Hello Bob!

23 Jun 03 17:21, you wrote to me:

 BS>> But does squish not take topdown, until it find what it needed?
 BS>> A thing there annoys me too, is that it use ROUTE.CFG
 BS>> for Echomail packages too.

 BJ> Yes, Squish process the route.cfg file in a top down mannor.

Hmm.. then i don't see the problem..

 BJ> And as to echomail, remember, echomail is just a special version of
 BJ> netmail.  And like confmail and OMM, squish processes echomail just
 BJ> like netmail....

Yes, but it's not routable in that way netmail is. Echomail is _exported_ not routed.

 BS>> It shouldn't been because you are telling what to pack
 BS>> with in squish.cfg, i guess there is somekind of noarc
 BS>> option there?

 BJ> You're keying off the noarc difference.  That is not the problem.  I
 BJ> believe the problem is that squish re-scans the outbound area for each
 BJ> line in route.cfg, and so reprocesses any newly created NORMAL flavor
 BJ> packets with later lines in the route.cfg file.

Yes that's right.. it annoyed me too.

 BS>> For poll ?

 BJ> If I had ILO packets (vs CLO, HLO, DLO and FLO), I could more easily
 BJ> distingquish between sending something out via BINKD vs sending out
 BJ> via Binkley.

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

I assume that you are running Binkley in the C event.

 BJ> Binkley won't touch the ILO packets, so with binkley
 BJ> configured as a TCP/IP based mailer on my system, I can keep binkley
 BJ> from dialing my BinkP based connections without nodelist mods (such as
 BJ> tweaking the cost table, which is the method I'm using for now....)

Yes, but that's not the point about ILO/IUT..

Regards,
Bo

--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5