Hello,

The DNS hostnames for the Nodes below returned "Host not found"
for over *1523* consecutive days.

As many of these hostnames were served by Dyndns, one can assume that these
hostnames expired when Dyndns ceased their free service, now many years ago.

It is not likely that an active sysop takes that long, to notice that his
node cannot be contacted over the Internet.

Face the truth these sysops have silently left Fidonet, and these inactive
nodes should be removed from de Nodelist?

---8<-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Node Hostname DNS response
---- -------- ------------
1:114/271 bbs.dbackbbs.com Host not found
1:114/464 torchwood-3.dyndns.org Host not found
1:116/739 am1620.servebbs.net Host not found
1:124/5009 fmlynet.dyndns.org Host not found
1:128/3 asgard-bbs.net Host not found
1:142/926 n1api.ham-radio-op.net Host not found
1:267/151 oceanbbs.dyndns.org Host not found
1:267/153 amachat.org Host not found
1:267/375 warriorbbs.dyndns.org Host not found
1:282/1050 dkbbs.shensey.com Host not found

2:240/4014 bagge.dyndns.org Host not found
2:2432/363 dance-system.dyndns.org Host not found
2:2449/7 ideefix.dyndns.org Host not found
2:246/1020 joschi1.nsupdate.info Host not found
2:461/112 sodin.homeip.net Host not found
2:461/155 avkorop.dyndns.org Host not found

4:900/0 ice.ath.cx Host not found
4:900/100 ice.ath.cx Host not found
4:900/101 ice.ath.cx Host not found

---8<-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kees


--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5
* Origin: As for me, all I know is that, I know nothing. (2:280/5003.0)

Hello Kees!

22 Jan 19 11:39, you wrote to Nodelist Administrators:

Node Hostname DNS response
---- -------- ------------
1:142/926 n1api.ham-radio-op.net Host not found

This is a private node, who for ISP reasons cannot accept incoming calls. He polls regularly; the last connect was 18 hours ago.

Andrew

--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20180707
* Origin: Phoenix BBS * phoenix.bnbbbs.net (1:320/219)

Hello Andrew,

On Tuesday January 22 2019 09:45, you wrote to Kees van Eeten:

1:142/926 n1api.ham-radio-op.net Host not found

This is a private node, who for ISP reasons cannot accept incoming
calls.

If he can not accept incoming calls he should not be listed as a node that can.

He polls regularly;

So did my points when I still had them...


Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20170303
* Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)

Andrew,

1:142/926 n1api.ham-radio-op.net Host not

found

This is a private node, who for ISP reasons cannot accept incoming calls. He polls regularly; the last connect was 18 hours ago.

Then why is he in the nodelist ?

\%/@rd

--- D'Bridge 3.99 SR41
* Origin: Ceci n'est pas un courriel (2:292/854)

Hello Andrew!

22 Jan 19 09:45, you wrote to me:

22 Jan 19 11:39, you wrote to Nodelist Administrators:

Node Hostname DNS response
---- -------- ------------
1:142/926 n1api.ham-radio-op.net Host not found

This is a private node, who for ISP reasons cannot accept incoming calls. He polls regularly; the last connect was 18 hours ago.

I can appreciate that, but the entry also conforms to the notation that was
introduced for IP-only nodes, when the INA flag had not been defined yet.

So with a system name that conforms to a valid DNS hostname notation and
an additional CM,IBN flag. One is led to beleive that this is a IO only
node that is CM and supports Binkp and will accept direct mail.

The behaviour you mention, is of a Private node with no contact information
in the Nodelist.

A real System name and removal of the CM,IBN would make every body happy.
Or at least me. ;)

Kees

--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5
* Origin: As for me, all I know is that, I know nothing. (2:280/5003.4)

On 2019 Jan 22 20:04:04, Kees van Eeten wrote to you:

A real System name and removal of the CM,IBN would make every body
happy. Or at least me. ;)

or just put "Pvt" in the first field and eliminate the problem from there...

)\/(ark

Always Mount a Scratch Monkey
Do you manage your own servers? If you are not running an IDS/IPS yer doin' it wrong...
... NO! That's obviously wrong...I AM THE ONLY SOURCE OF THE TRUTH!
---
* Origin: (1:3634/12.73)

Hello mark!

