//Hello All,//

;S The following flag defines gateways to other domains (mail networks):
;S
;S Flag Meaning
;S
;S Gx..x Gateway to domain 'x..x', where 'x..x` is a string
;S of alphanumeric characters.
;S
;S NOTE: Valid values for 'x..x' are assigned by the FidoNet
;S International Coordinator or the person appointed as
;S Internetworking Coordinator by the FidoNet
;S International Coordinator. Current valid values of
;S 'x..x' may usually be found in the notes at the end
;S of the current FidoNet nodelist. The most common
;S gateway flag is "GUUCP", to denote a gateway to the
;S Internet mail system that gates on behalf of the
;S fidonet.org internet domain.
;S
;S Registered domain gateways include:
;S
;S UUCP to be used only for nodes with an MX-entry ;S in the internet dns-table of the z2.fidonet.org
;S domain. It implies a willingness to act as a
;S gateway both inbound and outbound.

I see no MX entries for z2.fidonet.org but

,5,R19_Internet_Gate,AR_LA_OK_TX,UUCP,1-256-895-4786,33600,CM,XA,V34,V42B,GUUCP ,3,Internet_Gateway_Net396,Huntsville_AL,Postmaster,1-256-895-4786,33600,CM,XA,V42B,V34,INA:sursum-corda.com,ITN,IBN,IFT,GUUCP
,10,Internet,Finland,UUCP,-Unpublished-,300,CM,XX,IBN:f10.n221.z2.fidonet.fi,GUUCP,INO4,U,ENC
,128,R46_Fidonet<->email&usenet_gate,Kyiv_Ukraine,Pavel_Gulchouck,-Unpublished-,300,CM,MO,IBN,INA:fido.happy.kiev.ua,GUUCP

So either the uses of the GUUCP flag are wrong or the comment at the end of the nodelist is wrong.
Which of both is it?


Regards,
Chris Jacobs
--- WinPoint 415.0
* Origin: Original *WinPoint* Origin! (2:280/5555.11)

Hi Chris,

On 2026-04-18 09:08:30, you wrote to All:

;S The following flag defines gateways to other domains (mail networks):
;S
;S Flag Meaning
;S
;S Gx..x Gateway to domain 'x..x', where 'x..x` is a string ;S of alphanumeric characters.
;S
;S NOTE: Valid values for 'x..x' are assigned by the FidoNet ;S International Coordinator or the person appointed as ;S Internetworking Coordinator by the FidoNet
;S International Coordinator. Current valid values of ;S 'x..x' may usually be found in the notes at the end ;S of the current FidoNet nodelist. The most common
;S gateway flag is "GUUCP", to denote a gateway to the ;S Internet mail system that gates on behalf of the
;S fidonet.org internet domain.
;S
;S Registered domain gateways include:
;S
;S UUCP to be used only for nodes with an MX-entry
;S in the internet dns-table of the z2.fidonet.org ;S domain. It implies a willingness to act as a ;S gateway both inbound and outbound.

I see no MX entries for z2.fidonet.org but

,5,R19_Internet_Gate,AR_LA_OK_TX,UUCP,1-256-895-4786,33600,CM,XA,V34, V42B,GUUCP ,3,Internet_Gateway_Net396,Huntsville_AL,Postmaster,1-256-895-4786,336 00,CM,XA,V42B,V34,INA:sursum-corda.com,ITN,IBN,IFT,GUUCP

These 2 nodes are in Z1 so what is in the footer of the Z2 nodelist isn't relevant to them.

,10,Internet,Finland,UUCP,-Unpublished-,300,CM,XX,IBN:f10.n221.z2.fido net.fi,GUUCP,INO4,U,ENC ,128,R46_Fidonet<->email&usenet_gate,Kyiv_Ukraine,Pavel_Gulchouck,-Unp ublished-,300,CM,MO,IBN,INA:fido.happy.kiev.ua,GUUCP

So either the uses of the GUUCP flag are wrong or the comment at the end of
the nodelist is wrong. Which of both is it?

