How would I send to a fidonet address from nntp access in thunderbird? Would I have to use the BBS smtp settings?
Seth wrote (2022-08-07):Would like to send a netmail reply to a user. What I mean smtp is the vert.synchro.net smtp server if they have one.
S> How would I send to a fidonet address from nntp access in thunderbird?
S> Would I have to use the BBS smtp settings?
Not sure what you are exactly trying to achieve. NNTP and SMTP are two different protocols. First is for newsgroups, second for email. Do you want to send a message to the fidonet echomail area or do you want to send a netmail? Which BBS smtp setting are you talking about?
⁂
---
* Origin: War is Peace. Freedom is Slavery. Ignorance is Strength. (21:3/102)
How would I send to a fidonet address from nntp access in thunderbird? Would I have to use the BBS smtp settings?I believe the BBS smtp is only for local "email", not for echomail or
Would like to send a netmail reply to a user.
What I mean smtp is the vert.synchro.net smtp server if they have one.
(21:3/102) Would like to send a netmail reply to a user. What I mean
smtp is the vert.synchro.net smtp server if they have one.
Spectre wrote to Seth <=-
(21:3/102) Would like to send a netmail reply to a user. What I mean
smtp is the vert.synchro.net smtp server if they have one.
There used to be a fido-email gateway, no idea where or exactly
how it worked, but you used the email address as part of the
address. I don't think anyone is going to have SMTP as part of
their bbs setup specifically.
Ummm, it's a standard/builtin feature with Synchronet BBS.
On 08-09-22 08:41, Spectre wrote to Seth <=-
(21:3/102) Would like to send a netmail reply to a user. What I mean
smtp is the vert.synchro.net smtp server if they have one.
There used to be a fido-email gateway, no idea where or exactly how it worked, but you used the email address as part of the address. I don't think anyone is going to have SMTP as part of their bbs setup specifically.
On 08-08-22 21:45, Gamgee wrote to Spectre <=-
Ummm, it's a standard/builtin feature with Synchronet BBS.
Spectre wrote to Gamgee <=-
Ummm, it's a standard/builtin feature with Synchronet BBS.
Don't know much about Synchromess... other than its installer
religiously destroys my systems.. :( I'll stand corrected.
Don't know much about Synchromess... other than its installer religiously destroys my systems.. :( I'll stand corrected.
Well, no need to be insulting about it. It's arguably the most used BBS package in use today.
Have you ever brought up this installer problem for discussion? Haven't ever heard anybody else say they've seen that happen. Ever. <SHRUG>
Technically I don't think you really need to run Synchronet's installer.
On 08-09-22 09:41, Nightfox wrote to Spectre <=-
Technically I don't think you really need to run Synchronet's
installer. When I was running my (Synchronet) BBS on Windows,
sometime's I'd install a newer version of Windows and just copy my existing Synchronet installation over to it, like restoring it from backup. All you really need is to set a couple of environment
variables for Synchronet to run.
On 08-10-22 08:35, Spectre wrote to Gamgee <=-
As you say, SHRUG.. I did mention it in passing some time back... got
the you must be doing something wrong... but over clean install or existing server it ate the thing alive... at this point it doesn't
really matter I'm not trying again. :) Since then SynchroMess has been
my name for it...
Technically I don't think you really need to run Synchronet's
installer.
I couldn't tell you what version it was, but I'm reasonably sure there was only an installer, no tar ball, least that I could find anyhoo.
Have you ever brought up this installer problem for discussion?
Haven't ever heard anybody else say they've seen that happen. Ever.
<SHRUG>
As you say, SHRUG.. I did mention it in passing some time back... got the you must be doing something wrong... but over clean install or existing server it ate the thing alive... at this point it doesn't really matter I'm not trying again. :) Since then SynchroMess has been my name for it...
I remember you having trouble, but it was/is baffling as to why.
For Windows, there's a daily build that gets made available for download every day. There are actually 2 files: sbbs_run.zip: Includes
How exactly does its installer destroy your system?
Spectre wrote to Nightfox <=-
For Windows, there's a daily build that gets made available for download every day. There are actually 2 files: sbbs_run.zip: Includes
I'm not using Windoze for anything other than a user interface,
all the heavy lifting is done on a couple of linux boxes...
Can you clarify? Nobody else has EVER seen this behavior, that I've
ever heard of. In linux you compile everything with a simple 'make' command, and the *ONLY* directory used/affected is "/sbbs".
