.: DiscipleNet - A fellowship network for disciples of Jesus :.
Re: Join DiscipleNet
By: Gary McCulloch to All on Sun Sep 27 2026 08:45:01
.: DiscipleNet - A fellowship network for disciples of Jesus :.
Hey Gary,
Do you want to hook me up with this one? Since I have all the other networks you run we can just use the same passwords and I'm good to go.
Thanks,
Nigel
--- SBBSecho 3.37-Linux
* Origin: End Of The Line BBS - endofthelinebbs.com (1:124/5016)
A World Wide FidoNet Technology Network
======================================================================
Copyright 2026 / SpitfireTN Entertainment
Network Coordinator: Gary T. McCulloch
ROF FTN World HQ - https://www.rofbbs.com
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
__ \ _) _) | \ | |
| | | __| __| | __ \ | _ \ \ | _ \ __|
| | | \__ \ ( | | | | __/ |\ | __/ |
____/ _| ____/ \___| _| .__/ _| \___| _| \_| \___| \__| TM
_|
John 3:16 -
For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten
Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish,
but have everlasting life. - KJV
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
.: DiscipleNet - A fellowship network for disciples of Jesus :.
=======================================================================
* ACIS Member. AmigaNet ArakNet C=Net DescipleNet FidoNet PiNet
RetroNet
* C-Net/5
* Origin: call.rofbbs.com : 6800 6400 8502 : 423-541-8271 :
rofbbs.com (1:154/50)
Still waiting...
--
End Of The Line BBS - Plano, TX
telnet endofthelinebbs.com 23
--- SBBSecho 3.38-Linux
* Origin: End Of The Line BBS - endofthelinebbs.com (1:124/5016)
Sorry, I thought I hit SAVE. You are now in the nodelist. You have been set up on the HUB already.
Sorry, I thought I hit SAVE. You are now in the nodelist. You have been set up on the HUB already.
Nigel Reed wrote to Gary McCulloch <=-
Re: Re: Join DiscipleNet
By: Gary McCulloch to Nigel Reed on Sun Oct 04 2026 20:31:09
Sorry, I thought I hit SAVE. You are now in the nodelist. You have
been set up on the HUB already.
I think you forgot to hit save again. I checked https://www.rofbbs.com/rofftn/ftnnodes.php and I don't see myself
listed and I'm still not getting a response to areafix.
This is why I left all of these "networks" run by "ROF" ...
Administration is so spotty and it's like the blind leading the blind.
Nigel Reed wrote to Gary McCulloch <=-
Re: Re: Join DiscipleNet
By: Gary McCulloch to Nigel Reed on Sun Oct 04 2026 20:31:09
Sorry, I thought I hit SAVE. You are now in the nodelist. You have been set up on the HUB already.
I think you forgot to hit save again. I checked https://www.rofbbs.com/rofftn/ftnnodes.php and I don't see myself listed and I'm still not getting a response to areafix.
This is why I left all of these "networks" run by "ROF" ... Administration is so spotty and it's like the blind leading the blind.
There's no traffic in ANY of them, anyway. None.
... He does the work of 3 Men...Moe, Larry & Curly
=== MultiMail/Linux v0.52
--- SBBSecho 3.37-Linux
* Origin: Palantir * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL * (1:135/115)
Administration? Do you think this is a business?
Gary McCulloch wrote to Dan Clough <=-
On Mon 5-Oct-2026 8:12a, Dan Clough@1:135/115.0 said to Nigel Reed:
Nigel Reed wrote to Gary McCulloch <=-
Re: Re: Join DiscipleNet
By: Gary McCulloch to Nigel Reed on Sun Oct 04 2026 20:31:09
Sorry, I thought I hit SAVE. You are now in the nodelist. You have been set up on the HUB already.
I think you forgot to hit save again. I checked https://www.rofbbs.com/rofftn/ftnnodes.php and I don't see myself listed and I'm still not getting a response to areafix.
This is why I left all of these "networks" run by "ROF" ...
Administration is so spotty and it's like the blind leading the blind.
There's no traffic in ANY of them, anyway. None.
I am glad you left.
You are the biggest wiener when it comes to this hobby.
Administration? Do you think this is a business?
Nigel Reed wrote to Dan Clough <=-
Re: Re: Join DiscipleNet
By: Dan Clough to Nigel Reed on Mon Oct 05 2026 08:12:48
This is why I left all of these "networks" run by "ROF" ...
Administration is so spotty and it's like the blind leading the blind.
There are plenty of people running networks that have
misconfigurations. Mostly the wrong domain attached to a zone but
there's other stuff going on that needs fixing.
