Re: Strange.
  By: Roger Nelson to Rob Swindell on Sun May 08 2016 06:07 am

 > On Sat May-07-2016 19:41, Rob Swindell (1:103/705) wrote to mark lewis:
 >
 >  RS>   Re: Strange.
 >  RS>   By: mark lewis to Roger Nelson on Sat May 07 2016 02:03 pm
 >
 >  > was none the wiser about the problem... the recent change in that tosser
 >  > also  requires that the session level password be the same as the PKT
 >
 >  RS> If you're talking about SBBSecho, that is not true (it does not
 >  RS> know or care what the session password is).
 >
 > I think what we are discussing here is the sudden requirement for a packet
 > password.  For the past month or so, a friend using SBBSecho can't toss mail
 > from me unless there is a packet password present and we have never had one
 > set
 > up.

Okay, but I responding to Mark and clarifying the packet vs. session password
use in SBBSecho. SBBSecho doesn't know anything about session passwords.

As for SBBSecho v3 it doesn't "suddenly require a packet password". What
changed was that the previous version of SBBSecho (v2.x) would *ignore* the
packet password (didn't care what it was, if it was present) in some sysop
configurations. That's no longer the case: the packet password must match
whatever the sysop has configured. If there is a password in the packet, but
there was not one configured for the linked node (in the SBBSecho configuration
file: sbbsecho.ini), that is now considered a mismatch and the packet not
imported.

It sounds like some sysops have been sending password-protected packets to
their linked-nodes, but didn't realize it until now.

                                            digital man

Synchronet "Real Fact" #52:
Synchronet Blackjack was the first multi-node/multi-user game for Synchronet.
Norco, CA WX: 57.5øF, 84.0% humidity, 4 mph SSE wind, 0.00 inches rain/24hrs
--- SBBSecho 3.00-Win32