Hello Richard.

26 Feb 09 20:11, you wrote to me:

 RW>> I sent you nm through Janis once iirc, and same thing
 RW>> happened.  REsent through my primary uplink, 3634/12 and it
 RW>> arrived and you replied.  

I have a direct link to 3634/12 ...

 RW> True enough.  AS Janis explains, bbbs seems to be rather
 RW> sticky about its interpretation of fidonet tech standards.
 RW> MEthinks it has to do more with the way squish handles
 RW> routing when used with static mailers such a binkley,
 RW> although I don't know what the heck it is.  MEthinks that's
 RW> why Sean's nm to you is somewhere in limbo world as well
 RW> .

BBBS is a good, package, just when I looked at it, I got the impression, it 
was built for some other network, and FidoNet got tacked on afterwards ...

 RW> I'm linked to both fido_sysop and fn_sysop.  Also, since
 RW> this is essentially an argument between squish and bbbs
 RW> which causes the problem tub might be appropriate as well.
 RW> Seems to be that imho anyway.

I am connected to all of those ...

Russell

--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5