22 Jan 19 16:49, you wrote to me:

A real System name and removal of the CM,IBN would make every
body happy. Or at least me. ;)

or just put "Pvt" in the first field and eliminate the problem from there...

The nodelist entry in question DOES have Pvt in field 1.

Andrew

--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20180707
* Origin: Phoenix BBS * phoenix.bnbbbs.net (1:320/219)

Hello Kees!

22 Jan 19 20:04, you wrote to me:

I can appreciate that, but the entry also conforms to the notation
that was introduced for IP-only nodes, when the INA flag had not been defined yet.

True.

So with a system name that conforms to a valid DNS hostname notation
and an additional CM,IBN flag. One is led to beleive that this is a IO only node that is CM and supports Binkp and will accept direct mail.

The behaviour you mention, is of a Private node with no contact information in the Nodelist.

A real System name and removal of the CM,IBN would make every body
happy. Or at least me. ;)

The nodelist will be updated shortly.

Andrew

--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20180707
* Origin: Phoenix BBS * phoenix.bnbbbs.net (1:320/219)

Andrew,

The nodelist will be updated shortly.

As a reminder, "Pvt" should only have fields 1-6 and that's where it stops.

\%/@rd

--- D'Bridge 3.99 SR41
* Origin: Ceci n'est pas un courriel (2:292/854)

Hello mark!

22 Jan 19 16:49, you wrote to Andrew Leary:

On 2019 Jan 22 20:04:04, Kees van Eeten wrote to you:

A real System name and removal of the CM,IBN would make every body
happy. Or at least me. ;)

or just put "Pvt" in the first field and eliminate the problem from there...

Read again the Pvt is already there.

Kees

--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5
* Origin: As for me, all I know is that, I know nothing. (2:280/5003.4)

Hello Andrew!

22 Jan 19 21:25, you wrote to me:

The nodelist will be updated shortly.

Thanks.

Kees

--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5
* Origin: As for me, all I know is that, I know nothing. (2:280/5003.4)

On 2019 Jan 22 21:24:06, you wrote to me:

A real System name and removal of the CM,IBN would make every body
happy. Or at least me. ;)

or just put "Pvt" in the first field and eliminate the problem from
there...

The nodelist entry in question DOES have Pvt in field 1.

admittedly, i didn't look... if it has Pvt already, what's the beef about? their systems shouldn't be trying to connect to them in the first place, right?
they need a specific override to ignore the Pvt, right? i always did and my nodelist scraping scripts also filter out Pvt entries like they should when they should... i don't get it :?

)\/(ark

Always Mount a Scratch Monkey
Do you manage your own servers? If you are not running an IDS/IPS yer doin' it wrong...
... Well, thanks for not shooting me when you had the chance.
---
* Origin: (1:3634/12.73)

Hello mark!

23 Jan 19 19:33, you wrote to Andrew Leary:

or just put "Pvt" in the first field and eliminate the problem from
there...

The nodelist entry in question DOES have Pvt in field 1.

admittedly, i didn't look... if it has Pvt already, what's the beef about? their systems shouldn't be trying to connect to them in the first place, right?

You neglegt the fakt, that the line is formatted in the format that was
used as a first solution for IP-only nodes.

they need a specific override to ignore the Pvt, right? i always
did and my nodelist scraping scripts also filter out Pvt entries like
they

Programs that scrape the the Nodelist to build the binkd nodelist, will think
that it is a valid IP-only node, without expecting overrides.

Yours may not, but others do.

should when they should... i don't get it :?

Indeed.

Kees

--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5
* Origin: As for me, all I know is that, I know nothing. (2:280/5003.4)

Hello mark!

Wednesday January 23 2019 19:33, you wrote to Andrew Leary:

On 2019 Jan 22 21:24:06, you wrote to me:

A real System name and removal of the CM,IBN would make every
body happy. Or at least me. ;)

or just put "Pvt" in the first field and eliminate the problem
from there...

The nodelist entry in question DOES have Pvt in field 1.

admittedly, i didn't look... if it has Pvt already, what's the beef
about? their systems shouldn't be trying to connect to them in the
first place, right? they need a specific override to ignore the Pvt,
right? i always did and my nodelist scraping scripts also filter out
Pvt entries like they should when they should... i don't get it :?

Sorry to put in and I may be wrong (often am these days) but wasn't PVT flag for modem
based platforms to allow for missing phone numbers ?

If node is PVT then the direct link/connection types must also include MO or some other
time related tags to indicate non contactable.

Clearly having flags/tags that show contactable via Telnet , FTP etc would be conflicting.

Vince

--- Mageia Linux v6 X64/Mbse v1.0.7.11/GoldED+/LNX 1.1.501-b20150715
* Origin: Air Applewood, The Linux Gateway to the UK & Eire (2:250/1)

Vince,

Sorry to put in and I may be wrong ...

Yes, you are.

\%/@rd

--- D'Bridge 3.99 SR41
* Origin: Ceci n'est pas un courriel (2:292/854)

Hello Kees!

22 Jan 19 20:04, Kees van Eeten wrote to Andrew Leary:

A real System name and removal of the CM,IBN would make every body happy.
Or at least me. ;)

Why pick on one entry when there are lots of them with the same problem...


---------- EXCEPT_TXT.025
1:103/13 PVT and IBN flags INA:wd1cks.org,IBN,
1:214/23 PVT and IBN flags MO,IBN,
1:218/109 PVT and IBN flags CM,MO,IBN,
1:120/419 PVT and IBN flags XA,MO,IBN,PING,U,IPv6,
1:154/700 PVT and IBN flags IBN,
1:220/14 PVT and IBN flags CM,IBN,
1:275/92 PVT and IBN flags XX,INA:fluph.zapato.org,IBN:2313, 1:275/94 PVT and IBN flags XX,INA:fluph.zapato.org,IBN:2317, 1:153/716 PVT and IBN flags CM,MO,INA:bandmaster.ddns.net,IBN, 2:201/148 PVT and IBN flags CM,MO,IBN,
2:240/159 PVT and IBN flags MO,IBN,
2:240/2189 PVT and IBN flags CM,XA,MO,IUC:mailtunnel@kruemel.org,IBN,IFT,U,ENC,CDP,
2:240/2198 PVT and IBN flags CM,XA,MO,IBN,IFT,U,ENC,CDP,
2:240/4014 PVT and IBN flags CM,MO,IBN,
2:240/4037 PVT and IBN flags CM,XA,IBN,
2:240/4038 PVT and IBN flags CM,XA,IBN,
2:240/4099 PVT and IBN flags CM,XA,IBN,
2:240/5138 PVT and IBN flags CM,XA,IBN,
2:2432/333 PVT and IBN flags MO,IBN,
2:2432/363 PVT and IBN flags CM,MO,IBN,
2:2432/395 PVT and IBN flags CM,MN,XW,MO,IBN,IEM:spool@owlserver.de, 2:2432/200 PVT and IBN flags CM,MO,XX,PING,IBN,ITX:pbbs@gmx.net,IMI,IUC,
2:2432/900 PVT and IBN flags X75,IBN,
2:2443/1021 PVT and IBN flags CM,MO,IBN,
2:2443/1183 PVT and IBN flags CM,XA,MO,IBN,IUC,
2:2443/1313 PVT and IBN flags CM,MO,IBN,IFC,ITN:60177,U,NC,NEC,CDP, 2:2449/7 PVT and IBN flags CM,IBN,U,NPK,
2:2449/185 PVT and IBN flags XX,IBN,IVM,ITN,
2:2449/402 PVT and IBN flags CM,IBN,IEM:atlantis@stiene.de, 2:2449/434 PVT and IBN flags CM,XX,IBN,IEM:ghostrider@ralf-remus.de, 2:2454/919 PVT and IBN flags CM,MN,MO,XX,IBN,
2:2490/1052 PVT and IBN flags CM,MO,IBN,
2:2490/3050 PVT and IBN flags CM,MO,IBN,IVM,IFT,
2:341/66 PVT and IBN flags ICM,IBN,ITN,IFT,INA:bbs.zruspas.org, 2:341/111 PVT and IBN flags ICM,IBN,ITN,IFT,INA:bbs.hispamsx.org, 2:341/202 PVT and IBN flags ICM,IBN,ITN,IVM,INA:bbs.vampirebbs.org, 2:341/203 PVT and IBN flags ICM,IBN,ITN,IVM,INA:bitslair.voidlabs.com,
2:343/107 PVT and IBN flags ICM,IBN,IFC,ITN,INA:fido.beholderbbs.org,
2:421/83 PVT and IBN flags XX,CM,IBN,IFC,ITN:60177,INA:bbs.lan255.net,
2:4500/1 PVT and IBN flags CM,MO,IBN,INA:f1.n4500.z2.fidonet.by, 2:453/19 PVT and IBN flags CM,MO,V34,H16,IBN,U,NEC,
2:5033/21 PVT and IBN flags CM,IBN,INA:213.24.60.25,
2:5055/29 PVT and IBN flags MO,IBN,INA:vbd.no-ip.biz,
4:902/19 PVT and IBN flags ICM,XA,V34,IMI:fido@fcmsistemas.com.ar,IBN:ferchobbs.ddns.net,

