Subj : Re: Network Monitoring
To : Wilfred van Velzen
From : Brian Rogers
Date : Thu May 27 2021 06:59 pm
Hello Wilfred;
-=> Wilfred van Velzen wrote to Brian Rogers <=-
WvV> Looking at your outbound, only needs a set of eyes and fingers, no
WvV> other tools required! ;)
And that typically already makes the difference between an op maintaining
a smooth flowing hub and one who doesn't.
WvV> Such a point won't be pingable either. So you also need information
WvV> about your links, that was implied, and would be something a sysop
WvV> looking at his outbound would know.
Right, either way some form of human intervention is required. It almost
makes such monitoring a moot issue when you get right down to it.
WvV> It serves the smooth operation of the network.
Since way back in the day when I was on Fido, the key word in your above
sentence is "operation" which requires human operators to maintain smooth
data flow. I don't ever recall when fido wasn't efficient because of
dedicated operators at each helm. A tool to inform an operator that there
may be an unseen clog in the works may help them become a bit more
efficient but it's still the human operator that makes it what it is - not
to forget the human contributors in the various echos to keep them flowing :)
WvV> Such a tool would make the sysops live a bit easier, but you don't
WvV> really need it. You don't need to automate it, the commands provided by
WvV> your OS (cd/dir/ls) are sufficient to find out if your outbound is full
WvV> of unsend mail.
Correct as I agreed with you above.
WvV> I didn't know we were talking about making this information public?
I thought I read where someone else mentioned that might be a nice feature
to have. In any event I really don't think my skillset would be required
for such a thing.
... A thief who stole a calendar got twelve months.
--- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
* Origin: SBBS - Carnage! (1:142/103)
