+ MUTIL's MsgPurge now validates that messages are addressed to valid users if the base type is Private or the base allows for Private replies within the base. Keep in mind, mixed bases (public that allow private
and so it goes for my Netmail bases across othernets :(
! Jan 31 00:45:10 Purge #2 Unknown user: ANDREW CLARKE
! Jan 31 00:45:10 Purge #8 Unknown user: AREAFIX
! Jan 31 00:45:10 Purge #11 Unknown user: SBBSECHO
I'm probably going to have to roll back to A43 tomorrow after I check
your reply to this one. Just need to understand this feature better and suss how to avoid losing stuff I want to retain.
Looks like I need to remove the Private flag right?
Can you please explain Private and Private Reply for me :)
This was something you had asked me to add. It should be removing
private messages that are addressed "To" users who aren't members of
your BBS. It seems like that is what its doing that.
What I am thinking is that we may also want to check the From field or sent flags?
You could not use the MsgPurge feature that is removing them. Its not really something that needs to be ran a lot anyway, since its goal is to purge old and invalid messages.
Private messages are messages that no one can see except the person they are addressed "To". Netmail falls into that same category. Its
are addressed "To". Netmail falls into that same category. Its
removing private messages addressed "To" invalid users because they are messages no one will ever see.
Reply to Private flag just means that you're allowing users to send a private reply within a public message base. I don't recommend using
that personally, but its a feature from the "QuickBBS" style of BBSes
and some had asked for it over the years.
Oh OK, golly.. my memory fails me on that one. I'm not sure how the From
and Sent would help? I'm picking if I sent a netmail so I am a known
user then the message would not be purged even if the To field was to someone outside the BBS - am I reading you right?
It does seem a bit strange to me still that this purge process would be applied to Netmail style bases given the nature of Netmail being often
to be one of sending to others who may not be a member of your own BBS.
I use it daily to maintain Usenet bases at a max number of messages... so it's not really an option for me to cease this.
Private reply how? Sorry having a blond moment... would the reply be
sent as echomail with a flag or is it a reply to the local echomail JAM base that can only be read by the user it's addressed logged into the
BBS reading that base?
latest pre-alpha. People may still want to see their old Netmail
messages that they've sent after all.
I do for one. I have a tendency to go away after a few months and leave things on auto while I work on other projects. Makes it easier for me to look up areafix passwords and the like when I roll back around to bbsing.
users). Or my memory is failing me! I've been starting to notice my
age lately *cry*
Yes, thats the idea. But not taking into consideration the From field
was an oversight on my part and I have already corrected that in the latest pre-alpha. People may still want to see their old Netmail
messages that they've sent after all.
The reason Netmail is included is because its private. A Netmail
message that comes *from* your BBS should always be from a BBS user. A netmail message *to* your BBS should always be addressed to a BBS user...
When neither of those things are true, you are left with a private
message that no one can ever see. Those are the messages the purge is trying to remove. If you have a use-case that you think falls outside of that idea please let me know. I certainly don't have the same
experience with FTN as you.
I use it daily to maintain Usenet bases at a max number of messages.. it's not really an option for me to cease this.
I understand. It should be corrected now to include the From field. If it still seems like something you absolutely don't want, then I can make it an option in the mutil.ini for you to disable.
Private reply is meant to be a local thing so you wouldn't enable it for echomail bases. Some of those QuickBBS style softwares didn't have the concept of a private mailbox, they just had message bases and thats it. In a base you could reply with a private flag so only the "To" user
could read the message, and that would be how you would communicate privately. Private Reply is intended to mimic that behavior.
If you did try to enable it for echomail bases, I don't know how the various systems would handle it. But I think Mystic would ask the user
if they wanted to send the message as Private and it would send it out with that flag (untested, just guessing)
On 01-31-20 13:00, g00r00 wrote to Avon <=-
If you did try to enable it for echomail bases, I don't know how the various systems would handle it. But I think Mystic would ask the user
if they wanted to send the message as Private and it would send it out with that flag (untested, just guessing)
could read the message, and that would be how you would communicate privately. Private Reply is intended to mimic that behavior.
I would not offer it for echomail bases as I think it's confusing. I also wonder about the worth of it to be honest.
Sysop: | Eric Oulashin |
---|---|
Location: | Beaverton, Oregon, USA |
Users: | 101 |
Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
Uptime: | 02:54:28 |
Calls: | 3,458 |
Calls today: | 2 |
Files: | 8,461 |
Messages: | 336,292 |