binkd cfg question.

[Marc Lewis]

Hello All.

I am trying to send to nodes in several different fidonet zones.
How do I configure this line:

domain fidonet Q:\\fido_out\\out 1

I have mail waiting to send to Zone 3 and 4, but it never scans those outbound
directories. (binkley style as in out, out.002, out.003, etc.)

Can you help?

Best regards,
Marc

[Stephen Walsh]

Hello Marc!

15 Nov 24 11:34, you wrote to all:

ML> I am trying to send to nodes in several different fidonet zones.

Direct or routed?
If routed then they would go via your uplink and be in your out dir.

ML> How do I configure this line:
ML> domain fidonet Q:\\fido_out\\out 1

That is the correct syntex. Are you also a member of any othernets?

ML> I have mail waiting to send to Zone 3 and 4, but it never scans those
ML> outbound directories. (binkley style as in out, out.002, out.003,
ML> etc.)

Has your mail tosser created packets in those dirs?



Stephen

[Marc Lewis]

Hello Stephen.

<On 16Nov2024 11:25 Stephen Walsh (3:633/280) wrote a message to Marc Lewis
regarding binkd cfg question. >

ML> I am trying to send to nodes in several different fidonet zones.

SW> Direct or routed?
SW> If routed then they would go via your uplink and be in your out
SW> dir.

Direct. It is to a Point system in 3:633

ML> How do I configure this line:
ML> domain fidonet Q:\\fido_out\\out 1

SW> That is the correct syntex. Are you also a member of any othernets?

Yes, DixieNet. binkd has no problem with those directories.

ML> I have mail waiting to send to Zone 3 and 4, but it never scans those
ML> outbound directories. (binkley style as in out, out.002, out.003,
ML> etc.)

SW> Has your mail tosser created packets in those dirs?

Yes.

Best regards,
Marc

[Stephen Walsh]

Hello Marc!

16 Nov 24 08:31, you wrote to me:

SW>> Direct or routed?
SW>> If routed then they would go via your uplink and be in your out
SW>> dir.

ML> Direct. It is to a Point system in 3:633

If you can't get it to go direct to the boss node, then send it routed as that
issue has now been
fixed. #-)

ML>> How do I configure this line:
ML>> domain fidonet Q:\\fido_out\\out 1

SW>> That is the correct syntex. Are you also a member of any
SW>> othernets?

ML> Yes, DixieNet. binkd has no problem with those directories.

Does your other nets have the zone for those othernets or 1 ?

Ie:

(Correct way)
domain fidonet Q:\\fido_out\\out 1
domain othernet Q:\\fido_out\\out 1
domain mynet Q:\\fido_out\\out 1


(Incorrect way)
domain fidonet Q:\\fido_out\\out 1
domain othernet Q:\\fido_out\\out 227
domain mynet Q:\\fido_out\\out 175



Stephen

[Nicholas Boel]

Hello Marc,

I am trying to send to nodes in several different fidonet zones. How
domain fidonet Q:\\fido_out\\out 1
I have mail waiting to send to Zone 3 and 4, but it never scans
those outbound directories. (binkley style as in out, out.002,
out.003, etc.)

First question is, are you referring to netmail, or echomail?

If netmail, then your not routing correctly.

If echomail, you probably don't have a link defined for those systems in
other zones.

You have two options:

1) add binkp.net to your domain line above:
domain fidonet Q:\\fido_out\\out 1 binkp.net

2) include a binkd formatted nodelist into your config (usually
binkd.txt, where available - or compile it yourself).

Hope that helps!

Regards,
Nick

... Take my advice, I don't use it anyway.

[Nicholas Boel]

Hello Marc,

Post by Marc Lewis
Direct. It is to a Point system in 3:633

If this is the case, do you have a direct route setup for the boss node? This
would be something you would do in your tosser, not binkd.

You can't (or shouldn't) be able to poll a point, unless you went out of your
way to setup a direct connection with it. However, that would defeat the
purpose of that system being a point.

I'm not sure what tosser you're using, but if you're trying to send DIRect, you
probably need some kind of route through the boss node for that point.

Regards,
Nick

... He who laughs last, thinks slowest.

