I am not making "authorative" statements but you are right, I mixed up
XA, XX and XW.

"The XA flag can be correct for a IBN node."

I explained already that I mixed up the XA and XW flag.

You wouldn't call that an authoritive statement?

I have no "authority".

What *would* you call it?

I mixed up the XA and XW flag as I have said already. Several times.

I have no interest in carrying this (or anything else) on with you. If you really need to hear from me, use netmail.

--- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Toy-7
* Origin: The Rusty MailBox - Penticton, BC Canada (1:153/757)

Hi All,

New node in net 153: ,150,Claude's_BBS,Vancouver_BC,Matthew_Asham,-Unpublished-,300,CM,XA,INA:claudes.lovelybits.org,IBN
Connect with BinktermPHP/1.6.7
XA flag can't be correct for an IBN only node.

The binkp protocol implementation for this software can be improved:
? 23 Jan 12:12:13 [18460] unexpected password from the remote on outgoing call: `'
? 23 Jan 12:12:13 [18460] rerror: Authentication failed

Hub flag was removed for node 36 in net 423.

Down node 5 in net 6035 was removed.


Bye, Wilfred.

--- FMail-lnx64 2.3.2.6-B20251227
* Origin: NPC Station (2:280/464)

Hello Wilfred,

On Friday January 23 2026 12:35, you wrote to All:

New node in net 153: ,150,Claude's_BBS,Vancouver_BC,Matthew_Asham,-Unpublished-,300,CM,XA,I NA:claudes.lovelybits.org,IBN Connect with BinktermPHP/1.6.7 XA flag
can't be correct for an IBN only node.

The binkp protocol implementation for this software can be improved:
? 23 Jan 12:12:13 [18460] unexpected password from the remote on
outgoing call: `' ? 23 Jan 12:12:13 [18460] rerror: Authentication
failed

I vaguely recall that some implementation have "only accept secure link" set by default... :-(


Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20170303
* Origin: Nodelist Police Station (2:280/5555)

Hi Michiel,

On 2026-01-23 13:28:50, you wrote to me:

New node in net 153:
,150,Claude's_BBS,Vancouver_BC,Matthew_Asham,-Unpublished-,300,CM,XA,
INA:claudes.lovelybits.org,IBN Connect with BinktermPHP/1.6.7 XA flag
can't be correct for an IBN only node.

The binkp protocol implementation for this software can be improved:
? 23 Jan 12:12:13 [18460] unexpected password from the remote on
outgoing call: `' ? 23 Jan 12:12:13 [18460] rerror: Authentication
failed

MvdV> I vaguely recall that some implementation have "only accept secure link" set
MvdV> by default... :-(

That was/is Mystic. But I don't know if that is the case here. BinktermPHP seems to send an empty password to unknown nodes...

Bye, Wilfred.

--- FMail-lnx64 2.3.2.6-B20251227
* Origin: NPC Station (2:280/464)

Hello Wilfred,

On Friday January 23 2026 17:57, you wrote to me:

The binkp protocol implementation for this software can be
improved: ? 23 Jan 12:12:13 [18460] unexpected password from the
remote on outgoing call: `' ? 23 Jan 12:12:13 [18460] rerror:
Authentication failed

MvdV>> I vaguely recall that some implementation have "only accept
MvdV>> secure link" set by default... :-(

That was/is Mystic. But I don't know if that is the case here.
BinktermPHP seems to send an empty password to unknown nodes...

Hmmm, at first it wasn't clear to me where that error message came from. Now when I read it again, it seems to come from the binkd originating the call in respons to an empty password being send by the called binkd...


Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20170303
* Origin: Nodelist Police Station (2:280/5555)

On Fri, 23 Jan 2026 15:57:52 +0100 Wilfred van Velzen wrote:

WV>> New node in net 153:
WV>> ,150,Claude's_BBS,Vancouver_BC,Matthew_Asham,-Unpublished-,300,CM,XA,
WV>> INA:claudes.lovelybits.org,IBN Connect with BinktermPHP/1.6.7 XA flag
WV>> can't be correct for an IBN only node.

WV>> The binkp protocol implementation for this software can be improved:
WV>> ? 23 Jan 12:12:13 [18460] unexpected password from the remote on
WV>> outgoing call: `' ? 23 Jan 12:12:13 [18460] rerror: Authentication
WV>> failed

MvdV> I vaguely recall that some implementation have "only accept secure link" set
MvdV> by default... :-(

That was/is Mystic. But I don't know if that is the case here. BinktermPHP seems to send an empty password to unknown nodes...

