Hello Wilfred!

In a message of 25 Jul 26 13:06, Wilfred wrote to Tommi:

So the IVM flag is pointless?

"Not yet, Kameraden! Not yet!"(c)Das Boot.

I've successfully tested the following nodes today with second version
of VModem tester:

2:423/81, mailer T-Mail 2608.OS2/C50
2:371/52, Xenia/2 Mailer 1.99.00
2:334/403, BT/2 2.60XE
2:5025/2, The Brake! Mailer 718.a15

"Data channel" was established successfully, so it appears that my implementation is correct (I really hope so).

What is really strange is that some nodes answer with a different
protocol on the VModem port.

And as long as I've already implemented VModem protocol - I hope to
announce its support in nodelist soon ;)


See you,
dp.
--- FidoMail dev
* Origin: livin' on the edge (2:5001/100)

26 Jul 26 00:24, Dmitry Protasoff wrote to Tommi Koivula:

2:221/360 answers correctly, but VModem is more complex: the answering node opens a reverse "data channel" back to the calling node and that
is the step where the second version of the tester fails while testing your node.

Ok, this is something I was suspecting. Connections inside LAN work because there are no limitations. In the past I tried to search the docs, but I didn't find anything else to open but 3141.

For some reason your box cannot reach 132.145.41.221 port 14592 (the
port a real VModem asks for first connection attempt when opening the

I opened/forwarded the port 14592 in my router and at least I can now make outbound IVM calls. :)

Also adjusted the IP of f360.n221.z2.fidonet.fi, so that it points now direct to the router, not the haproxy box. Well, the IPv6 part is still behind haproxy, but I don't expect many vmodem/ipv6 calls. ;D

'Tommi

---
* Origin: rbb.fidonet.fi (2:221/360)

Hi Dmitry,

On 2026-07-26 01:32:51, you wrote to me:

What is really strange is that some nodes answer with a different
protocol on the VModem port.

So some nodes have wrong flags in the nodelist? How shocking, who would have guessed that! ;-)


Bye, Wilfred.

--- FMail-lnx64 2.3.4.1-B20260520
* Origin: NPC Station (2:280/464)

Hello Tommi!

In a message of 26 Jul 26 09:44, Tommi wrote to Dmitry:

Ok, this is something I was suspecting. Connections inside LAN work because there are no limitations. In the past I tried to search the
docs, but I didn't find anything else to open but 3141.

It has weird port list:

The first attempt is to port 14592, if it fails - then 5376, 17920,
8448, and then count down from 10240, 9984, 9728... to 1280 (in 256-step increments).

I opened/forwarded the port 14592 in my router and at least I can
now make outbound IVM calls. :)

Great! :)

See you,
dp.
--- FidoMail dev
* Origin: livin' on the edge (2:5001/100)

Hello Wilfred!

In a message of 26 Jul 26 12:23, Wilfred wrote to Dmitry:

So some nodes have wrong flags in the nodelist? How shocking, who
would have guessed that! ;-)

Here is the current list of actually working Vmodem nodes: https://nodelist.fidonet.cc/analytics/vmodem

Tommi is back in the game!


I'm reading FidoNet-over-email docs right now. This nodelist part is
still missing from my reports..


See you,
dp.
--- FidoMail dev
* Origin: livin' on the edge (2:5001/100)

Hi Dmitry,

On 2026-07-26 13:35:02, you wrote to me:

So some nodes have wrong flags in the nodelist? How shocking, who
would have guessed that! ;-)

Here is the current list of actually working Vmodem nodes: https://nodelist.fidonet.cc/analytics/vmodem

Tommi is back in the game!

Good!

Btw: The list of none-working IVM nodes is also interesting!

I'm reading FidoNet-over-email docs right now. This nodelist part is
still missing from my reports..

That's difficult to test. You can send emails, maybe you get a bounce, maybe you get a netmail reply from the sysop. But if you don't get any response, it can mean al kinds of things...


Bye, Wilfred.

--- FMail-lnx64 2.3.4.1-B20260520
* Origin: NPC Station (2:280/464)

Hello Wilfred!

In a message of 26 Jul 26 18:24, Wilfred wrote to Dmitry:

Btw: The list of none-working IVM nodes is also interesting!

https://nodelist.fidonet.cc/analytics/vmodem-unavailable

emsi-raw - EMSI over TCP
emsi-telnet - EMSI - over telnet
telnet-login - no EMSI or EMSI is very rare

That's difficult to test. You can send emails, maybe you get a
bounce, maybe you get a netmail reply from the sysop. But if you
don't get any response, it can mean al kinds of things...

