Text 833, 52 rader
Skriven 2012-07-18 17:04:37 av Nicholas Boel (10834.fidonews)
    Kommentar till text 798 av Roy Witt (1:387/22)
Ärende: Netmail to you not sent!                   was: .fidonet
================================================================
  Re: Netmail to you not sent!                   was: .fidonet
  By: Roy Witt to Nicholas Boel on Wed Jul 18 2012 03:02 am

 >  NB> Why? Nothing (including GoldEd) should be parsing the MSGID for a
 >  NB> netmail address.
 > 
 > The numbers after your node are the message number, as presented by your
 > software. They continue a 'thread'...

Yep. I know what that is. But what does that have to do with Synchronet's 
MSGID *not* being compliant?

 > Yeup...I'm afraid there's another problem somewhere that is preventing
 > that netmail from being sent. Irex has been acting up lately, not allowing
 > mail to go out to 'un-recognized' node numbers, although it is configed to
 > read the nodelist and is also set to send to 'unrecognized' nodes (those
 > not in the 'link' config) when I go back to check that 'send to
 > unrecognized node, it is set to off again.

So, because of unsupported (for 10+ years, even) software not working 
correctly over there, you were very quick to accuse Synchronet of not being
compliant. Or was it just a reason to argue with me in general? :)

 > Not interested...he can argue his position with the 'programmers' and
 > leave the problem solving with them.

That's probably a better idea, since you were quick to toss the blame when 
nothing is wrong with it. Someone noticed a "different" MSGID than what the 
majority of people here are used to seeing. Even though this doesn't and 
shouldn't make one bit of difference when sending netmail through echomail, 
since the MSGID isn't used for anything except identifying messages, the
blame was quickly thrown at me and my BBS software of choice.

 > They have a different setup. Mine uses GD to read/write, Fastecho to toss
 > and Irex to send. Three places to look for problem areas and no time to
 > bother with it.

Shouldn't matter the setup. The fact that one option had been mysteriously 
changed or toggled off was to blame for the whole explosion of this thread. 

Whether you want to bother getting it working or not, is completely up to you, 
but I still stand with Synchronet being 100% compliant with FTN standards. 
Just as well, alongside less than a handful of softwares out there, is 
probably the most up-to-date.

--
Nick aka axisd
(http) www.pharcyde.org
(telnet) bbs.pharcyde.org

--- SBBSecho 2.13-Linux
 * Origin: thePharcyde_ telnet://bbs.pharcyde.org (Wisconsin) (1:154/10)