Hello Bob!

18 Jun 03 21:32, you wrote to me:

 BJ> There is an issue I have with squish in processing the route.cfg file.
 BJ> Supposedly squish was "compatible" with confmail (and I think OMMM)
 BJ> route file concepts.  Unfortunately, there is one difference that
 BJ> bites....

Hmm..

 BJ> If you try to use "ROUTE NOARC NORMAL 1:234/567.8 1:234/*"
 BJ> and then have a line that does something like default route (from
 BJ> memory, something line "ROUTE CRASH 1:140/1 1:ALL 2:ALL 3:ALL 4:ALL
 BJ> 5:ALL 6:ALL"), then the mail that you packed for 1:234/567.8 gets
 BJ> retargted and sent to 1:140/1 (in this example).  Actually, it doesn't
 BJ> need to be a default route.  It just needs to be a command that ends
 BJ> up reprocessing node 1:234/567.8's outbound mail packets.....

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

 BJ> I forget whether the NOARC is needed or not needed in the ROUTE line
 BJ> for 1:234/567.8.  In any case, it keeps me from using NORMAL mail
 BJ> archives, and instead using just DIRECT, HOLD and CRASH.  I never did
 BJ> get Scott to understand why I considered this a bug in Squish.....

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

 BJ> So, keep this a very low, back burner item...  Nothing to deal with
 BJ> anytime soon.....  It may not be easy to correct because of how Squish
 BJ> processes the route.cfg file (line by line) and sweeps the outbound
 BJ> area for file processing for each line of route.cfg processed.

Yeah that's just a logic problem.

 BJ> If you don't understand why I consider it a bug, or what I mean by the
 BJ> above, please let me know so I can attept another explation.

 BJ> Also, now that I have BinkP running, it might be nice to add support
 BJ> for ILO type flow controls to the ROUTE.CFG file.

For poll ?

Regards,
Bo

--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5