Agree!


See you,
dp.
--- FidoMail dev
* Origin: livin' on the edge (2:5001/100)

Hi Dmitry.

26 Jul 26 12:33, you wrote to me:

Ok, this is something I was suspecting. Connections inside LAN work
because there are no limitations. In the past I tried to search the
docs, but I didn't find anything else to open but 3141.

It has weird port list:

The first attempt is to port 14592, if it fails - then 5376, 17920,
8448, and then count down from 10240, 9984, 9728... to 1280 (in 256-step increments).

Technology of 30 years old... From the time of no CGNAT. ;)

'Tommi

---
* Origin: nntps://news.fidonet.fi (2:221/1)

Hi Dmitry.

27 Jul 26 03:16, you wrote to Wilfred van Velzen:

Btw: The list of none-working IVM nodes is also interesting!

https://nodelist.fidonet.cc/analytics/vmodem-unavailable

I wonder why is 2:221/1 here, no IVM since "21 Nov 2014, nodelist.325"

'Tommi

---
* Origin: nntps://news.fidonet.fi (2:221/1)

Hi Dmitry,

On 2026-07-27 03:16:40, you wrote to me:

Btw: The list of none-working IVM nodes is also interesting!

https://nodelist.fidonet.cc/analytics/vmodem-unavailable

emsi-raw - EMSI over TCP
emsi-telnet - EMSI - over telnet
telnet-login - no EMSI or EMSI is very rare

Thanks!


Bye, Wilfred.

--- FMail-lnx64 2.3.4.1-B20260520
* Origin: NPC Station (2:280/464)

Hello Tommi!

In a message of 27 Jul 26 08:58, Tommi wrote to Dmitry:

https://nodelist.fidonet.cc/analytics/vmodem-unavailable

I wonder why is 2:221/1 here, no IVM since "21 Nov 2014,
nodelist.325"

Oops, it's a bug - I did manual test of 2:221/1 (I thought that may be
you had VModem there) and this report was just showing all the failed
VModem tests.

Fixed! Thank you for reporting it.

See you,
dp.
--- FidoMail dev
* Origin: livin' on the edge (2:5001/100)

Hi All,

On 2026-07-24 12:01:11, I wrote to you:

New node in net 123: ,3003,A-Net_Online_ANetBBS,Woodstock_GA_USA,Jerry_Reed,-Unpublished-, 300,CM,INA:bbs.a-net.fyi,IBN Connect with ANetBBS/1.0b2.198. Result:
"Got binkp error: unknown address 2:280/9999@fidonet"

Not fixed yet: "Try result: unknown address 2:280/464@fidonet"


Bye, Wilfred.

--- FMail-lnx64 2.3.4.1-B20260520
* Origin: NPC Station (2:280/464)

Wilfred van Velzen wrote to All <=-

New node in net 123: ,3003,A-Net_Online_ANetBBS,Woodstock_GA_USA,Jerry_Reed,-Unpublished-, 300,CM,INA:bbs.a-net.fyi,IBN Connect with ANetBBS/1.0b2.198. Result:
"Got binkp error: unknown address 2:280/9999@fidonet"

Not fixed yet: "Try result: unknown address 2:280/464@fidonet"

I can poll that node just fine:

BinkIT/2.42 invoked with options: -l 1:123/3003
Attempting poll for node 1:123/3003@fidonet
JSBinkP/6 callout to 1:123/3003@fidonet started
Connecting to 1:123/3003@fidonet at bbs.a-net.fyi:24554
Peer version: ANetBBS/1.0.6
Authentication successful: secure
/sbbs/exec/binkit.js executed in 2.85 seconds



... Gone crazy, be back later, please leave message.
=== MultiMail/Linux v0.52
--- SBBSecho 3.37-Linux
* Origin: Palantir * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL * (1:135/115)

Hi Dan,

On 2026-07-31 15:10:48, you wrote to me:

New node in net 123:
,3003,A-Net_Online_ANetBBS,Woodstock_GA_USA,Jerry_Reed,-Unpublished-
,
300,CM,INA:bbs.a-net.fyi,IBN Connect with ANetBBS/1.0b2.198. Result:
"Got binkp error: unknown address 2:280/9999@fidonet"

Not fixed yet: "Try result: unknown address 2:280/464@fidonet"

I can poll that node just fine:

Thanks for testing and the confirmation! ;-)

He fixed it today after I sent him a netmail...


Bye, Wilfred.

