Hi,
I have a question that was posed to me by someone else.
Do you have to be a member of different FTN networks to be able to send Netmail to users on a different network?

For example, if someone on my BBS sends a Netmail to a user on FSXNET, and I am not a node on FSXNet. if I just route all Unknown zones up the line will it eventually be routed cross-network, or is that not permitted?

Thanks
JD
--- AfterShock/Android 1.6.8
* Origin: Firecat Mobile (4:920/1.1)

//Hello John,//

on *01.05.22* at *14:50:00* You wrote in area *FIDO_SYSOP*
to *All* about *"Internetwork routing"*.

Hi,
I have a question that was posed to me by someone else. Do you have to be a member of different FTN networks to be able to send Netmail to users on a different network?

For example, if someone on my BBS sends a Netmail to a user on FSXNET,
and I am not a node on FSXNet. if I just route all Unknown zones up the line will it eventually be routed cross-network, or is that not
permitted?

that will not work

Regards,
Daniel PATH
--- WinPoint 400.2
* Origin: Roon's Point (2:371/52.1)

Hello, John Dovey.
On 01/05/22 09:50 you wrote:

Hi, I have a question that was posed to me by someone else. Do you
have to be a member of different FTN networks to be able to send
Netmail to users on a different network? For example, if someone
on my BBS sends a Netmail to a user on FSXNET, and I am not a node
on FSXNet. if I just route all Unknown zones up the line will it eventually be routed cross-network, or is that not permitted?

I think that the policy is clear:

2.1.3 Responsible for All Traffic Entering FidoNet Via the Node The sysop listed in the nodelist entry is responsible for all traffic entering FidoNet via that system. This includes (but is not limited to) traffic entered by users, points, and any other networks for which the system might act as a gateway. If a sysop allows "outside" messages to enter FidoNet via the system, the gateway system must be clearly identified by FidoNet node number as the point of origin of that message, and it must act as a gateway in the reverse direction. Should such traffic result in a violation of Policy, the sysop must rectify the situation.

So, if I correctly undertand, if you want to act as a netmail gateway, you have to rewrite the incoming messages with the address of your node and vice versa.

:)

--
Ciao.
Fabio.
--- Hotdoged/2.13.5/Android
* Origin: ]\/[imac Boss Android Point (2:335/364.3)

So, if I correctly undertand, if you want to act as a netmail gateway, you have to rewrite the incoming messages with the address of your node and vice versa.

So if I understand what you're saying correctly, it would have to be gated and not routed?

In my ignorance, I thought it would be possible to treat the different networks as simply different Zones and route the mail from one to the other.

I'll respond to the user to say "Not possible under current rules"..

JD

--- AfterShock/Android 1.6.8
* Origin: Firecat Mobile (4:920/1.1)

Hello, John Dovey.
On 01/05/22 13:58 you wrote:

So, if I correctly undertand, if you want to act as a netmail
gateway, you have to rewrite the incoming messages with the
address of your node and vice versa.

So if I understand what you're saying correctly, it would have to
be gated and not routed?

As far as I understand the policy, but I'm a rookie, maybe I'm wrong. :)

In my ignorance, I thought it would be possible to treat the
different networks as simply different Zones and route the mail
from one to the other.

Technically it's possible until an overlap of addresses happens.

I'll respond to the user to say "Not possible under current
rules"..

In fidonet it should be as you wrote.
Maybe in other nets the policy could be more open.


--
Ciao.
Fabio.
--- Hotdoged/2.13.5/Android
* Origin: ]\/[imac Boss Android Point (2:335/364.3)

Hi,
I have a question that was posed to me by someone else.
Do you have to be a member of different FTN networks to be able to send Netmail to users on a different network?

For example, if someone on my BBS sends a Netmail to a user on FSXNET, and I a not a node on FSXNet. if I just route all Unknown zones up the line will it eventually be routed cross-network, or is that not permitted?

If you sent a netmail to a node in Z21 via 1:153/757 it would be routed to one of the hubs in Z21 and from there go to the destination node.

It depends on whether the node you route the mail to has links in Z21. If you route to a node that has no links in Z21 it may well reach a dead end, a node that would like to route the mail on but has no place to send it.

--- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Toy-6
* Origin: The Rusty MailBox - Penticton, BC Canada (1:153/757)

I'll respond to the user to say "Not possible under current rules"..

Of course it is possible ...

