Subj : Synology Docker Mystic Test To : fusion From : Accession Date : Wed Feb 12 2025 03:16 pm Hey fusion! On Wed, Feb 12 2025 03:49:10 -0600, you wrote: > there's a bit of nuance here. reading comprehension.. i can certainly > respond to a) his first idea about dumping non ansi users and > separately, b) needing workarounds being disappointing re: his script > to completely kill/restart mystic to restore it to a state where it > will accept connections... two separate trains of thought. Seems the reading comprehension was on your end, chief. I was _specifically_ replying to you talking about not allowing non-ansi users (even quoted it a second time for you, so you would understand -- guess it didn't work), and supplied another option to do so that Mystic itself provides besides your script/workaround. I wasn't replying to his message or his problem, or the fact that you wrote that script because of said problem. It was simply stating that Mystic already had an option to not allow ascii callers. > you haven't really grasped what this thread is about. at all. i'm not > sure why you think you have to defend g00r00 but it's a pretty simple > concept: if i can flood your server with bullshit, and it stops > /functioning/ because of that (note there's a difference between > *functioning* and *being unusable* .. if the flooding were to stop, > mystic SHOULD continue to FUNCTION, which it currently does not.. > that's the point of this thread) I don't care what the entire thread was about. I was replying to ONE message, not the entire thread. This is exactly what these bots were created for and intend to do. Flood your server until it stops functioning or is unusable. They do this to web servers (and other servers) all the time. Not sure why this is new news with a BBS software. With said web servers (and other servers), most normal people put something like iptables, pfsense, fail2ban, or in front of them so shit like that doesn't happen.. albeit the rare case that firewalling/filtering is built into the software you're trying to serve to the outside world. > i specifically did, as the C file i posted shows. a linux daemon that > spawns the mystic binary when it receives socket connections. and the > other post you misunderstood involved determining why MIS was > spawning 'mystic' with parameters that didn't really make sense.. > we'd like to know WHY MIS/mystic is failing. How did I misunderstand the other post? I simply said I've never seen that before. Logging into my Mystic setup when a caller connects, 'top -c' produces: ../mystic -TID6 -IP
-HOST -ML0 -SIDTELNET -SL0 -ST0 -TTSYNCTERM -CUnknown Where do you see the "-Tx" switch for forcing a time limit in there? Maybe, just maybe.. some misconfiguration or misunderstanding is in play here that should be looked into a little deeper. However, whatever it is - and something I definitely agree with, is it shouldn't be spiking the CPU. Anyway, you seem to be doing a lot of ASSuming about me here. If I have to go back and read the entire thread in order to reply directly to one single message you wrote, I'll pass. > who cares.. nobody is going to grovel because a48/a49 has a > regression a47 and earlier didn't have. i certainly don't respect > someone who can't take it when people report bugs To be fair, I haven't had an issue with a49 since it was released. I've heard things about QWK hubbing, but I don't use that feature and there's plenty of others that are that can test it. Sorry to hear that you have issues. *shrug* Lastly, no clue as to where (or why) 'respect' and 'misunderstood' came from, but if you feel the need to randomly throw jabs in the mix to make yourself feel better about yourself, then I can definitely reciprocate with a 'likewise'. I didn't realize responding to one of your posts with another option to your script that can be done right from the BBS software's configuration itself, and questioning your "bug report" would get you so butthurt.j Regards, Nick .... He who laughs last, thinks slowest. --- slrn/pre1.0.4-9 (Linux) * Origin: The Pharcyde ~ telnet://bbs.pharcyde.org (Wisconsin) (21:1/200) .