21:02 [1137173] call to 1:153/150@fidonet
21:02 [1137173] trying claudes.lovelybits.org [167.114.155.230]...
21:02 [1137173] connected
21:02 [1137173] binkp init done, socket # is 3
21:02 [1137173] outgoing session with claudes.lovelybits.org:24554 [167.114.155.230]
21:02 [1137173] send message NUL SYS news.fidonet.fi
21:02 [1137173] send message NUL ZYZ Tommi Koivula <tommi@fidonet.fi>
21:02 [1137173] send message NUL LOC EU
21:02 [1137173] send message NUL NDL CM,IBN,MO
21:02 [1137173] send message NUL TIME Fri, 23 Jan 2026 21:02:40 +0200
21:02 [1137173] send message NUL VER binkd/1.1a-115/Linux binkp/1.1
21:02 [1137173] - our ip 51.38.115.207 35059
21:02 [1137173] send message ADR 2:221/6@fidonet
21:02 [1137173] send message NUL OPT NDA EXTCMD CRYPT GZ BZ2
21:02 [1137173] touched /bbs/bso/fido.001/00990096.csy
21:02 [1137173] rcvd msg NUL SYS Claude's BBS
21:02 [1137173] SYS Claude's BBS
21:02 [1137173] rcvd msg NUL ZYZ Claude the Coder
21:02 [1137173] ZYZ Claude the Coder
21:02 [1137173] rcvd msg NUL LOC Vancouver, Canada
21:02 [1137173] LOC Vancouver, Canada
21:02 [1137173] rcvd msg NUL VER BinktermPHP/1.6.7 binkp/1.0
21:02 [1137173] VER BinktermPHP/1.6.7 binkp/1.0
21:02 [1137173] remote uses binkp v.1.0
21:02 [1137173] rcvd msg NUL TIME Fri, 23 Jan 2026 19:02:42 UTC
21:02 [1137173] TIME Fri, 23 Jan 2026 19:02:42 UTC
21:02 [1137173] rcvd msg ADR 1:153/150
21:02 [1137173] Cannot find domain for zone 1, assuming 'fidonet'
21:02 [1137173] created /bbs/bso/fido.001/00990096.bsy
21:02 [1137173] addr: 1:153/150@fidonet
21:02 [1137173] send message NUL TRF 0 0
21:02 [1137173] send message PWD -

It seems that I'm sending a password "-" here. Which is interpreted incorrect as a password?

21:02 [1137173] rcvd msg PWD
21:02 [1137173] unexpected password from the remote on outgoing call: `'
21:02 [1137173] rcvd msg OK insecure
21:02 [1137173] removing flo: /bbs/bso/fido.001/00990096.dlo
21:02 [1137173] unlinked `/bbs/bso/fido.001/00990096.dlo'
21:02 [1137173] send message EOB
21:02 [1137173] rcvd msg EOB
21:02 [1137173] there were 2 msgs in this batch
21:02 [1137173] done (to 1:153/150@fidonet, OK, S/R: 0/0 (0/0 bytes))
21:02 [1137173] processing kill list
21:02 [1137173] unlinked `/bbs/bso/fido.001/00990096.bsy'
21:02 [1137173] binkp deinit done...
21:02 [1137173] session closed, quitting...
21:02 [1137173] unlinked `/bbs/bso/fido.001/00990096.csy'
21:02 [1137173] bsy_remove_all: done
21:02 [1137171] rc(1137173)=0
21:02 [1137171] the queue is empty, quitting...
21:02 [1137171] downing clientmgr...
21:02 [1137171] bsy_remove_all: done


--
'Tommi

--- FMail-lnx64 2.3.2.6-B20260117
* Origin: nntp://news.fidonet.fi (2:221/360.0)

Hi Tommi,

On 2026-01-23 21:15:28, you wrote to me:

21:02 [1137173] send message PWD -

It seems that I'm sending a password "-" here. Which is interpreted incorrect
as a password?

21:02 [1137173] rcvd msg PWD
21:02 [1137173] unexpected password from the remote on outgoing call: `'

I haven't studied the binkp protocol, so I'm not sure what is supposed to happen. You could compare it to the logs of a crash call to a regular binkd node?


Bye, Wilfred.

