To: Kurt Weiske
Re: Re: routing to points
By: Kurt Weiske to Digital Man on Fri Feb 17 2023 12:01 pm

> Re: Re: routing to points
> By: Digital Man to Kurt Weiske on Fri Feb 17 2023 10:59 am
>
> >> Which looks like the expected behavior - 2:221/1 is listed in my linked
> >> nodes list.
>
> DM> Cool. So do we now want to change the expected behavior?
>
> Would it be correct to assume that my 2:ALL "linked node" entry in echocfg
> was being applied to my point netmail, and because no routing was specified
> in the 2:ALL entry, that sbbsecho packet the point netmail according to the
> wildcard entry? It seems like when I removed the 2:ALL entry that sbbsecho
> packed point mail for the boss (that *was* defined in sbbsecho.ini.)

The 2:ALL linked node entry would have only played a role *if* it had a route specified. And in that case, yes, the NetMail would be routed, but to the specified 2:ALL route, not the point's boss node.

> If that's the case, that would fit the behavior I was seeing.

The sbbsecho.log file would include an INFO-level "Routing NetMail" line (withOUT "boss-node") in this case. If the log doesn't include that, then this is not happening.

> Since Synchronet doesn't know how to route to a point, I'd think it would
> make to sense to first pack all point netmail for the Boss node and then let
> explicit linked node entries or catch-all entries handle mail routing/flavor
> to the boss.
>
> Then, if you had a specific routing arrangement with a node, you could
> specify them in the linked node section. If not, a zone:ALL rule could
> route/flavor the mail to the boss however you choose.
>
> This would simplify sending replies to point netmail, in my opinion.
>
> Or, am I missing something?

I think an explicit linked node configuration should always take precedence. No?

I'm not sure what you mean by "Synchronet doesn't konw how to route to a point". You can tell SBBSecho (not Synchronet) how to route to points both explicity and with wildcards and there's the boss-node fall-back if the boss-node is explicity configured.
--
digital man (rob)

Synchronet/BBS Terminology Definition #32:
FREQ = File Request
Norco, CA WX: 63.6°F, 19.0% humidity, 0 mph ENE wind, 0.00 inches rain/24hrs
--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.113
* Vertrauen - Riverside County, California - telnet://vert.synchro.net

To: Digital Man
Re: Re: routing to points
By: Digital Man to Kurt Weiske on Fri Feb 17 2023 12:58 pm
DM> I'm not sure what you mean by "Synchronet doesn't konw how to route to a
DM> point". You can tell SBBSecho (not Synchronet) how to route to points both
DM> explicity and with wildcards and there's the boss-node fall-back if the
DM> boss-node is explicity configured.
I'm mis-using some of the terminology.
SBBSecho, unless told otherwise by specifying the boss node in sbbsecho.ini, will create an outbound packet for the full point address, and binkit is unable to deliver the mail.
If you define the boss node, SBBSecho will create a packet containing the point's netmail for the boss node, which makes sense.
Since points are not in the network's nodelist and are dependent on the boss node to receive and deliver files on its behalf, why not automatically route all point mail to their respective boss nodes by default?

--- SBBSecho 3.20-Win32
* Origin: http://realitycheckbbs.org | tomorrow's retro tech (1:218/700)
--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.113
* Vertrauen - Riverside County, California - telnet://vert.synchro.net

To: Kurt Weiske
Re: Re: routing to points
By: Kurt Weiske to Digital Man on Fri Feb 17 2023 02:39 pm

> Re: Re: routing to points
> By: Digital Man to Kurt Weiske on Fri Feb 17 2023 12:58 pm
>
> DM> I'm not sure what you mean by "Synchronet doesn't konw how to route to a
> DM> point". You can tell SBBSecho (not Synchronet) how to route to points
> DM> both explicity and with wildcards and there's the boss-node fall-back if
> DM> the boss-node is explicity configured.
>
> I'm mis-using some of the terminology.
>
> SBBSecho, unless told otherwise by specifying the boss node in sbbsecho.ini,
> will create an outbound packet for the full point address, and binkit is
> unable to deliver the mail.
>
> If you define the boss node, SBBSecho will create a packet containing the
> point's netmail for the boss node, which makes sense.
>
> Since points are not in the network's nodelist and are dependent on the boss
> node to receive and deliver files on its behalf, why not automatically route
> all point mail to their respective boss nodes by default?

