Netmail

[g00r00]

Quick question:

What do people feel about not having Netmail message bases, and Mystic just
uses the existing local e-mail message base for netmail instead?

The reason I am considering this is that if I open up the SMTP server to accept
incoming Internet email (as some have requested) they're going to have to be in
the e-mail inbox unless we want to define a separate message base for Internet
e-mail composition (also an option).

Maybe now is the time to consolidate, so netmail, local BBS email, and
internet e-mail are all the same things.

I've asked this question in the past, with mixed results so I thought i'd ask
again.

[john parker]

g0> What do people feel about not having Netmail message bases, and Mystic
g0> just uses the existing local e-mail message base for netmail instead?
g0>

makes sense. having an email convereted to netmail, but with a flag or
something so mystic knows its email. so when you reply it goes out the server
or relay server.

[Ben Ritchey]

* An ongoing debate between g00r00 and All rages on ...

gr> What do people feel about not having Netmail message bases, and Mystic
gr> just uses the existing local e-mail message base for netmail instead?

At one time under native DOS I had iRex running to interface to the web and
FIDONet .Pkt transfers with all personal mail (Email and Netmail) in one place
(all .msg format though) and it worked fine. It is still working that way under
Win XP in a limited fashion. It was/is a bit of work to config iRex to pass
custom headers on Email and purge others but it worked out. :)

Don't forget Netmail needs an .msg format area for some Door games and
utilities that interface to netmail if that's a consideration to begin with.

I would be fine with either format here. FYI my Netmail is handled by D'Bridge
via BinkD and my Email by iRex (passes to same Netmail area as .msg). Mystic
mail is strictly internal BBS mail at present (I only use Mystic for Telnet and
FTP access to my File areas) though that may change in the future ...


--
Guardien Fide :^)

Ben aka cMech Web: http://cmech.dynip.com
Email: fido4cmech(at)lusfiber.net
Home page: http://cmech.dynip.com/homepage/
WildCat! Board 24/7 +1-337-984-4794 any BAUD 8,N,1

[Leslie Given]

26 Feb 16 11:17, you wrote to all:

gr> What do people feel about not having Netmail message bases, and Mystic
gr> just uses the existing local e-mail message base for netmail instead?

Well, this is a interesting question. As it stands now.. if I'm in the netmail
area then [p]ost to:g00r00 mystic pops-up the search screen tool. I don't off
handed remember what FTN zones your in, so I type James. Mystic files 9 matches
for James and 4 of them are yours.
James Coyle mystic_bbs_support 1:129/215
James Coyle sector_7 agoranet 46:1/127
James Coyle zeronet 911:1570/0 (because i actually made zeronet nodelist)
James Coyle sector_7 fsxnet 21:1/108
Only a every few users that are sysop have used netmail, most users don't know
what netnail is or how to use it. Hence access levels for that... etc. Point
being the netmail would get to you quicker either routed or direct. If there
was a direct link on said system for your node/aka. Anyway this already works.

gr> The reason I am considering this is that if I open up the SMTP server
gr> to accept incoming Internet email (as some have requested) they're
gr> going to have to be in the e-mail inbox unless we want to define a
gr> separate message base for Internet e-mail composition (also an
gr> option).

I'd vote for to define a separate message base for interent e-mail composition
unless you can make it so a prompt shows (is this local email, netmail or
internet e-mail). When the the user is creating it.

gr> Maybe now is the time to consolidate, so netmail, local BBS email, and
gr> internet e-mail are all the same things.

You may be on to something here. I just consider then as different animals,
local email being bbs user to user on said system. Netmail nodelink to nodelink
on multi FTN zone networks and internet e-mail being al...@domain.org
I would think that the alais email could frq file attaches by addressing
filefix -freq<password> or something to that effect.

[Paul Hayton]

On 02/26/16, g00r00 pondered and said...

g0> What do people feel about not having Netmail message bases, and Mystic
g0> just uses the existing local e-mail message base for netmail instead?

I'm fine with the idea so long as there is a way to differentiate between
the local, netmail, and email data contained within the base you end up using.

g0> have to be in the e-mail inbox unless we want to define a separate
g0> message base for Internet e-mail composition (also an option).

Keeping it all in one base (as per above) is probably better athough there
may be some fishhooks I have not thought of yet.

g0> Maybe now is the time to consolidate, so netmail, local BBS email, and
g0> internet e-mail are all the same things.

They are not, I see netmail as a FTN style communication and internet e-email
as well SMTP etc. local is local... but by you saying this I *really* think
you mean treating them all as one in the same as far as the end user is
concerned. So they login and can read/send mail... they can choose to look up
an address book that becomes a hybrid of local bbs users, the compiled
nodelists, *and* a email list of people they can add to or a sysop can
compile. Just a thought :)

g0> I've asked this question in the past, with mixed results so I thought
g0> i'd ask again.

Never going to have 100% agreement on this, but the desire to see SMTP
services in Mystic is undeniably there :)

[Nicholas Boel]

Hello g00r00,

On 26 Feb 16 11:17, g00r00 wrote to All:

gr> What do people feel about not having Netmail message bases, and Mystic
gr> just uses the existing local e-mail message base for netmail instead?

gr> The reason I am considering this is that if I open up the SMTP server
gr> to accept incoming Internet email (as some have requested) they're
gr> going to have to be in the e-mail inbox unless we want to define a
gr> separate message base for Internet e-mail composition (also an
gr> option).

gr> Maybe now is the time to consolidate, so netmail, local BBS email, and
gr> internet e-mail are all the same things.

gr> I've asked this question in the past, with mixed results so I thought
gr> i'd ask again.

As long as Mystic will know the difference between those messages, and be able
to reply and send out in the same format. I don't see any problem with it
whatsoever except for people that continue to want to keep their netmail areas
separated by networks.. *shrug*

Regards,
Nick

[Stephen Walsh]

Hello g00r00!

26 Feb 16 11:17, you wrote to all:

gr> What do people feel about not having Netmail message bases, and Mystic
gr> just uses the existing local e-mail message base for netmail instead?

gr> The reason I am considering this is that if I open up the SMTP server
gr> to accept incoming Internet email (as some have requested) they're
gr> going to have to be in the e-mail inbox unless we want to define a
gr> separate message base for Internet e-mail composition (also an
gr> option).

Can we have it so that this option can be turned off/on as the sysop wants.

I don't want or need internet mail from/to my system, but it would be a great
feature to have mystic send a Internet
email to the user if thay are wanting a password re-set.

gr> Maybe now is the time to consolidate, so netmail, local BBS email, and
gr> internet e-mail are all the same things.

But they aren't the same thing.

Netmail is a FTN technology.
Email is a Internet technology.



Stephen

[john parker]

SW> Netmail is a FTN technology.
SW> Email is a Internet technology.

Good point. New draft for fido or seperate the techongoly.

[mark lewis]

29 Feb 16 12:03, you wrote to g00r00:

gr>> Maybe now is the time to consolidate, so netmail, local BBS email,

gr>> and internet e-mail are all the same things.

SW> But they aren't the same thing.

SW> Netmail is a FTN technology. Email is a Internet technology.

how they are stored locally doesn't matter... the difference in how they are
transmitted and formatted for that transmission... it only takes on bit in the
local message header to determine if the message is just a private local-only
message or a FTN-style netmail message or an email message using SMTP for
transmission... then they can be packed up in the proper format as needed and
sent on their way using the proper protocol and container format...

)\/(ark

Always Mount a Scratch Monkey

... Want to own a small business? Buy a big one and wait...

[Stephen Walsh]

Hello mark!

29 Feb 16 11:56, you wrote to me:

SW>> But they aren't the same thing.
SW>> Netmail is a FTN technology. Email is a Internet technology.

ml> how they are stored locally doesn't matter... the difference in how
ml> they are transmitted and formatted for that transmission... it only
ml> takes on bit in the local message header to determine if the message
ml> is just a private local-only message or a FTN-style netmail message or
ml> an email message using SMTP for transmission... then they can be
ml> packed up in the proper format as needed and sent on their way using
ml> the proper protocol and container format...

How many times have you seen users or even sysop's post a message in the wrong
area?

Combining the Netmail/Internet Email/Local Email in mystic is going to make
that even more of a problem.

I run my netmail area's for each network in Seprate area's and want to keep it
that way.

I also already have access to tools/servers that do Internet Email better than
mystic can/will. The only part of the Internet
Email support I would configure in mystic is the ability to send a password
reminder to the user via Internet Email.





Stephen

[g00r00]

SW> How many times have you seen users or even sysop's post a message in the
SW> wrong area?
SW>
SW> Combining the Netmail/Internet Email/Local Email in mystic is going to
SW> make that even more of a problem.

How so? Its funny you say that because the entire reason behind doing this is
because its confusing *now* and only going to get worse if I add another
message base type for internet email.

Currently if you want to send netmail, you have to find the correct message
base, sometimes even the correct netmail base in the right network. And if you
want to send a local BBS email you have to execute an entirely different menu
command. Now we're going to add another message base type for Internet email
that sends the users back into message bases to dig around in the bases again?

If anything its going to stop what you're describing entirely, not make it
worse. When you execute the MW (write email) menu command, the user is asked:

Do you want to send (L)ocal BBS email, (I)nternet email or (N)etmail?

Do you really think that is somehow more confusing than what is described
above for the current way to do things?

