> ahhhh... i've never worked with IREX and didn't know it was even involved...
> i'd be doing this with GIGO like i do with the the TeamOS2 mailing list and
th
> two OS/2 related yahoo groups i gate to fidonet... the SMTP takes the inbound
> messages and stores them in .BAG files which GIGO then converts into PKTs
with
> those messages now carrying an AREA line for the destination echo they belong
> in... but this is an OS/2 only solution... i don't think that GIGO has been
> ported to any other OSes and i have no idea what could be done for
winwhatever
> with any other gating tools...

GIGO, eh?  Well, that wouldn't help me get everything moved to linux, but
IREX (and "half" the board) are still running under OS/2 Warp 4.  Is it still
supported?

> FTN networks and other networks that use a completely different means of
> packaging and transportation than what FTNs and the internet use...
> RIME/PCRelay used a form of QWK which is why QWK offline readers were so easy
> for the users to use... i'm not sure what WWIV used but it was similar to
> internet, IIRC... at least its moderated areas operated like moderated news
> groups where posts were sent via private email to the moderator for approval
> and posting to the area or they were rejected... proactive moderation vs
> fidonet's reactive moderation...

I am familiar with non-FTN.  GT Power, which is my main BBS software, used to
have its own network with its own network software.  Similar to FTN in that
it used net/node numbers and had netmail... not-so-similar in that all echo
mail went to the moderator's system first before echoing back out to the
network.  Supposedly, the GT author did it that way because he did not like
how FIDO echoes did not have the ability to be completely moderated... or
proatively moderated, as you put it.

I like it, but it pretty much died some time after support for the product
died.  We did get some Y2K patches, but the echomail system in the past
couple of years "rolled-over" to 5-digit julian dates, which broke
everything for GT echomail 8.3-based file naming format.  No worries because
I was the only system left bagging mail that way anyway, and supplying no
one.  <GRIN>

I actually started on writing a utility that would fix the echomail packets,
but since I was the only one who would use it, I decided I had better things
to do.

> what i'd do is to just get another node number from your NC and list it as
> another AKA on your BBS... then IREX should be able to operate fine... then
fo
> that echo you use the new AKA as the origin address and all your other areas
> stay using the existing origin AKA...

We did.  The system IREX sits on is 1:2320/107, while the linux system where
binkp, the web interface, ftp, etc., sit on is the original 1:2320/105.
Works now!

> i'm not sure why IREX couldn't just gate the mailing list to your existing
> node number?? that should be a straight forward gating process like i do here
> with GIGO...

What happened was that I had IREX running as .99, the system it is on was the
boss, and the web/etc. system was .1.  When I got binkp running on the linux
box, I set it as the boss and made the system that IREX runs on .1.  IREX
would not pass mail to a point node (.1) that could be passed along to the
boss.  Probably a topology goof on my part... I also could not get IREX to
route the mail to the boss system and have it route back to the .1.  So,
either the boss (and the network) did not get the messages, or .1 didn't.

Thinking I could get it to eventually work the right way, I set up a
temporary "fix"... now it is running a different right way, but it at least
works now.  

> the ""problem"", such as it is, is that today some people are specifically
> trying to "kill off" the traditional FTN distribution format which is
backbone
> oriented... they are, instead, connecting to one echo from several different
> systems and eventually there's several huge dupe loops... the so-called goal
i
> to eliminate a SPOF (single point of failure) but in reality it is
eliminating
> a lot more and taking away moderator's rights in their echos since now it is
> impossible to remove a problem user from an echo for a time period...

I suspect that is why some echo tossers get blamed for behaving badly...
because they were not written to work on a non-backbone/redundant topology.

Thanks for your assistance and explanations!

Mike

---
 * SLMR 2.1a * I can't pretend a stranger is a long-awaited friend...


--- GTMail 1.26 
 * Origin: CCO BBS * 502/875-8938 * capcity2.synchro.net (1:2320/105.1)