Hello Bob!

24 Jun 03 15:48, you wrote to me:

 BS>> I saw the problem then a node whitch normally have his
 BS>> mail on Hold here, but his internet was down, so i want
 BS>> to route his mail thru by BOSS, but it "routed" the
 BS>> echomail too..

 BJ> Ah, yes....  that is a "feature" in squish, and the older
mail mashers
 BJ> that squish is based on.  You end up needing seperate runs of squish
 BJ> if you want to seperate netmail and echomail handling.  :(

All the tossers i've used did use sepperate netmail routing and echomail exporting.

 BJ> So, I do see where you would like to have a configuration option to
 BJ> change how that works.....

Then all the bugs is corrected, i would be one of the things, but we should
first get the Sqafix source..

 BS>> I don't know what my boss did about the packages.. I
 BS>> guess it got tossed into NTU (not to us).

 BJ>   When I had the routed echomail problem, I got contacted and
 BJ> asked what was going on.

Heh :)

 BJ> Both ends of the transfer scrached our heads
 BJ> over that route.cfg error for a while.....  I forget how I finally
 BJ> stumbled on the solution....  Any way.....

BTW there is a solution too, you could use a tracker or cfroute, but it
should be possible for squish to handle both.

 BS>>> Well it's not the point that Binkley shouldn't touch
 BS>>> ILO.. What the problem about route "Normal" to binkp
 BS>>> nodes?

 BJ> One other probelm with routing "normal" for binkp is the way squish
 BJ> handles normal.  For that reason I don't use normal.  I only use
 BJ> Crash, Hold and Direct for squish's outbound mail packets.

It makes a arcmail and makes a flowfile with .flo extention?

 BS>> I would say it's just a question about controling your routing.

 BJ> Exactly.  Unfortunately, I have to play additional games beyond
 BJ> routing to handle my routing.....  For nodes like me and one of my
 BJ> major feeds, where we have proper entry for a POTS connection and also
 BJ> have proper entries for multiple IP based connections, I have to play
 BJ> games to keep Binkley from calling out on the phone line..... (or
 BJ> telnet node....)

Actually i did run Squish, Binkd and Binkley together, i didn't have
problems about the routing..

 BS>> Yes, but as my further question was, binkley won't dial
 BS>> on normal (in a C event), so why not route it normal?

 BS>> If it's ION you got a double points because their phone
 BS>> number _should_ be unpublished.

 BJ> I have two problems with using unpublished.  For ION's using
 BJ> unpublished, the problem becomes that my nodelist processor will
 BJ> substitute the NC's phone number for the POTS mailer, which you don't
 BJ> want dialed.

Oh i see.. But it's not default in Fastlst, or what you are using as
nodelist compiler. Hmm.. i'm not scure about that..

 BJ> And for nodes like me, where both POTS and IP
 BJ> connectivity can be made, you want to not dial the phone as long as IP
 BJ> connectivity is good.....  So, _unpublished_ in the nodelist does not
 BJ> solve the problem....  And _unpublished_ is the nodelist would be an
 BJ> error for nodes like myself (1:343/41) or for one of my feeds
 BJ> (1:10/345).

I see the problem.

 BJ> Some day I may write the program I want to automatically generate my
 BJ> route.cfg file from the nodelist -- so I can directly send netmail to
 BJ> those who I have no additional cost in calling......  But that's
 BJ> another story.....

:-)

 BJ> Ok, so you consider the I to be immediate and not internet.  I
 BJ> consider the C to be crash, to be the equivalent to immediate.....

.ILO is _ment_ to be immeditate, not internet. Now i understand, why we
didn't have an agreement :)

 BS>> Afaik does newer mailers than Binkley act this way.

 BJ> The only "mailer" that I've seen handle ILO/IUT packets
is BinkD.  But
 BJ> I haven't tried stuff outside of BinkD or later than the last official
 BJ> release of Binkley (2.60).

Qico works with ILO too, but it's a UNIX only mailer.. I wonder if T-Mail
can use ILO too?

 BJ> Thanks for the note.

You're welcome :)

Regards,
Bo

--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5