Just a sample of the Echomail archive
Cooperative anarchy at its finest, still active today. Darkrealms is the Zone 1 Hub.
|    FMAIL_HELP    |    Fmail support    |    2,396 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 1,289 of 2,396    |
|    Bill McGarrity to Joe Delahaye    |
|    Re: SBBSecho logging.    |
|    03 Jan 16 17:40:00    |
      -=> Joe Delahaye wrote to Bill McGarrity <=-               JD> Re: Re: SBBSecho logging.        JD> By: Bill McGarrity to Digital Man on Wed Dec 30 2015 23:01:00               DM>> Echomail packets are bundled into archives and those bundles are        DM>> what is sent to the downlinks. Are you wanting to know the name of        DM>> the bundle files created or the actual packets within those bundles?        DM>> BinkD has no knowledge of the packets within a bundle it sends or        DM>> receives, so I'm not clear how the packet filename (which is what I        DM>> assume you meant by "pkt #" in your msg) from the SBBSecho log would        DM>> help you. I can add more log output, but if it is too much or the        DM>> wrong kind, then that's not going to be helpful to you (or whomever        DM>> is having the issue). More clarity is needed.               BM> I don't compress here so binkd sees the pkt #'s that are being sent.. even        BM> though there maybe 4 to 5 being sent during one connection to that node.               BM> My request is to log the actual PKT # sbbsecho creates so we can compare        BM> the creation, the sending and receiving on one end (anyone who's running        BM> sbbsecho for instance). The node in question (non Synch user), says        BM> they're not receiving any pkt's being delivered or showing in the bit        BM> bucket or being stored in the bad pkt area on his system.               BM> Creating one test message and sending it to the two systems should resolve        BM> the issue either way. If there is an issue with sbbsecho (highly doubt),        BM> then you'll have some more info to resolve it.               JD> The above is already being tested. We found that although the packet        JD> name at least was created, (archived), when the connections were made,        JD> the mail went to the one system, and tried to send to the other, but        JD> file not found.              Were there not two separate PKT's created for each node? Why not remove       archieving from the equation and just create a .*lo file as well and check your       binkd logs.                     --              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)    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca