Then I'll say that the FidoWeb is 20 times more effective in catching
dupes than your precious NAB thingy.
this has absolutely nothing to do with the NAB...
Of course it has everything to do with that NAB thingy of yours. With
20 times more dups, than what the sysops using the FidoWeb get, you obviously have made some severely bad decisions trying to mimic the FidoWeb.
I'm actually a little bit worried I dont get enough dupes. I only got 25
so far today.
I'm actually a little bit worried I dont get enough dupes. I only got 25 so far today. I got plenty of dupes (about 3 each) of mark's messages. But only 1 for the 9 messages Gert sent in de OTHERNET area. And I don't get dupes for other messages at all. The webbing and SEEN+BY checking of some areas seems to be perfect. And that defeats how the fidoweb should work...
I'm actually a little bit worried I dont get enough dupes. I only
got 25 so far today. I got plenty of dupes (about 3 each) of mark's
messages. But only 1 for the 9 messages Gert sent in de OTHERNET
area. And I don't get dupes for other messages at all. The webbing
and SEEN+BY checking of some areas seems to be perfect. And that
defeats how the fidoweb should work...
Apparently most of your links are built of triagles. Triagles do not generate dupes, and therfore defeat your redundant connections. Apparently marc is connected by plenty of polygons, to his dismay.
Apparently most of your links are built of triangles.
Maybe I should link with marc? ;)
Apparently most of your links are built of triangles.
A more likely reason might be that both Allen's and Bill's systems have been defunct for quite some time now. They are major FidoWeb nodes.
Maybe I should link with marc? ;)
That would be an interesting exercise for sure. But mark unfortunately is a rabid anti-FW fundie, so no can do.
It is however interesting to notice that even now, when two major FW-nodes are defunct, the FW works just as well as before. One can't help wondering what would happen if two major NAB-nodes went defunct...
why?? because they're not all listed in the seenbys specifically
because the bubble is not fully connected...
And that causes you to get 20 times more dups than a FidoWeb node?
Then I'll say that the FidoWeb is 20 times more effective in catching
dupes than your precious NAB thingy.
Donot call the NAB a thingy
Donot call the NAB a thingy
Why not? The previous Z1C herself has used the word thingy to define the way of distribution for years now.
Are you implying that it's some kind of a derogatory nomination?
Why not? The previous Z1C herself has used the word thingy to define the FW way of distribution for years now.
Are you implying that it's some kind of a derogatory nomination?
I'm actually a little bit worried I dont get enough dupes. I only got 25 so far today. I got plenty of dupes (about 3 each) of mark's messages. But only 1 for the 9 messages Gert sent in de OTHERNET area. And I don't get dupes for other messages at all. The webbing and SEEN+BY checking of some areas seems to be perfect. And that defeats how the fidoweb should work... :-( ;)
Bye, Wilfred.
--- FMail-lnx64 2.1.0.18-B20170815
* Origin: FMail development HQ (2:280/464)
SEEN-BY: 103/705 154/10 203/0 221/0 1 6 360 229/275 426 240/1661 5832 280/464
SEEN-BY: 280/5003 5555 292/624 854 310/31 423/120 712/848 770/1 2320/100 ATH: 280/464 221/0 6
I'm actually a little bit worried I dont get enough dupes. I only
got 25 so far today. I got plenty of dupes (about 3 each) of mark's
messages. But only 1 for the 9 messages Gert sent in de OTHERNET
area. And I don't get dupes for other messages at all. The webbing
and SEEN+BY checking of some areas seems to be perfect. And that
defeats how the fidoweb should work... :-( ;)
Should I turn on IGNORESEEN for you in my Hpt? ;)
Hi Tommi,
On 2018-10-24 22:26:57, you wrote to me:
Good to know you have that option! We might need it in the future. ;)I'm actually a little bit worried I dont get enough dupes. I only WvV>> got 25 so far today. I got plenty of dupes (about 3 each) of mark's WvV>> messages. But only 1 for the 9 messages Gert sent in de OTHERNETShould I turn on IGNORESEEN for you in my Hpt? ;)
area. And I don't get dupes for other messages at all. The webbing WvV>> and SEEN+BY checking of some areas seems to be perfect. And that
defeats how the fidoweb should work... :-( ;)
But surprisingly I got 4 dupes of your message, that's enough, so leave
it as is for now. ;)
Bye, Wilfred.
"She started it." You don't have to stoop to the same sort of silly language someone else is using.
I'd call "thingy" a "dismissive" term - though occasionally it'll beconceived.)
used to describe something not fully conceived of, or not well understood.
"I need to create some kind of teleporation thingy." (Not fully
"Oh, are you talking about that teleporation thingy you made?" (Not well understood.)
"Oh, you're still using one of those airplane thingies?" (Dismissive.)
So, after more than half a decade now, surely there can be no misunderstanding about the FidoWeb being fully conceived and understood, so she obviously is trying to dismiss it then?
aren't a real problem, the inefficiency of it stings a bit. I am however n well informed on the topic.
Then I'll say that the FidoWeb is 20 times more effective in catching
dupes than your precious NAB thingy.
this has absolutely nothing to do with the NAB...
Of course it has everything to do with that NAB thingy of yours.
With 20 times more dups, than what the sysops using the FidoWeb get,
you obviously have made some severely bad decisions trying to mimic
the FidoWeb.
polygons.area. And I don't get dupes for other messages at all. The webbing
and SEEN+BY checking of some areas seems to be perfect. And that
defeats how the fidoweb should work...
Apparently most of your links are built of triagles. Triagles do not
generate dupes, and therfore defeat your redundant connections.
Apparently marc is connected by plenty of polygons, to his dismay.
So I need more links that are atleast 2 hops away, to create more
Maybe I should link with marc? ;)
Maybe I should link with marc? ;)
That would be an interesting exercise for sure. But mark unfortunately
is a rabid anti-FW fundie, so no can do.
Then I'll say that the FidoWeb is 20 times more effective in catching
dupes than your precious NAB thingy.
Donot call the NAB a thingy if you donot want the FidoWeb be called a thingy. By doing what you do, you keep the useless war burning.
With 20 times more dups, than what the sysops using the FidoWeb get,
again, you are missing the problem with bubbles...
you obviously have made some severely bad decisions trying to mimic
the FidoWeb.
no one is trying to mimic the fidoweb...
theWith 20 times more dups, than what the sysops using the FidoWeb get,
again, you are missing the problem with bubbles...
I'm surprised that you, with your decades long experience, don't see
problem.
You are claiming 20 times more dups than we get via the FW for Pete's sake!
you obviously have made some severely bad decisions trying to mimic
the FidoWeb.
no one is trying to mimic the fidoweb...
Well, maybe there's your problem then? If you have 27 nodes with one single connection point at your system maybe you can count on
four-five or so more dups than any node only connected via the FW. But
20 times???? Can you really not see the discrepancy here?
So far I have 19 today, yesterday I had 88, Sunday 47...
My number-crunching quad-core is in deep shit ...
Sysop: | echicken |
---|---|
Location: | Toronto, Ontario |
Users: | 2,224 |
Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
Uptime: | 06:11:15 |
Calls: | 14,143 |
Files: | 295 |
Messages: | 551,238 |