--- FMail-lnx64 2.3.4.1-B20260520
* Origin: NPC Station (2:280/464)

Hi Dmitry.

27 Jul 26 15:52:52, you wrote to me:

I wonder why is 2:221/1 here, no IVM since "21 Nov 2014,
nodelist.325"

Oops, it's a bug - I did manual test of 2:221/1 (I thought that may be
you had VModem there) and this report was just showing all the failed VModem tests.

Fixed! Thank you for reporting it.

You're welcome!

More flags to test already added to Network.221. ;)

'Tommi

--- FMail-W64 2.3.4.1-B20260521
* Origin: FPoint (2:221/1.1)

Hello Dmitry,

26 Jul 26 01:32, you wrote to Wilfred van Velzen:

Hello Wilfred!

In a message of 25 Jul 26 13:06, Wilfred wrote to Tommi:

So the IVM flag is pointless?

"Not yet, Kameraden! Not yet!"(c)Das Boot.

I've successfully tested the following nodes today with second version
of VModem tester:

2:423/81, mailer T-Mail 2608.OS2/C50
2:371/52, Xenia/2 Mailer 1.99.00

woot-woot! :o

2:334/403, BT/2 2.60XE
2:5025/2, The Brake! Mailer 718.a15

"Data channel" was established successfully, so it appears that my implementation is correct (I really hope so).

What is really strange is that some nodes answer with a different
protocol on the VModem port.

And as long as I've already implemented VModem protocol - I hope to announce its support in nodelist soon ;)

See you,
dp.
--- FidoMail dev
* Origin: livin' on the edge (2:5001/100)

ByEbYe
--
Daniel

telnet://bbs.roonsbbs.hu:1212 <<=-

... Uptime: 20d 20h 49m 5s
--- GoldED/2 1.1.4.7+EMX
* Origin: Roon's BBS - Budapest, HUNGARY (2:371/52)

Hello Tommi!

26 Jul 26 09:44, you wrote to Dmitry Protasoff:

2:221/360 answers correctly, but VModem is more complex: the
answering node opens a reverse "data channel" back to the calling
node and that is the step where the second version of the tester
fails while testing your node.

Also adjusted the IP of f360.n221.z2.fidonet.fi, so that it points now direct to the router, not the haproxy box. Well, the IPv6 part is
still behind haproxy, but I don't expect many vmodem/ipv6 calls. ;D

Since VModem is an SIO/SIO2K under OS/2 thing, primarily, I suspect you are correct about that. OS/2 doesn't support IPv6, and probably never will.

Andrew

---
* Origin: Phoenix BBS * phoenix.bnbbbs.net (1:320/219)

Hi All,

In net 229, no longer Pvt: ,452,Winters_Edge,Oshawa_ON,Shawn_Highfield,-Unpublished-,300,CM,INA:home.highfield.ca,IBN
Connect OK, with: binkd/1.1a-115/Linux

New node in net 123: ,3003,A-Net_Online_ANetBBS,Woodstock_GA_USA,Jerry_Reed,-Unpublished-,300,CM,INA:bbs.a-net.fyi,IBN
Connect with ANetBBS/1.0b2.198. Result: "Got binkp error: unknown address 2:280/9999@fidonet"

Node longer down in net 201: ,127,Submarine_Pilot,Bandhagen,Sergey_Semernin,-Unpublished-,300,CM,MO,INA:astraea.ddns.net,IBN
Connect OK, with: binkd/1.1a-115/Linux. On both IPv4 and IPv6.

Node 2:221/360 got the IVM flag added. There is a tcp/ip connect at the IVM port, but I can't test the protocol. ;-)


Bye, Wilfred.

--- FMail-lnx64 2.3.4.1-B20260520
* Origin: NPC Station (2:280/464)

Hello Wilfred,

On Friday July 24 2026 12:01, you wrote to All:

In net 229, no longer Pvt: ,452,Winters_Edge,Oshawa_ON,Shawn_Highfield,-Unpublished-,300,CM,INA:h ome.highfield.ca,IBN Connect OK, with: binkd/1.1a-115/Linux

Check

New node in net 123: ,3003,A-Net_Online_ANetBBS,Woodstock_GA_USA,Jerry_Reed,-Unpublished-,3 00,CM,INA:bbs.a-net.fyi,IBN Connect with ANetBBS/1.0b2.198. Result:
"Got binkp error: unknown address 2:280/9999@fidonet"

? 14:00 [3768] rerror: unknown address 2:280/5555.6@fidonet
+ 14:00 [3768] done (to 1:123/3003@fidonet, failed, S/R: 0/0 (0/0 bytes))

Node longer down in net 201: ,127,Submarine_Pilot,Bandhagen,Sergey_Semernin,-Unpublished-,300,CM,MO ,INA:astraea.ddns.net,IBN Connect OK, with: binkd/1.1a-115/Linux. On
both IPv4 and IPv6.