Gary McCulloch wrote to Dan Clough <=-
Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I want to clarify that this entire network is actually a hobby project managed by just one person, not a large team. The networks are provided completely free of charge for
anyone who wishes to use them. Ultimately, the activity and vibrancy of
a network rely entirely on the systems using it and the users who participate.
While it may not meet everyone's expectations, I will
certainly share your feedback with the community members who dedicate their personal time to keeping it running.
I don't want to sound completely negative ... Your "ideas" are good, but the *implementation* of them is sloppy and careless in my opinion. That's why I left. If you're gonna run something, then run it. Properly. Professionally. Reliably.
Gary McCulloch wrote to Dan Clough <=-
I don't want to sound completely negative ... Your "ideas" are good, but the *implementation* of them is sloppy and careless in my opinion.
That's why I left. If you're gonna run something, then run it.
Properly. Professionally. Reliably.
Thank goodness your the only one that thinks this. All the
other nodes either do not have issues or are working with me to resolve them. Can't please everyone. 1 out of 78 is not bad. Now its 0 out of 78.
I don't want to sound completely negative ... Your "ideas" are good,
but the *implementation* of them is sloppy and careless in my
opinion. That's why I left. If you're gonna run something, then run
it. Properly. Professionally. Reliably.
Thank goodness your the only one that thinks this. All the other nodes either do not have issues or are working with me to resolve them. Can't
please everyone. 1 out of 78 is not bad. Now its 0 out of 78.
Wilfred van Velzen wrote to Gary McCulloch <=-Ca
On 2026-10-07 05:03:06, you wrote to Dan Clough:
I don't want to sound completely negative ... Your "ideas" are good,
but the *implementation* of them is sloppy and careless in my
opinion. That's why I left. If you're gonna run something, then run
it. Properly. Professionally. Reliably.
Thank goodness your the only one that thinks this. All the other nodes either do not have issues or are working with me to resolve them.
n't
please everyone. 1 out of 78 is not bad. Now its 0 out of 78.
So here is something helpfull...
I tested all entries in the Disciple nodelist:
Nodelist for Friday, October 9, 2026 -- Day number 282 parsed, 13 IP-nodes processed (0.000 sec) 12:1/0 call.rofbbs.com:24556 2605:8600:60:199d:aa5a:bfc6:5328:c881 No such AKA. 12:1/0 call.rofbbs.com:24556 68.169.145.190 No such AKA. 12:12/0 call.rofbbs.com:24556 2605:8600:60:199d:aa5a:bfc6:5328:c881 No such AKA. 12:12/0 call.rofbbs.com:24556 68.169.145.190 No such AKA. 12:316/0 call.rofbbs.com:24556 2605:8600:60:199d:aa5a:bfc6:5328:c881 - Got binkp error: Unsecured session not allowed. 12:316/0 call.rofbbs.com:24556
68.169.145.190 - Got binkp error: Unsecured session not allowed.
I see room for improvements.
I tested all entries in the Disciple nodelist:
Nodelist for Friday, October 9, 2026 -- Day number 282 parsed, 13 IP-nodes processed (0.000 sec)
12:1/0 call.rofbbs.com:24556 2605:8600:60:199d:aa5a:bfc6:5328:c881 No such AKA.
12:1/0 call.rofbbs.com:24556 68.169.145.190 No such AKA.
12:12/0 call.rofbbs.com:24556 2605:8600:60:199d:aa5a:bfc6:5328:c881 No such AKA.
12:12/0 call.rofbbs.com:24556 68.169.145.190 No such AKA.
12:316/0 call.rofbbs.com:24556 2605:8600:60:199d:aa5a:bfc6:5328:c881 - Got binkp error: Unsecured session not allowed.
12:316/0 call.rofbbs.com:24556 68.169.145.190 - Got binkp error: Unsecured session not allowed.
12:316/1 call.rofbbs.com:24554 2605:8600:60:199d:aa5a:bfc6:5328:c881 Ok.
12:316/1 call.rofbbs.com:24554 68.169.145.190 Ok.
12:316/10 endofthelinebbs.com:24554 2a0c:e680:1:9ee6:f1d0:1:124:5016 Ok.
12:316/10 endofthelinebbs.com:24554 185.242.212.12 Ok. 12:316/11 altairminibbs.net:24554 217.198.137.127 Ok.
12:316/21 toolazy.ddns.net:24554 185.111.156.130 Error: Connection refused
12:316/62 bbs.linuxnode.net:24554 144.202.70.247 Error: Connection refused
12:316/66 bbs.www.underground.us:24554 13.248.169.48 Error: Connection timed out
12:316/66 bbs.www.underground.us:24554 76.223.54.146 Error: Connection timed out
12:316/67 bbs.bottomlessabyss.net:24554 207.253.168.132 No such AKA.
