Hello Brother!

06 May 21 19:20, you wrote to me:

I've seriusly start to learn Perl! :)

Nothing complicated.

For sure it's easy for you. :D I'm really rusted, I've forgot all the basics, I remember only the concepts of developing.
Unfortunately I left developing (for job) in the 1990, after, I developed rarely only for my pleasure.

Unfortunately, the actual most fascionable language is Python,
moreover Cisco has elected it as the developing language for it's
echo system CISCO DNA.

Yes, but it is the pearl that is built into the HPT. ;)

You're right, but there's Python on my Cisco CCNP ENCOR exam that I've to take on the 18th of this month. :P

Ciao!
Fabio
--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20180707
* Origin: ]\/[imac Rebirth Boss Point (2:335/364.1)

On 06 May 2021 at 02:57a, Alan Ianson pondered and said...

I would use one line..
route crash 21:1/190 21:1/190.*
If you want mail for 21:1/190 and all it's points sent to 21:1/190.

Thanks, it also seems based on Deon's feedback I can run with the following

route crash boss 21:1/190.*

(Right Deon?) but I am wondering could/should I also have a noroute for 21:1/190 stated before or after this from completeness? Something like..

route crash boss 21:1/190.*
route crash noroute 21:1/190



One other thing I am not clear on is ... does the route statement cover
files routed with netmail messages or do I need to set up routefile
statements for all nodes in addition to their route statements? e.g.

route crash boss 21:1/190.*
route crash noroute 21:1/190
routefile crash noroute 21:1/190

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Windows/32)
* Origin: Agency BBS | Dunedin, New Zealand | agency.bbs.nz (3:770/100)

Hello Paul,

Thanks, it also seems based on Deon's feedback I can run with the following

route crash boss 21:1/190.*

Yes, that works, but only for points. I would still use one line..

route crash 21:1/190 21:1/190.*

That works for 21:1/190 and any points he might have. Use the method that works for you and your setup.

One other thing I am not clear on is ... does the route statement
cover files routed with netmail messages or do I need to set up
routefile statements for all nodes in addition to their route
statements? e.g.

If you want to route files for a node you need a routefile line as well.

route crash 21:1/190 21:1/190.*
routefile crash noroute 21:1/190

Consider carefully routing files.

If you just want to attach a file to a node, attach the file to a message and crash it there. No routefile line is needed for that.

Ttyl :-),
Al
--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20180707
* Origin: The Rusty MailBox - Penticton, BC Canada (1:153/757)

On 09 May 2021 at 12:55a, Alan Ianson pondered and said...

Thanks, it also seems based on Deon's feedback I can run with the following

route crash boss 21:1/190.*

Yes, that works, but only for points. I would still use one line..

I tested this and it did not route netmail from 1/100 sent to 1/191.1 via
1/191 :(

I found these two options did work

route crash routevia 21:1/190 21:1/190.*
route crash 21:1/190 21:1/190.*

But that boss option was a zero on the success meter :)

If you want to route files for a node you need a routefile line as well. route crash 21:1/190 21:1/190.*
routefile crash noroute 21:1/190

OK thanks, will look to add something for each node then.

Consider carefully routing files.
If you just want to attach a file to a node, attach the file to a
message and crash it there. No routefile line is needed for that.

I have not played much with netmail file attaches as Mystic I don't think offered it and I know little of how to do so in golded yet.

But your statement above sort of looses me. At present I just use fileboxes with established nodes to send files. But if I did want to do a file attach
via netmail my suspicion is that I need that routefile line in for each node
I HUB for. Right?

Ttyl :-),

Thanks for the reply. :)

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Windows/32)
* Origin: Agency BBS | Dunedin, New Zealand | agency.bbs.nz (3:770/100)

Hello Paul,

I tested this and it did not route netmail from 1/100 sent to 1/191.1
via 1/191 :(

I have not used the boss keyword before.. so..

I found these two options did work

route crash routevia 21:1/190 21:1/190.*

That line doesn't look right, but I have not tried to use it. Check the tparser output.

route crash 21:1/190 21:1/190.*

I have many lines like that and they have always worked for me.

But that boss option was a zero on the success meter :)

I think that could work but I have not used it before, so I am unsure.

If you want to route files for a node you need a routefile line
as well. route crash 21:1/190 21:1/190.* routefile crash noroute
21:1/190

OK thanks, will look to add something for each node then.

Are you sure? I have no routefile lines in my config presently. Only add them when/where needed.

I have not played much with netmail file attaches as Mystic I don't
think offered it and I know little of how to do so in golded yet.

Yep, that is not an option with mystic. Fileboxes work OK but no attaches.

But your statement above sort of looses me. At present I just use fileboxes with established nodes to send files.

