Since people don't like to check their BBS to see if they get mail. I' post here. I CANNOT poll you to send mail. There are some boards that haven't gotten mail in 2 weeks. I will begin removing nodes for not picku mail after 3 weeks. Check your setups. If it's some stupid Mystic problem (as it ALWAYS is) ... find another software for FidoNet stuff, because aparently Mystic has no idea how to do this correctly.
if they aren't getting mail how will they see this?
if they aren't getting mail how will they see this?
Since people don't like to check their BBS to see if they get mail. I'll post here. I CANNOT poll you to send mail.
Why?
if they aren't getting mail how will they see this?
Because they read it on other boards.
if they aren't getting mail how will they see this?
Good Point! My system was deleting my packets without even processing them had to add a command before my file toss to copy the messages from my echomail\in\unsecure folder to the echomail\in before the filetoss. Not th best way to do it but for now it seems to work.
I'm connected to a number of different systems/platforms never had this is before. Seems like not having a BinkP password is whats giving Mystic fits
i thought you said they're not polling you
i thought you said they're not polling you
It's not ALL boards, just a select few.
Why?
My IREX only supports so many nodes to poll out. And it's at MAX. Plus for a hub to crash everything is kinda ridiculus.
I'm getting all the messages from this thread. As long as I'm downloading a reading echomail, my BBS is doing ok?
I'm curious what is the "max" for IREX?
My IREX only supports so many nodes to poll out. And it's at MAX. Plus
for a hub to crash everything is kinda ridiculus.
I dont agree with your last point - but understand your issue. If you want t add a "hub" that can offload some work (and even crash mail to those that wa it) - then happy to help out...
The unfortunate frustration is encountering far too many Sysops all wanting feeds and telling me the same stories. I miss my old board, I'm a longtime Sysop, I'm glad to be back and I'm back "for good", if you need a Hub I'll help out, my board runs on a VM in some cloud, I'll never vanish, etc etc.
A month or so later when they don't get any callers to their stock boards, they disappear.
Then theres those who love to "experiment" - they have no idea what they're doing so sometimes their mailer works, sometimes not. Sometimes theres
those who don't run things 24/7, they take their board down randomly.
Now multiply this by over a hundred downlinks and it gets a little ineffici to have my mailer calling out to about, on average, a quarter to half of th being really "down" at any random moment whenever I look at the console.
On 23 May 22 14:35:03, Deon said the following to Exodus:
My IREX only supports so many nodes to poll out. And it's at MAX.
Plus
for a hub to crash everything is kinda ridiculus.
I dont agree with your last point - but understand your issue. If
you want t add a "hub" that can offload some work (and even crash
mail to those that wa it) - then happy to help out...
Maybe its a preference of the Hub. Maybe you enjoy playing the role of mailman. But I discovered 25 years ago how inefficient "Crash" really
is.
The unfortunate frustration is encountering far too many Sysops all
wanting feeds and telling me the same stories. I miss my old board,
I'm a longtime Sysop, I'm glad to be back and I'm back "for good", if
you need a Hub I'll help out, my board runs on a VM in some cloud,
I'll never vanish, etc etc.
A month or so later when they don't get any callers to their stock
boards, they disappear.
Then theres those who love to "experiment" - they have no idea what
they're doing so sometimes their mailer works, sometimes not.
Sometimes theres
those who don't run things 24/7, they take their board down randomly.
Now multiply this by over a hundred downlinks and it gets a little inefficient to have my mailer calling out to about, on average, a
quarter to half of them being really "down" at any random moment
whenever I look at the console.
So I tell everyone that all mail is placed in Hold for you to poll
here whenever you can. Whether you poll every minute, every day, every week, every month. I don't care. But I'm not calling you.
I can also run a script that can very easily tell me who has not
polled here in X amount of days or has mail piling-up...
telnet://bbs.roonsbbs.hu:1212 <<=-
In the good ol' days (tm) we changed every packet (except for the points) to Crash in the ZMH. after changed everything to Hold.
