Subj : Re: Network Monitoring
To   : Wilfred van Velzen
From : Brian Rogers
Date : Thu May 27 2021 06:59 pm

Hello Wilfred;

-=> Wilfred van Velzen wrote to Brian Rogers <=-

 WvV> Looking at your outbound, only needs a set of eyes and fingers, no
 WvV> other tools required! ;)

And that typically already makes the difference between an op maintaining
a smooth flowing hub and one who doesn't.

 WvV> Such a point won't be pingable either. So you also need information
 WvV> about your links, that was implied, and would be something a sysop
 WvV> looking at his outbound would know.

Right, either way some form of human intervention is required. It almost
makes such monitoring a moot issue when you get right down to it.

 WvV> It serves the smooth operation of the network.

Since way back in the day when I was on Fido, the key word in your above
sentence is "operation" which requires human operators to maintain smooth
data flow. I don't ever recall when fido wasn't efficient because of 
dedicated operators at each helm. A tool to inform an operator that there
may be an unseen clog in the works may help them become a bit more
efficient but it's still the human operator that makes it what it is - not
to forget the human contributors in the various echos to keep them flowing :)

 WvV> Such a tool would make the sysops live a bit easier, but you don't
 WvV> really need it. You don't need to automate it, the commands provided by
 WvV> your OS (cd/dir/ls) are sufficient to find out if your outbound is full
 WvV> of unsend mail.

Correct as I agreed with you above.

 WvV> I didn't know we were talking about making this information public?

I thought I read where someone else mentioned that might be a nice feature
to have. In any event I really don't think my skillset would be required
for such a thing.


.... A thief who stole a calendar got twelve months.
--- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
 * Origin: SBBS - Carnage! (1:142/103)

.