I think SBBSecho changed to do that. Do you mind creating a feature request at
https://gitlab.synchro.net/main/sbbs/-/issues and providing this detail?

The code we're discussing now was added 3 years ago (at your request) and a request for test results was made by me at the time (in the commit message), but I don't think ever got those results/feedback. I'd like to better track the
change request/rationale and the results this time. Thanks,
--
digital man (rob)

Synchronet/BBS Terminology Definition #89:
XJS = External JavaScript (SSJS embedded within HTML/CSS)
Norco, CA WX: 66.0°F, 17.0% humidity, 0 mph ENE wind, 0.00 inches rain/24hrs
--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.113
* Vertrauen - Riverside County, California - telnet://vert.synchro.net

To: Digital Man
Re: Re: routing to points
By: Digital Man to Kurt Weiske on Fri Feb 17 2023 02:59 pm

DM> I think SBBSecho changed to do that. Do you mind creating a feature request
DM> at https://gitlab.synchro.net/main/sbbs/-/issues and providing this detail?

Will do.

DM> The code we're discussing now was added 3 years ago (at your request) and a
DM> request for test results was made by me at the time (in the commit
DM> message), but I don't think ever got those results/feedback. I'd like to
DM> better track the change request/rationale and the results this time.

I think there were two issues going on at the time, happy to help this time.
--- SBBSecho 3.20-Win32
* Origin: http://realitycheckbbs.org | tomorrow's retro tech (1:218/700)
--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.113
* Vertrauen - Riverside County, California - telnet://vert.synchro.net

To: Digital Man
Re: Re: routing to points
By: Digital Man to Kurt Weiske on Fri Feb 17 2023 10:59 am

> With this change (apparently as the result of a suggestion or request by
> Alterego), if the destination address is 1:2/3.1, but our local system has
> an AKA of 1:2/3.2, no routing would occur (to a boss node or based on
> explicit routing configured in echocfg->Linked Nodes) and that seems like a
> bug to me. But still unrelated to your observations.

Why does that seem to be a bug?

....δεσ∩

---
■ Synchronet ■ AnsiTEX bringing back videotex but with ANSI
--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.113
* Vertrauen - Riverside County, California - telnet://vert.synchro.net

To: deon
Re: Re: routing to points
By: deon to Digital Man on Sat Feb 18 2023 10:30 am

> Re: Re: routing to points
> By: Digital Man to Kurt Weiske on Fri Feb 17 2023 10:59 am
>
> > With this change (apparently as the result of a suggestion or request by
> > Alterego), if the destination address is 1:2/3.1, but our local system
> > has an AKA of 1:2/3.2, no routing would occur (to a boss node or based on
> > explicit routing configured in echocfg->Linked Nodes) and that seems like
> > a bug to me. But still unrelated to your observations.
>
> Why does that seem to be a bug?

I would think if my system had an AKA of 1:2/3.2 and I wanted to send a netmail to 1:2/3.1, it should still be auto-routed to the boss note (1:2/3.0) by default. No?
--
digital man (rob)

Synchronet "Real Fact" #39:
Synchronet first supported Windows NT v6.x (a.k.a. Vista/Win7) w/v3.14a (2006)
Norco, CA WX: 64.1°F, 17.0% humidity, 5 mph N wind, 0.00 inches rain/24hrs
--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.113
* Vertrauen - Riverside County, California - telnet://vert.synchro.net

To: Digital Man
Re: Re: routing to points
By: Digital Man to deon on Fri Feb 17 2023 04:18 pm

> > Why does that seem to be a bug?
>
> I would think if my system had an AKA of 1:2/3.2 and I wanted to send a
> netmail to 1:2/3.1, it should still be auto-routed to the boss note
> (1:2/3.0) by default. No?

So you cant have a direct link to 1:2/3.1?

....δεσ∩

---
■ Synchronet ■ AnsiTEX bringing back videotex but with ANSI
--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.113
* Vertrauen - Riverside County, California - telnet://vert.synchro.net

To: DIGITAL MAN
> I would think if my system had an AKA of 1:2/3.2 and I wanted to send a netmai
> to 1:2/3.1, it should still be auto-routed to the boss note (1:2/3.0) by defau
> . No?

I would certainly think so.

* SLMR 2.1a * Are you pulling my leg! ...nahh, that's just the dog!