Unfortunately lots of flags in the nodelist are used wrong... But in this case the Z2C and/or the mentioned nodes are the ones that can explain what is going on. The Z2C normally doesn't read this area. The sysop of node 10 above, does, so maybe he cares to comment?... ;-)


Bye, Wilfred.

--- FMail-lnx64 2.3.3.1-B20260417
* Origin: NPC Station (2:280/464)

//Hello Wilfred,//

on *18.04.26* at *12:26:46* You wrote in area *NODELIST-POLICE*
to *Chris Jacobs* about *"Re: GUUCP"*.

These 2 nodes are in Z1 so what is in the footer of the Z2 nodelist
isn't relevant to them.

I downloaded a NODELIST.107 from https://www.darkrealms.ca/ and it is indeed different.
So we have now at least two different files with the same name.
Any idea where I can download the nodelist in zone 3 or 4?

Regards,
Chris Jacobs
--- WinPoint 415.0
* Origin: Original *WinPoint* Origin! (2:280/5555.11)

Hi Chris,

On 2026-04-18 16:58:47, you wrote to me:

These 2 nodes are in Z1 so what is in the footer of the Z2 nodelist
isn't relevant to them.

I downloaded a NODELIST.107 from https://www.darkrealms.ca/ and it is indeed
different. So we have now at least two different files with the same name. Any
idea where I can download the nodelist in zone 3 or 4?

I looked around a bit, but couldn't find a direct download links.

For Zone 3, I have a direct link with him, so if needed I could connect to his 'nodelist' file area, to get the Z3 nodelist files when published...

For Zone 4, there is a bbs of the Z4C system:

https://bbs.docksud.com.ar/web/?page=002-files.xjs&dir=fidonodelist

But if I click on 1 of the files, I get a message: "Not enough credits"... Maybe if you create an account on his system you are allowed to download files?


Bye, Wilfred.

--- FMail-lnx64 2.3.3.1-B20260417
* Origin: NPC Station (2:280/464)

//Hello Wilfred,//

on *18.04.26* at *16:53:25* You wrote in area *NODELIST-POLICE*
to *Chris Jacobs* about *"Re: GUUCP"*.

Hi Chris,

On 2026-04-18 16:58:47, you wrote to me:

These 2 nodes are in Z1 so what is in the footer of the Z2 nodelist
isn't relevant to them.

I downloaded a NODELIST.107 from https://www.darkrealms.ca/ and it is
indeed different. So we have now at least two different files with the
same name. Any idea where I can download the nodelist in zone 3 or 4?

I looked around a bit, but couldn't find a direct download links.

For Zone 3, I have a direct link with him, so if needed I could connect to his 'nodelist' file area, to get the Z3 nodelist files when published...

For Zone 4, there is a bbs of the Z4C system:

https://bbs.docksud.com.ar/web/?page=002-files.xjs&dir=fidonodelist

But if I click on 1 of the files, I get a message: "Not enough credits"... Maybe if you create an account on his system you are allowed to download files?

Yes, I have an account now and I was able to download a nodelist. It cost zero credits.
Zone 4 uses the nodelist from zone 1 even through that list says that is not allowed.

Bye, Wilfred.

--- FMail-lnx64 2.3.3.1-B20260417
* Origin: NPC Station (2:280/464)

Regards,
Chris Jacobs
--- WinPoint 415.0
* Origin: Original *WinPoint* Origin! (2:280/5555.11)

Yes, I have an account now and I was able to download a nodelist. It cost zero credits. Zone 4 uses the nodelist from zone 1 even through that list says that is not allowed.

Sorry. I misread that it is just not intended.

;S Each zone produces its own nodelist. The zone 1 nodelist is intended for
;S zone 1 Sysops only. You may not apply difference-files from other zones.
;S It is recommended to use the Daily nodelist over the traditional weekly.