Maybe its a preference of the Hub. Maybe you enjoy playing the role of mailman. But I discovered 25 years ago how inefficient "Crash" really
In the good ol' days (tm) we changed every packet (except for the points) t Crash in the ZMH. after changed everything to Hold.
Maybe its a preference of the Hub. Maybe you enjoy playing the role of mailman. But I discovered 25 years ago how inefficient "Crash"
really is.
The unfortunate frustration is encountering far too many Sysops all wanting feeds and telling me the same stories. I miss my old board,
I'm a longtime Sysop, I'm glad to be back and I'm back "for good", if you need a Hub I'll
help out, my board runs on a VM in some cloud, I'll never vanish, etc etc.
A month or so later when they don't get any callers to their stock boards, they disappear.
Now multiply this by over a hundred downlinks and it gets a little inefficient to have my mailer calling out to about, on average, a
quarter to half of them being really "down" at any random moment whenever I look at the console.
configuration and automation "that script you mention" can help you be on t of it, and depending how smart it is, address it too. The architecture of t network can also distribute the workload, although some folks dont seem to enthused to do that.
I'm all up for multiple hubs, but other than Nick, no one has volunteered to do so. I also have the issue of the hub disappearing and thus taking nodes with them and causing me more work to readd them to my setup. :(
I dont really see these as signficant problems to warrant "crash is ineffiecient" (at least in my experience anway). Your mailer calling a dead end is not good - I think that is on par with your hard drive filling up wit uncollected outbound mail. In fact the end result is probably the same.
Sure its annoying when downlinks disappear without telling you, but some configuration and automation "that script you mention" can help you be on to of it, and depending how smart it is, address it too. The architecture of th network can also distribute the workload, although some folks dont seem to enthused to do that.
On 25 May 22 06:03:53, Exodus said the following to Deon:
I'm all up for multiple hubs, but other than Nick, no one has volunteered t do so. I also have the issue of the hub disappearing and thus taking nodes with them and causing me more work to readd them to my setup. :(
Biggest example being Netsurge/Frank ala Scinet.
I had him as RC12 in Fido as well...
I'm all up for multiple hubs, but other than Nick, no one has volunteered to do so. I also have the issue of the hub disappearing and thus
taking nodes with them and causing me more work to readd them to my setup. :(
You need to have many links to really see and understand this first-hand. You don't see these with a dozen. You see it when you get into the
hundreds.
I just don't like something trying several times a day trying to establish a connection to a dead-end. Theres no point. I'd rather put the onus on
the other guy to call here for his mail. If he can configure his mailer, he can setup a poll-event.
I'd rather not automate some aspects of this. Sometimes there is a valid reason a downlink goes down for a period of time and I make an exception to the rule of nuking piled-up mail. I don't mind housekeeping sometimes.
The concept of centralized hubs or tree structure is long obsolete... except for Netmail, which unfortunately many Sysops do not know how to route
properly.
Well, as I say, I dont see the challenge you are describing and I have a bit more than a dozen. And yes, I could see a single hub sweating if it had hundreds of downlinks, especially if using 1990s software.
Well technically, that too can be fixed - or as a last result, a rescan woul address it? But yes, a rescan might be a challenge for some "Sysops".
Well it doesnt need to be. It's how this ancient hobby used to work and most folks are using ancient software - or using modern versions of ancient software built with ancient thinking...
Well, as I say, I dont see the challenge you are describing and I have a bit more than a dozen. And yes, I could see a single hub sweating if
it had hundreds of downlinks, especially if using 1990s software.
... but then you cop out with little digs towards software
or things here that are "standard". Rob Swindell does the same thing...
If you have something to contribute beyond commentary then please politely show me where I can test it myself.
Well it doesnt need to be. It's how this ancient hobby used to work and most folks are using ancient software - or using modern versions of ancient software built with ancient thinking...
And again, I can't understand the real meaning of this without you clearly bringing something to the table for comparison. We already have Jas Hud
for bravado nonsense.ll bring it back on track.
| Sysop: | Nelgin |
|---|---|
| Location: | Plano, TX |
| Users: | 410 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 05:23:53 |
| Calls: | 6,110 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 15,681 |
| Messages: | 745,225 |