Hi All,

Host,343,Xarxa_Catalana,Catalunya,Enric_Lleal_Serra,-Unpublished-,300,MO,IBN,IFC,ITN,INA:net2343.fidonet.cat,U,Tce,NC

The NC flag for a Host system is implied so not necessary.

The IFC flag is new. On the default IFC port I get a 'Connection refused'.

On the ITN port I directly get a login prompt for a "BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Toy-7" bbs. I don't see an emsi string, so I'm not sure the ITN flag is valid.

And BTW a bbs login prompt makes the MO flag invalid.

And this node is no longer CM, but Tce, which is 02 to 04 UTC. Which is strange, because this system and 107 are aka's for the same system, and 107 has the CM flag. And I just got a IBN connect with this system outside the Tce hours.


,107,EYE_OF_THE_BEHOLDER_BBS,Badalona,Enric_Lleal_Serra,-Unpublished-,300,MO,CM,IBN,IFC,ITN,INA:fido.beholderbbs.org,U,NEC

So the MO and IFC flags for this system are also invalid (since it's an AKA for 343/0. And the NEC flag in a 1 node net is kind of ridiculous...

And BTW, nodes 120 and 136 in the same net are on Hold since 18 Aug 2024, which is "a bit" long for what is supposed to be a temporary situation...


Regards, Wilfred

--- FMail-lnx64 2.3.2.4-B20240523
* Origin: NPC Station (2:280/464)

Hello Wilfred,

On Friday March 28 2025 12:44, you wrote to All:

Host,343,Xarxa_Catalana,Catalunya,Enric_Lleal_Serra,-Unpublished-,300, MO,IBN,IFC,ITN,INA:net2343.fidonet.cat,U,Tce,NC

The NC flag for a Host system is implied so not necessary.

There is more. FTS-5001.006 par 6.2:

NC Network Coordinator. This flag is ONLY to be used by the
Network Coordinator of a net which has split the duties of NC
and Host and the NC does NOT occupy the Net/0 position in the
nodelist.


Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20170303
* Origin: Nodelist Police Station (2:280/5555)

Wilfred van Velzen wrote to All <=-

Hi All,

Host,343,Xarxa_Catalana,Catalunya,Enric_Lleal_Serra,-Unpublished-,300,MO ,IBN,IFC,ITN,INA:net2343.fidonet.cat,U,Tce,NC

The NC flag for a Host system is implied so not necessary.

The IFC flag is new. On the default IFC port I get a 'Connection refused'.

On the ITN port I directly get a login prompt for a "BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Toy-7" bbs. I don't see an emsi string, so I'm not sure the ITN flag is valid.

And BTW a bbs login prompt makes the MO flag invalid.

And this node is no longer CM, but Tce, which is 02 to 04 UTC. Which is strange, because this system and 107 are aka's for the same system, and 107 has the CM flag. And I just got a IBN connect with this system outside the Tce hours.

,107,EYE_OF_THE_BEHOLDER_BBS,Badalona,Enric_Lleal_Serra,-Unpublished-,30 0,MO,CM,IBN,IFC,ITN,INA:fido.beholderbbs.org,U,NEC

So the MO and IFC flags for this system are also invalid (since it's an AKA for 343/0. And the NEC flag in a 1 node net is kind of
ridiculous...

And BTW, nodes 120 and 136 in the same net are on Hold since 18 Aug
2024, which is "a bit" long for what is supposed to be a temporary situation...

So, to summarize, I think it would be safe to say that this guy (NC343)
is a fucking idiot, and should be fired.



... Ignorance can be cured. Stupid is forever.
=== MultiMail/Linux v0.52
--- SBBSecho 3.23-Linux
* Origin: Palantir * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL * (1:135/115)

Hi Dan,

On 2025-03-28 11:54:31, you wrote to me:

So, to summarize, I think it would be safe to say that this guy
(NC343) is a fucking idiot, and should be fired.

I don't know him, so I won't say that. But I think he could use a little coaching to get his nodelist entries corrected. ;-)


Bye, Wilfred.