\%/@rd

--- DB4 - 20220425
* Origin: Many Glacier ... Protect - Preserve - Conserve - Recycle (2:292/854)

If you sent a netmail to a node in Z21 via 1:153/757 it would be routed to one of the hubs in Z21 and from there go to the destination node.

It depends on whether the node you route the mail to has links in Z21. If you route to a node that has no links in Z21 it may well reach a dead end, a node that would like to route the mail on but has no place to send it.

That's what I thought.

I was thinking that for example if the node 4:92/1 is the same machine that is 12:3/1 and a user on 4:920/69 sends a Netmail addressed to 12:5/1, the 4:920/69 routes all Netmail to 92/1. When the Netmail arrives on that machine, it's automatically routed to 12:3/1 and from there to the destination node.

4:92/1 would obviously have to be a member of all the networks it wants to route to...

I'm pretty sure it's technically straight forward, but I wasn't sure about policy.

JD
--- AfterShock/Android 1.6.8
* Origin: Firecat Mobile (4:920/1.1)

I'll respond to the user to say "Not possible under current rules"..

Of course it is possible ...

\%/@rd

And allowed under policy?
--- AfterShock/Android 1.6.8
* Origin: Firecat Mobile (4:920/1.1)

I was thinking that for example if the node 4:92/1 is the same machine that is >12:3/1 and a user on 4:920/69 sends a Netmail addressed to 12:5/1, the 4:920/6
routes all Netmail to 92/1. When the Netmail arrives on that machine, it's automatically routed to 12:3/1 and from there to the destination node.

It gets tricky. If a netmail for Z12 arrived on my machine it would dead end here since I have no links in Z12.

4:92/1 would obviously have to be a member of all the networks it wants to route to...

That would/could work.

I'm pretty sure it's technically straight forward, but I wasn't sure about policy.

I don't think there is any policy. Netmail just goes toward it's destination. You can never tell outside of your own setup what direction a netmail will take or if those nodes are connected to the zones in question, so.. :)

Direct when possible is always best. Nodes will try to move your mail towards the destination, when a workable link can be found.

--- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Toy-6
* Origin: The Rusty MailBox - Penticton, BC Canada (1:153/757)

I'll respond to the user to say "Not possible under current

rules"..

Of course it is possible ...

And allowed under policy?

Do you discern any writing in Policy to forbid it? You're a native english speaker ... do you see anything?

As Alan pointed out, it gets tricky because anything routed to anything else than zones 1-2-3-4 for example will be bounced here as undeliverable as well as on a plethora of other systems ....

So you need to find your own way out of it ... find a person in Fidonet who is active in a particular zone and set-up a direct connection, compile that particular zone's nodelist with the Fidonet nodelist and crash out-of-network, ...

\%/@rd

--- DB4 - 20220425
* Origin: Many Glacier ... Protect - Preserve - Conserve - Recycle (2:292/854)

Re: Internetwork routing
By: John Dovey to All on Sun May 01 2022 09:50 am

Hey John,

I have a question that was posed to me by someone else.
Do you have to be a member of different FTN networks to be able to send Netmail to users on a different network?

For example, if someone on my BBS sends a Netmail to a user on FSXNET, and I am not a node on FSXNet. if I just route all Unknown zones
up the line will it eventually be routed cross-network, or is that not permitted?

Technically that is possible - in reality it probably wont work.

In order to communicate to a "different zone", a system needs to route it. Routed netmail organically ends up at the top of the tree, and if somewhere along the way, a system knows how to find that other "zone", then it will be packed off to it. If it gets to the top and no system is aware of the destination zone, it'll end up in a black hole. (And this is true for replies too...)

I've actually been building a mailer/tosser with this actually in mind. It's low priority and I chip away at it when I get a momement of enthusiam and bandwidth. My idea was, it would be the one system that knew about all the other networks, so any message given to it, could find it's way to the destination - across zone boundaries. It'll do the same for echomail as well, and I guess by definition, files.

I may never finish it, but if I do it would be cool to see it work.


...ëîåï
--- SBBSecho 3.15-Linux
* Origin: I'm playing with ANSI+videotex - wanna play too? (3:633/509)

Deon,

In order to communicate to a "different zone", a system needs to route
it. Routed netmail organically ends up at the top of the tree, and if somewhere along the way, a system knows how to find that other "zone",
then it will be packed off to it. If it gets to the top and no system is aware of the destination zone, it'll end up in a black hole. (And this is true for replies too...)

