"Proocessing packet xxx.pkt from (node of mystic hub) 17:50 Secure Violation (node of downlink) in the echo area posted.
I'm assuming you're using the latest Mystic?
Someone brought this up a long time ago but I can't remember the
solution. Is there an option in BBBS to set the "PKT type" used?
Yes I am using A34 as you can see below.
I will ask. What packet type should it be set at, just to be sure.
g00r00,
Yes I am using A34 as you can see below.
I will ask. What packet type should it be set at, just to be sure.
g00r00,
Yes I am using A34 as you can see below.
I will ask. What packet type should it be set at, just to be
sure.
I think Mystic uses PKT 2+ from FSC-0048 but I am not sure if BBBS
even has a setting for this.
If I am not mistaken, Jeff Smith here is our resident BBBS guru and he
may be the one who has encountered this before.
Hello g00r00!configuration
06 Jun 17 17:35, you wrote to Nugax:
g00r00,
Yes I am using A34 as you can see below.
I will ask. What packet type should it be set at, just to be
sure.
I think Mystic uses PKT 2+ from FSC-0048 but I am not sure if BBBS
even has a setting for this.
[...]
If I am not mistaken, Jeff Smith here is our resident BBBS guru and he may be the one who has encountered this before.
From from a guru. :-) But to my knowledge there is no setting or
option in BBBS to control PKT type. To my knowledge BBBS uses type 2 packets as
referenced in FSC-0048.
Jeff
--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20161221 / Mystic v1.12-A33 (Linux/64)
* Origin: The OuijaBoard Too - Anoka. MN (21:1/128)
I've opted to post here as I expect there will be some following along
and perhaps g00r00 may see it here first.
From from a guru. :-) But to my knowledge there is no setting or configuration option in BBBS to control PKT type. To my knowledge BBBS uses type 2 packets as referenced in FSC-0048.
From from a guru. :-) But to my knowledge there is no setting or configuration option in BBBS to control PKT type. To my knowledge BBBS uses type 2 packets as referenced in FSC-0048.
Okay thanks.
Was it you who mentioned the error message from BBBS while tossing messages, >when it had some sort of address verification enabled?
If so, do you remember what came out of that? Did we change something or?
--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A34 (Windows/32)
* Origin: Sector 7 [Mystic BBS WHQ] (21:1/108)
From from a guru. :-) But to my knowledge there is no setting or configuration option in BBBS to control PKT type. To my knowledge BBBS uses type 2 packets as referenced in FSC-0048.
Okay thanks.
Was it you who mentioned the error message from BBBS while tossing messages, >when it had some sort of address verification enabled?
If so, do you remember what came out of that? Did we change something or?
--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A34 (Windows/32)
* Origin: Sector 7 [Mystic BBS WHQ] (21:1/108)
Far from a guru. :-) But to my knowledge there is no setting or
configuration option in BBBS to control PKT type. To my knowledge BBBS
uses type 2 packets as referenced in FSC-0048.
Okay thanks.
Was it you who mentioned the error message from BBBS while tossing messages, when it had some sort of address verification enabled?
If so, do you remember what came out of that? Did we change something or?
I believe it was. The problem that I recall was that if I enabled echo area security in BBBS the incoming mail from 21:1/100 for the affected echo(s) would be rejected by BBBS as a security violation. Per the BBBS docs:
Far from a guru. :-) But to my knowledge there is no setting or
configuration option in BBBS to control PKT type. To my knowledge BBBS
uses type 2 packets as referenced in FSC-0048.
Okay thanks.
Was it you who mentioned the error message from BBBS while tossing messages, >> when it had some sort of address verification enabled?
I believe it was. The problem that I recall was that if I enabled echo area security in BBBS the incoming mail from 21:1/100 for the affected echo(s) would be rejected by BBBS as a security violation. Per the BBBS docs: "Secure: incoming mail to this area is accepted only if the area's uplink
is listed in the export list. Whenever possible, use this flag."
The incoming mail indicated that it was coming from a variety of FSXNET AKA's. The originating AKA's looked to be the AKA of the system that originally generated the message and not that of 21:1/100 which was the only FXSNET system that I was getting FSXNET mail from.
If so, do you remember what came out of that? Did we change something or?
The source of the situation was never resolved to my knowledge. To date the security for the FSXNET echos is still disabled in BBBS. I can setup a specific test echo between my BBBS and my Mystic A33 system to see if the problem still exists. Given the lack of info to the contrary I would assume that it does still exist.
I believe it was. The problem that I recall was that if I enabled echo
area security in BBBS the incoming mail from 21:1/100 for the affected
echo(s) would be rejected by BBBS as a security violation. Per the BBBS
docs:
My issue is Janis K is running BBBS. I have a Mystic A33 hub. I CAN send mail fine from the hub. If I go to a downlink and send mail, I get a secure violation on the new node number from the downlink.
I simply changed and started sending mail through a Maximus system and no issues at all.
I have nothing else in mystic i can configure to allow it to send. The hub mystic system i have gets the mail in the echo, tosses it to her BBBS System and sends. Then she gets that secure violation error on tossing like it didnt come from my system. I even added an AKA to my system of the node download in question and it still ocurred.
Hello Nugax,
I believe it was. The problem that I recall was that if I enabled echo
area security in BBBS the incoming mail from 21:1/100 for the affected
echo(s) would be rejected by BBBS as a security violation. Per the BBBS
docs:
My issue is Janis K is running BBBS. I have a Mystic A33 hub. I CAN send mail
fine from the hub. If I go to a downlink and send mail, I get a secure
violation on the new node number from the downlink.
I simply changed and started sending mail through a Maximus system and no
issues at all.
I have nothing else in mystic i can configure to allow it to send. The hub >> mystic system i have gets the mail in the echo, tosses it to her BBBS System >> and sends. Then she gets that secure violation error on tossing like it didnt
come from my system. I even added an AKA to my system of the node download in
question and it still ocurred.
That is essentially the same issue that I was having with my BBBS system. My >BBBS was getting a feed from a Mystic system and BBBS would reject most >incoming mail from the Mystic system as a security violation unless I disabled >echo area security in BBBS for the echos that were affected. This echo security
issue was only seen in mail coming from a Mystic system. All of the 100's of
other echos carried from other FTN's by BBBS have always had echo security >enabled.
