| |
I0OJJ > SYSOP 17.05.25 15:15l 87 Lines 3163 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : H5ZI0OJJ_004
Subj: Re^5: Stopping Sending ...
Path: IZ3LSV<IK6IHL<IK7NXU<HB9ON<DK0WUE<PD0LPM<VE3CGR<K1AJD<LU9DCE<EA2RCF<
I0OJJ
Sent: 250517/1304z @:I0OJJ.ITA.EU [Rome] obcm1.08-10-g596e
From: I0OJJ @ I0OJJ.ITA.EU (Gustavo)
To: SYSOP @ WW
X-Info: Received by SMTP-gateway
Hi,
My reply take in reference these msgs, and collectively
other msgs on the matter.
The correct way to manage the WP stuff remains that to
refuse/reject *any form* of WP msg diffused as *bulletin*
(i.e. SB@<any routes>) and accept ONLY the SP WP@<ourPBBS>
from our PBBS partners.
Warning: the practice demonstrated that in many situations
'SB WP@whatever' may carry many formats of corrupted data,
and this have as consequence that all PBBS systems accepting
those stuff remain contaminated by that errors.
Apropos of different/multiple callsigns and WP:
1. about the various callsigns owned by a single radio amateur
(i.e. me) there is no problem since if you are a partner of
IR0AAB PBBS you will send a message to sp wp@ir0aab; instead,
if you are a partner of I0OJJ your system will send a message
to SP WP@I0OJJ.
2. there is not official documentation, but only we find
similar/different approaches to implement various ideas
on different software here in Europe.
3. at beginning msgs where written by users at PBBS prompt
and so that WP utility had a great benefit.
For example, writing SP N5MDT at F6FBB prompt it replied:
routed to @N5MDT.#STX.TX.USA.NOAM
can you imagine in 1990s about this?
4. as of nowadays many things are superseded by the use
of intelligent mail clients, but that good practice remains
in some cases useful.
--
73 and ciao, gustavo i0ojj/ir0aab/ir0eq
non multa, sed multum
--------------
N5MDT > SYSOP 17.05.25 02:00l 22 Lines 1349 Bytes #10 (0) @ WW
BID : 4568_N5MDT
X-Flags: Type B Hold ! Prop ! Rep ! Cont ! Erase !
Read: I0OJJ
Subj: Re: Re^3: Stopping Sending ...
R:250517/0000z @:I0OJJ.ITA.EU $:4568_N5MDT
R:250516/2358Z 4568@N5MDT.#STX.TX.USA.NOAM BPQ6.0.24
The real reason this is happening, in my opinion, is a mis-configured
node that does not really know it's own callsign. This often happens in
parts of Europe where individuals have calls, and their stations must
have a different call.
It has nothing to do with WP messages being 'accepted' as the only
configuration setting is Reject WP as Bulls or not. There is no other
configuration for receiving the WP messages. But if the SENDER of the WP
message sends to the individual call, when the station has a different
call, this very thing will probably happen. The individual does not
read it. The WP messages must be sent to the station call. And the
station must be configured properly. Since I am not in that situation
I really cannot say for sure how to configure BPQ to be sure this does
not happen.
I have done nothing in my config to receive WP messages. BPQ just
processes them. I do not accept WP messages as BULLS and I do not
forward them either. As far as I know BPQ will not process them anyway.
Mark
> It is confusing, to me, that folks *still* try to 'SB WP' for those.
> But it has been said for at least the last 20 years that it is bad
> practice. I don't think I've seen any 'official' documentation
> reflecting on encouraging this practice either. So one wonders where
> it comes from.
>
> 73 de n9seo
--------------
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
