| |
I0OJJ > SYSOP 28.01.25 15:33l 76 Lines 2949 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : S1ZI0OJJ_006
Read: DJ6UX GUEST
Subj: Re: Resending: Old Bulletins
Path: DB0FHN<DB0RKB<DK0WUE<DK0WUE<K7EK<VE3CGR<PI8ZTM<I0OJJ
Sent: 250128/1431z @:I0OJJ.ITA.EU [Rome] obcm1.08-6-g5b69
From: I0OJJ @ I0OJJ.ITA.EU (Gustavo)
To: SYSOP @ WW
X-Info: Received by SMTP-gateway
> N9SEO > SYSOP 27.01.25 19:49l 29 Lines 1031 Bytes #10 (0) @ WW
> BID : 32186_N9SEO
> X-Flags: Type B Hold ! Prop ! Rep ! Cont ! Erase !
> Read: I0OJJ
> Subj: Resending: Old Bulletins
> R:250127/1849z @:I0OJJ.ITA.EU $:32186_N9SEO
> R:250127/1849z @:I3XTY.TV.IVEN.ITA.EU $:32186_N9SEO
> R:250127/1849z @:IZ3LSV.IVEN.ITA.EU $:32186_N9SEO
> R:250127/1849z @:DB0ERF.#THR.DEU.EU [Erfurt DL3AMi] DP6.00 $:32186_N9SEO
> R:250127/1849z @:DK0WUE.#BAY.DEU.EU $:32186_N9SEO
> R:250127/1848Z 11890@DK0WUE.#BAY.DEU.EU LinBPQ6.0.24
> R:250127/1848Z 19295@VK5RSV.#ADL.SA.AUS.AUNZ LinBPQ6.0.24
> R:250127/1848Z 26706@K7EK.#NOKY.KY.USA.NOAM BPQ6.0.24
> R:250127/1848Z 32317@VE3CGR.#SCON.ON.CAN.NOAM LinBPQ6.0.24
> R:250127/1847Z 3976@VA3BAL.#SCON.ON.CAN.NOAM LinBPQ6.0.24
> R:250127/1836Z @:VA3PJB.#SCON.ON.CAN.NOAM #:2833 [Hamilton] $:32186_N9SEO
> R:250127/1834Z 32186@N9SEO.#NAR.AR.USA.NOAM LinBPQ6.0.24
>
> Original Message was sent as a P instead of bulletin. So Not sure it
> reached a wider audience as intended. I am resending. See below.
>
>
> Hi,
>
> Why are we getting OLD bulletins? Do folks not reject/hold anything
> older than 60 days? I thought that was the 'common' best practice on
> this???? If not what is? Should not there be some limit to prevent
> regurgitation of old news? Or am I missing something else here?
>
> Example of several I got today just got to me after hoping through 4
> other systems upstream before they entered my hold queue.
>
> R:250126/2030Z 17763@VE2PKT.#TRV.QC.CAN.NOAM BPQ6.0.24
> R:250126/2026Z @:CX2SA.SAL.URY.SOAM #:47600 [Salto] FBB7.00e
> $:1470_KF5JRV
> R:250126/1714Z 25300@N3HYM.#FRDK.MD.USA.NOAM BPQ6.0.24
> R:250126/1713Z 27457@W9GM.#SWWI.WI.USA.NOAM BPQ6.0.24 R:241114/1105Z
> 19023@KC0GIS.#NCO.CO.USA.NOAM LinBPQ6.0.24 R:241114/1105Z
> 31922@KB5YZB.#NCO.CO.USA.NOAM LinBPQ6.0.22 R:241114/1104Z
> 9273@W0ARP.#NCO.CO.USA.NOAM LinBPQ6.0.24 R:241114/1104Z
> 1470@KF5JRV.#NWAR.AR.USA.NA BPQ6.0.23
>
>
> 73 de n9seo
> Kayne
There are several events/causes which produce that failures;
It's difficult to illustrate the complete scenario.
Some technical notes:
1. the reject of a msg (among the others) IS NOT produced by
the msg age of msgs: this value only designate the permanence
of msg in the PMS list i.e. a msg expire after 60 days of its
age.
An incoming msg is rejected if it's BID is already stored in
the BID database on the receiving PBBS.
Now, analyzing the above rline tracks results that they are
corrupted and so there is no reference on BID PBBS databases.
2. In the above case, a 'true' PBBS system is able to reject
msgs having corrupted rlines: i.e. no track of them results
in my facility.
3. Furthermore, it is shown that the BPQ PBBSs are very faulty
since they manage/accept/forward this corrupted stuff :(
--
73 and ciao, gustavo i0ojj/ir0aab/ir0eq
non multa, sed multum
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
