Date: Fri, 28.09.12 00:38
On Thu 2012-Sep-27 22:23, Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555) wrote to Richard
RW> Which is why, if crashing a message to a system I don't have
RW> arrangements with that message is an uncompressed packet,
MvdV> I do not compress netmail, except when explicitly requested. I do
MvdV> not handle large amounts of netmail and bytes are cheap these
Depends, if it's a system known to me and they require it
be, or request that it be it'll be compressed. Anything I
route via Janis goes compressed, as her system won't process it otherwise, as I
learned when first trying to route via
her system. But, even then there is a password protected
link there because of my fdn coordinator activities.
RW> hence it will hopefully be processed, and either routed
RW> onward or read by its intended recipient asap.
MvdV> In the past when bytes when cost was not zero, not everyone would
MvdV> forward mail for anyone. These days, most will forward anything. I
MvdV> do anyway...
I did for downlinks, if dropped on me by somebody else. I
maintained regular contact with a central Iowa system as I
continued to send him echoes not under backbone distribution even after i
moved, so iirc all the central Iowa net folks
routed their messages for eastern Iowa net to him.
RW> This is also why, if i find out I'm going to be making regular contact
RW> with a system I arrange a session pwd if the sysop is amenable.
MvdV> I do that when I wish to exchange echomail or files or if the
MvdV> other party requests it.
That's often the case, but even for just netmail, if I'm
going to be utilizing that system for routing of netmail
often I feel that a password protected links makes both of
us feel better about the situation. iT takes little time to implement, and
most folks will process mail received during
a secure session right away.
RW> That criterion for me is if at least twice during the average month
RW> I'll be contacting that system I'll endeavor to arrange a session
RW> password. While doing so I'll query the sysop as to what
RW> compression to use for routed mails.
MvdV> De facto standard compression is zip these days. So i do not ask,
MvdV> I just use zip. I will notice and act accordingly when it does not
That's the one I prefer, but I think I have at least one
link for some echomail that still uses arc.
MvdV>> In my case "without prior arrangement" means that it will land
MvdV>> in the unsecure inbound. Compressed mail landing in the unsecure
MvdV>> is not processed, hence the MN flag.
RW> This makes perfect sense to me as well.
MvdV> makes sense, but it happens occasinally the someone ignore it and
MvdV> sends unsollicited compressed netmail anyway. It may take up to a
MvdV> month for me to notice...
DOesn't happen that often, but back when I ran a busy system even the contents
of the unsecured directories were shown to me or my co-sysop at least once
daily, usually with the
early morning event after zmh. My co-sysop was quick to
take a peek at anything like that when I was traveling on
business, and if it was safe move it to the secured inbound
if appropriate for processing.
ml>> i do not see it limited to netmail only...
MvdV>> Netmail is the only kind of mail for which it makes sense to
MvdV>> send it without making prior arrangements.
RW> Again agreed. This was how my mentor in FIdonet when I
RW> first started explained it to me as well.
MvdV> I never had a mentor. Most of it, I figured out for myself. I am
MvdV> trained to do that. But I also leraned from others of course.
I'm not sure that bob would have called himself my mentor,
but in many ways he was, along with a few others.
* Origin: (1:116/901)