Yes, fileboxes take out all the guesswork. I like them.

But if I did want to do a file attach via netmail my suspicion is that
I need that routefile line in for each node I HUB for. Right?

I doubt you need or want that routefile line at all. It is only used if you receive netmail with files attached. That should never happen without your prior approval.

Lets say for some reason you agreed to route files for 21:1/190 and his points. You would receive those netmail and attaches in your inbound. You would need these two lines in your route config..

route crash 21:1/190 21:1/190.*
routefile crash 21:1/190 21:1/190.*

Then your tosser would route those messages and attached files to 21:1/190 and they would be routed on as needed there.

I did this kind of file routing years ago to save telephone costs between otherwise long distance nodes but I don't think this is needed today.

The routefile keyword is not needed for file areas, just routing files.

the fileboxes we have today makes all this much simpler. Are there any cases where you want to route files? If not I would not use the keyword at all.

Thanks for the reply. :)

Any old time.. :)

Ttyl :-),
Al
--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20180707
* Origin: The Rusty MailBox - Penticton, BC Canada (1:153/757)

Hello Paul,

But your statement above sort of looses me. At present I just use fileboxes with established nodes to send files. But if I did want to
do a file attach via netmail my suspicion is that I need that
routefile line in for each node I HUB for. Right?

Last comment..

If you want to send a file attached to a netmail <ALT>A, send it crash <ALT>C to the destination and when your run hpt pack it will be sent to the destination. If you don't send it crash, then you need a routefile line in your config for hpt to send it.

I always crash attaches so I don't need any routefile lines.

Ttyl :-),
Al

--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20180707
* Origin: The Rusty MailBox - Penticton, BC Canada (1:153/757)

On 09 May 2021 at 02:05a, Alan Ianson pondered and said...

Last comment..

Noted, thanks for the info.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Windows/32)
* Origin: Agency BBS | Dunedin, New Zealand | agency.bbs.nz (3:770/100)

On 09 May 2021 at 01:42a, Alan Ianson pondered and said...

OK thanks, will look to add something for each node then.

Are you sure? I have no routefile lines in my config presently. Only add them when/where needed.

No I am not, but figure if such stuff arrived at 21:1/100 then I should
likely have something in place for 1/100 nodes etc.?

Yep, that is not an option with mystic. Fileboxes work OK but no
attaches.

Yep thought so.

Yes, fileboxes take out all the guesswork. I like them.

Same here :)

I doubt you need or want that routefile line at all. It is only used if you receive netmail with files attached. That should never happen
without your prior approval.

But that can't stop someone from just trying though eh? So perhaps best to
set things up?

The routefile keyword is not needed for file areas, just routing files.

Yep understood thanks :)

the fileboxes we have today makes all this much simpler. Are there any cases where you want to route files? If not I would not use the keyword
at all.

I have had no reason to so far but then I have not used tools that even allow for this option.

Thanks for the reply. :)

Any old time.. :)

:)

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Windows/32)
* Origin: Agency BBS | Dunedin, New Zealand | agency.bbs.nz (3:770/100)

Re: Mail for unknown points
By: Alan Ianson to Paul Hayton on Sun May 09 2021 12:55 am

Howdy,

Thanks, it also seems based on Deon's feedback I can run with the following
route crash boss 21:1/190.*

Yes, that works, but only for points. I would still use one line..
route crash 21:1/190 21:1/190.*
That works for 21:1/190 and any points he might have. Use the method that works for you and your setup.

So I dont do the above.

I only have route crash boss... and that seems to send point address netmail on without any issues (I have a few downlinks using points).

...δεσ∩

... I knew I was an unwanted baby. One of my bath toys were a toaster.
--- SBBSecho 3.14-Linux
* Origin: I'm playing with ANSI+videotex - wanna play too? (3:633/509)

Re: Re: Mail for unknown points
By: Paul Hayton to Alan Ianson on Sun May 09 2021 07:48 pm

Thanks, it also seems based on Deon's feedback I can run with the following
route crash boss 21:1/190.*
(Right Deon?) but I am wondering could/should I also have a noroute for 21:1/190 stated before or after this from completeness? Something like..
route crash boss 21:1/190.*
route crash noroute 21:1/190

Right, but you dont need the "noroute" option as well (I dont) - because you are "the" hub for 21:1/*.