--- FMail-lnx64 2.3.2.6-B20251227
* Origin: NPC Station (2:280/464)

New node in net 153:
,150,Claude's_BBS,Vancouver_BC,Matthew_Asham,-Unpublished-,300,CM,XA,
INA:claudes.lovelybits.org,IBN Connect with BinktermPHP/1.6.7 XA flag
can't be correct for an IBN only node.

The XA flag can be correct for a IBN node. AFAIK Synchronet and Binkd (with a little help) support file requests if so configured.

I don't think 153/150 supports file request at this point, though it is on the todo list. I'll get clarification about that from Matthew.

The binkp protocol implementation for this software can be improved:
? 23 Jan 12:12:13 [18460] unexpected password from the remote on
outgoing call: `' ? 23 Jan 12:12:13 [18460] rerror: Authentication
failed

I vaguely recall that some implementation have "only accept secure link"

set

by default... :-(

That was/is Mystic. But I don't know if that is the case here. BinktermPHP seems to send an empty password to unknown nodes...

Current versions of Mystic does't do that anymore. :)

I'm not sure if Matthew reads this area but I am sure he would welcome bug reports at 153/150 for anyone so inclined.

--- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Toy-7
* Origin: The Rusty MailBox - Penticton, BC Canada (1:153/757)

Hi Alan,

On 2026-01-23 15:47:52, you wrote to me:

New node in net 153:
,150,Claude's_BBS,Vancouver_BC,Matthew_Asham,-Unpublished-,300,CM,XA,
INA:claudes.lovelybits.org,IBN Connect with BinktermPHP/1.6.7 XA flag
can't be correct for an IBN only node.

The XA flag can be correct for a IBN node.

Nope, it can't be. Bark protocol is strictly for modem connections or virtual ones on a ITN connection, but not on a binkp (IBN) connection.

So with IBN, you can only have Wazoo file request, so XX or XW.

AFAIK Synchronet and Binkd (with a little help) support file requests
if so configured.

But only XW, because it doesn't support 'update requests', currently.

I don't think 153/150 supports file request at this point, though it
is on the todo list. I'll get clarification about that from Matthew.

So any X? flag is currently wrong!

That was/is Mystic. But I don't know if that is the case here.
BinktermPHP seems to send an empty password to unknown nodes...

Current versions of Mystic does't do that anymore. :)

Good!

I'm not sure if Matthew reads this area but I am sure he would welcome
bug reports at 153/150 for anyone so inclined.

He should connect here then! ;-)


Bye, Wilfred.

--- FMail-lnx64 2.3.2.6-B20251227
* Origin: NPC Station (2:280/464)

New node in net 153:
,150,Claude's_BBS,Vancouver_BC,Matthew_Asham,-Unpublished-,300,CM,XA, >>>>> INA:claudes.lovelybits.org,IBN Connect with BinktermPHP/1.6.7 XA flag >>>>> can't be correct for an IBN only node.

The XA flag can be correct for a IBN node.

Nope, it can't be. Bark protocol is strictly for modem connections or virtual ones on a ITN connection, but not on a binkp (IBN) connection.

So with IBN, you can only have Wazoo file request, so XX or XW.

Oh, right. I get XA, XX and XW mixed up..

--- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Toy-7
* Origin: The Rusty MailBox - Penticton, BC Canada (1:153/757)

On Fri, 23 Jan 2026 19:21:48 +0100 Wilfred van Velzen wrote:

TK> 21:02 [1137173] send message PWD -

TK> It seems that I'm sending a password "-" here. Which is interpreted
TK> incorrect as a password?

TK> 21:02 [1137173] rcvd msg PWD
TK> 21:02 [1137173] unexpected password from the remote on outgoing call: `'

I haven't studied the binkp protocol, so I'm not sure what is supposed
to happen. You could compare it to the logs of a crash call to a regular binkd node?

No "rcvd msg PWD" from any other binkp node I tried. Passworded link or not.

'Tommi

--- FMail-lnx64 2.3.2.6-B20260117
* Origin: news://news.fidonet.fi (2:221/360.0)

Alan Ianson wrote to Wilfred van Velzen <=-

New node in net 153:
,150,Claude's_BBS,Vancouver_BC,Matthew_Asham,-Unpublished-,300,CM,XA,
INA:claudes.lovelybits.org,IBN Connect with BinktermPHP/1.6.7 XA flag
can't be correct for an IBN only node.

The XA flag can be correct for a IBN node.

Nope, it can't be. Bark protocol is strictly for modem connections or

virtual

ones on a ITN connection, but not on a binkp (IBN) connection.

So with IBN, you can only have Wazoo file request, so XX or XW.