--- Msged/NT 6.0.1
* Origin: Somewhere in New Hampshire's White Mountains (1:132/174)

Hello Fred!

Most people reflect with what they think is the issue. In many cases
diverting the original issue. My gripe is with hostnames that do not resolve
in DNS for years in a row, without being corrected in, or the node removed
from the Nodelist.

Keep your eye on the ball.

25 Jan 19 09:22, you wrote to me:

22 Jan 19 20:04, Kees van Eeten wrote to Andrew Leary:

A real System name and removal of the CM,IBN would make every body
happy.
Or at least me. ;)

Why pick on one entry when there are lots of them with the same problem...

---------- EXCEPT_TXT.025
1:103/13 PVT and IBN flags INA:wd1cks.org,IBN,
1:214/23 PVT and IBN flags MO,IBN,
1:218/109 PVT and IBN flags CM,MO,IBN,
1:120/419 PVT and IBN flags XA,MO,IBN,PING,U,IPv6,
1:154/700 PVT and IBN flags IBN,
1:220/14 PVT and IBN flags CM,IBN,
1:275/92 PVT and IBN flags XX,INA:fluph.zapato.org,IBN:2313, 1:275/94 PVT and IBN flags XX,INA:fluph.zapato.org,IBN:2317, 1:153/716 PVT and IBN flags CM,MO,INA:bandmaster.ddns.net,IBN, 2:201/148 PVT and IBN flags CM,MO,IBN,
2:240/159 PVT and IBN flags MO,IBN,
2:240/2189 PVT and IBN flags CM,XA,MO,IUC:mailtunnel@kruemel.org,IBN,IFT,U,ENC,CDP,
2:240/2198 PVT and IBN flags CM,XA,MO,IBN,IFT,U,ENC,CDP, 2:240/4014 PVT and IBN flags CM,MO,IBN,
2:240/4037 PVT and IBN flags CM,XA,IBN,
2:240/4038 PVT and IBN flags CM,XA,IBN,
2:240/4099 PVT and IBN flags CM,XA,IBN,
2:240/5138 PVT and IBN flags CM,XA,IBN,
2:2432/333 PVT and IBN flags MO,IBN,
2:2432/363 PVT and IBN flags CM,MO,IBN,
2:2432/395 PVT and IBN flags
CM,MN,XW,MO,IBN,IEM:spool@owlserver.de,
2:2432/200 PVT and IBN flags CM,MO,XX,PING,IBN,ITX:pbbs@gmx.net,IMI,IUC,
2:2432/900 PVT and IBN flags X75,IBN,
2:2443/1021 PVT and IBN flags CM,MO,IBN,
2:2443/1183 PVT and IBN flags CM,XA,MO,IBN,IUC,
2:2443/1313 PVT and IBN flags
CM,MO,IBN,IFC,ITN:60177,U,NC,NEC,CDP,
2:2449/7 PVT and IBN flags CM,IBN,U,NPK,
2:2449/185 PVT and IBN flags XX,IBN,IVM,ITN,
2:2449/402 PVT and IBN flags CM,IBN,IEM:atlantis@stiene.de, 2:2449/434 PVT and IBN flags
CM,XX,IBN,IEM:ghostrider@ralf-remus.de,
2:2454/919 PVT and IBN flags CM,MN,MO,XX,IBN,
2:2490/1052 PVT and IBN flags CM,MO,IBN,
2:2490/3050 PVT and IBN flags CM,MO,IBN,IVM,IFT,
2:341/66 PVT and IBN flags
ICM,IBN,ITN,IFT,INA:bbs.zruspas.org,
2:341/111 PVT and IBN flags
ICM,IBN,ITN,IFT,INA:bbs.hispamsx.org,
2:341/202 PVT and IBN flags
ICM,IBN,ITN,IVM,INA:bbs.vampirebbs.org,
2:341/203 PVT and IBN flags
ICM,IBN,ITN,IVM,INA:bitslair.voidlabs.com,
2:343/107 PVT and IBN flags
ICM,IBN,IFC,ITN,INA:fido.beholderbbs.org,
2:421/83 PVT and IBN flags XX,CM,IBN,IFC,ITN:60177,INA:bbs.lan255.net,
2:4500/1 PVT and IBN flags
CM,MO,IBN,INA:f1.n4500.z2.fidonet.by,
2:453/19 PVT and IBN flags CM,MO,V34,H16,IBN,U,NEC,
2:5033/21 PVT and IBN flags CM,IBN,INA:213.24.60.25,
2:5055/29 PVT and IBN flags MO,IBN,INA:vbd.no-ip.biz,
4:902/19 PVT and IBN flags ICM,XA,V34,IMI:fido@fcmsistemas.com.ar,IBN:ferchobbs.ddns.net,