Such a message would have been bounced long before getting to "the top of tree" ... which means there's no talk of a "black hole" ... just as Elvis sang "Return to sender" ...

But your description is spot on ...

I've actually been building a mailer/tosser with this actually in mind.

Hmmm ... I would care to think that every decently built mailer/tosser can handle that.

\%/@rd

--- DB4 - 20220425
* Origin: Many Glacier ... Protect - Preserve - Conserve - Recycle (2:292/854)

Re: Re: Internetwork routing
By: Ward Dossche to Deon George on Tue May 03 2022 08:44 am

I've actually been building a mailer/tosser with this actually in mind.

Hmmm ... I would care to think that every decently built mailer/tosser can handle that.

Yeah, I think so too - but

a) nobody does, (that I'm aware of anyway),
b) the intermediatories my not forward to the person who does, which means you would need to have a relationship with that person who does, and
c) it puts a lot of work on that person managing those connections - since people come and go without notice.

My plan is self service, so *you* could self setup and send your netmail to <insert othernet> - well that's the plan anyway... May never get there, too many other things distract me.


...ëîåï
--- SBBSecho 3.15-Linux
* Origin: I'm playing with ANSI+videotex - wanna play too? (3:633/509)

My plan is self service, so *you* could self setup and send your netmail
to <insert othernet> - well that's the plan anyway... May never get
there, too many other things distract me.

OK, but ... even that I can do with my setup already now ... I use D'Bridge and I'm sure Nick Andre uses it multi-domain ...

\%/@rd

--- DB4 - 20220425
* Origin: Many Glacier ... Protect - Preserve - Conserve - Recycle (2:292/854)

Re: Re: Internetwork routing
By: Ward Dossche to deon on Tue May 03 2022 11:35 am

My plan is self service, so *you* could self setup and send your netmail to <insert othernet> - well that's the plan anyway... May never get there, too many other things distract me.

OK, but ... even that I can do with my setup already now ... I use D'Bridge and I'm sure Nick Andre uses it multi-domain ...

Sure,

I guess netmail is easier, because you can drop it directly into the receipients inbound (without pre-configured session details), and a reply could be dropped directly into yours as well.

I'm not creating anything innovative here - Im playing with the idea of making it easier - a central place that all mail could be dropped off, so it's "routed" to the receipient via the networks hub (or directly if there is configuration in place already). That would alleviate you having to have my mailer's details in yours - you'd only need 1 definition (the clearing house) for anybody in that net.
And I'm doing the same for echomail, ie: you could collect echomail from a net that you do not have an address in.


...ëîåï
--- SBBSecho 3.15-Linux
* Origin: I'm playing with ANSI+videotex - wanna play too? (3:633/509)

On 03 May 22 11:35:34, Ward Dossche said the following to Deon:

My plan is self service, so *you* could self setup and send your netmail
to <insert othernet> - well that's the plan anyway... May never get
there, too many other things distract me.

OK, but ... even that I can do with my setup already now ... I use D'Bridge and I'm sure Nick Andre uses it multi-domain ...

Yes.

Nick

--- Renegade vY2Ka2
* Origin: Joey, do you like movies about gladiators? (1:229/426)

John Dovey wrote to Alan Ianson <=-

If you sent a netmail to a node in Z21 via 1:153/757 it would be routed to one of the hubs in Z21 and from there go to the destination node.

It depends on whether the node you route the mail to has links in Z21. If you route to a node that has no links in Z21 it may well reach a dead end, a node that would like to route the mail on but has no place to send it.

That's what I thought.

I was thinking that for example if the node 4:92/1 is the same machine that is 12:3/1 and a user on 4:920/69 sends a Netmail addressed to
12:5/1, the 4:920/69 routes all Netmail to 92/1. When the Netmail
arrives on that machine, it's automatically routed to 12:3/1 and from there to the destination node.

4:92/1 would obviously have to be a member of all the networks it wants
to route to...

I'm pretty sure it's technically straight forward, but I wasn't sure
about policy.

Just to add to this, it would work on Alan's system because he probably has
his system set up to forward all mail for Zone X via his Zone X connection.
Synchronet's sbbsecho is easy to set up to do this also. In theory,
netmail sent to my 1:2320/105 system for Zone 21 should flow on to my Zone
21 hub.

The problem you would run into would be if (1) the Zone X member system you
are trying to route Zone X netmail to does not have the Zone X forward
logic set up correctly (they should, if they want to be able to send mail from their own systems to other Zone X systems they don't connect with), and (2)
the Zone X system you are trying to sent netmail to may not be set up in such
a way to route any response you might get back to Zones 1, 2, 3, 4, especially if the Zone X node in question is not a member of Fidonet.

