[nos-bbs] Seriously revisiting B2F and "E" messages ???

[Brian]

Maiko et al;

Just a heads up that the wl2k folks are about to make some changes to their 
servers and gateway software (some stations have even been falsely flagged 
as being incompliant with their system due to this). While I don't know 
what the Ill effects of this may be in regards to b2f it may be a good 
opportunity to start teaching those that use wl2k about smtp features in X 
nos and other mail systems available for packet.

My guess is in time they may require all sysops to purchase winmore as an 
overlaying protocol, but that's just my personal guess. Petsonally, I see 
no advantage to wl2k vs. any other mail transport agent.  If you properly 
have ip routing on rf,  Amy standard client would work fine - As proven by 
cell phones hi!

Sent through via axMail-fax by N1URO.



Sent with AquaMail for Android
http://www.aqua-mail.com


On October 28, 2014 10:56:03 PM Maiko Langelaar <maiko at pcs.mb.ca> wrote:

>
> Being a developer first, and a sysop second is dangerous. My level of sysop
> and practical forwarding knowledge is a far second to the development side
> of things unfortunately. I've learned tons, but there are guys out there
> who truly know the operational side of this better then I ever will :(
>
> I have wondered sometimes if introducing B2F (and my implementation to
> date is far from near to perfect) into JNOS was a mistake, for the general
> population that is. I mean seriously, there is no benefit to using B2F for
> most NOS to NOS setups, if anyone thinks otherwise, I would be glad to sit
> back and listen. The "E" message itself comes from a Winlink/RMS/Airmail
> system, so the fact that it has appeared on a NOS exchange is because it
> is getting passed along, the originating station was not a NOS station.
>
> I'm a systems integrator, I thought (perhaps naively) that having the
> ability to pass messages between W2LK and NOS was perhaps useful ? Like
> I said, the code is far from perfect, but is workable.
>
> Questions : Perhaps I should leave B2F undefined in the default compile.
>
>     Any objections to this ?
>
>     Then those who truly want to try the RMS/W2LK/Airmail <-> JNOS thing,
>     and there are probably very few out there, have the option to compile
>     B2F still, all they have to do is make the change in config.h ?
>
>     Comments ?
>
> > - search logs for "FC EM" to see who is connecting to you with B2F enabled,
> >  so that you can tell them to create mbox nob2f entries for you and all of
> >  their forwarding partners
>
> Good ideas. The 'mbox nob2f' command is still there, it simply controls the
> level of SID we present to a connecting system. With B2F disabled at compile
> time or 'mbox fbb 2', it is of course not an issue.
>
> > - search each AREA.txt file for "X-BBS-Msg-Type: E"; if so [snip] ...
>
> Same thing.
>
> > Even if you and your partner have the mbox nob2f statements, you can still
>
> > unwittingly forward affected "E" messages from further back along the line.
>
> Questions : what should we or could we do about this ? Convert to 'P' ? or
>              do we stop and reject the message as not forwardable ?
>
> Maiko
>
> _______________________________________________
> nos-bbs mailing list
> nos-bbs at tapr.org
> http://www.tapr.org/mailman/listinfo/nos-bbs
>