On 08-11-22 09:18, Spectre wrote to Vk3jed <=-
I remember you having trouble, but it was/is baffling as to why.
No idea, but it was reliably changing directory permissions all over
the place. Rendered the system unusable until clean boot and repair...
Spectre wrote to Gamgee <=-
Can you clarify? Nobody else has EVER seen this behavior, that I've
ever heard of. In linux you compile everything with a simple 'make' command, and the *ONLY* directory used/affected is "/sbbs".
Can't clarify much, only that the make completed and the install
portion whatever it was doing destroyed the file system. Shrug,
multiple times... At this point its moot anyways, I'm not going
near it again, the risk is too high.
Spectre wrote to Seth <=-
There used to be a fido-email gateway, no idea where or exactly how it worked, but you used the email address as part of the address. I don't think anyone is going to have SMTP as part of their bbs setup specifically.
Nightfox wrote to Spectre <=-
installer. When I was running my (Synchronet) BBS on Windows,
sometime's I'd install a newer version of Windows and just copy my existing Synchronet installation over to it, like restoring it from backup. All you really need is to set a couple of environment
variables for Synchronet to run.
Can't clarify much, only that the make completed and the install
portion whatever it was doing destroyed the file system. Shrug,
multiple times... At this point its moot anyways, I'm not going
near it again, the risk is too high.
Again, this doesn't make any sense at all. There is no "install
portion". Things get compiled under the /sbbs directory, and *NOTHING* else in the file system is touched. No idea what you could have done to "destroy" anything. Maybe you were running it as 'root', but even that wouldn't have affected anything outside of /sbbs. Sorry, but your story doesn't hold water.
Nightfox wrote to Gamgee <=-
Can't clarify much, only that the make completed and the install
portion whatever it was doing destroyed the file system. Shrug,
multiple times... At this point its moot anyways, I'm not going
near it again, the risk is too high.
Again, this doesn't make any sense at all. There is no "install
portion". Things get compiled under the /sbbs directory, and *NOTHING* else in the file system is touched. No idea what you could have done to "destroy" anything. Maybe you were running it as 'root', but even that wouldn't have affected anything outside of /sbbs. Sorry, but your story doesn't hold water.
I thought he said he was running it in Windows? The Windows
version of Synchronet has an installer and comes with
pre-compiled binaries (so you wouldn't have to compile anything),
and there is no "root" user in Windows.
Well, I'm very confused by his whole story, but right there above he
said "the make completed". That implies a Linux build, not a Windows installer wizard. He has actually never stated whether this was on Windows or Linux, which makes the whole thing rather suspect in my opinion. He may just be a SBBS-hater telling tall tales...
telnet://bbs.roonsbbs.hu:1212 <<=-
Nightfox wrote to Gamgee <=-
Well, I'm very confused by his whole story, but right there above he
said "the make completed". That implies a Linux build, not a Windows installer wizard. He has actually never stated whether this was on
Windows or Linux, which makes the whole thing rather suspect in my opinion. He may just be a SBBS-hater telling tall tales...
Yeah, it's confusing. He had mentioned using the installer,
which made me think he was trying the Windows version. But I did
get confused when he said it messed with his folder permissions..
Windows does have file/folder permissions, but they're not the
same as in *nix operating systems (in Windows, I think the
permissions would only apply to sharing the folder - though even
locally, I think you can also prevent certain user accounts from
accessing a folder).
wouldn't have affected anything outside of /sbbs. Sorry, but your story doesn't hold water.
Spectre wrote to Gamgee <=-
wouldn't have affected anything outside of /sbbs. Sorry, but your story doesn't hold water.
Your lack of belief, unfortunately doesn't make it less true...
and here is where we kick this one to the kerb, I'm convinced its
complete schnitzengruben and you clearly seem to like it...
Right. Understood. When the questions get too hard.... yeah.
On 08-11-22 10:14, Nightfox wrote to Gamgee <=-
Yeah, it's confusing. He had mentioned using the installer, which made
me think he was trying the Windows version. But I did get confused
when he said it messed with his folder permissions.. Windows does have file/folder permissions, but they're not the same as in *nix operating systems (in Windows, I think the permissions would only apply to
sharing the folder - though even locally, I think you can also prevent certain user accounts from accessing a folder).
Spectre wrote to Gamgee <=-
Right. Understood. When the questions get too hard.... yeah.
