Hi Dumas,

On 2021-05-20 10:45:00, you wrote to ALEXEY FAYANS:

Paul -- if nothing else, maybe you could set up a second/new test
node, like /9999, to allow others to test?

What century do you live in? ;-)

The times the new nodes were lining up by the dozens are long gone...

Mike

Or Dumas?

Bye, Wilfred.
--- FMail-lnx64 2.1.0.18-B20170815
* Origin: FMail development HQ (2:280/464)

On 20 May 2021 at 10:45a, Dumas Walker pondered and said...

The issue is that the polling node is using the test node number, /999, instead of an assigned number. Anyone else who is trying to test a new connection, who does not somehow manage to get their polls all done in
the 2-minute window, will have whatever response messages they were looking for picked up by the offending node.

Correct Mike.

Paul -- if nothing else, maybe you could set up a second/new test node, like /9999, to allow others to test?

Thanks Mike... I'd like to keep it simple and just use /999 but appreciate
the idea.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Windows/32)
* Origin: Agency BBS | Dunedin, New Zealand | agency.bbs.nz (3:770/100)

On 20 May 2021 at 06:23p, Wilfred van Velzen pondered and said...

What century do you live in? ;-)
The times the new nodes were lining up by the dozens are long gone...

Seems a bit rough to respond in that fashion.... while it's not a long queue now having a /999 test address is proving to be useful on a week to week
basis in Z21

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Windows/32)
* Origin: Agency BBS | Dunedin, New Zealand | agency.bbs.nz (3:770/100)

Hi Paul,

On 2021-05-21 13:13:36, you wrote to me:

What century do you live in? ;-)
The times the new nodes were lining up by the dozens are long gone...

Seems a bit rough to respond in that fashion.... while it's not a long queue now having a /999 test address is proving to be useful on a week to week basis in Z21

Sure, but having 2 of those?

Bye, Wilfred.
--- FMail-lnx64 2.1.0.18-B20170815
* Origin: FMail development HQ (2:280/464)

Hello Alexey,

On Friday May 21 2021 10:03, you wrote to Dumas Walker:

If by "messages they were looking for" you mean NOT binkp protocol messages but some netmail or echomail messages, then it's just a
terrible design flaw and should be addressed in completely different
way instead of trying to ban someone who is not doing anything
harmful.

I think you hit the nail right on the head. Using net/999 for all applicants is a basic flow because it will go wrong when there are two applicants at the same time. That flaw has always been there but in the POTS age it was very rare that two application windows overlapped and applicants did not poll every few minutes for the responce to an application.

It is not really binkd related and I have no instant solution...


Cheers, Michiel
--- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20170303
* Origin: http://www.vlist.eu (2:280/5555)

Paul -- if nothing else, maybe you could set up a second/new test
node, like /9999, to allow others to test?

What century do you live in? ;-)

The times the new nodes were lining up by the dozens are long gone...

He isn't talking about FIDO. The othernet in question actually does have
nodes joining.


* SLMR 2.1a * Maybe I should cut the power before I-- ZZZAAPPOWWWWWW
--- SBBSecho 3.12-Linux
* Origin: capitolcityonline.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/HTTP (1:2320/105)