Oh, right. I get XA, XX and XW mixed up..

And yet, you make "authoritive" statements which are incorrect, without bothering to check your facts before blurting them out, even when you self-admit to being "mixed up" about them. Pfffffttt.




... Ignorance can be cured. Stupid is forever.
=== MultiMail/Linux v0.52
--- SBBSecho 3.34-Linux
* Origin: Palantir * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL * (1:135/115)

New node in net 153:
,150,Claude's_BBS,Vancouver_BC,Matthew_Asham,-Unpublished-,300,CM,XA, >>>>>> INA:claudes.lovelybits.org,IBN Connect with BinktermPHP/1.6.7 XA flag >>>>>> can't be correct for an IBN only node.

The XA flag can be correct for a IBN node.

Nope, it can't be. Bark protocol is strictly for modem connections or

virtual

ones on a ITN connection, but not on a binkp (IBN) connection.

So with IBN, you can only have Wazoo file request, so XX or XW.

Oh, right. I get XA, XX and XW mixed up..

And yet, you make "authoritive" statements which are incorrect, without bothering to check your facts before blurting them out, even when you self-admit to being "mixed up" about them. Pfffffttt.

I am not making "authorative" statements but you are right, I mixed up XA, XX and XW.

--- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Toy-7
* Origin: The Rusty MailBox - Penticton, BC Canada (1:153/757)

Alan Ianson wrote to Dan Clough <=-

New node in net 153:
,150,Claude's_BBS,Vancouver_BC,Matthew_Asham,-Unpublished-,300,CM,XA,
INA:claudes.lovelybits.org,IBN Connect with BinktermPHP/1.6.7 XA flag
can't be correct for an IBN only node.

The XA flag can be correct for a IBN node.

Nope, it can't be. Bark protocol is strictly for modem connections or
virtual ones on a ITN connection, but not on a binkp (IBN)
connection.
So with IBN, you can only have Wazoo file request, so XX or XW.

Oh, right. I get XA, XX and XW mixed up..

And yet, you make "authoritive" statements which are incorrect, without bothering to check your facts before blurting them out, even when you self-admit to being "mixed up" about them. Pfffffttt.

I am not making "authorative" statements but you are right, I mixed up
XA, XX and XW.

"The XA flag can be correct for a IBN node."

You wouldn't call that an authoritive statement?

What *would* you call it?



... Never assume the obvious is true!
=== MultiMail/Linux v0.52
--- SBBSecho 3.34-Linux
* Origin: Palantir * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL * (1:135/115)

Hi Alan,

On 2026-01-23 17:37:34, you wrote to me:

New node in net 153:
,150,Claude's_BBS,Vancouver_BC,Matthew_Asham,-Unpublished-,300,CM,X
A,INA:claudes.lovelybits.org,IBN
Connect with BinktermPHP/1.6.7 XA flag
can't be correct for an IBN only node.

The XA flag can be correct for a IBN node.

Nope, it can't be. Bark protocol is strictly for modem connections or
virtual ones on a ITN connection, but not on a binkp (IBN) connection.

So with IBN, you can only have Wazoo file request, so XX or XW.

Oh, right. I get XA, XX and XW mixed up..

I noticed it's fixed in the Z1 version of the nodelist, but not yet in the Z2 and Z3 versions. In the those versions the Z1 segment is stuck at day 028 (so 2 days behind) for some reason...?


Bye, Wilfred.

--- FMail-lnx64 2.3.2.6-B20251227
* Origin: NPC Station (2:280/464)

I noticed it's fixed in the Z1 version of the nodelist, but not yet in the Z2 and Z3 versions. In the those versions the Z1 segment is stuck at day 028
(so days behind) for some reason...?

I just sent in a fresh segment with that info yesterday or the day before. It may take a short time for that to propagate to z2 and 3.

--- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Toy-7
* Origin: The Rusty MailBox - Penticton, BC Canada (1:153/757)

Hi Alan,

On 2026-01-30 04:44:48, you wrote to me:

I noticed it's fixed in the Z1 version of the nodelist, but not yet in
the Z2 and Z3 versions. In the those versions the Z1 segment is stuck
at day 028 (so days behind) for some reason...?

I just sent in a fresh segment with that info yesterday or the day before. It
may take a short time for that to propagate to z2 and 3.

I have no doubt about it, it will. ;-)


Bye, Wilfred.

--- FMail-lnx64 2.3.2.6-B20251227
* Origin: NPC Station (2:280/464)