When the questions get to hard, or reptitive and pointless?
bottom line is, I'm not interested in a solution, it had its
moment to shine and knackered the system. Not going to revisit
it.
They are repetitive because they aren't getting answered.
Literally you're the only person who's had that happen, and it sounds pretty strange. Strange enough that it's hard to believe, to be honest.
So, whatever.
Well, no need to be insulting about it. It's arguably the most used BBS package in use today.
Have you ever brought up this installer problem for discussion?
Haven't ever heard anybody else say they've seen that happen. Ever. <SHRUG>
As you say, SHRUG.. I did mention it in passing some time back... got the you must be doing something wrong...
but over clean install or existing
server it ate the thing alive... at this point it doesn't really matter I'm not trying again. :) Since then SynchroMess has been my name for it...
Did you mention it (in passing or otherwise) in any Synchronet support forum? It certainly doesn't sound familiar to me.
Did you mention it (in passing or otherwise) in any Synchronet support forum? It certainly doesn't sound familiar to me.
No, I've not been near any Synchro support forums. Just mentioned it here, after all it just went into the to hard basket, not wanting to add any other risk to my single server setup.
Okay, but mentioning it here (rather than an actual Synchronet support forum) isn't likely to resolve the problem, so you weren't really serious about finding and fixing the issue in the first place. Just something to complain about.
Okay, but mentioning it here (rather than an actual Synchronet support forum) isn't likely to resolve the problem, so you weren't really serious about finding and fixing the issue in the first place. Just something to complain about.
I did make the point, a fix was off the table, and if I recall right, the original was merely an observation of what I'd been poking about with and what the results were.
No real complaint as such.
I gave it a go, ran
enough repair to keep the system running, gave it a second go with the same result, and thats it. I'm not interested in trying any further with my limited resources. Unfortunately one of the results was the "true believers" denied the observations and wanted to go to war over it. Not just take it as an observation and move on.
Synchronet "Real Fact" #50:
JAM and Squish were considered before developing Synchronet Message Base fo
On 24 Oct 22 11:53:27, Digital Man said the following to Spectre:
Synchronet "Real Fact" #50:
JAM and Squish were considered before developing Synchronet Message Base fo
I suspect there were good reasons for SBBS to use its own, either breaking DOS barriers or because you said to hell with the convoluted mess that is both.
Jam and Squish make you jump through more hoops than a starving dolphin at Marineland just to do one thing... write a new message.
What a freaking mess. Oh its Jam alright. Sticks all over your project as a royal pain. What a stupid format. What clueless moron thought it was a great idea to store the kludge lines seperately. In what universe was it necessary to do this. For what purpose... indexing kludges? The Fidonet police?
Squish and its stupid frames. Frames this. Frames that. Index the frames. Index the index. Don't forget the stupid squish logo/header. Index that too.
Bah.
Digital Man wrote to Spectre <=-
I gave it a go, ran
enough repair to keep the system running, gave it a second go with the same result, and thats it. I'm not interested in trying any further with my limited resources. Unfortunately one of the results was the "true believers" denied the observations and wanted to go to war over it. Not just take it as an observation and move on.
What was this "observation" exactly? I'll look again through the
history of your posts in this echo, but so far, I haven't seen
it.
What is "Synchromess" then?
What was this "observation" exactly? I'll look again through the history
I may be able to answer this, as it was me who was questioning him previously on what happened, at least until he got all butt-hurt and didn't want to talk about it any more.
SMB stores header fields (including FTN kludge lines, PATHs, SEEN-BYs) separate from the message text too. This enables all kinds of performance a extensibility that would be impossible or very difficult to achieve otherwi
What is "Synchromess" then?
The result.
What was this "observation" exactly? I'll look again through the history
It's so far back now, I don't even recall.. but the upshot is, somewhere between it trying to compile and copy stuff to whatever the destination was, I ended up with a lot of screwed permissions across the system.
In *.MSG you fill out one header and dump your body, you're done... bad example but you get the message.
Well I agree with you there: *.MSG is a bad example. :-)
What is "Synchromess" then?
> The result.
You should call that "Spectremess" in that case, since you made it.
Chuckle, couldn't have done it without you..
Wow, then you managed to do that yourself: Nothing in Synchronet changes ownership or permissions of existing directories or files. -- digital
So I've heard, however it was the compile script that did it.. in the words of Ripley, believe it or not.
What is "Synchromess" then?