I will be setting up a test echo between my BBBS and my Mystic and continue to >investigate the matter. I will post any pertinent findings discovered.
Jeff
--- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Toy-3
* Origin: FsxNet: The Ouija Board - bbs.ouijabrd.net (21:3/101)
Hello g00r00,
Far from a guru. :-) But to my knowledge there is no setting or
configuration option in BBBS to control PKT type. To my knowledge
BBBS uses type 2 packets as referenced in FSC-0048.
Okay thanks.
If so, do you remember what came out of that? Did we change
something or?
The source of the situation was never resolved to my knowledge. To
date the security for the FSXNET echos is still disabled in BBBS. I
can setup a specific test echo between my BBBS and my Mystic A33
system to see if the problem still exists. Given the lack of info to
the contrary I would assume that it does still exist.
In looking back at the BBBS logs of that time. BBBS showed the
following when processing incoming mail:
160415 18:17 Processing packet 00000122.pkt from 21:1/100.0, 3809
bytes. 160415 18:17 Secure violation: 21:1/120.0 in FSX_GEN. 160415
18:17 Processing packet 00000164.pkt from 21:1/100.0, 860
bytes. 160415 18:17 Secure violation: 21:1/101.0 in FSX_GEN. 160415
18:17 Processing packet 00000173.pkt from 21:1/100.0, 1290
bytes. 160415 18:17 Secure violation: 21:1/126.0 in FSX_GEN. 160415
18:17 Processing packet 00000090.pkt from 21:1/100.0, 549
bytes. 160415 18:17 Secure violation: 21:1/102.0 in FSX_GEN. 160415
18:17 Processing packet 00000069.pkt from 21:1/100.0, 1426
bytes. 160415 18:17 Secure violation: 21:1/101.0 in FSX_GEN. 160415
18:17 Processing packet 00000195.pkt from 21:1/100.0, 1096
bytes. 160415 18:17 Secure violation: 21:1/125.0 in FSX_GEN. 160415
18:17 Processing packet 00000099.pkt from 21:1/100.0, 1412
bytes. 160415 18:17 Secure violation: 21:1/120.0 in FSX_GEN. 160415
18:17 Processing packet 00000215.pkt from 21:1/100.0, 3403
bytes. 160415 18:17 Secure violation: 21:1/105.0 in FSX_GEN. 160415
18:17 Processing packet 00000219.pkt from 21:1/100.0, 1136
bytes. 160415 18:17 Secure violation: 21:1/109.0 in FSX_GEN. 160415
18:17 Processing packet 00000162.pkt from 21:1/100.0, 725
bytes. 160415 18:17 Secure violation: 21:1/127.0 in FSX_GEN. 160415
18:17 Processing packet 00000175.pkt from 21:1/100.0, 1313
bytes. 160415 18:17 Secure violation: 21:1/109.0 in FSX_GEN.
When I disabled security for the echo in BBBS then the incoming
packets were tossed ok.
Hello Jeff!
12 Jun 17 18:26, I wrote to g00roo:
Hello g00r00,
Far from a guru. :-) But to my knowledge there is no setting or
configuration option in BBBS to control PKT type. To my knowledge
BBBS uses type 2 packets as referenced in FSC-0048.
Okay thanks.
[...]
If so, do you remember what came out of that? Did we change
something or?
The source of the situation was never resolved to my knowledge. To
date the security for the FSXNET echos is still disabled in BBBS. I
can setup a specific test echo between my BBBS and my Mystic A33
system to see if the problem still exists. Given the lack of info to
the contrary I would assume that it does still exist.
My statement that the problem still exists is an assumption on my part due
to the fact that I haven't checked lately to factually verify that it does >indeed still exist. I am currently using upgraded versions of both BBBS and >Mystic since the problem first surfaced for me.
I do know though that Janis is currently using the same release version
(BBBS 4.10/Li6 Toy-3) of BBBS that I am using.
In looking back at the BBBS logs of that time. BBBS showed the
following when processing incoming mail:
160415 18:17 Processing packet 00000122.pkt from 21:1/100.0, 3809
bytes. 160415 18:17 Secure violation: 21:1/120.0 in FSX_GEN. 160415
18:17 Processing packet 00000164.pkt from 21:1/100.0, 860
bytes. 160415 18:17 Secure violation: 21:1/101.0 in FSX_GEN. 160415
18:17 Processing packet 00000173.pkt from 21:1/100.0, 1290
bytes. 160415 18:17 Secure violation: 21:1/126.0 in FSX_GEN. 160415
18:17 Processing packet 00000090.pkt from 21:1/100.0, 549
bytes. 160415 18:17 Secure violation: 21:1/102.0 in FSX_GEN. 160415
18:17 Processing packet 00000069.pkt from 21:1/100.0, 1426
bytes. 160415 18:17 Secure violation: 21:1/101.0 in FSX_GEN. 160415
18:17 Processing packet 00000195.pkt from 21:1/100.0, 1096
bytes. 160415 18:17 Secure violation: 21:1/125.0 in FSX_GEN. 160415
18:17 Processing packet 00000099.pkt from 21:1/100.0, 1412
bytes. 160415 18:17 Secure violation: 21:1/120.0 in FSX_GEN. 160415
18:17 Processing packet 00000215.pkt from 21:1/100.0, 3403
bytes. 160415 18:17 Secure violation: 21:1/105.0 in FSX_GEN. 160415
18:17 Processing packet 00000219.pkt from 21:1/100.0, 1136
bytes. 160415 18:17 Secure violation: 21:1/109.0 in FSX_GEN. 160415
18:17 Processing packet 00000162.pkt from 21:1/100.0, 725
bytes. 160415 18:17 Secure violation: 21:1/127.0 in FSX_GEN. 160415
18:17 Processing packet 00000175.pkt from 21:1/100.0, 1313
bytes. 160415 18:17 Secure violation: 21:1/109.0 in FSX_GEN.
When I disabled security for the echo in BBBS then the incoming
packets were tossed ok.
I will conduct new tests to see if the situation still exists for me.
Jeff
--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20161221 / Mystic v1.12-A33 (Linux/64)
* Origin: The OuijaBoard Too - Anoka. MN (21:1/128)
Jeff,
I was using Ubuntu. How do you get the bbbs executables to run? It
would say file not found each time I tried.