--- WinPoint 415.0
* Origin: https://drschrisjacobs.nl (2:280/5555.11)

Yes, I have an account now and I was able to download a nodelist. It cost zero credits.

Everybody has credit here....

Zone 4 uses the nodelist from zone 1 even through that list says that is not allowed.

There are systems in Zone1 using the nodelist for zone2. Someone from zone3 picks it up as well and someone from zone4 is also getting it.

I'm pretty certain there are people in zone2 using the zone1 nodelist. As long as you know what you are doing all that is OK because it ought to be the same information, presented slightly different.

However, why still use the nodelist other than for P4-conformity?

Z2DAILY is renewed daily and accurate to within 24 hours.

\%/@rd

--- DB4 - 20230201
* Origin: Many Glacier - Preserve / Protect / Conserve (2:292/854)

Hi Ward,

On 2026-04-20 15:40:54, you wrote to Chris Jacobs:

Z2DAILY is renewed daily and accurate to within 24 hours.

The Z1 segment in the Z2DAILY is always at least 1 day behind. So that is (partly) 48 hours. ;-)


Bye, Wilfred.

--- FMail-lnx64 2.3.3.1-B20260417
* Origin: NPC Station (2:280/464)

//Hello Ward,//

on *20-4-2026* at *13:40:54* You wrote in area *NODELIST-POLICE*
to *Chris Jacobs* about *"Re: GUUCP"*.

Yes, I have an account now and I was able to download a nodelist. It
cost zero credits.

Everybody has credit here....

Zone 4 uses the nodelist from zone 1 even through that list says that is
not allowed.

There are systems in Zone1 using the nodelist for zone2. Someone from zone3 picks it up as well and someone from zone4 is also getting it.

I'm pretty certain there are people in zone2 using the zone1 nodelist. As long as you know what you are doing all that is OK because it ought to be the same information, presented slightly different.

However, why still use the nodelist other than for P4-conformity?

Z2DAILY is renewed daily and accurate to within 24 hours.

\%/@rd

--- DB4 - 20230201
* Origin: Many Glacier - Preserve / Protect / Conserve (2:292/854)

Could you reply the question this thread started with?

Regards,
Chris Jacobs
--- WinPoint 415.0
* Origin: https://drschrisjacobs.nl (2:280/5555.11)

Could you reply the question this thread started with?

Oh dear ... when was that?

I'm not a believer...

\%/@rd

--- DB4 - 20230201
* Origin: Many Glacier - Preserve / Protect / Conserve (2:292/854)

Wilfred,

Z2DAILY is renewed daily and accurate to within 24 hours.

The Z1 segment in the Z2DAILY is always at least 1 day behind. So that is (partly) 48 hours. ;-)

The Z2DAILY is "always" current at the time of production with the last segments received from all the ZCs and the Z2-RCs ... you know that ... I know that. When a ZC, any ZC, delivers a ZONE-segment here at 00:09am it will still get processed at 00:10am into the Z2DAILY. First test in the procedure is "Did anything new arrive?"

You know very well the game of the time-zones. If a ZC 6 hours later generates a new ZONE-segment then it does not make the Z2DAILY less accurate within the 24 hours mentioned.

What you're doing is stating yesterday's newspaper is outdated because in the meantime there's newer news.

\%/@rd

--- DB4 - 20230201
* Origin: Many Glacier - Preserve / Protect / Conserve (2:292/854)

//Hello Ward,//

on *20-4-2026* at *15:06:04* You wrote in area *NODELIST-POLICE*
to *Chris Jacobs* about *"Re: GUUCP"*.

Could you reply the question this thread started with?

Oh dear ... when was that?

I'm not a believer...