You should call that "Spectremess" in that case, since you made it.
Wow, then you managed to do that yourself: Nothing in Synchronet changes ownership or permissions of existing directories or files. -- digital
Yup, I don't believe it. -- digital man (rob)
Spectre wrote to Digital Man <=-
What is "Synchromess" then?
The result.
You should call that "Spectremess" in that case, since you made it.
Chuckle, couldn't have done it without you..
Wow, then you managed to do that yourself: Nothing in Synchronet changes ownership or permissions of existing directories or files.
So I've heard, however it was the compile script that did it.. in
the words of Ripley, believe it or not.
Wow, then you managed to do that yourself: Nothing in Synchronet
changes ownership or permissions of existing directories or files.
So I've heard, however it was the compile script that did it.. in the words of Ripley, believe it or not.
I've never heard of a build script doing that (let alone Synchronet's
Me either... not in 30 odd years... but as I keep saying, it doesn't
mean it
didn't happen. If you extract the tarball, do the do whatever the
hell that
was, its to far back to recall, and the result is you have a raft of
stuff
missing permissions. Then? Shrug.
To fair its been dead and buried for some time, only to attain zombie
status
and return. I'm happy referring to it as Synchromess as that's what
it achieves for me. Take or leave it, I'd already left it....
If it's too far back to remember, and you have no interest in finding out what really happened, then perhaps you should stop pissing on rob's project all the time. Stop calling it synchromess and implying it's crap.
free. It would bother me if some idiot defamed my project because for
what ever reason they stuffed up their file system and decided to blame
it on something completly unrelated.
I expect you didn't bother to investigate what really happened, and just assumed it was synchronet as that is what you happened to be doing at the time.
Spectre wrote to apam <=-
free. It would bother me if some idiot defamed my project because for
what ever reason they stuffed up their file system and decided to blame
it on something completly unrelated.
Ya see this is the completely close minded low grade moronic
response I've come to expect from certain elements. I'm sorry you
expect I'm lying, screwed my own file system deliberately or
accidently or whatever else floats your boat. You do not have to
believe a word I type.
I've come to expect from certain elements. I'm sorry you expect I'm
lying, screwed my own file system deliberately or accidently or whatever else floats your boat. You do not have to believe a word I type.
I've come to expect from certain elements. I'm sorry you expect I'm
lying, screwed my own file system deliberately or accidently or
whatever else floats your boat. You do not have to believe a word I
type.
As someone who doesn't care to engage in any argumentative fashion, I /will/ say there is a part of me that is super curious how in the heck your file system/permissions/whatever to so borked here, I can't find a single step in the install process that would cause something like that.
I've never heard of a build script doing that (let alone Synchronet's
Me either... not in 30 odd years... but as I keep saying, it doesn't mean it didn't happen. If you extract the tarball, do the do whatever the hell that was, its to far back to recall, and the result is you have a raft of stuff missing permissions. Then? Shrug.
You're just making this up. What you're describing doesn't sound like any Synchronet installation procedure for any OS. -- digital man (rob)
You're just making this up. What you're describing doesn't sound like any Synchronet installation procedure for any OS. -- digital man (rob)
Sure, I just do this for fun. Why the hell would I want to do that?
What was this "observation" exactly? I'll look again through the history
It's so far back now, I don't even recall.. but the upshot is, somewhere between it trying to compile and copy stuff to whatever the destination was, I ended up with a lot of screwed permissions across the system.
Spectre wrote to Digital Man <=-
You're just making this up. What you're describing doesn't sound like any Synchronet installation procedure for any OS. -- digital man (rob)
Sure, I just do this for fun. Why the hell would I want to do
that?
Digital Man wrote to Spectre <=-
Re: Synchronet issues
By: Spectre to Digital Man on Fri Oct 28 2022 05:02 am
You're just making this up. What you're describing doesn't sound like any Synchronet installation procedure for any OS. -- digital man (rob)
Sure, I just do this for fun. Why the hell would I want to do that?
Maybe you're jealous of the *real* SBBS? <j/k>
More seriously, I've noticed from searching through your posts
here that you seem enjoy disparaging very successful software and
the organizations that created them with derogatory nicknames.
You appear to get some kind of thrill out of that. Why? Maybe
your therapist can tell us. --
digital man (rob)
Wow, then you managed to do that yourself: Nothing in Synchronet
changes ownership or permissions of existing directories or files.