Hello Nugax!
13 Jun 17 21:56, you wrote to all:
Jeff,
I was using Ubuntu. How do you get the bbbs executables to run? It
would say file not found each time I tried.
With Ubuntu if you don't have your BBBS's executable directory in Ubuntu's >path specification then you must either specify the path or change "CD" to the >correct directory and execute bbbs with a ./ prefix.
So in a bash script file I might have:
#!/bin/bash
#
cd /home/bbbs
#
./bbbs <bbbs command switches>
In some instances I could also use the absolute path and use the command:
/home/bbbs/bbbs <bbbs command switches>
Jeff
--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20161221 / Mystic v1.12-A33 (Linux/64)
* Origin: The OuijaBoard Too - Anoka. MN (21:1/128)
I tried that. It was weird
Note: IMHO, we are straying abit off topic here as we are
strictly discussing BBBS's operation. There is a BBBS.ENGLISH
echo where this discussion would be more at home.
Hello Nugax!
14 Jun 17 06:37, you wrote to all:
I tried that. It was weird
Ok.... Define weird. :-)
If you open a terminal window.
Then change (cd) to your bbbs executable directory.
The type ./bbbs.
What do you see?
You should see a list of BBBS's commandline options
If you do then BBBS is responding as it should.
Note: IMHO, we are straying abit off topic here as we are
strictly discussing BBBS's operation. There is a BBBS.ENGLISH
echo where this discussion would be more at home.
Jeff
--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20161221 / Mystic v1.12-A33 (Linux/64)
* Origin: The OuijaBoard Too - Anoka. MN (21:1/128)
On 06/14/17, Jeff Smith pondered and said...
Note: IMHO, we are straying abit off topic here as we are
strictly discussing BBBS's operation. There is a BBBS.ENGLISH
echo where this discussion would be more at home.
If it relates to how this plays nicely with Mystic then this is a good echo.. >if you want to discuss BBBS in fsxNet the both the BBS dev echoarea and the >general echoarea are good spots :)
--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A33 (Windows/32)
* Origin: Agency BBS | telnet://agency.bbs.geek.nz (21:1/101)
On 06/14/17, Jeff Smith pondered and said...
Note: IMHO, we are straying abit off topic here as we are
strictly discussing BBBS's operation. There is a BBBS.ENGLISH
echo where this discussion would be more at home.
If it relates to how this plays nicely with Mystic then this is a good echo.. if you want to discuss BBBS in fsxNet the both the BBS dev echoarea and the general echoarea are good spots :)
It would say command or file not found. I'm no new to Linux. It had execute permissions and full access. And I ran it with ./command
In fact. None of the executable files would run. Same issue
I believe it is relevant because Mystic is having the exact same issue described with you and my setup with Janis. I get the exact same
secure error when sending echo mail from a downlink through my Mystic
hub
* An ongoing debate between Nugax and All rages on ...
It would say command or file not found. I'm no new to Linux. It
had execute permissions and full access. And I ran it with
./command In fact. None of the executable files would run. Same
issue
Watch your case, some Zips require -L parameter to get lower case file names on extract
* An ongoing debate between Nugax and All rages on ...
It would say command or file not found. I'm no new to Linux. It had execute permissions and full access. And I ran it with ./command
In fact. None of the executable files would run. Same issue
Watch your case, some Zips require -L parameter to get lower case file names on
extract
:)
.- Keep the faith, --------------------------------------------------.
| |
| Ben aka cMech Web: http|ftp|binkp|telnet://cmech.dynip.com |
| Email: fido4cmech(at)lusfiber.net |
| Home page: http://cmech.dynip.com/homepage/ | >`----------- WildCat! Board 24/7 +1-337-984-4794 any BAUD 8,N,1 ---'
... Gotta go, the orderlies are about to check my room.
--- GoldED+/LNX v1.1.5-b20170303 ... via Mystic BBS!
* Origin: FSXNet - Positronium #2: telnet://cmech.dynip.com:2323 (21:2/120)
Hello Nugax!
14 Jun 17 18:05, you wrote to all:
I believe it is relevant because Mystic is having the exact same issue described with you and my setup with Janis. I get the exact same
secure error when sending echo mail from a downlink through my Mystic
hub
Yes, the discussion of how BBBS works with Mystic is IMHO totally relevant. >It was only the part of talking about strickly BBBS functionality that I was >refering to. In either case were good. :-)
In fact, I will request an echo from Janis using my Mystic to verify my >findings.
Jeff
--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20161221 / Mystic v1.12-A33 (Linux/64)
* Origin: The OuijaBoard Too - Anoka. MN (21:1/128)
Hello Nugax!
14 Jun 17 18:55, Cmech wrote to you:
* An ongoing debate between Nugax and All rages on ...
It would say command or file not found. I'm no new to Linux. It
had execute permissions and full access. And I ran it with
./command In fact. None of the executable files would run. Same
issue
Watch your case, some Zips require -L parameter to get lower case file names on extract
Yes... Absolutely. Linux is very case sensitive. I try to always use lower >case names for filenames, directories, etc. Any differance in case in either >a filename or path and you will get a "not found" error.
Jeff
--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20161221 / Mystic v1.12-A33 (Linux/64)
* Origin: The OuijaBoard Too - Anoka. MN (21:1/128)
Yea I told her something about this and she explained something about configuring something in BBBS? Which has totally nothing to do with
me. Lol.
In fact, I will request an echo from Janis using my Mystic to verify
my findings.
That wasn't it. I have used Linux since 1996. There was something
funky with with files. Maybe I got a bad download.
On 19:09 14/06 , Jeff Smith wrote:
Yes... Absolutely. Linux is very case sensitive. I try to always use
lower case names for filenames, directories, etc. Any differance in
case in either a filename or path and you will get a "not found"
error.
The incoming mail indicated that it was coming from a variety of FSXNET AKA's. The originating AKA's looked to be the AKA of the system that originally generated the message and not that of 21:1/100 which was the only FXSNET system that I was getting FSXNET mail from.
What is causing this error from mystic only is my question? Is it something with the way mystic handles the mail? This is my issue.
The incoming mail indicated that it was coming from a variety of
FSXNET AKA's. The originating AKA's looked to be the AKA of the
system that originally generated the message and not that of
21:1/100 which was the only FXSNET system that I was getting
FSXNET mail from.