\%/@rd

--- DB4 - 20230201
* Origin: Many Glacier - Preserve / Protect / Conserve (2:292/854)

****************************************************************************** * Area: NODELIST-POLICE
* Subject: GUUCP
* Sender: Chris Jacobs(2:280/5555.11)
* Receiver: All(0:0/0)
* Date: 18 Apr 26
* Time: 09:08:30 ****************************************************************************** //Hello All,//

;S The following flag defines gateways to other domains (mail networks):
;S
;S Flag Meaning
;S
;S Gx..x Gateway to domain 'x..x', where 'x..x` is a string
;S of alphanumeric characters.
;S
;S NOTE: Valid values for 'x..x' are assigned by the FidoNet
;S International Coordinator or the person appointed as
;S Internetworking Coordinator by the FidoNet
;S International Coordinator. Current valid values of
;S 'x..x' may usually be found in the notes at the end
;S of the current FidoNet nodelist. The most common
;S gateway flag is "GUUCP", to denote a gateway to the
;S Internet mail system that gates on behalf of the
;S fidonet.org internet domain.
;S
;S Registered domain gateways include:
;S
;S UUCP to be used only for nodes with an MX-entry ;S in the internet dns-table of the z2.fidonet.org
;S domain. It implies a willingness to act as a
;S gateway both inbound and outbound.

I see no MX entries for z2.fidonet.org but

,5,R19_Internet_Gate,AR_LA_OK_TX,UUCP,1-256-895-4786,33600,CM,XA,V34,V42B,GUUC P ,3,Internet_Gateway_Net396,Huntsville_AL,Postmaster,1-256-895-4786,33600,CM,XA ,V42B,V34,INA:sursum-corda.com,ITN,IBN,IFT,GUUCP ,10,Internet,Finland,UUCP,-Unpublished-,300,CM,XX,IBN:f10.n221.z2.fidonet.fi,G UUCP,INO4,U,ENC ,128,R46_Fidonet<->email&usenet_gate,Kyiv_Ukraine,Pavel_Gulchouck,-Unpublished ,128,R46_Fidonet<->-,300,CM,MO,IBN,INA:fido.happy.kiev.ua,GUUCP

So either the uses of the GUUCP flag are wrong or the comment at the end of
the nodelist is wrong.
Which of both is it?


Regards,
Chris Jacobs
-+- WinPoint 415.0
@ Origin: Original *WinPoint* Origin! (2:280/5555.11) ******************************************************************************





Regards,
Chris Jacobs
--- WinPoint 415.0
* Origin: https://drschrisjacobs.nl (2:280/5555.11)

Chris,

So either the uses of the GUUCP flag are wrong or the comment at the end
of the nodelist is wrong.
Which of both is it?

Really?

I'm too old for this, I'm even not interested in this echo. Just checking once or twice a year.

\%/@rd

--- DB4 - 20230201
* Origin: Many Glacier - Preserve / Protect / Conserve (2:292/854)

//Hello Ward,//

on *20.04.26* at *18:21:08* You wrote in area *NODELIST-POLICE*
to *Chris Jacobs* about *"Re: GUUCP"*.

Chris,

So either the uses of the GUUCP flag are wrong or the comment at the end
of the nodelist is wrong.
Which of both is it?

Really?

I'm too old for this, I'm even not interested in this echo. Just checking once or twice a year.

You claim in your entry that you are te International Coordinator ,1000,International_Coordinator,Belgium,Ward_Dossche,-Unpublished-,300,CM,MO,INA:many-glacier.dyndns.org,IBN,IFT,IMI:fido@dossche.org,PING,U,ENC

I know that that is disputed but as long as you claim it try to perform the duties of it
Publish an up to date nodelist and that means inclusive up to date comments.

\%/@rd

--- DB4 - 20230201
* Origin: Many Glacier - Preserve / Protect / Conserve (2:292/854)

Regards,
Chris Jacobs
--- WinPoint 415.0
* Origin: Another Random *WinPoint* Origin! (2:280/5555.11)

Chris,

I know that that is disputed but as long as you claim it try to perform
the duties of it

How 'bout getting a node-number first and become a fully fledged sysop before addressing me about what my duties are?