[Wilfred van Velzen]

Hi Nicholas,

On 2024-11-16 09:07:05, you wrote to Marc Lewis:

NB> You can't (or shouldn't) be able to poll a point, unless you went out
NB> of your way to setup a direct connection with it. However, that would
NB> defeat the purpose of that system being a point.

Why not? Two of my points have mailers online, that can be connected directly.
Their connection info is published in the Z2 point list...


Bye, Wilfred.

[Nicholas Boel]

Hello Wilfred,

Post by Wilfred van Velzen
NB> You can't (or shouldn't) be able to poll a point, unless you went out
NB> of your way to setup a direct connection with it. However, that would
NB> defeat the purpose of that system being a point.
Why not? Two of my points have mailers online, that can be connected
directly. Their connection info is published in the Z2 point list...

Seems like they wouldn't really be classified as points (except for the fact
that they have a point in their node number), then, if they have mailers online
and are able to be connected to by the general population? Maybe we should look
up the definition of "point" again?

In regards to routing netmail, it /should/ be done via the boss node *by
default*. If one wants to setup a direct route to a point (or anyone, for that
matter), that is up to those two systems. Honestly, I shouldn't even have to
explain this, as you know these answers already. Seems as though you just
wanted to stir the pot. Instead of replying to me with contradictions, why not
try to help the original poster, instead?

Nothing here has been stated that communication between the two systems has
been set up directly. All that was stated was that he was trying to send mail
to a point directly (only with mention of his domain line in binkd.conf - no
mention whatsoever of his routing configuration) So, I was referring to the
defaults.. and also stated "unless you went out of your way to setup a direct
connection". I think I covered what I needed to, unless you have more to add?

Regards,
Nick

... He who laughs last, thinks slowest.

[Wilfred van Velzen]

Hi Nicholas,

Post by Wilfred van Velzen
NB> You can't (or shouldn't) be able to poll a point, unless you went out
NB> of your way to setup a direct connection with it. However, that would
NB> defeat the purpose of that system being a point.
Why not? Two of my points have mailers online, that can be connected
directly. Their connection info is published in the Z2 point list...

NB> Seems like they wouldn't really be classified as points (except for the
NB> fact
NB> that they have a point in their node number), then, if they have mailers
NB> online and are able to be connected to by the general population? Maybe we
NB> should look up the definition of "point" again?

NB> In regards to routing netmail, it /should/ be done via the boss node *by
NB> default*. If one wants to setup a direct route to a point (or anyone, for
NB> that
NB> matter), that is up to those two systems. Honestly, I shouldn't even have
NB> to
NB> explain this, as you know these answers already. Seems as though you just
NB> wanted to stir the pot. Instead of replying to me with contradictions, why
NB> not
NB> try to help the original poster, instead?

NB> Nothing here has been stated that communication between the two systems
NB> has
NB> been set up directly. All that was stated was that he was trying to send
NB> mail
NB> to a point directly (only with mention of his domain line in binkd.conf -
NB> no
NB> mention whatsoever of his routing configuration) So, I was referring to
NB> the
NB> defaults.. and also stated "unless you went out of your way to setup a
NB> direct
NB> connection". I think I covered what I needed to, unless you have more to
NB> add?

I'm not trying to stir the pot. I'm just trying to point out that sometimes
someone with a mailer publicly online 24/7, doesn't need, or want, or can't
have a full blown node number, a point number will suffice, and is much easier
to obtain...

That's it. And of course these are exceptions to the normal, although still
valid use cases.
And if a sender doesn't have the connection info for such a point, although
publicly available, he has no choice and has to route as you say...

Bye, Wilfred.


Btw: Why doesn't your message have a REPLY: kludge?

[Nicholas Boel]

Hello Wilfred,

Post by Wilfred van Velzen
Btw: Why doesn't your message have a REPLY: kludge?

That wasn't the fix we were looking for. Maybe this test is a bit better. :P

Regards,
Nick

... He who laughs last, thinks slowest.

[Wilfred van Velzen]

Hi Nicholas,

Post by Wilfred van Velzen
Btw: Why doesn't your message have a REPLY: kludge?

