Subj : Mail for unknown points
To   : Paul Hayton
From : Alan Ianson
Date : Sun May 09 2021 01:42 am

Hello Paul,

 PH> I tested this and it did not route netmail from 1/100 sent to 1/191.1
 PH> via 1/191 :(

I have not used the boss keyword before.. so..

 PH> I found these two options did work

 PH> route crash routevia 21:1/190 21:1/190.*

That line doesn't look right, but I have not tried to use it. Check the tparser output.

 PH> route crash 21:1/190 21:1/190.*

I have many lines like that and they have always worked for me.

 PH> But that boss option was a zero on the success meter :)

I think that could work but I have not used it before, so I am unsure.

 AI>> If you want to route files for a node you need a routefile line
 AI>> as well. route crash 21:1/190 21:1/190.* routefile crash noroute
 AI>> 21:1/190

 PH> OK thanks, will look to add something for each node then.

Are you sure? I have no routefile lines in my config presently. Only add them when/where needed.

 PH> I have not played much with netmail file attaches as Mystic I don't
 PH> think offered it and I know little of how to do so in golded yet.

Yep, that is not an option with mystic. Fileboxes work OK but no attaches.

 PH> But your statement above sort of looses me. At present I just use
 PH> fileboxes with established nodes to send files.

Yes, fileboxes take out all the guesswork. I like them.

 PH> But if I did want to do a file attach via netmail my suspicion is that
 PH> I need that routefile line in for each node I HUB for. Right?

I doubt you need or want that routefile line at all. It is only used if you receive netmail with files attached. That should never happen without your prior approval.

Lets say for some reason you agreed to route files for 21:1/190 and his points. You would receive those netmail and attaches in your inbound. You would need these two lines in your route config..

route crash 21:1/190 21:1/190.*
routefile crash 21:1/190 21:1/190.*

Then your tosser would route those messages and attached files to 21:1/190 and they would be routed on as needed there.

I did this kind of file routing years ago to save telephone costs between otherwise long distance nodes but I don't think this is needed today.

The routefile keyword is not needed for file areas, just routing files.

the fileboxes we have today makes all this much simpler. Are there any cases where you want to route files? If not I would not use the keyword at all.

 PH> Thanks for the reply. :)

Any old time.. :)

 Ttyl :-),
         Al
--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20180707
 * Origin: The Rusty MailBox - Penticton, BC Canada (1:153/757)

.