Richard Webb wrote to Sean Dennis:

RW> Imho were I running a dynamic mailer I"d have a netmail area for me and 
RW> users, which I could then have netmgr or some
RW> other like utility move to the primary netmail area where my mailer could 
RW> then see and act upon it.  OTher than that,
RW> when it came to managing it, the mailer would do all that.
RW> I could go through the human accessible nm area and kill
RW> received msgs, etc. when/if I chose and not worry about
RW> messing up system operations.  That would be my cure for
RW> that potential problem anyway.

I ran FD with RA when I first setup years ago. I found it to be an
excellent mailer. It's much like BinkleyTerm or other mailers in
that it will go right ahead and do what you tell it to.. :)

The only reason I moved on to BinkleyTerm was to have a look, and
I stuck with it during my dial-up days. I used Portal Of Power
to, I rather liked that one.

RW> I stick with this one because I'm used to how it works.
RW> When/if I can do something for transporting fidonet traffic
RW> over internet here I'll probably reevaluate and then stick
RW> with the concept I'm familiar with.

If you ever do need an IP mailer I would use Binkd. It uses the
Binkley style outbound to. You could use both binkleyTerm and
Binkd on the same outbound. You can just add the nodes you want
binkd to send to to it's config and it'll send those and not touch
the other stuff.

 Ttyl :-),
         Al

... Luxuriantly hand-crafted from only the finest ASCII.

--- MBSE BBS v0.95.5 (GNU/Linux-x86_64)