12:316/70 sysops-finest.org:24554 2a06:98c1:3120:: Error: Connection timed out
12:316/70 sysops-finest.org:24554 2a06:98c1:3121:: Error: Connection timed out
12:316/70 sysops-finest.org:24554 188.114.96.0 Error: Connection timed out
12:316/70 sysops-finest.org:24554 188.114.97.0 Error: Connection timed out
12:316/76 exoplanetbbs.net:24554 108.15.36.45 Ok.
12:316/100 call.rofbbs.com:24552 2605:8600:60:199d:aa5a:bfc6:5328:c881 Ok.
12:316/100 call.rofbbs.com:24552 68.169.145.190 Ok.
I see room for improvements.
Bye, Wilfred.Not sure where you got that nodelist for DiscipleNet? If you ask those systems, they will tell you they are not part of that network. So yes, I see room for improvements on your scan.
--- FMail-lnx64 2.3.4.1-B20260520
* Origin: FMail development HQ (2:280/464)
Not sure where you got that nodelist for DiscipleNet?
I think there is a misunderstanding regarding how you are scanning the network. Your report states you processed 13 IP nodes, but DiscipleNet only has 9 active nodes.
The "No such AKA," connection refused, and timeout errors you are
seeing are happening because your script is scanning stale,
unassigned, or completely unrelated test entries that do not belong to
our active routing table.
For example, the BinkP "Unsecured session not allowed" errors just
mean a system is correctly enforcing security policies.
Before judging the implementation as "sloppy," it helps to ensure your
own testing parameters match the actual network topology.
The 9 active nodes are perfectly stable and working together fine.
Wilfred van Velzen wrote to Gary McCulloch <=-
Not sure where you got that nodelist for DiscipleNet?
I found it on your bbs's website: https://www.rofbbs.com
This was the header:
;A DISCIPLE Nodelist for Friday, October 9, 2026 -- Day number 282 : 36180
So it was the current one.
Wilfred van Velzen wrote to Gary McCulloch <=-
I think there is a misunderstanding regarding how you are scanning the network. Your report states you processed 13 IP nodes, but DiscipleNet only has 9 active nodes.
Well there are 10 nodes + 3 administrative entries in the most current nodelist. That makes a total of 13.
The "No such AKA," connection refused, and timeout errors you are
seeing are happening because your script is scanning stale,
unassigned, or completely unrelated test entries that do not belong to
our active routing table.
I don't have access to your routing table. I used the most recently published nodelist.
For example, the BinkP "Unsecured session not allowed" errors just
mean a system is correctly enforcing security policies.
No that is never correct. How else could one deliver crash mail to a node?
A node that isn't accepting crashmails from "unsecure" systems, should
be marked Private in the nodelist (without any connection flags). Or
even better: be removed from the nodelist and use a point number.
Before judging the implementation as "sloppy," it helps to ensure your
own testing parameters match the actual network topology.
The test used the most recent published nodelist. What other public "parameters" are there, that could be used?
The 9 active nodes are perfectly stable and working together fine.
The test proves otherwise, or the current nodelist needs a big
update...
Not sure where you got that nodelist for DiscipleNet?
I found it on your bbs's website: https://www.rofbbs.com
This was the header:
;A DISCIPLE Nodelist for Friday, October 9, 2026 -- Day number 282 : 36180
So it was the current one.
For example, the BinkP "Unsecured session not allowed" errors just
mean a system is correctly enforcing security policies.
No that is never correct. How else could one deliver crash mail to a node?
A node that isn't accepting crashmails from "unsecure" systems, should be marked Private in the nodelist (without any connection flags). Or even better: be removed from the nodelist and use a point number.
Gary McCulloch wrote to All <=-
Wilfred,
You were right and I was wrong, so let me deal with that first.
Ten nodes plus three administrative entries is thirteen. You took the nodelist off my own website, which is the correct place to take it
from, and it was the current one. My post said your scan was hitting
stale or unrelated entries. That was not true, and I should have
checked before I wrote it rather than after. I have no complaint about
the test.
WHAT WAS ACTUALLY BROKEN
12:1/0 and 12:12/0 answering "No such AKA" was a real fault and it was mine. My nodelist advertised the Zone and Region entries at call.rofbbs.com:24556 and my hub held only the Host address. I checked
the other four networks before replying and the same fault was in all
of them - ten addresses advertising an endpoint I did not hold.
That is fixed. The hub now holds all sixteen and announces them in the session greeting. Same for a second fault you did not see: thirty-one
of my nodes were subscribed to no nodelist file base at all, so the
weekly hatch had never sent them a nodelist. On DiscipleNet that was
four of the nine. Fixed as well, in time for tomorrow's run.
THE UNSECURED SESSION, AND MARK'S QUESTION
You are right that this needed declaring, and I had no business
calling it correct without saying why.
