• Mail for unknown points

    From Alan Ianson@1:153/757 to All on Wednesday, May 05, 2021 22:46:59
    Hello All,

    I sometimes receive mail for unknown points off my own node. These messages get
    routed back out since these points don't actually exist in my setup.

    Is there a way I can stop mail for these points that don't exist off my own node from being routed and sent out?

    Ttyl :-),
    Al

    --- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20180707
    * Origin: The Rusty MailBox - Penticton, BC Canada (1:153/757)
  • From Deon George@3:633/509 to Alan Ianson on Thursday, May 06, 2021 16:49:03
    Re: Mail for unknown points
    By: Alan Ianson to All on Wed May 05 2021 10:46 pm

    I sometimes receive mail for unknown points off my own node. These
    messages get routed back out since these points don't actually exist in my setup.
    Is there a way I can stop mail for these points that don't exist off my
    own node from being routed and sent out?

    Not sure if I understand you issue fully.

    But for points, I have something like this

    route hold noroute 21:3/100.*
    route hold boss 21:3/999.*
    route crash boss 21:4/106.*
    route crash boss 21:3/*
    route crash boss 21:2/116.*

    That way anything for a point goes to it's boss. Anything for my point (where I
    am 3/100) stays in the queue...

    ...ыюхя

    ... He was a man, all and all, I shall not look upon his like again.
    --- SBBSecho 3.14-Linux
    * Origin: I'm playing with ANSI+videotex - wanna play too? (3:633/509)
  • From Fabio Bizzi@2:335/364.1 to Alan Ianson on Thursday, May 06, 2021 08:47:00
    Hello Alan!

    05 May 21 22:46, you wrote to All:

    I sometimes receive mail for unknown points off my own node. These messages get routed back out since these points don't actually exist
    in my setup.

    Is there a way I can stop mail for these points that don't exist off
    my own node from being routed and sent out?

    For the messages addressed to inexistant points, you can add a specific route to discard the traffic to inexistent points. :)

    Routing is processed in a top down fascion, like Cisco ACLs (if you know Cisco Networking), as a routing rule is matched, the routing occours and the lookup at the routing table stops.

    You can configure the routing for the points like this (example with my boss address):

    8<--8<--8<--8<--8<--8<--8<--8<--8<--8<--8<--8<--8<--8<--8<--8<--8<--8<--8<--

    route hold noroute 2:335/364.1
    route hold noroute 2:335/364.2
    route hold noroute 2:335/364.3
    [...]
    route hold noroute 2:335/364.X
    route no-pack 2:335/364.*

    8<--8<--8<--8<--8<--8<--8<--8<--8<--8<--8<--8<--8<--8<--8<--8<--8<--8<--8<--

    Another option (but only for echomails) is to add a session password for each point in binkd, so all the echomail bundles will be placed in the unsecure inbound and not processed.

    Ciao!
    Fabio

    --- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20180707
    * Origin: ]\/[imac Rebirth Boss Point (2:335/364.1)
  • From Paul Hayton@3:770/100 to Deon George on Thursday, May 06, 2021 20:58:00
    On 06 May 2021 at 04:49p, Deon George pondered and said...

    Is there a way I can stop mail for these points that don't exist off own node from being routed and sent out?

    Not sure if I understand you issue fully.

    But for points, I have something like this

    route hold noroute 21:3/100.*
    route hold boss 21:3/999.*
    route crash boss 21:4/106.*
    route crash boss 21:3/*

    Hmm... I ran showold.pl and found this in my report


    +------------------+--------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
    | Node | Days | NetMail | EchoMail | Files | +------------------+--------+-----------+-----------+-----------+
    | 21:1/187 | 0 | 0 | 9197 | 0 |
    | 21:1/190.1 | 27 | 2409 | 0 | 0 |
    | 21:1/193 | 0 | 0 | 1160 | 0 |


    Now I don't have the .1 set up at 21:1/100 and had this in my route file (I
    now think incorrectly)

    route crash noroute 21:1/190.*

    Based on your suggestion I now think I need to set nodes up like this

    route crash noroute 21:1/190
    route crash 21:1/190 21:1/190.*

    Does that seem right?