Hmmm... for some reason my binkd makes an IPv4 connection...


Cheers, Michiel

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

Hi Michiel,

On 2026-07-24 13:58:52, you wrote to me:

New node in net 123:
,3003,A-Net_Online_ANetBBS,Woodstock_GA_USA,Jerry_Reed,-Unpublished-,
300,CM,INA:bbs.a-net.fyi,IBN Connect with ANetBBS/1.0b2.198. Result:
"Got binkp error: unknown address 2:280/9999@fidonet"

MvdV> ? 14:00 [3768] rerror: unknown address 2:280/5555.6@fidonet
MvdV> + 14:00 [3768] done (to 1:123/3003@fidonet, failed, S/R: 0/0 (0/0 bytes))

Hmm, you're in the nodelist, so this schouldn't happen!

Node longer down in net 201:
,127,Submarine_Pilot,Bandhagen,Sergey_Semernin,-Unpublished-,300,CM,MO
,INA:astraea.ddns.net,IBN Connect OK, with: binkd/1.1a-115/Linux. On
both IPv4 and IPv6.

MvdV> Hmmm... for some reason my binkd makes an IPv4 connection...

Strange:

# host astraea.ddns.net
astraea.ddns.net has address 185.86.104.234
astraea.ddns.net has IPv6 address 2a07:5cc0:d::12


Bye, Wilfred.

--- FMail-lnx64 2.3.4.1-B20260520
* Origin: NPC Station (2:280/464)

Hello Wilfred,

On Friday July 24 2026 14:42, you wrote to me:

,3003,A-Net_Online_ANetBBS,Woodstock_GA_USA,Jerry_Reed,-Unpublis
hed-, 300,CM,INA:bbs.a-net.fyi,IBN Connect with
ANetBBS/1.0b2.198. Result: "Got binkp error: unknown address
2:280/9999@fidonet"

MvdV>> ? 14:00 [3768] rerror: unknown address 2:280/5555.6@fidonet
MvdV>> + 14:00 [3768] done (to 1:123/3003@fidonet, failed, S/R: 0/0
MvdV>> (0/0 bytes))

Hmm, you're in the nodelist, so this schouldn't happen!

I called him from my unlisted testnode 2:2280/5556 that has AKA 2:280/5555.6

Node longer down in net 201:
,127,Submarine_Pilot,Bandhagen,Sergey_Semernin,-Unpublished-,300
,CM,MO ,INA:astraea.ddns.net,IBN Connect OK, with:
binkd/1.1a-115/Linux. On both IPv4 and IPv6.

MvdV>> Hmmm... for some reason my binkd makes an IPv4 connection...

Strange:

# host astraea.ddns.net
astraea.ddns.net has address 185.86.104.234
astraea.ddns.net has IPv6 address 2a07:5cc0:d::12

A temp config change in my testnode that I obviously forgot about. Corrected:

defnode -46 * -> defnode -64 *

Now I get an IPv6 connecetion.


Cheers, Michiel

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

Hi Michiel,

On 2026-07-24 15:37:35, you wrote to me:

,3003,A-Net_Online_ANetBBS,Woodstock_GA_USA,Jerry_Reed,-Unpublis
hed-, 300,CM,INA:bbs.a-net.fyi,IBN Connect with
ANetBBS/1.0b2.198. Result: "Got binkp error: unknown address
2:280/9999@fidonet"

MvdV>>> ? 14:00 [3768] rerror: unknown address 2:280/5555.6@fidonet
MvdV>>> + 14:00 [3768] done (to 1:123/3003@fidonet, failed, S/R: 0/0
MvdV>>> (0/0 bytes))

Hmm, you're in the nodelist, so this schouldn't happen!

MvdV> I called him from my unlisted testnode 2:2280/5556 that has AKA 2:280/5555.6

I tried it from my regular node. Same result:

? 24 Jul 15:53:29 [22040] rerror: unknown address 2:280/464@fidonet

MvdV>>> Hmmm... for some reason my binkd makes an IPv4 connection...

