked to the internet for eye-candy without the real meat of the meal... )\/(ark * Origin: (1:3634/12) .