---
� Synchronet � CAPCITY2 * capcity2.synchro.net * Telnet/SSH:2022/Rlogin/HTTP
--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.113
* Vertrauen - Riverside County, California - telnet://vert.synchro.net

To: deon
-=> deon wrote to Digital Man <=-

de> So you cant have a direct link to 1:2/3.1?

You can, if you specify 1:2/3.1 in echocfg and provide a source address.

There seems to have been some definition drift with points. When I
started out, the whole idea behind a point was to have a mail-only or
private system that wasn't accessible during ZMH, or wasn't up 24/7. The
point initiated contact with the boss, and the point was, by design,
unreachable by systems using a nodelist.

The point would connect to the boss, not vice versa. Everything that was
to go to the point was routed through the boss first. No one, even the
boss, would need a direct route to the point.

.... Powered By Celeron (Tualatin). Engineered for the future.
--- MultiMail/Win v0.52
* Origin: http://realitycheckbbs.org | tomorrow's retro tech (1:218/700)
--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.113
* Vertrauen - Riverside County, California - telnet://vert.synchro.net

To: deon
Re: Re: routing to points
By: deon to Digital Man on Sat Feb 18 2023 10:05 pm

> Re: Re: routing to points
> By: Digital Man to deon on Fri Feb 17 2023 04:18 pm
>
> > > Why does that seem to be a bug?
>
> > I would think if my system had an AKA of 1:2/3.2 and I wanted to send a
> > netmail to 1:2/3.1, it should still be auto-routed to the boss note
> > (1:2/3.0) by default. No?
>
> So you cant have a direct link to 1:2/3.1?

Sure, but I also might not. The way this requested-enhancement was implemented,
it wouldn't make any difference: the mail would not be routed to the boss.
--
digital man (rob)

Synchronet "Real Fact" #27:
Rob Swindell (digital man) was born approximately 4 hours before the Unix epoch
Norco, CA WX: 66.2°F, 20.0% humidity, 0 mph NE wind, 0.00 inches rain/24hrs
--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.113
* Vertrauen - Riverside County, California - telnet://vert.synchro.net

To: Digital Man
Re: Re: routing to points
By: Digital Man to deon on Sat Feb 18 2023 11:38 am

> > > > Why does that seem to be a bug?
>
> > > I would think if my system had an AKA of 1:2/3.2 and I wanted to send
> > > a netmail to 1:2/3.1, it should still be auto-routed to the boss note
> > > (1:2/3.0) by default. No?
>
> > So you cant have a direct link to 1:2/3.1?
>
> Sure, but I also might not. The way this requested-enhancement was
> implemented, it wouldn't make any difference: the mail would not be routed
> to the boss.

Oh, in that case I agree it might be a bug.

I would have thought, if I'm a point, all mail would go to my boss (for final delivery), unless I had a specific relationship (and thus a configuration) directly to another system (including other points, either with a same boss as me, or a different boss).

....δεσ∩

---
■ Synchronet ■ AnsiTEX bringing back videotex but with ANSI
--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.113
* Vertrauen - Riverside County, California - telnet://vert.synchro.net

To: deon
Re: Re: routing to points
By: deon to Digital Man on Sun Feb 19 2023 09:28 am

> Re: Re: routing to points
> By: Digital Man to deon on Sat Feb 18 2023 11:38 am
>
> > > > > Why does that seem to be a bug?
>
> > > > I would think if my system had an AKA of 1:2/3.2 and I wanted to
> > > > send a netmail to 1:2/3.1, it should still be auto-routed to the
> > > > boss note (1:2/3.0) by default. No?
>
> > > So you cant have a direct link to 1:2/3.1?
>
> > Sure, but I also might not. The way this requested-enhancement was
> > implemented, it wouldn't make any difference: the mail would not be
> > routed to the boss.
>
> Oh, in that case I agree it might be a bug.
>
> I would have thought, if I'm a point, all mail would go to my boss (for
> final delivery), unless I had a specific relationship (and thus a
> configuration) directly to another system (including other points, either
> with a same boss as me, or a different boss).