--- FMail-lnx64 2.3.2.4-B20240523
* Origin: NPC Station (2:280/464)

Hola Wilfred!

28 Mar 25 12:44, Wilfred van Velzen dijo a All:

Hi All,

Host,343,Xarxa_Catalana,Catalunya,Enric_Lleal_Serra,-Unpublished-,300,MO, IBN,I FC,ITN,INA:net2343.fidonet.cat,U,Tce,NC

It's my mistake. I used an old segment, but it's already been fixed and the correct segment has been sent.

The NC flag for a Host system is implied so not necessary.

Fixed!

The IFC flag is new. On the default IFC port I get a 'Connection refused'.

Fixed!

On the ITN port I directly get a login prompt for a "BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Toy-7" bbs. I don't see an emsi string, so I'm not sure the ITN flag is valid.

The ITN flag is telnet access from what I saw at the end of the nodelist and it has a BBS accessible by telnet. Doesn't that make the ITN flag correct?

And BTW a bbs login prompt makes the MO flag invalid.

Fixed!

And this node is no longer CM, but Tce, which is 02 to 04 UTC. Which is strange, because this system and 107 are aka's for the same system, and 107 has the CM flag. And I just got a IBN connect with this system outside the Tce hours.

Fixed!

,107,EYE_OF_THE_BEHOLDER_BBS,Badalona,Enric_Lleal_Serra,-Unpublished-,300 ,MO,C M,IBN,IFC,ITN,INA:fido.beholderbbs.org,U,NEC

So the MO and IFC flags for this system are also invalid (since it's an AKA for 343/0.

Fixed!

And the NEC flag in a 1 node net is kind of ridiculous...

And BTW, nodes 120 and 136 in the same net are on Hold since 18 Aug 2024, which is "a bit" long for what is supposed to be a temporary situation...

It may be ridiculous, but it's not a mistake. The NC expects the two nodes on hold to return, just as I expect a node on hold I have on my net to return, although with this one, I don't have much hope.


Un saludo,
Angel Ripoll
aripoll @ zruspas.org

--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20240209 + HPT 1.9 + Binkd 1.1 en Debian
* Origin: Synchronet - bbs.zruspas.org - Zruspa's BBS - (2:341/66)

Hola Michiel!

28 Mar 25 13:00, Michiel van der Vlist dijo a Wilfred van Velzen:

MvdV> Hello Wilfred,

MvdV> On Friday March 28 2025 12:44, you wrote to All:

Host,343,Xarxa_Catalana,Catalunya,Enric_Lleal_Serra,-Unpublished-,300,
MO,IBN,IFC,ITN,INA:net2343.fidonet.cat,U,Tce,NC

The NC flag for a Host system is implied so not necessary.

MvdV> There is more. FTS-5001.006 par 6.2:

MvdV> NC Network Coordinator. This flag is ONLY to be used by the
MvdV> Network Coordinator of a net which has split the duties of NC
MvdV> and Host and the NC does NOT occupy the Net/0 position in the
MvdV> nodelist.

Oh! Okay. I'll talk to him about changing it. Thanks for the clarification.

Un saludo,
Angel Ripoll
aripoll @ zruspas.org

--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20240209 + HPT 1.9 + Binkd 1.1 en Debian
* Origin: Synchronet - bbs.zruspas.org - Zruspa's BBS - (2:341/66)

Hola Wilfred!

28 Mar 25 18:17, Wilfred van Velzen dijo a Dan Clough:

Hi Dan,

On 2025-03-28 11:54:31, you wrote to me:

So, to summarize, I think it would be safe to say that this guy
(NC343) is a fucking idiot, and should be fired.

I don't know him, so I won't say that. But I think he could use a little coaching to get his nodelist entries corrected. ;-)

It wasn't his mistake, but mine, because my system used an old segment that contained those errors that were already fixed in the nodelist.