\%/@rd

--- DB4 - 20230201
* Origin: Many Glacier - Preserve / Protect / Conserve (2:292/854)

//Hello Ward,//

on *20.04.26* at *23:00:25* You wrote in area *NODELIST-POLICE*
to *Chris Jacobs* about *"Re: GUUCP"*.

Chris,

I know that that is disputed but as long as you claim it try to perform
the duties of it

How 'bout getting a node-number first and become a fully fledged sysop before addressing me about what my duties are?

Would make no difference. If I had a nodenummer you still would not listen.

\%/@rd

--- DB4 - 20230201
* Origin: Many Glacier - Preserve / Protect / Conserve (2:292/854)

Regards,
Chris Jacobs
--- WinPoint 415.0
* Origin: Original *WinPoint* Origin! (2:280/5555.11)

Chris Jacobs wrote to Ward Dossche <=-

<SNIP drivel and whining>

So either the uses of the GUUCP flag are wrong or the comment at the
end of the nodelist is wrong.
Which of both is it?

<SNIP more drivel and whining>

You're a point. You don't need to worry yourself about a nodelist.



... He does the work of 3 Men...Moe, Larry & Curly
=== MultiMail/Linux v0.52
--- SBBSecho 3.37-Linux
* Origin: Palantir * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL * (1:135/115)

Chris,

How 'bout getting a node-number first and become a fully fledged
sysop before addressing me about what my duties are?

Would make no difference. If I had a nodenummer you still would not
listen.

Actually, I don't want to give this silly echo any kind of credibility.

\%/@rd

--- DB4 - 20230201
* Origin: Many Glacier - Preserve / Protect / Conserve (2:292/854)

On 18.4.2026 15.26, Wilfred van Velzen wrote:

These 2 nodes are in Z1 so what is in the footer of the Z2 nodelist
isn't relevant to them.

,10,Internet,Finland,UUCP,-Unpublished-,300,CM,XX,IBN:f10.n221.z2.fido net.fi,GUUCP,INO4,U,ENC

Unfortunately lots of flags in the nodelist are used wrong... But in
this case the Z2C and/or the mentioned nodes are the ones that can
explain what is going on. The Z2C normally doesn't read this area. The
sysop of node 10 above, does, so maybe he cares to comment?... ;-)

The email gateway at 2:221/10 maps fidonet netmail to p.f.n.z@fidonet.fi email. Feel free to send email via 2:221/10.

'Tommi

--- FastEcho/2 1.46.1 Revival
* Origin: nntp://rbb.fidonet.fi - Finland (2:221/360.0)

to p.f.n.z@fidonet.fi

And the format is of course user@p.f.n.z.fidonet.fi

'Tommi

--- FastEcho/2 1.46.1 Revival
* Origin: nntp://rbb.fidonet.fi - Finland (2:221/360.0)

On 20.4.2026 22.52, Chris Jacobs wrote:

You claim in your entry that you are te International Coordinator ,1000,International_Coordinator,Belgium,Ward_Dossche,-Unpublished-,300,CM,MO,INA:many-glacier.dyndns.org,IBN,IFT,IMI:fido@dossche.org,PING,U,ENC

IMI flag here seems broken. I sent a PING, but no response.

'Tommi

---
* Origin: news://news.fidonet.fi (2:221/1.0)

Hi Tommi,

On 2026-04-25 13:51:04, you wrote to Chris Jacobs:

,1000,International_Coordinator,Belgium,Ward_Dossche,-Unpublished-,300,
CM,MO,INA:many-glacier.dyndns.org,IBN,IFT,IMI:fido@dossche.org,PING,U,E
NC

IMI flag here seems broken. I sent a PING, but no response.