--- Msged/NT 6.0.1
* Origin: Somewhere in New Hampshire's White Mountains (1:132/174)

Kees

--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5
* Origin: As for me, all I know is that, I know nothing. (2:280/5003.4)

Fred,

Why pick on one entry when there are lots of them with the same
problem...

Do you have information the matter has escaped the attention of the wizzards? That no attempts are being made to deal with it?

Do I have news for you ...

\%/@rd

--- D'Bridge 3.99 SR41
* Origin: Ceci n'est pas un courriel (2:292/854)

2:201/148 PVT and IBN flags CM,MO,IBN,

Ahem. Have you tried connecting to this node, using the third field in the listing?



..

--- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; sv-SE; rv:1.9.1.16) Gecko/20101125
* Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)

26 Jan 19 01:12, Bj”rn Felten wrote to Fred Riccio:

2:201/148 PVT and IBN flags CM,MO,IBN,

Ahem. Have you tried connecting to this node, using the third field in
the listing?

I just did. No answer.

'Tommi

---
* Origin: rbb.fidonet.fi (2:221/1)

Ahem. Have you tried connecting to this node, using the third field in
the listing?

I just did. No answer.

Well, that's one thing that the nodelisting cannot guarantee. 8-)




..

--- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; sv-SE; rv:1.9.1.16) Gecko/20101125
* Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)

Hello,

On Fri, 25 Jan 2019 09:22:16 -0500, Fred Riccio -> Kees Van Eeten <0@174.132.1>
wrote:

Why pick on one entry when there are lots of them with the same problem...

1:154/700     PVT and IBN flags        IBN,

This one is fixed and should be reflected Friday (IBN has been removed). However, I didn't see anything wrong with it since there was no dns or IP in the string whatsoever, so what would any mailer actually try to connect to? "The_Pharcyde" or "-Unpublished-"? I don't think it would work out too well in either case.

Regards,
Nick

--- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60
* Origin: thePharcyde_ distribution system (1:154/10)

Hello, Nicholas Boel.
On 28/01/2019 14:18 you wrote:

Hello,

1:154/700     PVT and IBN flags        IBN,

This one is fixed and should be reflected Friday (IBN has been removed). However, I didn't see anything wrong with it since there was no dns or
IP in the string whatsoever, so what would any mailer actually try to connect to? "The_Pharcyde" or "-Unpublished-"? I don't think it would
work out too well in either case.

Some mailer may try the f.n.z.binkp.net way...

--
Tommi

--- HotdogEd/2.13.5 (Android; Google Android; rv:1) Hotdoged/1480338873000 Hotd
* Origin: *** smapinntpd/linux @ nntp://news.fidonet.fi *** (2:221/360)

-=> On 01-28-19 20:51, Tommi Koivula wrote to Nicholas Boel <=-

Some mailer may try the f.n.z.binkp.net way...

I'm able to do that, not only in Fidonet, but also 2 othernets that have DNS lookups available. :)


... URA Redneck if people hear your car a long time before they see it.
=== MultiMail/Win v0.51
--- SBBSecho 3.03-Linux
* Origin: Freeway BBS Bendigo,Australia freeway.apana.org.au (3:633/410)