Un saludo,
Angel Ripoll
aripoll @ zruspas.org

--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20240209 + HPT 1.9 + Binkd 1.1 en Debian
* Origin: Synchronet - bbs.zruspas.org - Zruspa's BBS - (2:341/66)

Hi Angel,

On 2025-03-28 18:40:58, you wrote to me:

Host,343,Xarxa_Catalana,Catalunya,Enric_Lleal_Serra,-Unpublished-,30
0,MO , IBN,I FC,ITN,INA:net2343.fidonet.cat,U,Tce,NC

It's my mistake. I used an old segment, but it's already been fixed and
the correct segment has been sent.

Ok, thanks for the explanation! That seems to happen to all of us one time or another. ;-)

On the ITN port I directly get a login prompt for a "BBBS/Li6 v4.10
Toy-7" bbs. I don't see an emsi string, so I'm not sure the ITN flag
is valid.

The ITN flag is telnet access from what I saw at the end of the
nodelist and it has a BBS accessible by telnet. Doesn't that make the
ITN flag correct?

Nope. That's a misconception a lot of people have. The ITN flag isn't meant for specifying a BBS login option.

FTS-5001 explains it a bit better:

ITN 23 Telnet connection using FTS-1 or any other protocol
designed for classic POTS and modem.

And the NEC flag in a 1 node net is kind of ridiculous...

And BTW, nodes 120 and 136 in the same net are on Hold since 18 Aug
2024, which is "a bit" long for what is supposed to be a temporary
situation...

It may be ridiculous, but it's not a mistake. The NC expects the two
nodes on hold to return,

Still, what is there to coordinate regarding echomail with only 3 nodes in a net, when all connect to the host system for their mail.

The NEC title is a relic from the time when all connections used modems, and there were nets with lots of nodes, where coordinating how echo mail flowed through the net could keep the costs down. Nowadays with zero cost internet connections, there isn't really anything to coordinate...

just as I expect a node on hold I have on my net to return, although
with this one, I don't have much hope.

You don't have to keep them in the nodelist forever, when you have (a little) hope, they might return one day. When a node is Down, you should remove it after a few weeks of Hold and Down. When they return you can always re-list them again.


Bye, Wilfred.

--- FMail-lnx64 2.3.2.4-B20240523
* Origin: NPC Station (2:280/464)

On the ITN port I directly get a login prompt for a "BBBS/Li6 v4.10
Toy-7" bbs. I don't see an emsi string, so I'm not sure the ITN flag is
valid.

The ITN flag is telnet access from what I saw at the end of the nodelist
and it has a BBS accessible by telnet. Doesn't that make the ITN flag correct?

Yes, BBBS can accept and poll out on the ITN port.

BBBS can also honour file requests on the ITN port if so configured.

--- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Toy-7
* Origin: The Rusty MailBox - Penticton, BC Canada (1:153/757)

Hi Wilfred.

28 Mar 25 12:44:10, you wrote to All:

Host,343,Xarxa_Catalana,Catalunya,Enric_Lleal_Serra,-Unpublished-,300 ,MO,IBN,IFC,ITN,INA:net2343.fidonet.cat,U,Tce,NC

The NC flag for a Host system is implied so not necessary.

The IFC flag is new. On the default IFC port I get a 'Connection
refused'.

On the ITN port I directly get a login prompt for a "BBBS/Li6 v4.10
Toy-7" bbs. I don't see an emsi string, so I'm not sure the ITN flag
is valid.

ITN works ok. You should get a real ITN mailer. :)

=== Cut ===
07:31:54 Connect To 2.139.195.193 #23
07:31:57 Unexpected EMSI sequence: IRQ
07:31:57 EMSI data sent
07:31:57 Nothing for them
07:31:57 Unexpected EMSI sequence: HBT
07:31:58 EMSI data receive
07:31:58 Station : Eye Of The Beholder BBS
07:31:58 Address : 2:343/107 2:343/0
07:31:58 SysOp : Enric Lleal from Badalona (BCN,CAT,ESP,EUR,WW,VL)
07:31:58 Number : -Unpublished-
07:31:58 Flags : 9600,CM,XW,IBN,ITB,U,NC,NEC
07:31:58 Mailer : BBBS/Li6/4.10 Toy-7/#1308
07:31:58 Non-password session
07:31:58 Handshake time - 4 seconds
07:31:58 Establishing Hydra transfer protocol
07:31:58 Hyd: Remote AppInfo ="BBBS/Li6,4.10 Toy-7"
07:31:58 Hyd: Remote HydraRev=01-Dec-1992, flags: ASC,UUE,C32
07:31:58 SEND: End of batch
07:31:58 RECE: End of batch
07:31:58 Hydra transfer protocol complete
07:31:59 SEND: End of batch
07:31:59 RECE: End of batch
07:31:59 Hydra transfer protocol complete
07:31:59 Session completed successfully
07:31:59 Session traf: in: 0 (0b) out: 0 (0b) [845b/812b]
07:31:59 Session time: 00:00:05
07:31:59 End
=== Cut ===