If you wanted to route to my point, you wouldnt use route crash boss, but rather just "route crash 21:2/100 21:2/*", "route crash 21:3/100 21:2/116.*"

...δεσ∩

... Beware of all enterprises requiring new clothes.
--- SBBSecho 3.14-Linux
* Origin: I'm playing with ANSI+videotex - wanna play too? (3:633/509)

Re: Re: Mail for unknown points
By: Deon George to Paul Hayton on Mon May 10 2021 01:41 pm

Thanks, it also seems based on Deon's feedback I can run with the following
route crash boss 21:1/190.*

(Right Deon?) but I am wondering could/should I also have a noroute for 21:1/190 stated before or after this from completeness? Something like..
route crash boss 21:1/190.*
route crash noroute 21:1/190

Right, but you dont need the "noroute" option as well (I dont) - because you are "the" hub for 21:1/*.

So to clarify, it should be suffice to have "route crash boss 21:1/*" - because you are the hub for 21:1/* - which will ensure all downstream points get their mail from their boss (your downlink).

(I have only 21:3/* for me.)

Now if you have points hanging off your address 21:1/100.*, then you may want a "route hold noroute 21:1/100.*" *above* the catchall 21:1/* (so that it matches first - order is important).

...δεσ∩

... A lot of people are afraid of heights. Not me, I'm afraid of widths.
--- SBBSecho 3.14-Linux
* Origin: I'm playing with ANSI+videotex - wanna play too? (3:633/509)

Hello Alan!

05 May 21, Alan Ianson wrote to All:

Is there a way I can stop mail for these points that don't exist off
my own node from being routed and sent out?

Yes. Inform the "from:" sender that the point does not exsist.
A netmail tracker would be your friend.

Very interesting attack scenario.

Netmails from unknown points to unknown points would create a pingpong war between two trackers. :-)

Regards

Kai

--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.4.7
* Origin: Monobox (2:240/77)

Hello Alan!

06 May 21, Alan Ianson wrote to Fabio Bizzi:

route hold noroute 2:335/364.1
route hold noroute 2:335/364.2
route hold noroute 2:335/364.3

This is what I have now..

Did you have another config before?

The route hold statement shouldn't allow hold outbound to go to another route.

The combination of route hold noroute does not make sense.
Hold is defined as "stay here and wait" and shall not go elsewhere.
If it goes then i'd like to call that a bug.

Regards

Kai

--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.4.7
* Origin: Monobox (2:240/77)

On 10 May 2021 at 01:41p, Deon George pondered and said...

route crash boss 21:1/190.*
(Right Deon?) but I am wondering could/should I also have a noroute f

21:1/190 stated before or after this from completeness? Something lik route crash boss 21:1/190.*
route crash noroute 21:1/190

Right, but you dont need the "noroute" option as well (I dont) - because you are "the" hub for 21:1/*.

I tried

route crash boss 21:1/190.* and HPT did not route netmail for 1/190.1 via
1/190 so that command seems not to work for me.

If you wanted to route to my point, you wouldnt use route crash boss, but rather just "route crash 21:2/100 21:2/*", "route crash 21:3/100 21:2/116.*"

Yep that makes sense and is along the lines of what I have in place for you
and the other hubs.

route crash 21:2/100 21:2/*
route crash 21:3/100 21:3/*

etc..

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Windows/32)
* Origin: Agency BBS | Dunedin, New Zealand | agency.bbs.nz (3:770/100)

On 10 May 2021 at 01:47p, Deon George pondered and said...

So to clarify, it should be suffice to have "route crash boss 21:1/*" - because you are the hub for 21:1/* - which will ensure all downstream points get their mail from their boss (your downlink).

so does this line need to be first or last in the route file, can't recall
does it match on the first thing it encounters or the last?

and if I have

route crash boss 21:1/*

in there, are you saying I won't need lines for each node like the following

route crash 21:1/190 21:1/190.*


.. at the moment the lines look more like this

route crash noroute 21:1/185.*
route crash noroute 21:1/186.*
route hold noroute 21:1/187.*

but this now seems to be wrong and the better way would be

route crash 21:1/185 21:1/185.*
route crash 21:1/186 21:1/186.*
route hold 21:1/187 21:1/187.*

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Windows/32)
* Origin: Agency BBS | Dunedin, New Zealand | agency.bbs.nz (3:770/100)

Hello Kai,

route hold noroute 2:335/364.1
route hold noroute 2:335/364.2
route hold noroute 2:335/364.3

This is what I have now..

Did you have another config before?

All of my points are setup like this, some are crash and some are hold.

The route hold statement shouldn't allow hold outbound to go to
another route.

The combination of route hold noroute does not make sense.
Hold is defined as "stay here and wait" and shall not go elsewhere.

I was thinking that when I setup my first point but the above seems to work. Is there a better way to write that out?

Ttyl :-),
Al

--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20180707
* Origin: The Rusty MailBox - Penticton, BC Canada (1:153/757)

Hello Kai,

Yes. Inform the "from:" sender that the point does not exsist.
A netmail tracker would be your friend.