What I believe might be happening is that BBBS thinks the "origin
address" field in each echomail message should be that node's uplink
and not the address of which the message originally came from. Other tossers do not do this.
The PKT header itself contains the addressing for the immediate
uplink, so any address verification should be done by processing the
PKT header not the individual messages.
This could be wrong but this is what I am remembering from when we
stopped on this.
Hello Nugax!
15 Jun 17 06:37, you wrote to all:
Yea I told her something about this and she explained something about configuring something in BBBS? Which has totally nothing to do with
me. Lol.
In fact, I will request an echo from Janis using my Mystic to verify
my findings.
I have connected to Janis for the Fido echo FIDOTEST an sent her several
mail packets so far and her BBBS system has accepted them and tossed them >fine. And yes, she does currently have echo security enabled for the echo
in question. I will continue to test until I am satisfied as to the validity >of my conclusions.
I feel it is only fair to note that when *I* had the security issue I was >using both an earlier version of BBBS and Mystic.
Jeff
--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20161221 / Mystic v1.12-A33 (Linux/64)
* Origin: The OuijaBoard Too - Anoka. MN (21:1/128)
Hello Nugax!
15 Jun 17 06:37, you wrote to all:
That wasn't it. I have used Linux since 1996. There was something
funky with with files. Maybe I got a bad download.
On 19:09 14/06 , Jeff Smith wrote:
Yes... Absolutely. Linux is very case sensitive. I try to always use
lower case names for filenames, directories, etc. Any differance in
case in either a filename or path and you will get a "not found"
error.
That is always a possibility. I have downloaded a corrupt archive or
source before. Maybe, try a fresh download to verify.
Jeff
--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20161221 / Mystic v1.12-A33 (Linux/64)
* Origin: The OuijaBoard Too - Anoka. MN (21:1/128)
What is causing this error from mystic only is my question? Is it something with the way mystic handles the mail? This is my issue.
I've explained it in another message to Jeff.
The BBBS side needs to disable the security check for your node and then >packets will toss. I've explained what I think BBBS is doing and why I think >it is wrong of BBBS to do it in that other message.
If it turns out I am misunderstanding something I will gladly make the >correction in Mystic where needed, but the fact that no other tossers struggle >with this to me tells me that what I am saying is correct.
--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A34 (Windows/32)
* Origin: Sector 7 [Mystic BBS WHQ] (21:1/108)
Hello g00r00!
15 Jun 17 13:29, you wrote to me:
The incoming mail indicated that it was coming from a variety of
FSXNET AKA's. The originating AKA's looked to be the AKA of the
system that originally generated the message and not that of
21:1/100 which was the only FXSNET system that I was getting
FSXNET mail from.
What I believe might be happening is that BBBS thinks the "origin address" field in each echomail message should be that node's uplink
and not the address of which the message originally came from. Other tossers do not do this.
[...]
I understand and agree and that was my assumption too even though I didn't
at the time have an adequate understanding of how BBBS and Mystic interacted. >I assumed that either BBBS wasn't reading the correct AKA OR Mystic wasn't >presenting the correct AKA.
The PKT header itself contains the addressing for the immediate
uplink, so any address verification should be done by processing the
PKT header not the individual messages.
This could be wrong but this is what I am remembering from when we stopped on this.
I currently have my Mystic setup to to get the Fido echo FIDOTEST from Janis >who runs BBBS v.10/Li6 Toy-3. She currently has echo security enabled for >that echo. A setting that caused BBBS to reject packets as a security >violation due to AKA's. I currently run Mystic v1.12 A33/Lin64. In the
last couple days I have sent Janis a number of mail packets (Uncompressed)
in the echo. Janis has reported that all of the packets were received and >processed with out error. It should be noted I think that when I had this >security violation issue I was using an earlier version of BBBS. I currently >use the same version as Janis does now. Janis has also stated that she >connects to and feeds other Mystic systems but only seems to have problems >with one particular Mystic system. When I had the security issue my BBBS
had the same problem with Paul's Mystic as well as my Mystic system. I >beleive we were using A31 or prior at the time.
I will talk to Paul and try enabling echo security again in my BBBS for the >FSXNET echos to determine if the security issue continues to exist and will >post the results here.
Jeff
--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20161221 / Mystic v1.12-A33 (Linux/64)
* Origin: The OuijaBoard Too - Anoka. MN (21:1/128)
Hello g00r00!
15 Jun 17 13:29, you wrote to me:
The incoming mail indicated that it was coming from a variety of
FSXNET AKA's. The originating AKA's looked to be the AKA of the
system that originally generated the message and not that of
21:1/100 which was the only FXSNET system that I was getting
FSXNET mail from.
What I believe might be happening is that BBBS thinks the "origin address" field in each echomail message should be that node's uplink
and not the address of which the message originally came from. Other tossers do not do this.
[...]
I understand and agree and that was my assumption too even though I didn't
at the time have an adequate understanding of how BBBS and Mystic interacted. >I assumed that either BBBS wasn't reading the correct AKA OR Mystic wasn't >presenting the correct AKA.
The PKT header itself contains the addressing for the immediate
uplink, so any address verification should be done by processing the
PKT header not the individual messages.
This could be wrong but this is what I am remembering from when we stopped on this.
I currently have my Mystic setup to to get the Fido echo FIDOTEST from Janis >who runs BBBS v.10/Li6 Toy-3. She currently has echo security enabled for >that echo. A setting that caused BBBS to reject packets as a security >violation due to AKA's. I currently run Mystic v1.12 A33/Lin64. In the
last couple days I have sent Janis a number of mail packets (Uncompressed)
in the echo. Janis has reported that all of the packets were received and >processed with out error. It should be noted I think that when I had this >security violation issue I was using an earlier version of BBBS. I currently >use the same version as Janis does now. Janis has also stated that she >connects to and feeds other Mystic systems but only seems to have problems >with one particular Mystic system. When I had the security issue my BBBS
had the same problem with Paul's Mystic as well as my Mystic system. I >beleive we were using A31 or prior at the time.
I will talk to Paul and try enabling echo security again in my BBBS for the >FSXNET echos to determine if the security issue continues to exist and will >post the results here.
