Subj : tub and bbbs, was way ot, need some maximus ...
To : Russell Tiedt
From : Richard Webb
Date : Sun Mar 08 2009 10:03 pm
Hi Russell,
* Reply to a message in MUFFIN.
On Sun 2037-Mar-08 21:00, Russell Tiedt (5:7105/1) wrote to Richard Webb:
RW> True enough. AS Janis explains, bbbs seems to be rather
RW> sticky about its interpretation of fidonet tech standards.
RW> MEthinks it has to do more with the way squish handles
RW> routing when used with static mailers such a binkley,
RW> although I don't know what the heck it is. MEthinks that's
RW> why Sean's nm to you is somewhere in limbo world as well
RW> <g>.
RT> BBBS is a good, package, just when I looked at it, I got the
RT> impression, it was built for some other network, and FidoNet got
RT> tacked on afterwards ...
DOn't know anything about it. I"ve been in the binkley
squish maximus world every since I first put a fido system
on.
I know when I was routing through Janis my routing line
would be such as ...
route normal NoArc 1:261/38 2:all 3:all 4:all 5:all ...
I never have problems routing mail through 3634/12, or r19
mail through rc19 but Janis' system every once in awhile
bounces nm complaining. <hmmmm>
RW> I'm linked to both fido_sysop and fn_sysop. Also, since
RW> this is essentially an argument between squish and bbbs
RW> which causes the problem tub might be appropriate as well.
RW> Seems to be that imho anyway.
RT> I am connected to all of those ...
AS you notice I moved this thread to this echo. Maybe
somebody else has some comments here re: squish arguing with bbbs when bbbs is
used to route mail for a squish system.
Regards,
Richard
--- timEd 1.10.y2k+
* Origin: Radio REscue net operations BBS (1:116/901)