    Can I then rerun a process to reroute the point netmail to 1/190

    Best, Paul
    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Windows/32)
    * Origin: Agency BBS | Dunedin, New Zealand | agency.bbs.nz (3:770/100)
  • From Alan Ianson@1:153/757 to Deon George on Thursday, May 06, 2021 01:53:30
    Hello Deon,

    Not sure if I understand you issue fully.

    I have a point setup here, 153/757.1315 and for some reason when people reply to him they are addressed to other points that don't exist. So far I have received mail for that point addressed to 153/757.1125 and 153/757.131.

    Since those points don't exist it slips through the route file and gets routed on again. A vicious circle. :)

    But for points, I have something like this

    route hold noroute 21:3/100.*
    route hold boss 21:3/999.*
    route crash boss 21:4/106.*
    route crash boss 21:3/*
    route crash boss 21:2/116.*

    I haven't noticed the boss keyword in the route file before so I'll look more into that.

    That way anything for a point goes to it's boss. Anything for my point (where I am 3/100) stays in the queue...

    It's just these non existent points off my own node I need to stop or redirect somehow.

    Ttyl :-),
    Al

    --- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20180707
    * Origin: The Rusty MailBox - Penticton, BC Canada (1:153/757)
  • From Alan Ianson@1:153/757 to Fabio Bizzi on Thursday, May 06, 2021 02:05:01
    Hello Fabio,

    Is there a way I can stop mail for these points that don't exist
    off my own node from being routed and sent out?

    For the messages addressed to inexistant points, you can add a
    specific route to discard the traffic to inexistent points. :)

    Yep, kind of a curious problem.. :)

    You can configure the routing for the points like this (example with
    my boss address):

    route hold noroute 2:335/364.1
    route hold noroute 2:335/364.2
    route hold noroute 2:335/364.3

    This is what I have now..

    route hold noroute 2:335/364.X
    route no-pack 2:335/364.*

    That's another keyword no-pack, I haven't used before. That might be what I need to do below my other points.

    Another option (but only for echomails) is to add a session password
    for each point in binkd, so all the echomail bundles will be placed in
    the unsecure inbound and not processed.

    No issues with echomail, it's just these random point numbers that are not configured here that I need to stop

    Ttyl :-),
    Al

    --- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20180707
    * Origin: The Rusty MailBox - Penticton, BC Canada (1:153/757)
  • From Alan Ianson@1:153/757 to Paul Hayton on Thursday, May 06, 2021 02:57:00
    Hello Paul,

    route crash noroute 21:1/190
    route crash 21:1/190 21:1/190.*

    I would use one line..

    route crash 21:1/190 21:1/190.*

    Does that seem right?

    If you want mail for 21:1/190 and all it's points sent to 21:1/190.

    Can I then rerun a process to reroute the point netmail to 1/190

    If you need to you can put that .pkt in your inbound and retoss it. You might need to put it in your local inbound, if you have one.

    Ttyl :-),
    Al

    --- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20180707
    * Origin: The Rusty MailBox - Penticton, BC Canada (1:153/757)
  • From Deon George@3:633/509 to Alan Ianson on Thursday, May 06, 2021 20:14:15
    Re: Mail for unknown points
    By: Alan Ianson to Deon George on Thu May 06 2021 01:53 am

    Howdy,

    I have a point setup here, 153/757.1315 and for some reason when people
    reply to him they are addressed to other points that don't
    exist. So far I have received mail for that point addressed to
    153/757.1125 and 153/757.131.
    Since those points don't exist it slips through the route file and gets
    routed on again. A vicious circle. :)
    It's just these non existent points off my own node I need to stop or
    redirect somehow.

    So my hold noroute ... will stop them being sent somewhere (the circle you mention) assuming husky is the boss.

    If you want to reject, redirect, etc you could use a filter to do that.