I tried the same about a week ago for 2:2/1002. Same result...

Bye, Wilfred.

--- FMail-lnx64 2.3.3.1-B20260417
* Origin: NPC Station (2:280/464)

IMI flag here seems broken. I sent a PING, but no response.

I will look into it.

Can you look into the probably disfunctional email gateway?

**************************************************
 Undeliverable mail: testing
Onderwerp:
Undeliverable mail: testing
Van:
<MAILER-DAEMON@mx9.tkk.iki.fi>
Datum:
26/04/2026 1:57
Aan:
<info@lighthouse-video.be>

Failed to deliver to '<ward@p0.f854.n292.z2.fidonet.fi>'
LOCAL module(account vsoup10) reports:
Plain text messages only to the fidonet gateway. Sorry. 🙁


Reporting-MTA: dns; mx9.tkk.iki.fi

Original-Recipient: rfc822;<ward@p0.f854.n292.z2.fidonet.fi>
Final-Recipient: LOCAL;<vsoup10>
Action: failed
Status: 5.0.0
Diagnostic-Code: smtp;Plain text messages only to the fidonet gateway. Sorry. 🙁


ForwardedMessage.eml
Onderwerp:
testing
Van:
Ward Dossche <info@lighthouse-video.be>
Datum:
26/04/2026 1:48
Aan:
ward@p0.f854.n292.z2.fidonet.fi

Well, let's test it ... 8-)

Ward
Bijlagen:
ForwardedMessage.eml 6,0 KB ********************************************************

--- DB4 - 20230201
* Origin: Many Glacier - Preserve / Protect / Conserve (2:292/854)

Hello Ward!

26 Apr 26 12:40, Ward Dossche wrote to Tommi Koivula:

IMI flag here seems broken. I sent a PING, but no response.

I will look into it.

Can you look into the probably disfunctional email gateway?

Here it works just fine for plain text messages.
If I PGP sign it he message get stuck at Michiel van der Vlist who has then to forward it further by hand.

---
* Origin: https://drschrisjacobs.nl (2:280/5555.11)

Hi Chris,

Can you look into the probably disfunctional email gateway?

Here it works just fine for plain text messages.
If I PGP sign it he message get stuck at Michiel van der Vlist who has
then to forward it further by hand.

Here it responds with

"Plain text messages only to the fidonet gateway. Sorry. 🙁"

... while it was plain text, or so I thought ...


\%/@rd

--- DB4 - 20230201
* Origin: Many Glacier - Preserve / Protect / Conserve (2:292/854)

Hello Chris,

On Sunday April 26 2026 13:03, you wrote to Ward Dossche:

IMI flag here seems broken. I sent a PING, but no response.

I will look into it.

Can you look into the probably disfunctional email gateway?

Here it works just fine for plain text messages.
If I PGP sign it he message get stuck at Michiel van der Vlist who has then to forward it further by hand.

It is not the PGP sign that is the problem as such.

The problem was the file attach.


Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20170303
* Origin: Nodelist Police Station (2:280/5555)

Hello Michiel!

26 Apr 26 13:51, Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Chris Jacobs:

It is not the PGP sign that is the problem as such.

The problem was the file attach.

I did not attach a file.
Maybe the gate switches to a kind of file attach mode for messages above a certain size or something?

Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20170303
* Origin: Nodelist Police Station (2:280/5555)

With regards - Chris
--- -How's that? Remember this when quoting.
* Origin: https://drschrisjacobs.nl (2:280/5555.11)

On Sun, 26 Apr 2026 09:40:08 +0200 Ward Dossche <0@854.292.2> wrote:

Can you look into the probably disfunctional email gateway?

...

Plain text messages only to the fidonet gateway. Sorry.

Seems to work by design.

'Tommi

---
* Origin: news://news.fidonet.fi (2:221/360.0)

Plain text messages only to the fidonet gateway. Sorry.

