Text 5962, 91 rader
Skriven 2013-01-23 23:18:50 av Roy Witt (1:387/22)
   Kommentar till text 5949 av Nicholas Boel (17148.fidonews)
Ärende: Z4
==========
Nicholas Boel wrote to mark lewis:

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

Speaking of which; that seems to be a Z2 trait. Now I know where you get
your attitude.

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

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

JFC! The origin of this echo has never originated in Sweden.

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

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

LOL!  So, being that THE APPlicant was a friend of yours and you're all
knowing about this shit, why didn't you offer him a nodenumber in your
net?

 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??

Gawd forbid that a net gets more than one new applicant in this day and
age of 25meg nodelists.

 ML>> and polling using the temp address when there's more than one new
 ML>> node using that address is also a problem because mail for the one
 ML>> applicant may be picked up by the other applicant when both are
 ML>> flying the same temp address... so, how would you do it??

 NB> That's a great question, but the applicant still doesn't have a node
 NB> number, even though he has successfully routed netmail through my
 NB> system to that RC as well,

So, your buddy expects the RC to reply to your point? Interesting.

 NB> using the temporary node number (I went over his configuration
 NB> to make sure it was correct even), and there was no mail received
 NB> from the RCs system.

Why fucking bother? The RC isn't obliged to respond to your point.

Just list your buddy in your net...

 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.

Why? List him in your own net...

 ML>> using only fidonet technology and netmail??

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

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

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

Even given that, we'd never be able to put on our hats again with a head
the same size as yours.

 NB> --- SBBSecho 2.20-Linux
 NB>  * Origin: thePharcyde_ telnet://bbs.pharcyde.org (Wisconsin)
 NB> (1:154/10)
 NB> SEEN-BY: 387/22
 NB> @PATH: 203/0 320/119 123/500 387/22

Traitor...


         R\%/itt


--- GoldED+/W32 1.1.5-31012
 * Origin: Texas Lone-Star - Texan, American, USAian  (1:387/22)