    On FSX Hub 3 my filter that rejects netmail to non-existent nodelist nodes is the same filter that rejects messages to non-existent points.

    This might be helpful..

    https://dev.leenooks.net/bbs/fidohub/-/blob/master/tools/filters/filter-route.pl

    ...ыюхя

    ... The world looks as if it has been left in the custody of trolls.
    --- SBBSecho 3.14-Linux
    * Origin: I'm playing with ANSI+videotex - wanna play too? (3:633/509)
  • From Deon George@3:633/509 to Paul Hayton on Thursday, May 06, 2021 20:17:14
    Re: Re: Mail for unknown points
    By: Paul Hayton to Deon George on Thu May 06 2021 08:58 pm

    Hmm... I ran showold.pl and found this in my report
    | 21:1/190.1 | 27 | 2409 | 0 | 0 |

    Now I don't have the .1 set up at 21:1/100 and had this in my route file
    (I
    now think incorrectly)

    route crash noroute 21:1/190.*

    Based on your suggestion I now think I need to set nodes up like this

    route crash noroute 21:1/190
    route crash 21:1/190 21:1/190.*

    Does that seem right?

    No.

    I think you want to use the "boss" keyword instead of the crash 21:1/190 21:1/190.*.

    As I say on hub 3 I have

    route hold boss 21:3/999.*

    Which means anything for 999.* package it up to the boss (999.0) - and keep it on hold. (You could use crash if appropriate.)

    ...ыюхя

    ... Feed the wolf as you will; he will always look to the forest.
    --- SBBSecho 3.14-Linux
    * Origin: I'm playing with ANSI+videotex - wanna play too? (3:633/509)
  • From Alan Ianson@1:153/757 to Fabio Bizzi on Thursday, May 06, 2021 03:20:53
    Hello Fabio,

    route no-pack 2:335/364.*

    That has sorted my issue.. Thanks. :)

    Ttyl :-),
    Al

    --- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20180707
    * Origin: The Rusty MailBox - Penticton, BC Canada (1:153/757)
  • From Alan Ianson@1:153/757 to Deon George on Thursday, May 06, 2021 03:22:10
    Hello Deon,

    So my hold noroute ... will stop them being sent somewhere (the circle
    you mention) assuming husky is the boss.

    Yes, I think so. The nopack option also works. Those messages are left in the netmail area so I can readdress them to the proper address or if the point doesn't exist bounce it back to the sender.

    If you want to reject, redirect, etc you could use a filter to do
    that.

    On FSX Hub 3 my filter that rejects netmail to non-existent nodelist
    nodes is the same filter that rejects messages to non-existent points.

    This might be helpful..

    https://dev.leenooks.net/bbs/fidohub/-/blob/master/tools/filters/filte r-route.pl

    Yes, this is a great solution. It's a little too complex for me so I'm going to
    have to move that forward a little at a time.

    Ttyl :-),
    Al

    --- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20180707
    * Origin: The Rusty MailBox - Penticton, BC Canada (1:153/757)
  • From Brother Rabbit@2:460/58.10 to Alan Ianson on Thursday, May 06, 2021 14:35:42
    Hi, Alan!

    05 май 21 22:46, Alan Ianson -> All:

    I sometimes receive mail for unknown points off my own node. These messages get routed back out since these points don't actually exist
    in my setup.

    Is there a way I can stop mail for these points that don't exist off my own node from being routed and sent out?

    sub filter()
    {
    unless ( defined($area) ) {
    if ( istomypoint($toaddr) && !defined( $links{$fromaddr}{name} ) ) {
    kill=1;
    putMsgInArea('', '', $fromname, '', $fromaddr,
    'Unknown point addres', $date, $attr,
    "You sent a message to a non-existent address. ".
    "I am returning your message.\r\r".
    '=============================================================\r'.
    sprintf("From: %-32s",$fromname).
    sprintf("%-20s $date\r",$fromaddr).
    sprintf("To : %-32s",$toname)."$toaddr\r".
    '=============================================================\r'.
    $text.
    '=============================================================\r'.
    "--- Perl on $hpt_version",1 );
    return;
    }
    }

    }

    sub istomypoint($)
    {
    my ( $addrr ) = @_;
    for my $cfg_addr ( @{$config{addr}} ) {
    if( $addrr =~ /^$cfg_addr\.\d+$/ ) {
    return 1;
    }
    }
    return 0;
    }

    NB: Not tested.

