| |
VE3UIL > SYSOP 28.01.13 21:22l 41 Lines 1708 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 150119VE3UIL
Read: GUEST
Subj: WPs Problem
Path: IZ3LSV<IW0QNL<JH4XSY<JE7YGF<VE3UIL
Sent: 130128/2021Z 8398@VE3UIL.#EON.ON.CAN.NOAM [Smiths Falls] FBB7.00i
From: VE3UIL@VE3UIL.#EON.ON.CAN.NOAM
To : SYSOP@WW
Further to Misko's comments about FBB WP settings.
There is a setting in WinFBB 7.00i "User Must Give Information".
However, in discussion and testing with Mike N9PMO this does not force a
user to enter COMPLETE info in particular the Home BBS.
There is a second option in FBB "No BBS Field: Use Callsign of this BBS".
This automatically enters the BBSs address as the new user's home BBS
which could be incorrect. In fact if a new user roams around the network
to various BBSs then they will all be assigning their address to that user
and we then have a mess of WP updates going out with different home
addresses for this user.
In addition BPQMAILCHAT operates differently and does not have the "User
must enter information" option. To further spread the problem someone on
the BPQ Yahoo Chat group suggested that all WPs should go to @WW, (a
disaster in itself). So now you have all kinds of problems being spread
from BPQ sysops to the @WW network.
All of which to say that the WP system is a total disaster. Mike N9PMO
and I reviewed the WP entries in our systems and some are incomplete, some
are incorrect, and some are even full of junk, i.e. random characters.
All of which raises the question of what good are the WPs doing other than
occupying bandwidth. Do the various BBS applications actually use the WPs
updates? Do they use the R: lines in messages anyway?
It would be interesting here some thoughts on this.
*****************************************************
73 - Mike, VE3UIL
ve3uil@ve3uil.#eon.on.can.noam
Smiths Falls, Ontario, Canada
Message timed: 15:22 on 2013-Jan-28
Message sent using WinPack-Telnet V6.80
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
