On 09/21/2016 12:48 AM, Paul Quinn -> rick christian wrote:   
      
    PQ> Damn! You stopped! I was having a learning experience. I did wonder   
    PQ> about your new ROUTE statement and was interested in the result. :)   
      
   Yeah... I stopped... as I was looking for some feedback...   
      
   and   
      
   I waiting for my "papers" to be official and get my node number   
      
   as well as not wanting to upset any one with a bunch of stuff going out or   
   coming in etc...   
      
      
    PQ> To my way of thinking, CM routing ought to be reflecting your binkD   
    PQ> 'node' entries. Sure you could use default routing but the process   
    PQ> really is:   
      
    PQ> * establishing an agreement with another sysop;   
    PQ> * necessitating a node entry in binkD; and,   
    PQ> * then doing a matching edit in CM's config to follow that agreement.   
      
   I agree... but I think that would mean that CM would need to read binkd.cfg??   
   Which at this point that seems unlikely since it appears to be abandoned...   
      
   Only thing I can figure is that between FD and FMail and the way I had things   
   setup then... and possibly the fog of several decades...   
      
      
    PQ> Wildcard configurations only work where everyone uses the same session   
    PQ> protocol, i.e. binkP. Even default routing resembles agreements.   
      
   Well for Fido On the 'Net that really seems to be the only route... maybe   
   those who actually still have actual modem setups might be using EMSI via FD   
   etc..   
      
    * Origin: news://news.wpusa.dynip.com | acct req'd to post (1:3634/12)