<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#0563C1;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:#954F72;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link="#0563C1" vlink="#954F72"><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal>I’d like to get some clarification from the broader group on the generally accepted/expected way to handle bulletin floods. I guess this is a broader topic than just for NOS, but I’m constrained by the capabilities/limitations of JNOS so I’d like to know what other JNOS users do.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>I’m looking for feedback on a few key points:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>1) no flood<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>I’ve been told that a bulletin addressed to “topic” (no @flood) should remain local on the machine and not be flooded to forwarding partners. I’ve even received snarky emails from other sysops when I forward a bulletin that did not have a flood in the address. However, the rewrite files from others I’ve see routinely have rules such as:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>atv* atv<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>or <o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>wx* wx<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>That is, no distinguishing between atv*@* and atv*. Everything gets put into the atv mailbox/area. Then the forward.bbs files from those same sysops forward those areas to partners. This means that all bulletins, with or without a flood are sent to forwarding partners. And, if everyone does that, then no flood is essentially the same as @ww.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Question: Do most people separate how they handle topic* from topic*@*? If yes, how? If no, then do you just flood everything?<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>2) topic-based vs. flood-based rewrites<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Most of the rewrite files I’ve seen start with a list of topics that the sysop wants to group into areas. This makes it easier for the reader to find something of interest. Example:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>ibm* comp<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>linux* comp<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>mac* comp<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Then, anything else that’s not listed above gets lumped into flood-based mailboxes. Example:<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>*@noam allnoam<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>*@ww allww<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>But then the whole list (comp, allnoam, allww) gets forwarded to the forwarding partners. Of course, a forwarding partner in Europe would not be forwarded the allnoam mailbox. But they would get the comp mailbox, even if there is stuff in the comp mailbox with @noam floods. So, in essence, if everyone uses topic-based rewrites, then everything that goes into a topic area ends up being flooded everywhere.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Question: Is this what most people do? If not, how do you handle splitting bulletins into topics for your users while still doing the expected thing for each different flood?<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>2) @local flood<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>I’ve been told that the @local flood (i.e. topic@local) should stay on the local machine. In other words, it’s sort of a pseudo-flood or anti-flood in that it explicitly designates that the bulletin should not be flooded/forwarded to others. But I’ve not seen that used in the rewrite files I’ve seen.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Question; Is the @local “flood” in general use? If so, how are you handling it?<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Michael<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div></body></html>