Seems to work by design.

Looking for the manual ... This should be OK ... No?

ward@p0.f854.n292.z2.fidonet.fi ...

Any error here?

\%/@rd

--- DB4 - 20230201
* Origin: Many Glacier - Preserve / Protect / Conserve (2:292/854)

I did not attach a file.
Maybe the gate switches to a kind of file attach mode for messages
above a certain size or something?

I sent a PGP signed email to my mobile to test what PGP-unaware programs do with PGP.
The signature was converted to an attachment.
So that is where the attachment came from.
---
* Origin: https://drschrisjacobs.nl (2:280/5555.11)

Hello Ward!

26 Apr 26 16:53, Ward Dossche wrote to Tommi Koivula:

Plain text messages only to the fidonet gateway. Sorry.

Seems to work by design.

Maybe your email reader defaults to HTML?
HTML is not plaintext.
Try Thunderbird. Thunderbird default only uses HTML if you actually used an HTML formatting option.
---
* Origin: https://drschrisjacobs.nl (2:280/5555.11)

On 26.4.2026 17.53, Ward Dossche wrote:

Looking for the manual ... This should be OK ... No?

ward@p0.f854.n292.z2.fidonet.fi ...

Any error here?

The address looks ok. The "p0." is not needed.

'Tommi

--- FastEcho/2 1.46.1 Revival
* Origin: nntp://rbb.fidonet.fi - Finland (2:221/360.0)

Tommi,

,1000,International_Coordinator,Belgium,Ward_Dossche,-Unpublished-,300,

CM,MO,INA:many-glacier.dyndns.org,IBN,IFT,IMI:fido@dossche.org,PING,U,ENC

IMI flag here seems broken. I sent a PING, but no response.

Could you try that again to that node?

\%/@rd

--- DB4 - 20230201
* Origin: Many Glacier - Preserve / Protect / Conserve (2:292/854)

Wilfred,

IMI flag here seems broken. I sent a PING, but no response.

I tried the same about a week ago for 2:2/1002. Same result...

Would you care to try that again?

\%/@rd

--- DB4 - 20230201
* Origin: Many Glacier - Preserve / Protect / Conserve (2:292/854)

27 Apr 26 22:18, you wrote to me:

,1000,International_Coordinator,Belgium,Ward_Dossche,-Unpublished-,300,

CM,MO,INA:many-glacier.dyndns.org,IBN,IFT,IMI:fido@dossche.org,PING,U,ENC

IMI flag here seems broken. I sent a PING, but no response.

Could you try that again to that node?

Packing messages...

Message #62 : 2:221/6 -> 2:2/1000
Moving /bbs/fmail/netmail/62.msg to /bbs/fmail/netmail-sent/195.msg
Backup /bbs/bso/fido/9f06cd10.pkt -> /bbs/fmail/backup/out/9f06cd10.pkt
Create /bbs/bso/fido/000203e8.clo
Sending new mail from 2:221/6.66 to 2:2/1000

Connecting to kco.fidonet.fi (51.38.115.207) on port 25 (SMTP)
Sending mail for node 2:2/1000 to fido@dossche.org
SMTP connection closed

Netmail: 1, Personal: 0, Hudson: 0, JAMbase: 0
Msgbase net: 0, echo: 0, dup: 0, bad: 0

Pack Active: 0.0077 sec.

'Tommi

--- FMail-lnx64 2.3.3.1-B20260425
* Origin: FPoint (2:221/6.66)

Tommi,

Sending mail for node 2:2/1000 to fido@dossche.org

Will not work. Wrong destination. A squatter now sits on dossche.org.

It was adapted in the nodelist to fido@lighthouse-video.be.

Sorry for the confusion.

\%/@rd

--- DB4 - 20230201
* Origin: Many Glacier - Preserve / Protect / Conserve (2:292/854)

Tommi,

It was adapted in the nodelist to fido@lighthouse-video.be.