Well I agree with you there: *.MSG is a bad example. :-)
Ahh but you "got" the message!
In somewhat related programming musings I'm prepared to pay a handsome bounty for anyone who can successfully port the opensource Turbopower B-tree Isam library from Delphi to Freepascal in TP7 mode.
I know your a C guy but if you know anyone interested, shoot me an email.
So I've heard, however it was the compile script that did it.. in the words >> of Ripley, believe it or not.
Yup, I don't believe it.
I've never heard of a build script doing that (let alone
Synchronet's build script doing that). I've set up Synchronet
in Linux myself and haven't seen that happen. I'd have to
guess something else must have done that..
Ni> I've never heard of a build script doing that (let alone Synchronet's
Me either... not in 30 odd years... but as I keep saying, it doesn't mean it didn't happen. If you extract the tarball, do the do whatever the hell that was, its to far back to recall, and the result is you have a raft of stuff missing permissions. Then? Shrug.
As someone who doesn't care to engage in any argumentative fashion, I
/will/ say there is a part of me that is super curious how in the heck
your file system/permissions/whatever to so borked here, I can't find
a single step in the install process that would cause something like
that.
You're just making this up. What you're describing doesn't sound
like any Synchronet installation procedure for any OS.
Sure, I just do this for fun. Why the hell would I want to do that?
In somewhat related programming musings I'm prepared to pay a handsome bounty for anyone who can successfully port the opensource Turbopower B-tree Isam library from Delphi to Freepascal in TP7 mode.
I know your a C guy but if you know anyone interested, shoot me an email.
At that point, why not just use SQLite instead?
Tracker1 wrote to Spectre <=-
You're just making this up. What you're describing doesn't sound
like any Synchronet installation procedure for any OS.
Sure, I just do this for fun. Why the hell would I want to do that?
Maybe you're just psychologically incapable of admitting fault,
or that you might, possibly, be wrong and instead make asinine
childish statements about someone else's work to sate your own
ego?
You're just making this up. What you're describing doesn't sound
like any Synchronet installation procedure for any OS. -- digital
man (rob)
Sure, I just do this for fun. Why the hell would I want to do
that?
That's the question we are all asking you to answer. We don't
understand why you'd do that either.
It does a chmod towards the end... but would have to do something weird with the make target to do anything destructive.
Nightfox wrote to Gamgee <=-
Re: Re: Synchronet issues
By: Gamgee to Spectre on Thu Oct 27 2022 08:12 pm
You're just making this up. What you're describing doesn't sound
like any Synchronet installation procedure for any OS. -- digital
man (rob)
Sure, I just do this for fun. Why the hell would I want to do
that?
That's the question we are all asking you to answer. We don't
understand why you'd do that either.
I feel like there's some lack of understanding of OS fundamentals
or something on his part going on here.. If it were me and that
happened to me, I'd probably try it again a couple times to see
if the problem is repeatable, and if it is, I'd probably ask
questions and try to track it down rather than blaming
Synchronet. Nobody else has reported this problem, so I don't
think it's a Synchronet issue.
On 10/25/22 11:29, Digital Man wrote:
Wow, then you managed to do that yourself: Nothing in Synchronet
changes ownership or permissions of existing directories or files.
The nix install script/make-install chown's the /sbbs directory to the current user:group towards the end.
If he did something weird with the base path make is using, it *could*
screw something up.
Digital Man wrote to Tracker1 <=-
Spectre said he used a tarball file, which doesn't use the install/GNUmakefile you're referring to. --
Would accidentally doing some/all of the steps as su cause an issue like that (I forget which user he said owned the files, if he did)?
Digital Man wrote to Tracker1 <=-
Spectre said he used a tarball file, which doesn't use the install/GNUmakefile you're referring to. --
digital man (rob)
It does a chmod towards the end... but would have to do something
weird with the make target to do anything destructive.
I saw you had mentioned chown in another message.. I suppose there
may be a possibility of something weird happening. It seems he's
making a big deal of it though.. I'm not sure it could really do
anything too destructive.
Spectre said he used a tarball file, which doesn't use the install/GNUmakefile you're referring to.
| Sysop: | Gary Ailes |
|---|---|
| Location: | Pittsburgh, PA |
| Users: | 132 |
| Nodes: | 5 (0 / 5) |
| Uptime: | 66:28:12 |
| Calls: | 733 |
| Files: | 2,171 |
| Messages: | 81,302 |