Strange:

# host astraea.ddns.net
astraea.ddns.net has address 185.86.104.234
astraea.ddns.net has IPv6 address 2a07:5cc0:d::12

MvdV> A temp config change in my testnode that I obviously forgot about. Corrected:

MvdV> defnode -46 * -> defnode -64 *

MvdV> Now I get an IPv6 connecetion.

Good! ;-)


Bye, Wilfred.

--- FMail-lnx64 2.3.4.1-B20260520
* Origin: NPC Station (2:280/464)

Hi Wilfred.

24 Jul 26 12:01:11, you wrote to All:

Node 2:221/360 got the IVM flag added. There is a tcp/ip connect at the IVM port, but I can't test the protocol. ;-)

It seems to be 'tested', however I see no mail session in the logs..

https://nodelist.fidonet.cc/reachability/test?zone=2&net=221&node=360&time=2026-07-24T02%3a01%3a23Z&domain=fidonet

=== Cut ===
VModem (IVM) Protocol
Tested: Yes Result: Reachable (10103ms) Conformance: √ Genuine VMODEM (VMP) Protocol Detected: vmp Software: VMODEM (Gwinn VMP)
=== Cut ===

'Tommi

--- FMail-W64 2.3.4.1-B20260521
* Origin: FPoint (2:221/1.1)

Hi Tommi,

On 2026-07-25 10:22:58, you wrote to me:

Node 2:221/360 got the IVM flag added. There is a tcp/ip connect at
the IVM port, but I can't test the protocol. ;-)

It seems to be 'tested', however I see no mail session in the logs..

https://nodelist.fidonet.cc/reachability/test?zone=2&net=221&node=360& time=2026-07-24T02%3a01%3a23Z&domain=fidonet

It shows the test time, maybe there are traces in your logs at those times?

Bye, Wilfred.

--- FMail-lnx64 2.3.4.1-B20260520
* Origin: NPC Station (2:280/464)

Hi Wilfred.

25 Jul 26 10:58:44, you wrote to me:

the IVM port, but I can't test the protocol. ;-)

It seems to be 'tested', however I see no mail session in the
logs..

https://nodelist.fidonet.cc/reachability/test?zone=2&net=221&node=3
60&
time=2026-07-24T02%3a01%3a23Z&domain=fidonet

It shows the test time, maybe there are traces in your logs at those times?

Yes, there is "RING" in the mailer, but no connection. However, I'm not surprised, the IVM connection between two real VMODEM's doesn't work either over the internet. ;)

'Tommi

---
* Origin: Point One (2:221/1.1)

Hi Tommi,

On 2026-07-25 13:19:16, you wrote to me:

the IVM port, but I can't test the protocol. ;-)

It seems to be 'tested', however I see no mail session in the
logs..

https://nodelist.fidonet.cc/reachability/test?zone=2&net=221&node=3
60&
time=2026-07-24T02%3a01%3a23Z&domain=fidonet

It shows the test time, maybe there are traces in your logs at those
times?

Yes, there is "RING" in the mailer, but no connection. However, I'm not surprised, the IVM connection between two real VMODEM's doesn't work either
over the internet. ;)

So the IVM flag is pointless?


Bye, Wilfred.

--- FMail-lnx64 2.3.4.1-B20260520
* Origin: NPC Station (2:280/464)

Hi Wilfred.

25 Jul 26 13:06:16, you wrote to me:

Yes, there is "RING" in the mailer, but no connection. However, I'm
not surprised, the IVM connection between two real VMODEM's doesn't
work either over the internet. ;)

So the IVM flag is pointless?

Yes. I removed it some time ago when I couldn't connect any of the systems carrying IVM flag. Restored for testing with the fidonet.cc scanner.

And just for the record, VMODEM connection over LAN works here. Pretty useful. :-D

'Tommi

---
* Origin: Point One (2:221/1.1)

Hello Tommi!

In a message of 25 Jul 26 14:27, Tommi wrote to Wilfred:

Yes, there is "RING" in the mailer, but no connection. However,

...

And just for the record, VMODEM connection over LAN works here.
Pretty useful. :-D

The "RING" without connection came from the first version of my VModem
tester - it only detected whether the VModem protocol was available on
the remote node, nothing more.

2:221/360 answers correctly, but VModem is more complex: the answering
node opens a reverse "data channel" back to the calling node and that is
the step where the second version of the tester fails while testing your
node.

For some reason your box cannot reach 132.145.41.221 port 14592 (the
port a real VModem asks for first connection attempt when opening the
data channel) and that is why the test is failing now.

See you,
dp.
--- FidoMail dev
* Origin: livin' on the edge (2:5001/100)