Attention mark,

A netmail was sent to the uplink 1:153/7715 and it was accepted by that node. So far no reply.

Also posted to ASIAN_LINK and sent via 1:153/7715 two fts-0001.016 compliant packed messages - one with a so-called Type 2+ header, the second with an fts-0001.016 compliant pktheader - in seperate pkts of course. Both were accepted but their status beyond that is unknown.

The first (MSGID: 1:153/7001 5ada6628) is posted to "Doctor Flexy Jerkoff" with
the subject "jumpin' jack flash". It is the Type 2+ pktheader which has always
worked to the node in question before this latest breakage.

The second (MSGID: 1:153/7001 5ada6f1d) is posted to "Ming the Merciless" with the subject "Pathetic earthlings." It probably will end up in the uplink's bad
area since regular fts-0001.016 pktheaders have never worked there in the past and there is no reason known to 1:153/7001 that it will succeed in being seen beyond 1:153/7715.

I've also tried Type 2.2 pktheaders and they also worked to that node but did not send a packed message using that pktheader format this time. It was one of
the few nodes where Type 2.2 pktheaders actually worked.

There are backups of the two packed ASIAN_LINK MSGs if you, or anyone, in this echo requests them to the working fts-0001.016 compliant uplink which would reveal itself in the PATH at the bottom of this officially sanctioned, fts-0001.016 compliant packed MSG.

Thank you in advance for you kind attention in this most sensitive matter.

End transmission.

... Preudhomme's Law of Window Cleaning: It's on the other side.
--- GNU bash, version 4.4.19(1)-release (x86_64-silvermont-linux-gnu)
* Origin: Little Mikey's Brain - Ladysmith BC, Canada (1:153/7001)

On 2018 Apr 21 00:18:12, you wrote to me:

Attention mark,

A netmail was sent to the uplink 1:153/7715 and it was accepted by that node. So far no reply.

a netmail to whom? me? i haven't seen it...

Also posted to ASIAN_LINK and sent via 1:153/7715 two fts-0001.016 compliant packed messages - one with a so-called Type 2+ header, the

second

with an fts-0001.016 compliant pktheader - in seperate pkts of course. Both were accepted but their status beyond that is unknown.

ok, i've not seen either one here...

The first (MSGID: 1:153/7001 5ada6628) is posted to "Doctor Flexy
Jerkoff" with the subject "jumpin' jack flash". It is the Type 2+ pktheader which has always worked to the node in question before this latest breakage.

The second (MSGID: 1:153/7001 5ada6f1d) is posted to "Ming the
Merciless" with the subject "Pathetic earthlings." It probably will
end up in the uplink's bad area since regular fts-0001.016 pktheaders
have never worked there in the past and there is no reason known to 1:153/7001 that it will succeed in being seen beyond 1:153/7715.

if it ends up in the bad area, that's generally because the sending node is not
connected to the area in question... have you tried talking to 7715's areafix and making sure you are connected to the area??

I've also tried Type 2.2 pktheaders and they also worked to that node
but did not send a packed message using that pktheader format this
time. It was one of the few nodes where Type 2.2 pktheaders actually worked.

there may be a setting in that sqafix thing that determines which PKT types are
recognized... it may be a general setting for all systems or it may be a per-node setting...

There are backups of the two packed ASIAN_LINK MSGs if you, or anyone,
in this echo requests them to the working fts-0001.016 compliant
uplink which would reveal itself in the PATH at the bottom of this officially sanctioned, fts-0001.016 compliant packed MSG.

if you would like to send them over in a plain zip file, i would be happy to look them over...

Thank you in advance for you kind attention in this most sensitive
matter.

hehehehehe

)\/(ark

Always Mount a Scratch Monkey
Do you manage your own servers? If you are not running an IDS/IPS yer doin' it wrong...
... Alaskans For Global Warming.
---
* Origin: (1:3634/12.73)