Jeff
--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20161221 / Mystic v1.12-A33 (Linux/64)
* Origin: The OuijaBoard Too - Anoka. MN (21:1/128)
This is what happened to me:
I have a Linux Mystic A33 "hub" for fidonet.
Node: 1:140/20- When a system that is a node 1:130/210 sent a packet
to /20 then to Janis, it got the secure violation error and would not
toss in BBBS and it gave a secure error in the. BBBS log.
If I sent to Janis directly from /20 "the hub" it works fine.
The BBBS side needs to disable the security check for your node and then packets will toss.
I am the system she is having issues with. And I am running A33. If i
need to change something, I just need to know what to do.
Thanks for the help.
On 06/15/17, Nugax said the following...
This is what happened to me:
I have a Linux Mystic A33 "hub" for fidonet.
Node: 1:140/20- When a system that is a node 1:130/210 sent a packet
to /20 then to Janis, it got the secure violation error and would not toss in BBBS and it gave a secure error in the. BBBS log.
If I sent to Janis directly from /20 "the hub" it works fine.
i have in my route info 1:* 2:* 3:* 4:*
try that
|08 .|05�|15Dr|07e|08am Ma|07st|15er|13�|08.
|08 ��� |13�� |11 DoRE|03!|11ACiDiC|03!|11Demonic
|08[|15dreamland|09.|15darktech|09.|15org|08]
--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A33 (Windows/64)
* Origin: |08--[|15!|07dreamland BBS dreamland.darktech.org (21:1/163)
That's what I have
On 07:20 15/06 , dream master wrote:
i have in my route info 1:* 2:* 3:* 4:*
I am the system she is having issues with. And I am running A33.
If i need to change something, I just need to know what to do.
I am also running Mystic A33 here and I and sending and receiving Fido mail with Janis. She states that my Mystic mail packets are being
received and processed without any errors or security violations. I continue testing for awhile.
I have a Linux Mystic A33 "hub" for fidonet.
Node: 1:140/20- When a system that is a node 1:130/210 sent a
packet to /20 then to Janis, it got the secure violation error
On 06/15/17, Nugax pondered and said...
That's what I have
On 07:20 15/06 , dream master wrote:
i have in my route info 1:* 2:* 3:* 4:*
I think this relates to routing of netmail and would be correct for the >echonode you want to route your zones 1-4 netmail via
But I don't think this addresses what the others are chatting about which is >more to do with the way software (Mystic / BBBS) generate and/or interpret >information contained in the packets being sent between systems.
My 2 cents.
--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A33 (Windows/32)
* Origin: Agency BBS | telnet://agency.bbs.geek.nz (21:1/101)
Hello Nugax!
15 Jun 17 14:06, you wrote to all:
I am the system she is having issues with. And I am running A33. If i need to change something, I just need to know what to do.
I am also running Mystic A33 here and I and sending and receiving Fido
mail with Janis. She states that my Mystic mail packets are being
received and processed without any errors or security violations. I
continue testing for awhile.
Thanks for the help.
Not a problem.
Jeff
--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20161221 / Mystic v1.12-A33 (Linux/64)
* Origin: The OuijaBoard Too - Anoka. MN (21:1/128)
* An ongoing debate between Jeff Smith and Nugax rages on ...Just
I am the system she is having issues with. And I am running A33.
If i need to change something, I just need to know what to do.
I am also running Mystic A33 here and I and sending and receiving Fido mail with Janis. She states that my Mystic mail packets are being received and processed without any errors or security violations. I continue testing for awhile.
Same here, no issues, but routed mail is rare {chuckle} What do you have for >routing for Janis? You're not trying to send her Zone 21 mail are you? :)
asking lol I'm assuming nada ...
.- Keep the faith, --------------------------------------------------.
| |
| Ben aka cMech Web: http|ftp|binkp|telnet://cmech.dynip.com |
| Email: fido4cmech(at)lusfiber.net |
| Home page: http://cmech.dynip.com/homepage/ | >`----------- WildCat! Board 24/7 +1-337-984-4794 any BAUD 8,N,1 ---'
... Some people find fault like there is a reward offered.
--- GoldED+/LNX v1.1.5-b20170303 ... via Mystic BBS!
* Origin: FSXNet - Positronium #2: telnet://cmech.dynip.com:2323 (21:2/120)
* An ongoing debate between Nugax and All rages on ...
I have a Linux Mystic A33 "hub" for fidonet.
Node: 1:140/20- When a system that is a node 1:130/210 sent a
packet to /20 then to Janis, it got the secure violation error
Sounds like the problem is with 130/210! What is he running and what is his >routing, if Mystic?
.- Keep the faith, --------------------------------------------------.
| |
| Ben aka cMech Web: http|ftp|binkp|telnet://cmech.dynip.com |
| Email: fido4cmech(at)lusfiber.net |
| Home page: http://cmech.dynip.com/homepage/ | >`----------- WildCat! Board 24/7 +1-337-984-4794 any BAUD 8,N,1 ---'
... Children are our best assets. Teach them well!
--- GoldED+/LNX v1.1.5-b20170303 ... via Mystic BBS!
* Origin: FSXNet - Positronium #2: telnet://cmech.dynip.com:2323 (21:2/120)
Mystic a33. Works fine if I send mail through Marc Lewis's from the hub >1:130/20.
Only issues with Janis and BBBS.
If I send mail on hub to Marc Lewis it all works fine.
Weird huh.
210 is my bbs. /20 is a mystic machine tonjust serve fidonet. All
Mystic A33
On 12:07 15/06 , Cmech wrote:
* An ongoing debate between Nugax and All rages on ...
I have a Linux Mystic A33 "hub" for fidonet.
Node: 1:140/20- When a system that is a node 1:130/210 sent a
packet to /20 then to Janis, it got the secure violation error
Sounds like the problem is with 130/210! What is he running and what is his >>routing, if Mystic?
.- Keep the faith, --------------------------------------------------.
| |
| Ben aka cMech Web: http|ftp|binkp|telnet://cmech.dynip.com |
| Email: fido4cmech(at)lusfiber.net |
| Home page: http://cmech.dynip.com/homepage/ | >>`----------- WildCat! Board 24/7 +1-337-984-4794 any BAUD 8,N,1 ---'
... Children are our best assets. Teach them well!
