Hi RUssell,

On Thu 2037-Feb-26 16:44, Russell Tiedt (5:7105/1) wrote to Richard Webb:

 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.  

RT> Your uplink notified me, he had mail for me, from you, and how did I
RT> want it  handled, as I happen to have a direct link to him, I said,
RT> "Why not route it  direct" ...

YEp, I route all my outbound, all zones via him unless it's
continental U.S> and has a pots connection closer as noted
earlier.
RT> Right, now you should not have a problem routing mail to any Zone,
RT> unless your  routing tables are buggered, or someone between you and
RT> the Zone you are  sending mail to has buggered routing tables ...

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

 RW> IF we continue this discussion in this vein we should
 RW> probably be kind and choose another echo .

RT> :-)

RT> Choose ...

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

Regards,
           Richard
... Braille:  support true literacy for the blind.
--- timEd 1.10.y2k+