= Сообщение: 2845 из 12519 ====================================== ENET.SYSOP = От : Oleg Pevzner 2:464/5555 28 Sep 15 14:43:58 Кому : Ward Dossche 28 Sep 15 14:43:58 Тема : More about nodelists FGHI : area://ENET.SYSOP?msgid=2:464/5555+56092836 На : area://ENET.SYSOP?msgid=2:292/854+a1016170 = Кодировка сообщения определена как: CP866 ================================== Ответ: area://ENET.SYSOP?msgid=2:292/854+e1055100 ============================================================================== Hello Ward!
Monday September 28 2015 04:35, you wrote to me:
WD> Your wishes are certainly taken into account.
Thanks...
WD> What occured is that at some point the system failed to send-out WD> anything while everything that was received was processed correctly.
WD> So in the FTP-area people could find the processed nodelist-segments WD> correct while they did not automagically become available to Kees and WD> he worked with whatever was available. Hence, yes, two nodelists WD> floated around with the same name and differing content as well as WD> CRC.
WD> It was a difficult situation with decisions to be taken we never were WD> confronted with before. Should my system have been powered down for WD> the time being? Perhaps "yes", then again there are participants who WD> rely heavily on the FTP-area.
WD> That was a problem of "damned if you do, damned if you don't".
WD> My appologies for what happened. I think that situation has been WD> normalised for quite a while now.
WD> If there are other issues, please let me know. But what you did was WD> complaining about a situation that had been resolved weeks ago.
I want to be understood correctly: nothing awful or critical has happened. At long last, all our requests were being processed correctly, and Kees responded to all our asks and wishes perfectly. Only at the very beginning some misunderstandings appeared because he didn't know that I was working with the fechos not via 2:464/5555 but via 2:464/400. As a result, I couldn't catch his message about the session password, I had to search for it and to work a bit. :) But all that is in the past, now everyhing is Ok. But the different nodelists in the fecho and at the FTP can hardly be forgotten. That's why the question arises, which source is to be considered as more reliable and right? Originally I thought that these nodelists were the same physically. Now I understand that it's not true, thus the question appears about the reliability of the source. Besides, not only the starting and the ending parts of the nodelists were different, but the content part too (as well as the CRC, surely). As for me, it's not the best possible and it requires to be revised more precisely.
Thanks for understanding and for attention paid to our questions. Once more: nothing awful, I just set your eyes to these details.
WBR, Oleg Monday September 28 2015 E-Mail: omp<no-spam>omp.dp.ua