--- GoldED+/LNX v1.1.5-b20170303 ... via Mystic BBS!
* Origin: FSXNet - Positronium #2: telnet://cmech.dynip.com:2323 (21:2/120) >>
--
yrNews Usenet Reader for iOS
http://appstore.com/yrNewsUsenetReader
--- Mystic BBS/NNTP v1.12 A33 (Linux/64)
* Origin: -=The ByteXchange BBS : bbs.thebytexchange.com=- (21:1/107)
If I send mail on hub to Marc Lewis it all works fine.
210 is my bbs. /20 is a mystic machine tonjust serve fidonet. All
Mystic A33
This routing also affects echomail packets. I did test that but disollowijg packets from nodes like:
1:* 2:*!1:130/210
That route statement will send all traffic for 1 and 2 but nothing from the node specified both echo mail and netmail. It won't even toss it.
If anyone wants to know my opinion....
There is some issue between BBBS and Mystic and sending mail from a downlink trough a mystic system.
I don't know what, but if I change from
BBBS to Maximus (Marc Lewis) and change nothing else at all, all mail
* An ongoing debate between Nugax and All rages on ...
If I send mail on hub to Marc Lewis it all works fine.
Doesn't matter, different routing
210 is my bbs. /20 is a mystic machine tonjust serve fidonet. All
Mystic A33
I still think the problem is with 210, not BBBS! What is the routing for 210?
What is defined for Allow Unsecure mail for both 210 and 20? (may not matter, >but)
What other nodes, besides 20, are defined for 210? What is routing for them?
Do you use a session PW between 210 and 20?
.- Keep the faith, --------------------------------------------------.
| |
| Ben aka cMech Web: http|ftp|binkp|telnet://cmech.dynip.com |
| Email: fido4cmech(at)lusfiber.net |
| Home page: http://cmech.dynip.com/homepage/ | >`----------- WildCat! Board 24/7 +1-337-984-4794 any BAUD 8,N,1 ---'
... When people agree with me I always feel that I must be wrong.
--- GoldED+/LNX v1.1.5-b20170303 ... via Mystic BBS!
* Origin: FSXNet - Positronium #2: telnet://cmech.dynip.com:2323 (21:2/120)
* An ongoing debate between Nugax and All rages on ...
If I send mail on hub to Marc Lewis it all works fine.
Doesn't matter, different routing
210 is my bbs. /20 is a mystic machine tonjust serve fidonet. All
Mystic A33
I still think the problem is with 210, not BBBS! What is the routing for 210?
What is defined for Allow Unsecure mail for both 210 and 20? (may not matter, >but)
What other nodes, besides 20, are defined for 210? What is routing for them?
Do you use a session PW between 210 and 20?
.- Keep the faith, --------------------------------------------------.
| |
| Ben aka cMech Web: http|ftp|binkp|telnet://cmech.dynip.com |
| Email: fido4cmech(at)lusfiber.net |
| Home page: http://cmech.dynip.com/homepage/ | >`----------- WildCat! Board 24/7 +1-337-984-4794 any BAUD 8,N,1 ---'
... When people agree with me I always feel that I must be wrong.
--- GoldED+/LNX v1.1.5-b20170303 ... via Mystic BBS!
* Origin: FSXNet - Positronium #2: telnet://cmech.dynip.com:2323 (21:2/120)
On 06/15/17, Nugax pondered and said...
This routing also affects echomail packets. I did test that but disollowijg packets from nodes like:
1:* 2:*!1:130/210
That route statement will send all traffic for 1 and 2 but nothing from the node specified both echo mail and netmail. It won't even toss it.
g00r00 may wish to comment. I was under the impression that routing line in >the echonode settings only relates to netmail and not echomail.
--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A33 (Windows/32)
* Origin: Agency BBS | telnet://agency.bbs.geek.nz (21:1/101)
I've tried the reg routing as well as direct to the uplink. Where is
the allow unsecure option?
What other nodes, besides 20, are defined for 210? What is routing
for them?
Do you use a session PW between 210 and 20?
On 06/15/17, Nugax said the following...
This is what happened to me:
I have a Linux Mystic A33 "hub" for fidonet.
Node: 1:140/20- When a system that is a node 1:130/210 sent a
packet to /20 then to Janis, it got the secure violation error
and would not toss in BBBS and it gave a secure error in the.
BBBS log. If I sent to Janis directly from /20 "the hub" it works
fine.
i have in my route info 1:* 2:* 3:* 4:*
try that
* An ongoing debate between Jeff Smith and Nugax rages on ...
I am the system she is having issues with. And I am running A33.
If i need to change something, I just need to know what to do.
I am also running Mystic A33 here and I and sending and receiving
Fido mail with Janis. She states that my Mystic mail packets are
being received and processed without any errors or security
violations. I continue testing for awhile.
Same here, no issues, but routed mail is rare {chuckle} What do you
have for routing for Janis? You're not trying to send her Zone 21 mail
are you? :) Just asking lol I'm assuming nada ...
I'd like to see you specific setup then, to see and match to what i
have. Are you trying sending mail through the machine that sends to
Janis from a node down linked it it?
I'd be happy to show you what I have:
So say you have node 1 that goes to Janis (uplink)
And then on node 2 it sends and echo packet to node 1 then janis.
That's where I get the error. So I am writing an echo message is say fidotest... on node 2. Routes to node 1. Sends to Janis. Secure error
ok bbbs import from the. Msgid contained with the
If I send straight to Janis from node 1, no errors works fine.
Does that make sense?
particular address. The problem here is that BBBS is not seeing the packets as coming from the "Hub" system's AKA but instead seeing the
AKA of the system that originated the message(s) in the packet. A
totally differant issue.
Routed Netmail I get from Janis uses the VIA kludge to keep things straight. Maybe Mystic knows not VIA?
* An ongoing debate between Nugax and All rages on ...your
I've tried the reg routing as well as direct to the uplink. Where is
the allow unsecure option?
Servers, BinkP Server Options, Allow Unsecure (probably doesn't matter to
problem, but you never know)
What other nodes, besides 20, are defined for 210? What is routing
for them?
Do you use a session PW between 210 and 20?
???
