Subj : Latest version for linux? To : mark lewis From : Bob Seaborn Date : Tue Mar 07 2017 10:09 am > > On Mon, 06 Mar 2017, Mike Powell wrote to Mark Lewis: > >ml>> it wasn't being gated properly... if it were, there would have >ml>> been two origin lines and other control lines to enable netmail >ml>> replies across the zone boundry to work... > >MP> No, No, No, because it wasn't being gated at all. The whole dang >MP> problem was caused because IREX would only pass mail to a "host" >MP> system with a full net node, not a point. > > ahhhh... i've never worked with IREX and didn't know it was even I have used Irex to feed net, echo mail, and files to a point, with absolutely no problems, so whoever is telling you this story is wrong, and probably has not configured his Irex properly. I als know others who have done as I have, if that helps. > involved... i'd be doing this with GIGO like i do with the the TeamOS2 > mailing list and the two OS/2 related yahoo groups i gate to fidonet... > the SMTP takes the inbound messages and stores them in .BAG files which > GIGO then converts into PKTs with those messages now carrying an AREA > line for the destination echo they belong in... but this is an OS/2 only > solution... i don't think that GIGO has been ported to any other OSes > and i have no idea what could be done for winwhatever with any other > gating tools... > > it should be also noted that there's a difference between gating emails > to netmails, gating mailing lists to echos and gating news groups to > echos... then there's the other gating that's done between different FTN > networks and even FTN networks and other networks that use a completely > different means of packaging and transportation than what FTNs and the > internet use... RIME/PCRelay used a form of QWK which is why QWK offline > readers were so easy for the users to use... i'm not sure what WWIV used > but it was similar to internet, IIRC... at least its moderated areas > operated like moderated news groups where posts were sent via private > email to the moderator for approval and posting to the area or they were > rejected... proactive moderation vs fidonet's reactive moderation... > >MP> When I switched my systems around and couldn't get IREX to work >MP> under linux, I got stuck. The fake zone was a temporary work >MP> around until I got it working (impossible because it is hard-wired >MP> to some old, old dependencies) or until I got a full node number >MP> for what is really just "half" of the BBS. > > ohhh... yeah, i can feel the pain... > >MP> Basically, it was getting "gated" from one part of my bbs to >MP> another, but it wasn't going anywhere else. > > what i'd do is to just get another node number from your NC and list it > as another AKA on your BBS... then IREX should be able to operate > fine... then for that echo you use the new AKA as the origin address and > all your other areas stay using the existing origin AKA... > > i'm not sure why IREX couldn't just gate the mailing list to your > existing node number?? that should be a straight forward gating process > like i do here with GIGO... > >MP> And I still don't understand how we are able to have a multi-zone >MP> net if all of our software has so many issues with zone >MP> boundaries. I see messages from Zones 2 and 3 all the time that >MP> are not "gated" into Zone 1. > > because they are not gated line domain crossing stuff... there did used > to be zonegates in fidonet and they handled throwing netmail over the > ponds... they might have also handled echomail but there was nothing > special needed to be done since the fidonet domain compromises more than > one zone... when calls got cheaper, many folks started biting the bullet > for their international connections and went direct during the cheapest > time they could find in their billing... then the internet came along > and cost for long distance comms is now negligable... > >MP> Unless there is also some restrictions on what net #s each zone >MP> can use (which, IMHO, makes zones really, really pointless), > > there was a math formula to use... it didn't get explained very well or > in time when other zones came along so they kinda did their own thing > with their numbering... Z2 went through a huge row when they did a > complete renumbering of net numbers at one time to conform to policy's > "local telephone calling area" stuff... but nets can be duplicated > across zones... there's no problem with that... for echomail you just > strip out the seenbys when you cross the zone boundry so that duplicate > net/node systems will be able to receive the messages... you have to do > this crossing domains with proper FTN<->FTN gating anyway... > > the ""problem"", such as it is, is that today some people are > specifically trying to "kill off" the traditional FTN distribution > format which is backbone oriented... they are, instead, connecting to > one echo from several different systems and eventually there's several > huge dupe loops... the so-called goal is to eliminate a SPOF (single > point of failure) but in reality it is eliminating a lot more and taking > away moderator's rights in their echos since now it is impossible to > remove a problem user from an echo for a time period... > >MP> it does not make any sense to me why it matters if the node is in >MP> Zone 1, 2, 3, or 123. :) > > because zones 1,2 and 3 are all in the Fidonet FTN (fidonet technology > network)... zone 123 is a completely different FTN with their own policy > and rules and maybe even their own set of multiple zone numbers... > > )\/(ark > > * Origin: (1:3634/12) --- GEcho/32 & IM 2.50 * Origin: http://www.fidonet.ca (1:140/12) .