    Have nice nights.
    Brother Rabbit.
    --- Мат, конечно, не украшает мою речь, но делает мои просьбы более понятными.
    * Origin: Lame Users Breeding. Simferopol, Crimea. (2:460/58.10)
  • From Angel Ripoll@2:341/66 to Alan Ianson on Thursday, May 06, 2021 13:54:56
    Hola Alan!

    05 May 21 22:46, Alan Ianson escribi├│ a All:

    Is there a way I can stop mail for these points that don't exist off my own node from being routed and sent out?

    With a tracker. I use rntrack.

    Un saludo,
    Angel Ripoll
    aripoll @ zruspas.org

    --- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20180707 + HPT 1.9 + Binkd 1.1 en Debian
    * Origin: Synchronet - bbs.zruspas.org - Zruspa's BBS - (2:341/66)
  • From Fabio Bizzi@2:335/364.1 to Brother Rabbit on Thursday, May 06, 2021 15:00:16
    Hello Brother!

    06 May 21 14:35, you wrote to Alan Ianson:

    sub filter()
    {
    unless ( defined($area) ) {
    [...]
    Brother Rabbit.

    I've seriusly start to learn Perl! :)

    Unfortunately, the actual most fascionable language is Python, moreover Cisco has elected it as the developing language for it's echo system CISCO DNA.

    I don't like Python, it's simple, powerfull and intuitive, but it hides the structures and mechanisms of the developing, for me the best developing language for every thing is still "C". :)

    Ciao!
    Fabio
    --- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20180707
    * Origin: ]\/[imac Rebirth Boss Point (2:335/364.1)
  • From Brother Rabbit@2:460/58.10 to Fabio Bizzi on Thursday, May 06, 2021 19:20:46
    Hi, Fabio!

    06 май 21 15:00, Fabio Bizzi -> Brother Rabbit:

    I've seriusly start to learn Perl! :)

    Nothing complicated.

    Unfortunately, the actual most fascionable language is Python,
    moreover Cisco has elected it as the developing language for it's echo system CISCO DNA.

    Yes, but it is the pearl that is built into the HPT. ;)

    Have nice nights.
    Brother Rabbit.
    --- не откладывай пьянку на завтра, а секс на старость.
    * Origin: Lame Users Breeding. Simferopol, Crimea. (2:460/58.10)
  • From Fabio Bizzi@2:335/364.1 to Brother Rabbit on Friday, May 07, 2021 08:59:28
    Hello Brother!

    06 May 21 19:20, you wrote to me:

    I've seriusly start to learn Perl! :)
    Nothing complicated.

    For sure it's easy for you. :D I'm really rusted, I've forgot all the basics, I
    remember only the concepts of developing.
    Unfortunately I left developing (for job) in the 1990, after, I developed rarely only for my pleasure.

    Unfortunately, the actual most fascionable language is Python,
    moreover Cisco has elected it as the developing language for it's
    echo system CISCO DNA.

    Yes, but it is the pearl that is built into the HPT. ;)

    You're right, but there's Python on my Cisco CCNP ENCOR exam that I've to take on the 18th of this month. :P

    Ciao!
    Fabio
    --- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20180707
    * Origin: ]\/[imac Rebirth Boss Point (2:335/364.1)
  • From Paul Hayton@3:770/100 to Alan Ianson on Sunday, May 09, 2021 19:48:35
    On 06 May 2021 at 02:57a, Alan Ianson pondered and said...

    I would use one line..
    route crash 21:1/190 21:1/190.*
    If you want mail for 21:1/190 and all it's points sent to 21:1/190.