Added information: it was adapted in the Z2DAILY, still has to make it to the world-nodelist on Friday, I don't know which you are using...

\%/@rd

--- DB4 - 20230201
* Origin: Many Glacier - Preserve / Protect / Conserve (2:292/854)

Hi Ward,

On 2026-04-28 01:54:31, you wrote to me:

IMI flag here seems broken. I sent a PING, but no response.

I tried the same about a week ago for 2:2/1002. Same result...

Would you care to try that again?

Sent and delivered:

2026-04-28T12:49:24.769073+02:00 wilnux5 postfix/smtp[17745]: 4340D28B2F0: to=<fido@lighthouse-video.be>,relay=mx.mailprotect.be[178.208.39.143]:25, delay=0.5, delays=0.01/0/0.1/0.38, dsn=2.0.0, status=sent (250 2.0.0 Ok: queued as 61C5F20208)


Bye, Wilfred.

--- FMail-lnx64 2.3.3.1-B20260417
* Origin: NPC Station (2:280/464)

Wilfred,

Would you care to try that again?

Sent and delivered:

2026-04-28T12:49:24.769073+02:00 wilnux5 postfix/smtp[17745]:
4340D28B2F0: to=<fido@lighthouse-video.be>,relay=mx.mailprotect.be[178.20 8.39.143]:25, delay=0.5, delays=0.01/0/0.1/0.38, dsn=2.0.0, status=sent (250 2.0.0 Ok: queued as 61C5F20208)

Received and processed.

\%/@rd

--- DB4 - 20230201
* Origin: Many Glacier - Preserve / Protect / Conserve (2:292/854)

Hi Ward,

On 2026-04-28 14:52:18, you wrote to me:

Would you care to try that again?

Sent and delivered:

2026-04-28T12:49:24.769073+02:00 wilnux5 postfix/smtp[17745]:
4340D28B2F0: to=<fido@lighthouse-video.be>,relay=mx.mailprotect.be[178.20
8.39.143]:25, delay=0.5, delays=0.01/0/0.1/0.38, dsn=2.0.0, status=sent
(250 2.0.0 Ok: queued as 61C5F20208)

Received and processed.

Got a pong response.

Btw: Except for old and new VIA: (and kludge) lines the message body was completely empty...


Bye, Wilfred.

--- FMail-lnx64 2.3.3.1-B20260417
* Origin: NPC Station (2:280/464)

On 28.4.2026 11.30, Ward Dossche wrote:

Sending mail for node 2:2/1000 to fido@dossche.org

Will not work. Wrong destination. A squatter now sits on dossche.org.

It was adapted in the nodelist to fido@lighthouse-video.be.

FMail doesn't support the nodelist, manual setting needed.

Ping on its way.

Apr 28 17:10:59 kco postfix/smtp[3017854]: 082817E560: to=<fido@lighthouse-video.be>, relay=mx.mailprotect.be[178.208.39.142]:25, delay=0.96, delays=0.02/0.03/0.42/0.49, dsn=2.0.0, status=sent (250 2.0.0 Ok: queued as C15F5C01E9)

'Tommi

---
* Origin: news://news.fidonet.fi (2:221/1.0)

Tommi,

FMail doesn't support the nodelist, manual setting needed.

Well, you need to find-out the address one way or the other....

Ping on its way.

Apr 28 17:10:59 kco postfix/smtp[3017854]: 082817E560: to=<fido@lighthouse-video.be>, relay=mx.mailprotect.be[178.208.39.142]:25
, delay=0.96, delays=0.02/0.03/0.42/0.49, dsn=2.0.0, status=sent (250
2.0.0 Ok: queued as C15F5C01E9)

I noticed it passing-thru, now let's watch how the IC's system deals with it.

\%/@rd

--- DB4 - 20230201
* Origin: Many Glacier - Preserve / Protect / Conserve (2:292/854)