How are y ou addressing the netmail? Should be somebody@1:123/456 in the TO:
that would be Cascades II BBS is down for good, sorry :(
wasthat would be Cascades II BBS is down for good, sorry :(
Yeah, I know, I have since removed it from my binkD nodelist, and later
trying to send netmail to 1:320/219 and got the same error. I'd like it if the BBS would just accept the address as valid instead of forcing me toput
a name on it.
It's not so easy to know what the name should be abyways.. is it
Andrew Leary@, or andrew_leary@, or AndrewLeary@, and what if he
doesn't even use that name on the bbs? He should still see the mail because he is the sysop even if I send it to joeshmoe@...
How are y ou addressing the netmail? Should be somebody@1:123/456 in
the TO:
Well, I guess that's the confusing part, the binkd nodelist shows the address should be 1:123/456@fidonet. I recall back in the day with Binkleyterm it was sufficient to just do 1:123/456 without any name or domain. I guess with all the new technology being retrofitted to BBSes it's hard to keep the new addressing scheme straight.
that would be Cascades II BBS is down for good, sorry :(
Yeah, I know, I have since removed it from my binkD nodelist, and later was trying to send netmail to 1:320/219 and got the same error.
I'd like it if
the BBS would just accept the address as valid instead of forcing me to put a name on it.
It's not so easy to know what the name should be abyways.. is
it Andrew Leary@, or andrew_leary@, or AndrewLeary@, and what if he doesn't even use that name on the bbs? He should still see the mail because he is the sysop even if I send it to joeshmoe@...
Sysop: | MCMLXXIX |
---|---|
Location: | Prospect, CT |
Users: | 325 |
Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
Uptime: | 06:52:33 |
Calls: | 510 |
Messages: | 220571 |