    Thanks, it also seems based on Deon's feedback I can run with the following

    route crash boss 21:1/190.*

    (Right Deon?) but I am wondering could/should I also have a noroute for 21:1/190 stated before or after this from completeness? Something like..

    route crash boss 21:1/190.*
    route crash noroute 21:1/190



    One other thing I am not clear on is ... does the route statement cover
    files routed with netmail messages or do I need to set up routefile
    statements for all nodes in addition to their route statements? e.g.

    route crash boss 21:1/190.*
    route crash noroute 21:1/190
    routefile crash noroute 21:1/190
    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Windows/32)
    * Origin: Agency BBS | Dunedin, New Zealand | agency.bbs.nz (3:770/100)
  • From Alan Ianson@1:153/757 to Paul Hayton on Sunday, May 09, 2021 00:55:25
    Hello Paul,

    Thanks, it also seems based on Deon's feedback I can run with the following

    route crash boss 21:1/190.*

    Yes, that works, but only for points. I would still use one line..

    route crash 21:1/190 21:1/190.*

    That works for 21:1/190 and any points he might have. Use the method that works
    for you and your setup.

    One other thing I am not clear on is ... does the route statement
    cover files routed with netmail messages or do I need to set up
    routefile statements for all nodes in addition to their route
    statements? e.g.

    If you want to route files for a node you need a routefile line as well.

    route crash 21:1/190 21:1/190.*
    routefile crash noroute 21:1/190

    Consider carefully routing files.

    If you just want to attach a file to a node, attach the file to a message and crash it there. No routefile line is needed for that.

    Ttyl :-),
    Al

    --- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20180707
    * Origin: The Rusty MailBox - Penticton, BC Canada (1:153/757)
  • From Paul Hayton@3:770/100 to Alan Ianson on Sunday, May 09, 2021 20:34:39
    On 09 May 2021 at 12:55a, Alan Ianson pondered and said...

    Thanks, it also seems based on Deon's feedback I can run with the following

    route crash boss 21:1/190.*

    Yes, that works, but only for points. I would still use one line..

    I tested this and it did not route netmail from 1/100 sent to 1/191.1 via
    1/191 :(

    I found these two options did work

    route crash routevia 21:1/190 21:1/190.*
    route crash 21:1/190 21:1/190.*

    But that boss option was a zero on the success meter :)

    If you want to route files for a node you need a routefile line as well. route crash 21:1/190 21:1/190.*
    routefile crash noroute 21:1/190

    OK thanks, will look to add something for each node then.

    Consider carefully routing files.
    If you just want to attach a file to a node, attach the file to a
    message and crash it there. No routefile line is needed for that.

    I have not played much with netmail file attaches as Mystic I don't think offered it and I know little of how to do so in golded yet.

    But your statement above sort of looses me. At present I just use fileboxes with established nodes to send files. But if I did want to do a file attach
    via netmail my suspicion is that I need that routefile line in for each node
    I HUB for. Right?

    Ttyl :-),

    Thanks for the reply. :)
    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Windows/32)
    * Origin: Agency BBS | Dunedin, New Zealand | agency.bbs.nz (3:770/100)
  • From Alan Ianson@1:153/757 to Paul Hayton on Sunday, May 09, 2021 01:42:57
    Hello Paul,

    I tested this and it did not route netmail from 1/100 sent to 1/191.1
    via 1/191 :(

    I have not used the boss keyword before.. so..

    I found these two options did work

    route crash routevia 21:1/190 21:1/190.*

    That line doesn't look right, but I have not tried to use it. Check the tparser
    output.

    route crash 21:1/190 21:1/190.*

    I have many lines like that and they have always worked for me.

    But that boss option was a zero on the success meter :)

    I think that could work but I have not used it before, so I am unsure.

    If you want to route files for a node you need a routefile line
    as well. route crash 21:1/190 21:1/190.* routefile crash noroute
    21:1/190

    OK thanks, will look to add something for each node then.

    Are you sure? I have no routefile lines in my config presently. Only add them when/where needed.