Very interesting attack scenario.

Netmails from unknown points to unknown points would create a pingpong
war between two trackers. :-)

That is what was happening. I've never encountered that before but "route hold nopack 1:153/757.*" below my other points has stopped that from happening.

Ttyl :-),
Al

--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20180707
* Origin: The Rusty MailBox - Penticton, BC Canada (1:153/757)

Re: Re: Mail for unknown points
By: Paul Hayton to Deon George on Mon May 10 2021 07:53 pm

so does this line need to be first or last in the route file, can't recall does it match on the first thing it encounters or the last?

Its the first that matches, wins.

To give you an example, this is Hub 3's complete route configuration:

route hold boss 21:3/116.*
route hold boss 21:3/115.*
route hold boss 21:3/112.*
route hold boss 21:3/106.*
route hold boss 21:3/101.*
route hold boss 21:3/999.*
route crash boss 21:4/106.*
route crash boss 21:3/*
route crash boss 21:2/116.*
route crash 21:2/100 21:2/*
route crash 21:4/100 21:4/*
route crash 21:1/100 21:*

...δεσ∩

... Help fight continental drift.
--- SBBSecho 3.14-Linux
* Origin: I'm playing with ANSI+videotex - wanna play too? (3:633/509)

Hello Paul!

09 May 21, Paul Hayton wrote to Alan Ianson:

I found these two options did work

route crash routevia 21:1/190 21:1/190.*

Sigh...

Whereever you got this from, please tell the source to look into the documentation before building a configuration.

Syntax:
route <flavour> <routeVia> <target> [<target> ...]@*
route nopack <target> [<target> ...]

flavour, routeVia and target are <placeholders>.

The signs <> and [] are such basic for *nix manuals that i don't remember where that concept is explained. <> must be set while [] is optional.

route crash routevia 21:1/190 21:1/190.*

route <flavour> <routeVia> <target>

But that boss option was a zero on the success meter :)

Routing is done from top to down. If point mail matches a previous route statement a later boss route can't match.

If you want to route files for a node you need a routefile line
as well.
route crash 21:1/190 21:1/190.* routefile crash noroute
21:1/190

OK thanks, will look to add something for each node then.

no-route (or noroute) -- this keyword is a misnomer in a way and
in fact it means route to destination via itself.

One may use the second variant of the route statement in the form

route <flavour> nopack <target> [<target> ...]

Here the <flavour> is ignored. Such use is deprecated and it is left for compatibility with old versions.

Consider carefully routing files.
If you just want to attach a file to a node, attach the file to a
message and crash it there. No routefile line is needed for that.

I have not played much with netmail file attaches as Mystic I don't
think offered it and I know little of how to do so in golded yet.

Don't solve problems that do not exist. A configuration should follow the demand. If you haven't seen routed files on your system then you maybe never will.

Regards

Kai

--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.4.7
* Origin: Monobox (2:240/77)

On 12 May 2021 at 02:21a, Kai Richter pondered and said...

Sigh...

Thanks for your info, very helpful. :)

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Windows/32)
* Origin: Agency BBS | Dunedin, New Zealand | agency.bbs.nz (3:770/100)

Deon wrote (2021-05-10):

route hold boss 21:3/116.*
route hold boss 21:3/115.*
route hold boss 21:3/112.*
route hold boss 21:3/106.*
route hold boss 21:3/101.*
route hold boss 21:3/999.*

Would this work in one line, like

route hold boss 21:3/101.* 21:3/106.* 21:3/112.* ...

---
* Origin: . (2:280/464.47)

Re: Mail for unknown points
By: Oli to Deon George on Wed May 12 2021 08:00 am

Would this work in one line, like
route hold boss 21:3/101.* 21:3/106.* 21:3/112.* ...

Not sure.

But its easier to manage as 1 per line.

...δεσ∩

... Liberals are a Labour-saving device.
--- SBBSecho 3.14-Linux
* Origin: I'm playing with ANSI+videotex - wanna play too? (3:633/509)

Hello Alan!

10 May 21, Alan Ianson wrote to Kai Richter:

route hold noroute 2:335/364.1

The combination of route hold noroute does not make sense.

I was thinking that when I setup my first point but the above seems to work. Is there a better way to write that out?

I compared my config to the latest docs and was surprised by the change in the route syntax. I'm still on the old syntax with "nopack". The route noroute looks odd but is correct. Sorry for the confusion. Because i'm lazy my line would look like

route hold noroute 2:335/364.*

to catch all points at once. It's the first line in my route.config to make sure to collect own point netmail before the common default routes apply.

Regards

Kai

--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.4.7
* Origin: Monobox (2:240/77)