Subj : tub and bbbs, was way ot, need some maximus ... To : Russell Tiedt From : Richard Webb Date : Sun Mar 08 2009 10:03 pm Hi Russell, * Reply to a message in MUFFIN. On Sun 2037-Mar-08 21:00, Russell Tiedt (5:7105/1) wrote to Richard Webb: RW> True enough. AS Janis explains, bbbs seems to be rather RW> sticky about its interpretation of fidonet tech standards. RW> MEthinks it has to do more with the way squish handles RW> routing when used with static mailers such a binkley, RW> although I don't know what the heck it is. MEthinks that's RW> why Sean's nm to you is somewhere in limbo world as well RW> . RT> BBBS is a good, package, just when I looked at it, I got the RT> impression, it was built for some other network, and FidoNet got RT> tacked on afterwards ... DOn't know anything about it. I"ve been in the binkley squish maximus world every since I first put a fido system on. I know when I was routing through Janis my routing line would be such as ... route normal NoArc 1:261/38 2:all 3:all 4:all 5:all ... I never have problems routing mail through 3634/12, or r19 mail through rc19 but Janis' system every once in awhile bounces nm complaining. RW> I'm linked to both fido_sysop and fn_sysop. Also, since RW> this is essentially an argument between squish and bbbs RW> which causes the problem tub might be appropriate as well. RW> Seems to be that imho anyway. RT> I am connected to all of those ... AS you notice I moved this thread to this echo. Maybe somebody else has some comments here re: squish arguing with bbbs when bbbs is used to route mail for a squish system. Regards, Richard --- timEd 1.10.y2k+ * Origin: Radio REscue net operations BBS (1:116/901) .