NB> That wasn't the fix we were looking for. Maybe this test is a bit better.
NB> :P

Yes, it is there and it works now. I can use the '-' key in GoldED to go back
through the thread now. :-)

Bye, Wilfred.

[Nicholas Boel]

Hello Wilfred,

Post by Wilfred van Velzen
NB> That wasn't the fix we were looking for. Maybe this test is a bit
NB> better. :P
Yes, it is there and it works now. I can use the '-' key in GoldED to go back
through the thread now. :-)

I figured you would be happy. Just so happened this newsreader (slrn) was
sending multiple reply-id's aka "References" in NNTP/RFC terms, so Synchronet
was not reading it properly. Sometimes it takes someone to use an oddball
client to find 20 year old bugs. :)

Regards,
Nick

... He who laughs last, thinks slowest.

[Nicholas Boel]

Hello Wilfred,

Post by Wilfred van Velzen
Hi Nicholas,
I'm not trying to stir the pot. I'm just trying to point out that sometimes
someone with a mailer publicly online 24/7, doesn't need, or want, or can't
have a full blown node number, a point number will suffice, and is much
easier to obtain...

Point taken. However, what I originally said briefly covered this, but I didn't
want to go too far into it, especially if it had nothing to do with what he was
trying to do.

Post by Wilfred van Velzen
That's it. And of course these are exceptions to the normal, although still
valid use cases. And if a sender doesn't have the connection info for such a
point, although publicly available, he has no choice and has to route as you
say...

Yeah. I wasn't talking about exceptions, though. I was trying to help someone
fix their issue with normal operations. No need to go into extravagant, very
minor use-case, abnormal circumstances (unless the original poster would have
brought something like that up) that could possibly confuse the original poster
even more. Do you agree?

Post by Wilfred van Velzen
Btw: Why doesn't your message have a REPLY: kludge?

Probably because it was posted via NNTP with a very old linux console based
client (slrn) that has no idea what an FTN REPLY kludge is. However, if this
one does have a REPLY kludge, and while I'm using the same client via the same
method, we can thank Rob (Synchronet) for fixing it. :)

Regards,
Nick

... He who laughs last, thinks slowest.

[Wilfred van Velzen]

Hi Nicholas,

Post by Wilfred van Velzen
I'm not trying to stir the pot. I'm just trying to point out that
sometimes someone with a mailer publicly online 24/7, doesn't need, or
want, or can't have a full blown node number, a point number will
suffice, and is much easier to obtain...

NB> Point taken. However, what I originally said briefly covered this, but I
NB> didn't want to go too far into it, especially if it had nothing to do with
NB> what he was trying to do.

Ok...

Post by Wilfred van Velzen
That's it. And of course these are exceptions to the normal, although
still valid use cases. And if a sender doesn't have the connection
info for such a point, although publicly available, he has no choice
and has to route as you say...

NB> Yeah. I wasn't talking about exceptions, though. I was trying to help
NB> someone
NB> fix their issue with normal operations. No need to go into extravagant,
NB> very
NB> minor use-case, abnormal circumstances (unless the original poster would
NB> have
NB> brought something like that up) that could possibly confuse the original
NB> poster even more. Do you agree?

Sure, you don't want to confuse your audience. But you were saying you can only
contact points through their boss as a fact without exceptions. And that simply
isn't always true. That's why I felt I had to write something.


Bye, Wilfred.

[Nicholas Boel]

Hello Wilfred,

Post by Wilfred van Velzen
Sure, you don't want to confuse your audience. But you were saying you can
only contact points through their boss as a fact without exceptions. And that
simply isn't always true. That's why I felt I had to write something.

This is /exactly/ what I said:

"You can't (or shouldn't) be able to poll a point, unless you went out of your
way to setup a direct connection with it. However, that would defeat the
purpose of that system being a point."

For the record, I didn't say "can only," or any sort of "fact without
exceptions." As a matter of fact, that little bit of what I wrote above covers
everything you tried to correct me on, in a much shorter sentence.

Anyway, there's no point in arguing. Thanks for the added tips.

Regards,
Nick

... He who laughs last, thinks slowest.