'Tommi

---
* Origin: f10.n221.z2.fidonet.fi (2:221/10)

Hi Tommi,

On 2025-03-29 07:33:50, you wrote to me:

Host,343,Xarxa_Catalana,Catalunya,Enric_Lleal_Serra,-Unpublished-,300
,MO,IBN,IFC,ITN,INA:net2343.fidonet.cat,U,Tce,NC

The NC flag for a Host system is implied so not necessary.

The IFC flag is new. On the default IFC port I get a 'Connection
refused'.

On the ITN port I directly get a login prompt for a "BBBS/Li6 v4.10
Toy-7" bbs. I don't see an emsi string, so I'm not sure the ITN flag
is valid.

ITN works ok. You should get a real ITN mailer. :)

Can you recommend one for linux? ;-)

I do notice these lines:

=== Cut ===
07:31:54 Connect To 2.139.195.193 #23
07:31:57 Unexpected EMSI sequence: IRQ
07:31:57 Unexpected EMSI sequence: HBT

Bye, Wilfred.

--- FMail-lnx64 2.3.2.4-B20240523
* Origin: NPC Station (2:280/464)

On Fri, 28 Mar 2025 11:54:31 -0500
"Dan Clough" (1:135/115) <[email protected]t> wrote:

So, to summarize, I think it would be safe to say that this guy
(NC343) is a fucking idiot, and should be fired.

Some of us became NC not because we wanted to but because of
necessity. Too right some of don't know what the fuck we're doing. Do
you have a problem with that? Want to fire me? Be willing to step up
then. No, I'm not NC343.
--
End Of The Line BBS - Plano, TX
telnet endofthelinebbs.com 23
--- SBBSecho 3.24-Linux
* Origin: End Of The Line BBS - endofthelinebbs.com (1:124/5016)

29 Mar 25 11:18, Wilfred van Velzen wrote to Tommi Koivula:

ITN works ok. You should get a real ITN mailer. :)

Can you recommend one for linux? ;-)

I have no experience of any..

I do notice these lines:

=== Cut ===
07:31:54 Connect To 2.139.195.193 #23
07:31:57 Unexpected EMSI sequence: IRQ
07:31:57 Unexpected EMSI sequence: HBT

I noticed those lines too. Not happening with any other mailer that I've been connecting over ITN.

'Tommi

---
* Origin: * RBB * Lake Ylo * Finland * (2:221/360)

Hello Nigel,

On Saturday March 29 2025 03:00, you wrote to All:

So, to summarize, I think it would be safe to say that this guy
(NC343) is a fucking idiot, and should be fired.

Some of us became NC not because we wanted to but because of
necessity.

Could it be that perhaps we are a bit too accomodating towards sysops in shrinking nets that want to keep their node nummber at all cost?

Perhaps we should explain to those sysops that node numbers are not issued for life and they are not personal property. Node numbers are issued on technical grounds.

Perhaps when the net they are in has shunk below critical mass instead of "promoting" syspos to NC of a one node net, we should tell them that in the interest of the network as a whole they have to accept a node number change and accept to be moved to a neighbouring net.


Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20170303
* Origin: Nodelist Police Station (2:280/5555)

Re: Weekly nodelist report on noteworthy changes (087)
By: Michiel van der Vlist to Nigel Reed on Sun Mar 30 2025 13:43:12

Perhaps we should explain to those sysops that node numbers are not issued for life and they are not personal property. Node numbers are issued on technical grounds.