.- Keep the faith, --------------------------------------------------.
| |
| Ben aka cMech Web: http|ftp|binkp|telnet://cmech.dynip.com |
| Email: fido4cmech(at)lusfiber.net |
| Home page: http://cmech.dynip.com/homepage/ | >`----------- WildCat! Board 24/7 +1-337-984-4794 any BAUD 8,N,1 ---'
... I want a VEGETARIAN BURRITO to go ... with EXTRA MSG!!
--- GoldED+/LNX v1.1.5-b20170303 ... via Mystic BBS!
* Origin: FSXNet - Positronium #2: telnet://cmech.dynip.com:2323 (21:2/120)
Hello Cmech!
15 Jun 17 18:00, you wrote to Nugax:
* An ongoing debate between Jeff Smith and Nugax rages on ...
I am the system she is having issues with. And I am running A33.
If i need to change something, I just need to know what to do.
I am also running Mystic A33 here and I and sending and receiving
Fido mail with Janis. She states that my Mystic mail packets are
being received and processed without any errors or security
violations. I continue testing for awhile.
Same here, no issues, but routed mail is rare {chuckle} What do you
have for routing for Janis? You're not trying to send her Zone 21 mail are you? :) Just asking lol I'm assuming nada ...
Routed *netmail* these days is rare due in large part to the IP protocols >(Internet) that are available today.
Routed echomail is a "No No" as it involves trying to route files (Mail files) >through systems that have not expressly agreed to handle such routing.
I don't see this as a routing issue at all. The routing info refers to the >routing of netmail of a group of AKA's (I.E. 1:* 2:*) through a particular >address. The problem here is that BBBS is not seeing the packets as coming >from the "Hub" system's AKA but instead seeing the AKA of the system that >originated the message(s) in the packet. A totally differant issue.
Jeff
--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20161221 / Mystic v1.12-A33 (Linux/64)
* Origin: The OuijaBoard Too - Anoka. MN (21:1/128)
Hello Cmech!
15 Jun 17 18:00, you wrote to Nugax:
* An ongoing debate between Jeff Smith and Nugax rages on ...
I am the system she is having issues with. And I am running A33.
If i need to change something, I just need to know what to do.
I am also running Mystic A33 here and I and sending and receiving
Fido mail with Janis. She states that my Mystic mail packets are
being received and processed without any errors or security
violations. I continue testing for awhile.
Same here, no issues, but routed mail is rare {chuckle} What do you
have for routing for Janis? You're not trying to send her Zone 21 mail are you? :) Just asking lol I'm assuming nada ...
Routed *netmail* these days is rare due in large part to the IP protocols >(Internet) that are available today.
Routed echomail is a "No No" as it involves trying to route files (Mail files) >through systems that have not expressly agreed to handle such routing.
I don't see this as a routing issue at all. The routing info refers to the >routing of netmail of a group of AKA's (I.E. 1:* 2:*) through a particular >address. The problem here is that BBBS is not seeing the packets as coming >from the "Hub" system's AKA but instead seeing the AKA of the system that >originated the message(s) in the packet. A totally differant issue.
Jeff
--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20161221 / Mystic v1.12-A33 (Linux/64)
* Origin: The OuijaBoard Too - Anoka. MN (21:1/128)
Hello Nugax!
15 Jun 17 18:30, you wrote to all:
I'd like to see you specific setup then, to see and match to what i
have. Are you trying sending mail through the machine that sends to
Janis from a node down linked it it?
I'd be happy to show you what I have:
So say you have node 1 that goes to Janis (uplink)
And then on node 2 it sends and echo packet to node 1 then janis.
That's where I get the error. So I am writing an echo message is say fidotest... on node 2. Routes to node 1. Sends to Janis. Secure error
ok bbbs import from the. Msgid contained with the
If I send straight to Janis from node 1, no errors works fine.
Does that make sense?
Actually, yes it does. <g> And I will try to explain why it does. Given a >scenario of:
Feed <----------- Hub <--------- Downlink
-----------------------------------------------------
BBBS System Mystic System Downlink System
Now if mail packets (messages) were created on the "Hub" system then when >they were sent to the "Feed" system they would be processed ok. As the
AKA of the packet WAS the AKA of the originating system. BUT, if the mail >packets (messages) were created on the "Downlink" system then sent through >the "Hub" system to the "Feed" system THEN those packets would be incorrectly >rejected as BBBS was seeing the AKA of the originating "Downlink" system and >NOT the AKA of the "Hub" system which BBBS should have seen.
Am I making sense?
The real issue here is not a routing issue. The real issue here is whether >BBBS is reading the incorrect AKA OR whether Mystic is presenting the >incorrect AKA that BBBS is reading.
When I had this same problem. If messages were written on the Mystic system >feeding me then BBBS processed them fine. If the messages were written on a >downlink system then sent through the hub system THEN BBBS would reject them.
Jeff
--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20161221 / Mystic v1.12-A33 (Linux/64)
* Origin: The OuijaBoard Too - Anoka. MN (21:1/128)
*
* On 16 Jun 17 at 06:19,
* Nugax said to All,
* about Re: question about routing ...
*
What happens if you send BBS mail direct to Janis?
.- Keep the faith, --------------------------------------------------.
| |
| Ben aka cMech Web: http|ftp|binkp|telnet://cmech.dynip.com |
| Email: fido4cmech(at)lusfiber.net |
| Home page: http://cmech.dynip.com/homepage/ | >`----------- WildCat! Board 24/7 +1-337-984-4794 any BAUD 8,N,1 ---'
... Beware of all enterprises that require new clothes.
--- GoldED+/LNX v1.1.5-b20170303 ... via Mystic BBS!
* Origin: FSXNet - Positronium #2: telnet://cmech.dynip.com:2323 (21:2/120)
Works fine from the hub or 20. Doesn't work if you send it from a
downlink of 20 that sends to 20'then is exported.
Gets the secure violation error I mentioned.
* An ongoing debate between Nugax and All rages on ...
Works fine from the hub or 20. Doesn't work if you send it from a downlink of 20 that sends to 20'then is exported.
Gets the secure violation error I mentioned.
I meant sending netmail (only) direct from 210 to Janis, bypaassing 20. Might >be a workaround :)
.- Keep the faith, --------------------------------------------------.
| |
| Ben aka cMech Web: http|ftp|binkp|telnet://cmech.dynip.com |
| Email: fido4cmech(at)lusfiber.net |
| Home page: http://cmech.dynip.com/homepage/ | >`----------- WildCat! Board 24/7 +1-337-984-4794 any BAUD 8,N,1 ---'
... Live dangerously...order sushi at the next truck stop.
