Subj : Something new...
To : mark lewis
From : Richard Webb
Date : Thu Oct 15 2009 08:26 pm
HI Mark,
On Thu 2037-Oct-15 14:54, mark lewis (1:3634/12) wrote to Richard Webb:
<snippage>
ml> shouldn't really matter as long as each node can be config'd
ml> specially for the needs of that node...
Agreed, and there's ways to accomplish about anything <g>.
<snip again>
RW> AS for routing, squish or his mail processor would handle
RW> that as Bink is a static mailer. SAme inbound/outbound dirs though
RW> pointed to by all versions.
ml> hummm... therein lays the problem... can tossers handle multiple
ml> routings for static mail bundles?? FD can because it is dynamic in
ml> building its outbound stuffs but if a BSO style tosser cannot build
ml> multiple ?lo files indicating different "status'" for the same
ml> static outbound bundles for separate nodes, this may be a problem...
not an option. Instead, what you do is process the
nodelist. EXample, you've got a node you regularly connect
with and crash packets to. This node has both pots and your other common
scheme. YOu don't want to dial pots to send
those crash bundles. so, you replace that node's pots phone no with
unpublished using your favorite nodelist compiler.
Need to change your mind and dial him pots? Grab the right
phone number from the raw nodelist as distributed, recompile nodelist, you're
happening. Other scheme comes back live,
switcharoo your nodelist compiler control file back,
recompile.
Most nodelist compilers that create a nodelist binkley can
use will let you do the above quite handily iirc.
ml> i guess FD's dynamic stuff is similar to having it build its own ?lo
ml> files but those ?lo files are also specific to the node as well as
ml> to the destination system... FD uses the file extension to denote
ml> the node number the file is for and the content of the file denotes
ml> the addresses and "flavor"...
YEp, similar. YOur tosser and other utilities build the
*.*lo files. There will be a file in my outbound when I
write this message created/updated by squish with a file
name of 0e32000c.clo detailing paths and filenames to be
sent to you.
so, if you and I had multiple connection schemes between us
such as telnet and pots and I were running multinode I'd
possibly want to prefer the telnet connection. But, in my
case maybe I"d prefer the pots, only use the telnet if there were trouble on
lines between us. IF I want to prefer the
telnet I change your pots entry to unpublished so that bt
pots doesn't try to dial you.
But, if I want to prefer the pots as primary I"ll want to
change your nodelist flags entry, again doable with my
nodelist compiler to not show the telnet capability. Or, I
can leave the nodelist alone, and the mode that gets there
first transacts a session with yours. Meanwhile, if
assuming I"m running other processes since I"m running
multinode those other processes are aware of which one's
talking with you and won't touch mail bundles to/from your
system.
<snip again>
RW> Bob Juge would have been your guy for that as he was doing
RW> it. Also the other MR. LEwis might be of some assistance to SEan
RW> in this regard. THink he's running bt.
ml> yup and yup on both accounts...
When I helped a friend get it all going I referred to things I"d seen in this
echo quite a bit, but that was way back in
the day <g>.
Regards,
Richard
--- timEd 1.10.y2k+
* Origin: Radio REscue net operations BBS (1:116/901)
