[nos-bbs] JNOS mbox fbb # vs. FBB forward.sys N #

[Michael Fox - N6MEF]

Ouch.  Sorry for the extra complexity.

I'd like to get to FBB forwarding too.  I've got a BPQ forwarding partner (over telnet), which has B1F in its SID.  He connects to the machine that I just switched to mbox fbb 1.  Since switching to mbox fbb 1, BPQ reports that JNOS is making a protocol error.  I haven't posted the information yet because I intend to first look at the exchange to see if there is indeed an error on the JNOS end, or maybe it's actually on the BPQ end.  That's one reason I've been digging more into the actual differences between FBB versions.  More later.

Michael
N6MEF

> -----Original Message-----
> From: nos-bbs [mailto:nos-bbs-bounces at tapr.org] On Behalf Of Maiko
> Langelaar
> Sent: Sunday, April 3, 2016 9:58 AM
> To: TAPR xNOS Mailing List <nos-bbs at tapr.org>
> Subject: Re: [nos-bbs] JNOS mbox fbb # vs. FBB forward.sys N #
> 
> 
> > 2.0j.7v.  Unfortunately, the proposal logging does not occur unless both
> > sides are using FBB forwarding (i.e. mbox fbb > 0).  So I’m going to set
> one
> > machine to mbox fbb 1 and another to mbox fbb 2, both talking to the
> same
> > FBB forwarding partner.  And we’ll see what we see.  More as I learn it
> …
> 
> I'm almost done updating the code such that logging of the non FBB
> forwarding
> (ie, mbox fbb 0) is more user friendly. I agree it is literally non
> existent,
> so I am hoping my additions will be of 'some' help. But the bottom line is
> we should really try to get away from the non FBB style forwarding.
> 
> It's actually tough to log this, since non FBB forwarding is really
> nothing
> more then an exchange of (SP call at bbs < blah blah), then an OK, or a NO,
> so
> you have then check to make sure it's an actual BBS doing the SP command
> and not a connected 'user' to decide how to direct the logging to the
> logfile.
> 
> Maiko