Subj : Pack error
To   : Martin Foster
From : Renato Zambon
Date : Sat Mar 03 2001 10:28 am

 SA>> ROUTE-TO 2:2503/0       2:2503/*
 MF>                          ^^^^^^^^
 MF>                          Perhaps this should be 2:2503/*.*

* is ok, ? can also be used, ex.: Route-to 2:335/533 2:33/* 2:33?/*

 SA>> ROUTE-TO 2:252/666      2:440/666.* 2:440/666

Yes, it's redundant... but I don't know what is wrong with the route.

I use fe pack for email/ftp-links (not for those that calls directly):

Route-to 1:396/1 1:* 2:* 5:* 6:*
Route-to 2:244/1111 2:24/* 2:24?/* 2:24??/*
Route-to 2:335/533 2:33/* 2:33?/*
Route-to 2:333/805 2:333/*
Route-to 2:346/3 2:34/* 2:34?/*
Route-to 3:774/605 3:*
Route-to 4:900/525 4:*
Except   4:4/3 4:80/* 4:80?/*
No-route 4:901/343
Route-to 4:930/1 4:93/* 4:93?/*
Route-to 12:1251/1 12:1251/1.* 4:805/4.*

[]s

---
 * Origin: HidraSoft BBS * Aruja', SP, Brasil * 55-11-4654-2024 * (4:801/161)

.