--- GoldED+/LNX v1.1.5-b20170303 ... via Mystic BBS!
* Origin: FSXNet - Positronium #2: telnet://cmech.dynip.com:2323 (21:2/120)
What is causing this error from mystic only is my question? Is it something with the way mystic handles the mail? This is my issue.
I've explained it in another message to Jeff.
The BBBS side needs to disable the security check for your node and then >packets will toss. I've explained what I think BBBS is doing and why I think >it is wrong of BBBS to do it in that other message.
If it turns out I am misunderstanding something I will gladly make the >correction in Mystic where needed, but the fact that no other tossers struggle >with this to me tells me that what I am saying is correct.
--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A34 (Windows/32)
* Origin: Sector 7 [Mystic BBS WHQ] (21:1/108)
I suppose I understand your point. But, the main Fido feed uses this, and it >does create an issue. She seems to think it's something on my end and from >jeff and all have said that doesn't seem to be the case. If I can adjust a >setting I would be glad to,
Why would the other BBS systems work? Synchronet, MBSE, Maximus? They all >seem to work through her (according to her)
I don't want to change but as it is I can't send mail to her from downlinks.
Is there anything else I can do to make this work? I suppose I am asking for >help as to what I can do to make my Mystic system work with BBBs in the >context of
My issue.
I don't want to run another BBS system!
On 07:32 15/06 , g00r00 wrote:
What is causing this error from mystic only is my question? Is it
something with the way mystic handles the mail? This is my issue.
I've explained it in another message to Jeff.
The BBBS side needs to disable the security check for your node and then >>packets will toss. I've explained what I think BBBS is doing and why I think >>it is wrong of BBBS to do it in that other message.
If it turns out I am misunderstanding something I will gladly make the >>correction in Mystic where needed, but the fact that no other tossers struggle
with this to me tells me that what I am saying is correct.
--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A34 (Windows/32)
* Origin: Sector 7 [Mystic BBS WHQ] (21:1/108)
--
yrNews Usenet Reader for iOS
http://appstore.com/yrNewsUsenetReader
--- Mystic BBS/NNTP v1.12 A33 (Linux/64)
* Origin: -=The ByteXchange BBS : bbs.thebytexchange.com=- (21:1/107)
Actually, the security check setting in BBBS is enabled/disabled on a
per echo basis and not on per node basis. As it pertains to the echo security issue being discussed.
g00r00 may wish to comment. I was under the impression that routing line in the echonode settings only relates to netmail and not echomail.
Jeff, you completely have the issue understood. The title might be off
but that's my issue sir
I sent that info to Janis and she kind of disagreed. She said others worked fine.
Not point fingers just relaying info.
Jeff, you completely have the issue understood. The title might be off but that's my issue sir
There are a lot of messages here about this and its difficult to follow >everything.
To clarify: I understand the BBBS error and the situation that must occur to >make it happen, and I shouldn't need any involvement from Janis to look into >it.
I can set up a similar test and look at the PKT header "to" address for >incorrect data, although I think Jeff and I might have done this in the past. >If I make any changes, I can send you a new MUTIL to test.
--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A34 (Windows/32)
* Origin: Sector 7 [Mystic BBS WHQ] (21:1/108)
I sent that info to Janis and she kind of disagreed. She said others worked fine.
Not point fingers just relaying info.
No worries. Keep in mind that Mystic works with every other tosser just fine >too, its only BBBS that gives this error. :)
I'll take a look at things and we'll get to the bottom of it.
--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A34 (Windows/32)
* Origin: Sector 7 [Mystic BBS WHQ] (21:1/108)
I sent that info to Janis and she kind of disagreed. She said others worked fine.
Not point fingers just relaying info.
No worries. Keep in mind that Mystic works with every other tosser just fine >too, its only BBBS that gives this error. :)
I'll take a look at things and we'll get to the bottom of it.
--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A34 (Windows/32)
* Origin: Sector 7 [Mystic BBS WHQ] (21:1/108)
does create an issue. She seems to think it's something on my end and fr jeff and all have said that doesn't seem to be the case. If I can adjust
And this is why I use mystic
BBBS is very buggy with binkd. TO the point if you ran MBSEBBS there
is an option in the config on that to force it to work the broken way
BBBS does things. Again, this was put it to get around the Janis issue.
g00r00,
I did asked for her to disable echo security as you stated for all my echoes on my hub node.
I'll update as to the response or findings if she does.
Yes, I believe this is true. Echomail routing is done by the "linking"
of nodes to bases in the editors. There is no routing required.
I seem to remember getting this type of reaction in the past myself, although not from any of the BBBS authors just people who use it and
Fido.
I don't want to start any shit, but...
Let's hope I get more than a "I disagree" and we can figure out how to stop that error! :)
I seem to remember getting this type of reaction in the past myself, although not from any of the BBBS authors just people who use it and Fido.
Correct... I haven't posted in the past because Avon asked me to not bash the fightonet elf lords anymore. (Sorry Paul I couldn't resist)
LOL as I said, the MBSE people gave up and just said "Fine we're wrong use this setting to make it work with BBBS then." ;)
Quoting Avon to Tiny <=-
That's OK :) I just didn't want a major bun fight coming across from
Fido going on in here.. but that's not going to happen... you're all fine my good man. :)
Quoting g00r00 to Tiny <=-
Thats pretty much what I did too. It didn't seem like showing them
the FidoNet Standards documentation was a good enough way to back up
why it shouldn't be doing what it was doing.
Hopefully it doesn't have any negative effect anywhere but glad to
have it solved now! :)
In the general stanza in my export/import.ini (mutil.ini) files I have logging setup for daily. Does this only work if you leave "logfile=" blank? That's the only thing I can think of since I've actually specified "/home/axisd/mystic/logs/mutil.log" in both .ini files.
| Sysop: | sneaky |
|---|---|
| Location: | Ashburton,NZ |
| Users: | 3 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 141:43:43 |
| Calls: | 2,129 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 11,149 |
| D/L today: |
29 files (9,998K bytes) |
| Messages: | 951,086 |