Hi all,

Looks like a restart was needed for Mystic to recongize the Allow Unsecure. Just got a netmail from a fellow user and it appears to come in just fine.
The reply should go through the routed system as I believe it should be. I will see what happens at this point.

Thanks guys for your input, regardless of how it was handled. It was constructive. Netmail unsecure seems fine, however, echomail on the other
hand should be disregarded and should be secure because of abusers.

-- cr1mson

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A36 2017/12/03 (Windows/32)
* Origin: Raiders Inc BBS -- vintagebbsing.com (1:298/25)

Hi cr1mson!

10 Dec 2017 00:02, from cr1mson -> All:

Looks like a restart was needed for Mystic to recongize the Allow Unsecure.

Good to hear you have sorted it out.
Even better to hear that this aehm ... "questionable default" (to put it very politely) will be changed in the future.

Just got a netmail from a fellow user and it appears to come
in just fine. The reply should go through the routed system as I
believe it should be. I will see what happens at this point.

It depends on weather you set the crash flag on your reply.

I disagree with you on that point as how "it should be".
There is no real downside on sending netmails crash.

Netmail unsecure seems fine, however, echomail on the other hand
should be disregarded and should be secure because of abusers.

We are completely on the same page here.
Echomail should only be accepted by known secure links.
I do not know of any tosser that would do it differently.

CU, Ricsi

--- GoldED+/LNX
* Origin: AWWW, come on, just this one last little feature! (2:310/31)

Hi cr1mson,

On 2017-12-10 00:02:23, you wrote to All:

Looks like a restart was needed for Mystic to recongize the Allow Unsecure.

Did this reset, also affect the real name setting for this area? ;)

Bye, Wilfred.

--- FMail-lnx64 2.1.0.18-B20170815
* Origin: FMail development HQ (2:280/464)

Hello Richard,

On Sunday December 10 2017 14:02, you wrote to cr1mson:

I disagree with you on that point as how "it should be".
There is no real downside on sending netmails crash.

In the very beginning, when Fidonet was still 1D, it was the only way. Routing was introduced when Fidonet became 2D, was split into nets, each with a Host.


Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20170303
* Origin: Bl?f T?n?n (2:280/5555)

Ricsi,

On 12/10/17, Richard Menedetter said the following...

Looks like a restart was needed for Mystic to recongize the Allow Unsecure.

Good to hear you have sorted it out.
Even better to hear that this aehm ... "questionable default" (to put it very politely) will be changed in the future.

Just depends on what needs to be done. Every system is different (except
those that intend to keep their system stock and do not really do everything for the BBS scene). I appreciate hearing from you.

Just got a netmail from a fellow user and it appears to come
in just fine. The reply should go through the routed system as I believe it should be. I will see what happens at this point.

It depends on weather you set the crash flag on your reply.

I usually set all mail to crash, just because I want it to go out after it
has been sent. I have not ever needed a reason to hold mail (other than the BBS being down) or use normal settings. I like things to get done quickly.

I disagree with you on that point as how "it should be".
There is no real downside on sending netmails crash.

Correct.

Netmail unsecure seems fine, however, echomail on the other hand should be disregarded and should be secure because of abusers.

We are completely on the same page here.

That is a first. Glad we are agreeing here on the same level.

Echomail should only be accepted by known secure links.
I do not know of any tosser that would do it differently.

Nor do I.

-- cr1mson

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A36 2017/12/03 (Windows/32)
* Origin: Raiders Inc BBS -- vintagebbsing.com (1:298/25)

Wilfred,

On 12/10/17, Wilfred van Velzen said the following...

Looks like a restart was needed for Mystic to recongize the Allow Unsecure.

Did this reset, also affect the real name setting for this area? ;)

No, that was intentional. ;) I did set my Fidonet echoes to use real names just a moment ago though. Let me know if you see my alias or otherwise.

-- cr1mson

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A36 2017/12/03 (Windows/32)
* Origin: Raiders Inc BBS -- vintagebbsing.com (1:298/25)

Yea anytime you change settings in Mystic, go ahead and restart mis

On 18:02 09/12 , cr1mson wrote:

Hi all,

Looks like a restart was needed for Mystic to recongize the Allow Unsecure. >Just got a netmail from a fellow user and it appears to come in just fine. >The reply should go through the routed system as I believe it should be. I >will see what happens at this point.

Thanks guys for your input, regardless of how it was handled. It was >constructive. Netmail unsecure seems fine, however, echomail on the other >hand should be disregarded and should be secure because of abusers.

-- cr1mson

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A36 2017/12/03 (Windows/32)
* Origin: Raiders Inc BBS -- vintagebbsing.com (1:298/25)

--
yrNews Usenet Reader for iOS
http://appstore.com/yrNewsUsenetReader

--- Mystic BBS/NNTP v1.12 A37 2017/12/09 (Linux/64)
* Origin: -=The ByteXchange BBS : bbs.thebytexchange.com=- (1:19/37)

Hi Jon,

On 2017-12-10 10:56:20, you wrote to me:

Looks like a restart was needed for Mystic to recongize the

Allow

Unsecure.

Did this reset, also affect the real name setting for this area? ;)

No, that was intentional. ;) I did set my Fidonet echoes to use real

names

just a moment ago though. Let me know if you see my alias or otherwise.

I see your name...


Bye, Wilfred.

--- FMail-lnx64 2.1.0.18-B20170815
* Origin: FMail development HQ (2:280/464)

Hoiya Chad...

Chad Adams wrote to All on 12-10-17 12:32 <=-

Yea anytime you change settings in Mystic, go ahead and restart mis

On 18:02 09/12 , cr1mson wrote:

Hi all,

Looks like a restart was needed for Mystic to recongize the Allow Unsecure.
Just got a netmail from a fellow user and it appears to come in just fine.
The reply should go through the routed system as I believe it should be. I
will see what happens at this point.

Thanks guys for your input, regardless of how it was handled. It was
constructive. Netmail unsecure seems fine, however, echomail on the other
hand should be disregarded and should be secure because of abusers.

Is there any possible way with that newsreader to trim the excess previous message and answer after it rather than before it on top. This is not email.

Thanks..


--

Bill

Telnet: tequilamockingbirdonline.net
Web: bbs.tequilamockingbirdonline.net
FTP: ftp.tequilamockingbirdonline.net:2121
IRC: irc.tequilamockingbirdonline.net Ports: 6661-6670 SSL: +6697
Radio: radio.tequilamockingbirdonline.net:8010/live


... Look Twice... Save a Life!!! Motorcycles are Everywhere!!!
--- MultiMail/Win32 v0.50
* Origin: TequilaMockingbird Online - Toms River, NJ (1:266/404)