Sysop: | Amessyroom |
---|---|
Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
Users: | 39 |
Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
Uptime: | 61:19:19 |
Calls: | 171 |
Files: | 117 |
Messages: | 63,074 |
Testing to see if my packet creator/tosser I wrote will actually work... It passed the clrghouz packet viewer (awesome tool. Thanks Deon!) so hopefully this actually gets sent out... *fingers crossed*
Testing to see if my packet creator/tosser I wrote will actually work... It passed the clrghouz packet viewer (awesome tool. Thanks Deon!) so hopefully this actually gets sent out... *fingers crossed*
--- NE BBS v0.68-SNAPSHOT (linux; x64)
* Origin: NE BBS (21:3/193)
What are you making?I started writing my own BBS server earlier this year. It supports both color ANSI as well as 8-bit Atari ATASCII. There is local mail and a local message board but I've never connected to other systems before joining fsxnet. The packet creator/tosser is what I wrote that takes the message board posts written on my board and converts them to a ftn packet to go out binkd. It also parses the incoming packets pulled from binkd. Figuring out the packet stuff was a bit of learning curve. I'm writing the whole thing in Perl and the existing FTN::Packet modules don't create packets that pass the Clearing Houz's view packet so I sort of had to reverse engineer what was right/wrong with the output. I THINK I finally have it all squared away now. We'll see if this posts. :)--- NE BBS v0.68-SNAPSHOT (linux; x64)
Figuring out the packet stuff was a bit of learning curve. I'm writing the whole thing in Perl and the existing FTN::Packet modules don't create pack that pass the Clearing Houz's view packet so I sort of had to reverse engi what was right/wrong with the output.
I THINK I finally have it all squared away now. We'll see if this posts. :
What are you making?I started writing my own BBS server earlier this year. It supports both color ANSI as well as 8-bit Atari ATASCII. There is local mail and a local message board but I've never connected to other systems before joining fsxnet. The packet creator/tosser is what I wrote that
I *think* it should be good now... If so, this one should be three paragraphs as well.
Looking good now
Just a quick question... what does it mean when I view one of my sent packets on clrghouz and the node in the SEENBY list is red? Does that just mean it hasn't received it yet or does that mean it was rejected/failed due to some error?
I see a few reds on each one of my packets so far but most are green.
Some other random question (sorry for so many), I noticed if I upload a bad NETMAIL packet to the 'View Packet' checker, I get an actual NETMAIL response to my name at my node. Are those supposed to be actually processed? Or should that error have come in the 'View Packet' page?
I can't seem to figure out what's wrong with my netmail packets. I keep getting a 'The from.*or to.*address in this netmail is the wrong address for the domain'. I'm specifying a from and to address so I'm not sure why they keep failing.
Maybe I'm addressing the to/from fields incorrectly in the message?
I zipped up the packet I created as well as copy/pasted what the website showed and sent it to you in an email.
Are echomails possibly also going through the same validation? I ran a bunch of packets through the page the other day testing. I saw you had a message on another FSX board about NET 3 running slow due to a bunch of packets. Hopefully that wasn't caused by me testing on the web... (I've since stopped).
I zipped up the packet I created as well as copy/pasted what the website showed and sent it to you in an email.
Thanks - I'll take a look this week. I'm on the road with work so finding an opportunity might be rare...
Are echomails possibly also going through the same validation? I ran a bunch of packets through the page the other day testing. I saw you had a message on another FSX board about NET 3 running slow due to a bunch of packets. Hopefully that wasn't caused by me testing on the web... (I've since stopped).
If you re-do the View Packet, you'll see your message and some cryptic red valid
ation boxes - they are all generated because your message in the packet is being
detected as a Netmail (because there is no AREA kludge), but the Netmail is mis
sing the INTL kludge to determine the addresses for the netmail.
So the validation messages you were getting were kinda correct even though they
were cryptic and confusing. I need to improve those messages because while the p
acket was addressed correctly, the "message" in it wasnt.
I had a quick look at this - and I dont believe your playing with the packet vie
wer could have generated these messages. I think they came from somebody else in
the net. :)