= Сообщение: 5407 из 12527 ====================================== ENET.SYSOP = От : Michiel van der Vlist 2:280/5555 11 Sep 17 12:20:31 Кому : Björn Felten 11 Sep 17 12:20:31 Тема : JoHo FGHI : area://ENET.SYSOP?msgid=2:280/5555+59b66732 На : area://ENET.SYSOP?msgid=2:203/2+59b46f50 = Кодировка сообщения определена как: CP850 ================================== Ответ: area://ENET.SYSOP?msgid=2:280/5555+59b66d24 ============================================================================== Hello Björn,
On Sunday September 10 2017 00:46, you wrote to me:
MvdV>> Lowering the requirements for membership to save the club... I MvdV>> have seen it fail more often than succeed. Especially if it is MvdV>> not based on wide consencus among the sitting members,
BF> Interesting.
If you let the bikers into the horse club, you will most likely end upo with a club of bikers and no horses.
BF> Out of curiosity (now that you may have seen my JoHo entry in the BF> latest daily list), when have you ever tried an IMI transport?
I have. In a previous existance as a sysop when I ran Irex in conjunction with InterMail, I had the email functions of Irex enabled for a year or so. I tested it and it worked. But... I found out that listing an e-mail address in the nodelist is a bad idea. Aside form the tests, all I ever received was spam. Apparently the spammers have found the nodelist as a source for addresse. In the year that I had email capabilities listed for 2:280/5555 I never got a single mail other than one for testing. So I removed it from the nodelist. Zero added value and lots of spam.
BF> Isn't it about time that we stir up this muddy old FTN pond and BF> watch what will really happen when something new, albeit documented, BF> is tried?
It isn't new and it has been tried.
BTW, although I have dumped Irex and InterMail, I can still send *.pkts via e-mail. Fmail has that capability. It works, it has been tested.
But it is like dumping a pkt into a black hole. No way to get confirmation it has actually reached the desination. The lack of an error repsonse from the e-mail server might be an indication that the e-mail address exists, but in these days, even that is not a certainty.
So... I still have only your word that node 20/4609 actually exists.
BF> I for one is all in favour of giving JoHo a slack while he is BF> experimenting with connecting to my system.
I fail to see why he needs a nodelisted number to do that.