How about I come around and change your house number over night after you've been living there 6 years.

Perhaps when the net they are in has shunk below critical mass instead of "promoting" syspos to NC of a one node net, we should tell them that in the interest of the network as a whole they have to accept a node number change and accept to be moved to a neighbouring net.

And what, exactly, makes you cry about having one bbs in a net? Leave people alone to run their regions and nets how they want to. Got a problem with net 124? Take it up with R19C.
--- SBBSecho 3.24-Linux
* Origin: End Of The Line BBS - endofthelinebbs.com (1:124/5016)

Nigel Reed wrote to Michiel van der Vlist <=-

Re: Weekly nodelist report on noteworthy changes (087)
By: Michiel van der Vlist to Nigel Reed on Sun Mar 30 2025 13:43:12

Perhaps we should explain to those sysops that node numbers are not issued for life and they are not personal property. Node numbers are issued on technical grounds.

How about I come around and change your house number over night after you've been living there 6 years.

Not the same thing at all. See above regarding personal property.

Perhaps when the net they are in has shunk below critical mass instead of "promoting" syspos to NC of a one node net, we should tell them that in the interest of the network as a whole they have to accept a node number change and accept to be moved to a neighbouring net.

And what, exactly, makes you cry about having one bbs in a net?

Because it's fucking ridiculous. Even the word "net" (or "network")
means *more-than-one*.

Leave people alone to run their regions and nets how they want to.

That's exactly the reason the nodelist is as jacked up as it is. Using
your own words from a previous post, it's because people "don't know
what the fuck they're doing".

Got a problem with net 124? Take it up with R19C.

Not sure what all the hostility is about, but you're the one who said he didn't know what the fuck he was doing. Maybe fixing that part would be
a good start.



... All the easy problems have been solved.
=== MultiMail/Linux v0.52
--- SBBSecho 3.23-Linux
* Origin: Palantir * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL * (1:135/115)

Re: Re: Weekly nodelist report on noteworthy changes (087)
By: Nigel Reed to All on Sat Mar 29 2025 03:00 am

So, to summarize, I think it would be safe to say that this guy
(NC343) is a fucking idiot, and should be fired.

Some of us became NC not because we wanted to but because of
necessity.

Well, that's a bit of a stretch... The real reason was to keep an existing node number.

Too right some of don't know what the fuck we're doing. Do
you have a problem with that?

Kind of, yeah. Why would anyone want somebody who doesn't know what the fuck they're doing in a leadership position? That goes for pretty much anything, not just Fidonet.

Want to fire me?

No, why would I? You haven't done anything wrong.

Be willing to step up then.

Been there, done that.

No, I'm not NC343.

Yes, I know that.

Calm down a little, maybe.
--- SBBSecho 3.23-Linux
* Origin: Palantir * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL * (1:135/115)

Hola Alan!

28 Mar 25 22:28, Alan Ianson dijo a Angel Ripoll:

On the ITN port I directly get a login prompt for a "BBBS/Li6 v4.10
Toy-7" bbs. I don't see an emsi string, so I'm not sure the ITN flag is
valid.

The ITN flag is telnet access from what I saw at the end of the nodelist
and it has a BBS accessible by telnet. Doesn't that make the ITN flag
correct?

Yes, BBBS can accept and poll out on the ITN port.

BBBS can also honour file requests on the ITN port if so configured.

So the ITN flag is correct for a BBBS system, is that correct?

Un saludo,
Angel Ripoll
aripoll @ zruspas.org

--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20240209 + HPT 1.9 + Binkd 1.1 en Debian
* Origin: Synchronet - bbs.zruspas.org - Zruspa's BBS - (2:341/66)

Yes, BBBS can accept and poll out on the ITN port.

So the ITN flag is correct for a BBBS system, is that correct?

Yes, if the telnet server is listening for telnet connections.

--- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Toy-7
* Origin: The Rusty MailBox - Penticton, BC Canada (1:153/757)