My hub accepts sessions only from systems listed in its own nodelist. Applications do not arrive by netmail here - they come through a web
form at rofbbs.com/rofftn/application.php - so the hub never needs to
take a session from a system it does not already know, and I would
rather it did not. Mark, that is the answer to yours: a new sysop does
not have to netmail me, and does not have to get past the hub to
apply.
What was missing is that the nodelist said none of this. IBN:24556 promises binkp and says nothing about who may call, so your scan was
right to read the refusal as a fault rather than as policy. The flag
for it already exists - LO, "accepts calls Only from Listed
addresses", FTS-5001 section A - and twenty-five nodes in the Zone 1 nodelist carry it. Mine carried it nowhere. It is now on all fifteen
hub entries across the five networks and ships in tomorrow's lists.
WHAT IS STILL WRONG
Several member entries advertise IBN and do not answer one. Those
systems are moving mail - they poll me rather than accept calls - so
the boards are fine and my nodelist is the thing that overstates them.
I am sampling each of them daily for a week rather than acting on one probe, and then correcting the flags for the ones that are genuinely poll-only. That is my data to fix, not theirs.
So: the list you scanned deserved most of what it got.
One thing that would otherwise confuse the comparison. Tomorrow's
rebuild is still day number 282, because MakeNL names its output for
the coming Friday and that is tomorrow - same filename, different contents. The header CRC is what tells builds apart. Yours was 36180.
The copy on the website now is 40361, rebuilt this morning for a
couple of entries with a missing _BBS and a location in capitals, and tomorrow's will differ again for the LO flag. I mention it only so the filename does not mislead you, not to suggest you tested the wrong
thing - you did not.
If you run the same test against tomorrow's I would genuinely like to
see the output, and I will say so publicly either way.
Thanks for the sweep. It found more in an afternoon than I had found
in a year of looking at it myself.
If you run the same test against tomorrow's I would genuinely like to
see the output, and I will say so publicly either way.
At least you owned up to the mistakes that were all on YOUR side. I'll give you credit there for acknowledging that.
mark lewis wrote to Dan Clough <=-
If you run the same test against tomorrow's I would genuinely like to
see the output, and I will say so publicly either way.
At least you owned up to the mistakes that were all on YOUR side. I'll give you credit there for acknowledging that.
on the one hand, i agree... on the other hand, that entire message
reeks with the stench of a (so called) AI ""apology"" after it was forcibly shown or told it was flat out wrong about something... the
damned things are infesting everything and the movie /Idocracy/ is
coming to life before our very eyes about 500 years sooner than the
movie "predicted" :smh:
Same for a second fault you did not see: thirty-one of my nodes were subscribed to no nodelist file base at all, so the weekly hatch had
never sent them a nodelist. On DiscipleNet that was four of the nine. Fixed as well, in time for tomorrow's run.
THE UNSECURED SESSION, AND MARK'S QUESTION
You are right that this needed declaring, and I had no business
calling it correct without saying why.
My hub accepts sessions only from systems listed in its own nodelist. Applications do not arrive by netmail here
- they come through a web form at rofbbs.com/rofftn/application.php -
so the hub never needs to take a session from a system it does not
already know, and I would rather it did not. Mark, that is the answer
to yours: a new sysop does not have to netmail me, and does not have
to get past the hub to apply.
What was missing is that the nodelist said none of this. IBN:24556 promises binkp and says nothing about who may call, so your scan was
right to read the refusal as a fault rather than as policy. The flag
for it already exists - LO, "accepts calls Only from Listed
addresses", FTS-5001 section A - and twenty-five nodes in the Zone 1 nodelist carry it. Mine carried it nowhere. It is now on all fifteen
hub entries across the five networks and ships in tomorrow's lists.
WHAT IS STILL WRONG
Several member entries advertise IBN and do not answer one. Those
systems are moving mail - they poll me rather than accept calls - so
the boards are fine and my nodelist is the thing that overstates them.
I am sampling each of them daily for a week rather than acting on one probe, and then correcting the flags for the ones that are genuinely poll-only. That is my data to fix, not theirs.
If you run the same test against tomorrow's I would genuinely like to
see the output, and I will say so publicly either way.
Thanks for the sweep. It found more in an afternoon than I had found
in a year of looking at it myself.
They could if you allowed it. And why not? It's a good way for applying nodes to prove they have a grasp of the technology...
2605:8600:60:199d:aa5a:bfc6:5328:c881 Ok.
12:316/100 call.rofbbs.com:24552 68.169.145.190 Ok.
| Sysop: | fluid |
|---|---|
| Location: | wickliffe, ohio |
| Users: | 4 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 156:46:58 |
| Calls: | 89 |
| Files: | 15,838 |
| Messages: | 61,919 |