Mike


... Spelling is a sober man's game
--- MultiMail
* Origin: Possum Lodge South * possumso.fsxnet.nz:7636/SSH:2122 (1:2320/107)

Re: Internetwork routing
By: John Dovey to All on Sun May 01 2022 09:50 am

Hey John,

Technically that is possible - in reality it probably wont work.

So I'm coming to realise.

In order to communicate to a "different zone", a system needs to route it. Routed netmail organically ends up at the top of the tree, and if somewhere along the way, a system knows how to find that other "zone", then it will be packed off to it. If it gets to the top and no system is aware of the destination zone, it'll end up in a black hole. (And this is true for replies too...)

Yes. which is why there needs to be a "universal interzone transfer router"?? somewhere.. either at the zone boundaries or at the "top of the tree". Somehow I laboured under the misapprehension that this was part of the system, and was disappointed to discover it's not. I know Tom Jennings was an Anarchist and designed FTN to match his philosophy, with the resilience to survive the disruptive effects of a nuclear war, but the bureaucracy captured him. It's a lot more anarchical now, where we don't have to rely on POTS connections, but there's still a need for network wide services.

I've actually been building a mailer/tosser with this actually in mind. It's low priority and I chip away at it when I get a momement of enthusiam and bandwidth. My idea was, it would be the one system that knew about all the other networks, so any message given to it, could find it's way to the destination - across zone boundaries. It'll do the same for echomail as well, and I guess by definition, files.

I may never finish it, but if I do it would be cool to see it work.

If you completed that, it would be fantastic to see it working. It would have to be included somehow in how Netmail is routed though.
I misaddressed a Netmail yesterday by mistake, and triggered a flood of over two thousand bouncing replies... im told that's my fault for not having my system refuse to send mail to a nonexistent address, which I'm working to fix, but illustrates to me a point of failure which could at least partially be fixed by something like this.

JD
--- AfterShock/Android 1.6.8
* Origin: Firecat Mobile (4:920/1.1)

On 02 May 22 20:20:44, John Dovey said the following to Deon:

If you completed that, it would be fantastic to see it working. It would ha to be included somehow in how Netmail is routed though.

Please don't take this the wrong way, but for every person that brings up the idea of multi-domain Netmail routing; I have at least several misrouted, undeliverable and weird packets ending up here on my system to "deal with" as if I'm somehow responsible for playing mailman. Every week there seems to be things arriving here that I have no idea what I'm supposed to do with. Most attempts to resolve these are with Sysops with good intentions but who just do not understand how to route things properly.

I even have people engaging in conversation with the Netmail robot that bounces the undeliverable. As long as that happens I am not confident that we can have the type of multi-domain Netmail routing discussed.

Nick

--- Renegade vY2Ka2
* Origin: Joey, do you like movies about gladiators? (1:229/426)

The problem you would run into would be if (1) the Zone X member system you are trying to route Zone X netmail to does not have the Zone X forward logic set up correctly (they should, if they want to be able to send mail from their own systems to other Zone X systems they don't connect with), and (2) the Zone X system you are trying to sent netmail to may not be set up in such a way to route any response you might get back to Zones 1, 2, 3, 4, especially if the Zone X node in question is not a member of Fidonet.

All good points. to be honest, I hadn't considered the return route issue.

I suspect the solution to this would be a political/technical one. If the "powers that be" within Fidonet established a single "interzone routing hub" with all the procedural and technical issues that go along with that, and pushed out a requirement/advisory that all FTN networks could/should set up default inter-zone routing via that hub, it could make it all possible.

JD

--- AfterShock/Android 1.6.8
* Origin: Firecat Mobile (4:920/1.1)

On 03 May 22 22:00:21, John Dovey said the following to Mike Powell:

I suspect the solution to this would be a political/technical one. If the "powers that be" within Fidonet established a single "interzone routing hub with all the procedural and technical issues that go along with that, and pushed out a requirement/advisory that all FTN networks could/should set up default inter-zone routing via that hub, it could make it all possible.

The powers that be?!?

- One running the Twilight Zone does not speak English.
- One in Aussie-land who is nice but appears to have a very busy career.
- One who is also busy and boasts of shitting in cardboard boxes on sailboats. - And one in this zone currently working 3 jobs to support his household.