    I have not played much with netmail file attaches as Mystic I don't
    think offered it and I know little of how to do so in golded yet.

    Yep, that is not an option with mystic. Fileboxes work OK but no attaches.

    But your statement above sort of looses me. At present I just use fileboxes with established nodes to send files.

    Yes, fileboxes take out all the guesswork. I like them.

    But if I did want to do a file attach via netmail my suspicion is that
    I need that routefile line in for each node I HUB for. Right?

    I doubt you need or want that routefile line at all. It is only used if you receive netmail with files attached. That should never happen without your prior approval.

    Lets say for some reason you agreed to route files for 21:1/190 and his points.
    You would receive those netmail and attaches in your inbound. You would need these two lines in your route config..

    route crash 21:1/190 21:1/190.*
    routefile crash 21:1/190 21:1/190.*

    Then your tosser would route those messages and attached files to 21:1/190 and they would be routed on as needed there.

    I did this kind of file routing years ago to save telephone costs between otherwise long distance nodes but I don't think this is needed today.

    The routefile keyword is not needed for file areas, just routing files.

    the fileboxes we have today makes all this much simpler. Are there any cases where you want to route files? If not I would not use the keyword at all.

    Thanks for the reply. :)

    Any old time.. :)

    Ttyl :-),
    Al

    --- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20180707
    * Origin: The Rusty MailBox - Penticton, BC Canada (1:153/757)
  • From Alan Ianson@1:153/757 to Paul Hayton on Sunday, May 09, 2021 02:05:27
    Hello Paul,

    But your statement above sort of looses me. At present I just use fileboxes with established nodes to send files. But if I did want to
    do a file attach via netmail my suspicion is that I need that
    routefile line in for each node I HUB for. Right?

    Last comment..

    If you want to send a file attached to a netmail <ALT>A, send it crash <ALT>C to the destination and when your run hpt pack it will be sent to the destination. If you don't send it crash, then you need a routefile line in your
    config for hpt to send it.

    I always crash attaches so I don't need any routefile lines.

    Ttyl :-),
    Al

    --- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20180707
    * Origin: The Rusty MailBox - Penticton, BC Canada (1:153/757)
  • From Paul Hayton@3:770/100 to Alan Ianson on Sunday, May 09, 2021 21:41:17
    On 09 May 2021 at 02:05a, Alan Ianson pondered and said...

    Last comment..

    Noted, thanks for the info.
    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Windows/32)
    * Origin: Agency BBS | Dunedin, New Zealand | agency.bbs.nz (3:770/100)
  • From Paul Hayton@3:770/100 to Alan Ianson on Sunday, May 09, 2021 21:43:57
    On 09 May 2021 at 01:42a, Alan Ianson pondered and said...

    OK thanks, will look to add something for each node then.

    Are you sure? I have no routefile lines in my config presently. Only add them when/where needed.

    No I am not, but figure if such stuff arrived at 21:1/100 then I should
    likely have something in place for 1/100 nodes etc.?

    Yep, that is not an option with mystic. Fileboxes work OK but no
    attaches.

    Yep thought so.

    Yes, fileboxes take out all the guesswork. I like them.

    Same here :)

    I doubt you need or want that routefile line at all. It is only used if you receive netmail with files attached. That should never happen
    without your prior approval.

    But that can't stop someone from just trying though eh? So perhaps best to
    set things up?

    The routefile keyword is not needed for file areas, just routing files.

    Yep understood thanks :)

    the fileboxes we have today makes all this much simpler. Are there any cases where you want to route files? If not I would not use the keyword
    at all.

    I have had no reason to so far but then I have not used tools that even allow for this option.

    Thanks for the reply. :)

    Any old time.. :)

    :)
    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Windows/32)
    * Origin: Agency BBS | Dunedin, New Zealand | agency.bbs.nz (3:770/100)
  • From Kai Richter@2:240/77 to Paul Hayton on Wednesday, May 12, 2021 02:21:46
    Hello Paul!

