Text 5949, 105 rader
Skriven 2013-01-23 19:02:06 av Nicholas Boel (17148.fidonews)
   Kommentar till text 5936 av mark lewis (1:3634/12.42)
Ärende: Z4
==========
  Re: Z4
  By: mark lewis to Nicholas Boel on Wed Jan 23 2013 11:24 am

 ML> i take most anyone's side when i see them being treated and spoken to
 ML> unfairly or unjustly... "most anyone" because some do deserve what they
 ML> have sown in the past... but that's going down a trail we don't really
 ML> want to travel, right?

And I only take things to another level when I'm talked to like that first.
Apparantly you don't see that part, though.

 ML> these are public areas just like newsgroups... if you don't want any input
 ML> from others in the same room, then take the conversation private...
 ML> otherwise, don't complain about input from others in public places... but
 ML> you already know this...

I don't complain about it. I reply in the same tone that was used with me. Even
a little better if the original topic was diverted by the person jumping into
the conversation.

 ML> hopefully things will cool off more, now...

Doubtful. Some people just like to stick their nose where it doesn't belong.
They've probably done it for far too long to change now.

 NB>> Here -- if the applicant is willing to apply, and pay attnetion, it
 NB>> takes 1/4th the time it does to go through someone that follows the
 NB>> way it was done 20 years ago. Maybe people should rethink this,
 NB>> but.. who the fuck am I to get involved with what people have been
 NB>> fuckin' up for 10+ years. 

 ML> what??

My point there is that the newly aquired "point" I setup went about 3-4 weeks
waiting for a reply from the RC -- who swore he sent a netmail back to him at
that "temporary" address. When the applicant polled the RC for this netmail
that was supposed to be there, nothing was received. This happened 3-4 times,
while I emailed the RC and let him know that his "temporary" node number wasn't
working properly, he refused to do so much as look into the issue, let alone
fix what was wrong to help this applicant further along his process.

 NB>> HAHA. Perfect. I figured you would say that. Even after a rescan of
 NB>> your logs, you might even say that again.

 ML> logs?? i simply read the messages...

Very possible that you read them in the wrong order. I get this echo from the
origin, since the "shenannegans" occurred awhile back.

 ML> what "so many things"?? send in the application via netmail... what else
 ML> is required?? netmail HAS to work... it is the backbone of fidonet...
 ML> everything travels via netmail of some sort... yes, even the file
 ML> distribution stuff...

While this was done a few times, netmail wasn't replied to properly, therefore
the RC stated that the applicant's netmail wasn't setup properly, when in fact
it was the RCs setup that wasn't working properly. God forbid he would admit
that, though.

 ML> gotta wonder why that is? you do know you can't send a netmail to an
 ML> applying node's new address when their mailer is not flying the new
 ML> address they don't even know they have, right?? and polling using the temp
 ML> address when there's more than one new node using that address is also a
 ML> problem because mail for the one applicant may be picked up by the other
 ML> applicant when both are flying the same temp address... so, how would you
 ML> do it??

That's a great question, but the applicant still doesn't have a node number,
even though he has successfully routed netmail through my system to that RC as
well, after the fact that he sent 3-4 direct netmails using that "temporary"
node number he was provided with -- which was admitted to be received by the
RC every time. When the RC said he replied with further instructions, the
applicant polled his system using the temporary node number (I went over his
configuration to make sure it was correct even), and there was no mail received
from the RCs system.

While trying to figure out the issue, the applicant called him voice (which he
was told to do) and asked why he hasn't gotten a response from him yet. All the
applicant said he was greeted with was a cocky, high-horsed attitude stating
that the applicant's configuration was wrong, and that he wouldn't get a node
number until he could successfully send netmail (WHICH HE ALREADY DID ON
NUMEROUS OCCASIONS, yet nothing was received in return). How does that
compute? [sigh]

 NB>> Oddly enough, I set this guy up in about 15 minutes as a point
 NB>> here, which goes to show that the mentioned RC didn't have a proper
 NB>> configuration for his "temporary" node.

 ML> using only fidonet technology and netmail??

Yep. This fidonet "point" now has a node number in my othernet as well, after
successfully netmailing me as well as my areafix to setup his own areas (for
both networks). So where did the original problem lie?

 ML> BTW: why do yo think i spend so much time correcting others and educating
 ML> new folks??

It's appreciated. Maybe some people that have been around here quite some time
need a refresher course. :(

Regards,
Nick

--- SBBSecho 2.20-Linux
 * Origin: thePharcyde_ telnet://bbs.pharcyde.org (Wisconsin) (1:154/10)