The logic was changed/fixed in a commit today. Try it out. Are you also Alterego?
--
digital man (rob)

Rush quote #84:
Looming low & ominous, twilight premature t-heads rumbling a distance overture
Norco, CA WX: 66.9°F, 21.0% humidity, 0 mph E wind, 0.00 inches rain/24hrs
--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.113
* Vertrauen - Riverside County, California - telnet://vert.synchro.net

To: Kurt Weiske
Re: Re: routing to points
By: Kurt Weiske to deon on Sat Feb 18 2023 08:11 am

> The point would connect to the boss, not vice versa. Everything that was
> to go to the point was routed through the boss first. No one, even the
> boss, would need a direct route to the point.

And it could still be that way "by default", right?

My point (no pun intended), is if the point defines some direct links, then they should be honoured, as well as the ability to receive direct connections from other systems (if the sysop desired).

....δεσ∩

---
■ Synchronet ■ AnsiTEX bringing back videotex but with ANSI
--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.113
* Vertrauen - Riverside County, California - telnet://vert.synchro.net

To: Digital Man
Re: Re: routing to points
By: Digital Man to deon on Sat Feb 18 2023 02:57 pm

> The logic was changed/fixed in a commit today. Try it out. Are you also
> Alterego?

Cool.

I'm not actually using any points at the moment, but I probably will down the track. So I'll let you know if something is not up.

I used the alias Alterego at some point, but dont anymore.

> > > > > I would think if my system had an AKA of 1:2/3.2 and I wanted to
> > > > > send a netmail to 1:2/3.1, it should still be auto-routed to the
> > > > > boss note (1:2/3.0) by default. No?

Following on with this example, if I'm 1:2/3.2 and I want to send a Netmail to 1:2/4.2, *and* I have a configuration with 1:2/4.0 will sbbsecho package up my netmail for 1:2/4 or 1:2/3?

If it uses 1:2/3, I assume I can overrite it with a route 1:2/4.ALL to 1:2/4.0?

....δεσ∩

---
■ Synchronet ■ AnsiTEX bringing back videotex but with ANSI
--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.113
* Vertrauen - Riverside County, California - telnet://vert.synchro.net

To: deon
Re: Re: routing to points
By: deon to Digital Man on Sun Feb 19 2023 10:59 am

> Re: Re: routing to points
> By: Digital Man to deon on Sat Feb 18 2023 02:57 pm
>
> > The logic was changed/fixed in a commit today. Try it out. Are you also
> > Alterego?
>
> Cool.
>
> I'm not actually using any points at the moment, but I probably will down
> the track. So I'll let you know if something is not up.
>
> I used the alias Alterego at some point, but dont anymore.
>
> > > > > > I would think if my system had an AKA of 1:2/3.2 and I wanted
> > > > > > to send a netmail to 1:2/3.1, it should still be auto-routed
> > > > > > to the boss note (1:2/3.0) by default. No?
>
> Following on with this example, if I'm 1:2/3.2 and I want to send a Netmail
> to 1:2/4.2, *and* I have a configuration with 1:2/4.0 will sbbsecho package
> up my netmail for 1:2/4 or 1:2/3?

The netmail would be routed to 1:2/4.0.

> If it uses 1:2/3, I assume I can overrite it with a route 1:2/4.ALL to
> 1:2/4.0?

SBBSecho doesn't do any routing based on the originating-address, only the destination address.
--
digital man (rob)

This Is Spinal Tap quote #40:
Morty the Mime: Come on, don't talk back, mime is money, come on, move it.
Norco, CA WX: 57.5°F, 32.0% humidity, 6 mph SE wind, 0.00 inches rain/24hrs
--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.113
* Vertrauen - Riverside County, California - telnet://vert.synchro.net

To: deon
-=> deon wrote to Kurt Weiske <=-

de> My point (no pun intended), is if the point defines some direct links,
de> then they should be honoured, as well as the ability to receive direct
de> connections from other systems (if the sysop desired).

That flies against the notion that defined a point - a private system
that doesn't connect directly to the rest of the world, because it's not
up 24/7 or isn't able to honor ZMH.

That being said, Z2 may see things differently; they distribute a
point list publicly - in the traditional sense a point list is just used
by the boss node.

If a point is accessible and makes arrangements to share their contact
info with an upstream node, that node can enter the information needed
to connect in the linked nodes section of sbbsecho, and the upstream
node can connect directly. That would override the default rule.

.... Onward, to meatspace!
--- MultiMail/Win v0.52
* Origin: http://realitycheckbbs.org | tomorrow's retro tech (1:218/700)
--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.113
* Vertrauen - Riverside County, California - telnet://vert.synchro.net