    09 May 21, Paul Hayton wrote to Alan Ianson:

    I found these two options did work

    route crash routevia 21:1/190 21:1/190.*

    Sigh...

    Whereever you got this from, please tell the source to look into the documentation before building a configuration.

    Syntax:
    route <flavour> <routeVia> <target> [<target> ...]@*
    route nopack <target> [<target> ...]

    flavour, routeVia and target are <placeholders>.

    The signs <> and [] are such basic for *nix manuals that i don't remember where
    that concept is explained. <> must be set while [] is optional.

    route crash routevia 21:1/190 21:1/190.*
    route <flavour> <routeVia> <target>

    But that boss option was a zero on the success meter :)

    Routing is done from top to down. If point mail matches a previous route statement a later boss route can't match.

    If you want to route files for a node you need a routefile line
    as well.
    route crash 21:1/190 21:1/190.* routefile crash noroute
    21:1/190

    OK thanks, will look to add something for each node then.

    no-route (or noroute) -- this keyword is a misnomer in a way and
    in fact it means route to destination via itself.

    One may use the second variant of the route statement in the form

    route <flavour> nopack <target> [<target> ...]

    Here the <flavour> is ignored. Such use is deprecated and it is left for compatibility with old versions.

    Consider carefully routing files.
    If you just want to attach a file to a node, attach the file to a
    message and crash it there. No routefile line is needed for that.

    I have not played much with netmail file attaches as Mystic I don't
    think offered it and I know little of how to do so in golded yet.

    Don't solve problems that do not exist. A configuration should follow the demand. If you haven't seen routed files on your system then you maybe never will.

    Regards

    Kai
    --- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.4.7
    * Origin: Monobox (2:240/77)
  • From Paul Hayton@3:770/100 to Kai Richter on Wednesday, May 12, 2021 14:56:00
    On 12 May 2021 at 02:21a, Kai Richter pondered and said...

    Sigh...

    Thanks for your info, very helpful. :)

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Windows/32)
    * Origin: Agency BBS | Dunedin, New Zealand | agency.bbs.nz (3:770/100)
  • From Oli@2:280/464.47 to Deon George on Wednesday, May 12, 2021 08:00:24
    Deon wrote (2021-05-10):

    route hold boss 21:3/116.*
    route hold boss 21:3/115.*
    route hold boss 21:3/112.*
    route hold boss 21:3/106.*
    route hold boss 21:3/101.*
    route hold boss 21:3/999.*

    Would this work in one line, like

    route hold boss 21:3/101.* 21:3/106.* 21:3/112.* ...

    ---
    * Origin: . (2:280/464.47)
  • From Deon George@3:633/509 to Oli on Wednesday, May 12, 2021 19:50:38
    Re: Mail for unknown points
    By: Oli to Deon George on Wed May 12 2021 08:00 am

    Would this work in one line, like
    route hold boss 21:3/101.* 21:3/106.* 21:3/112.* ...

    Not sure.

    But its easier to manage as 1 per line.

    ...ыюхя

    ... Liberals are a Labour-saving device.
    --- SBBSecho 3.14-Linux
    * Origin: I'm playing with ANSI+videotex - wanna play too? (3:633/509)
  • From Kai Richter@2:240/77 to Alan Ianson on Thursday, May 13, 2021 00:10:56
    Hello Alan!

    10 May 21, Alan Ianson wrote to Kai Richter:

    route hold noroute 2:335/364.1

    The combination of route hold noroute does not make sense.

    I was thinking that when I setup my first point but the above seems to work. Is there a better way to write that out?

    I compared my config to the latest docs and was surprised by the change in the route syntax. I'm still on the old syntax with "nopack". The route noroute looks odd but is correct. Sorry for the confusion. Because i'm lazy my line would look like

    route hold noroute 2:335/364.*

    to catch all points at once. It's the first line in my route.config to make sure to collect own point netmail before the common default routes apply.

    Regards

    Kai
    --- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.4.7
    * Origin: Monobox (2:240/77)