That is your ZCC... believe me, any "requirements/advisory" things for
routing things we have no obligation or desire to route would be laughed wholeheartedly into oblivion and dragged up for decades in the next flamewar.

Nick

--- Renegade vY2Ka2
* Origin: Joey, do you like movies about gladiators? (1:229/426)

John Dovey wrote to Mike Powell <=-

The problem you would run into would be if (1) the Zone X member system you are trying to route Zone X netmail to does not have the Zone X forward logic set up correctly (they should, if they want to be able to send mail from their own systems to other Zone X systems they don't connect with), and (2) the Zone X system you are trying to sent netmail to may not be set up in such a way to route any response you might get back to Zones 1, 2, 3, 4, especially if the Zone X node in question is not a member of Fidonet.

All good points. to be honest, I hadn't considered the return
route issue.

I suspect the solution to this would be a political/technical
one. If the "powers that be" within Fidonet established a single "interzone routing hub" with all the procedural and technical
issues that go along with that, and pushed out a
requirement/advisory that all FTN networks could/should set up
default inter-zone routing via that hub, it could make it all
possible.

This is just another thing that FidoNet doesn't need.

Just like 'Telegram'.



... All hope abandon, ye who enter messages here.
=== MultiMail/Linux v0.52
--- SBBSecho 3.15-Linux
* Origin: Palantir * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL * (1:123/115)

Hi John,

On 2022-05-02 20:20:44, you wrote to deon:

I misaddressed a Netmail yesterday by mistake, and triggered a flood
of over two thousand bouncing replies... im told that's my fault for
not having my system refuse to send mail to a nonexistent address,
which I'm working to fix,

It's not your fault! And you don't have to fix anything!

Your source of information for which nodes exist or not is the nodelist. And the nodelist is never 100% accurate. There are sometimes new nodes already participating in echomail that are not yet in the nodelist. You should be able to send them routed netmail. And lots of nodes in the nodelist don't exist anymore. So you simply can't know which nodes exist and which don't with accuracy.

The bouncing is a routing issue between the bouncing nodes involved. And that is not your responsibility!


Bye, Wilfred.

--- FMail-lnx64 2.1.0.18-B20170815
* Origin: FMail development HQ (2:280/464)

Hi, Alan!

01 ¬ © 22 16:28, Alan Ianson -> John Dovey:

It gets tricky. If a netmail for Z12 arrived on my machine it would
dead end here since I have no links in Z12.

There is a good tradition in the forty-sixth region. Important nodes publish their routing tables in a special echo.

Have nice nights.
Stas Mishchenkov.

--- ‹î¤e©, ¯eàe¦¨¢è¨å «eâ® ¢ ‘¨¬ä¥à®¯®«¥, ¡ã¤ãâ ¢ë£o­ïâì ¨§  ¤  §  á¬eå ¢ ªoâ«¥
* Origin: Lame Users Breeding. Simferopol, Crimea. (2:460/5858)

On 01 May 2022 at 02:50p, Alan Ianson pondered and said...

If you sent a netmail to a node in Z21 via 1:153/757 it would be routed
to one of the hubs in Z21 and from there go to the destination node.

It depends on whether the node you route the mail to has links in Z21.

I'm late to this thread but speaking in terms of Zone 21 the Fido HUB I run 3:770/1 has links to Zone 21 so any fsxNet netmail from Fidonet is welcome to be routed via that Zone 3 HUB. I'd also welcome links between 3:770/1 and other systems in Zones 1-4 to help build this routing resilience out further.

Best, Paul

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A47 2021/12/24 (Linux/64)
* Origin: Agency BBS | Dunedin, New Zealand | agency.bbs.nz (3:770/100)

On 01 May 2022 at 02:50p, Alan Ianson pondered and said...

If you sent a netmail to a node in Z21 via 1:153/757 it would be routed
to one of the hubs in Z21 and from there go to the destination node.

It depends on whether the node you route the mail to has links in Z21.

I'm late to this thread but speaking in terms of Zone 21 the Fido HUB I run 3:770/1 has links to Zone 21 so any fsxNet netmail from Fidonet is welcome to be routed via that Zone 3 HUB. I'd also welcome links between 3:770/1 and other systems in Zones 1-4 to help build this routing resilience out further.

Awesome. So I can route any mail destined for zone 21 to 3:770/1? Just checking I've got it clear ...

JD
--- AfterShock/Android 1.6.8
* Origin: Firecat Mobile (4:920/1.1)