[Paul Hayton]

On 03/01/16, g00r00 pondered and said...

g0> it worse. When you execute the MW (write email) menu command, the user
g0> is asked:
g0>
g0> Do you want to send (L)ocal BBS email, (I)nternet email or (N)etmail?
g0>

This to me is the way to go. I like the idea of one base. I consider the
reason behind why some folks like to run seperate netmail bases for each
network is to be able to easily see what has been sent/received per network.

So the key feature I think that needs to be enabled if all messages are to be
sent/received in one base in the future, is the ability to
filter/sort/show/hide messages in that base if a user wants to do so when
they are looking at what's contained in it.

It would be great to see an inbox full of messages but say to Mystic show me
Agoranet stuff and filter by date/author/time received etc. Really nothing
different that you can do in MS Outlook when you opt to sort by sender,
search by keyword, sort by decending date etc..

I think that's the area of focus for development. Make the inbox as versitle
as possible and then it really won't matter to some folks as much if it's all
coming into and being sent from the one place.

Best, Paul

[Nicholas Boel]

Hello Stephen,

On 02 Mar 16 09:39, Stephen Walsh wrote to mark lewis:

ml>> how they are stored locally doesn't matter... the difference in

ml>> how they are transmitted and formatted for that transmission...
ml>> it only takes on bit in the local message header to determine if
ml>> the message is just a private local-only message or a FTN-style
ml>> netmail message or an email message using SMTP for
ml>> transmission... then they can be packed up in the proper format
ml>> as needed and sent on their way using the proper protocol and
ml>> container format...

SW> How many times have you seen users or even sysop's post a message in
SW> the wrong area?

SW> Combining the Netmail/Internet Email/Local Email in mystic is going to
SW> make that even more of a problem.

Did you ever notice that Synchronet already does all of this? If you post a
"netmail" to Accession@46:1/100 Synchronet handles it as a FTN netmail and
sends it off to the outbound directory. If you post a "netmail" to
acc...@pharcyde.org it knows to handle that as an email, and send it off via
SMTP. I believe you have to choose a different option from the email menu for a
local email, but it is still stored in the same place (/sbbs/data/mail.*).

SW> I run my netmail area's for each network in Seprate area's and want to
SW> keep it that way.

I wouldn't ask for that option to be taken away. But the option to combine
everything into one area is also nice for others that are used to it that way.

SW> I also already have access to tools/servers that do Internet Email
SW> better than mystic can/will. The only part of the Internet Email
SW> support I would configure in mystic is the ability to send a password
SW> reminder to the user via Internet Email.

No one is saying that Mystic's email server would be better than the stuff
actually designed for that specific task. And by all means, if you want to use
it for password verification or if you want to disable it completely or use
third party software that option should be there as well (just like the rest of
the MIS servers allow for already). Having it only benefits people that want to
use it.

Still, all in all it's a nice feature to have the option to use.

Regards,
Nick

[g00r00]

PH> g0> Do you want to send (L)ocal BBS email, (I)nternet email or (N)etmail?
PH>
PH> So the key feature I think that needs to be enabled if all messages are
PH> to be sent/received in one base in the future, is the ability to
PH> filter/sort/show/hide messages in that base if a user wants to do so when
PH> they are looking at what's contained in it.

Okay, thank you for the feedback.

With everything in a single place (when it comes to data storage) it'll be much
more feasible to do what you're asking. Maybe in the future I'll make a new
e-mail reader with the new template system. I can work in an address book
then, too, which would be really nice for things like Areafix or frequent
people you contact.

[Nicholas Boel]

Hello g00r00,

On 01 Mar 16 18:10, g00r00 wrote to Stephen Walsh:

gr> If anything its going to stop what you're describing entirely, not
gr> make it worse. When you execute the MW (write email) menu command,
gr> the user is asked:

gr> Do you want to send (L)ocal BBS email, (I)nternet email or (N)etmail?

gr> Do you really think that is somehow more confusing than what is
gr> described above for the current way to do things?

This is actually *exactly* how I was thinking it would be presented to the
user, given this is how Mystic does everything in that regard. The fact that
all of that could be stored in the same place, is something the user, nor the
sysop would need to worry about.

EXCEPT: When accessing that ONE area with something like Golded. This is a bug
in Golded with Synchronet already, as you're able to read everything everyone
has posted, and outgoing stuff doesn't work as intended, which isn't a good
thing.

Regards,
Nick

[mark lewis]

01 Mar 16 18:43, you wrote to g00r00:

NB> EXCEPT: When accessing that ONE area with something like Golded. This is a
NB> bug in Golded with Synchronet already, as you're able to read everything
NB> everyone has posted,

sounds like one of two things is the problem... either the private bit is not
set or the To: names are not being filtered... in either case, perhaps GED+ is
treating it like any other echo instead of a proper netmail base... but then
also don't forget that a sysop has access to all messages no matter what...

NB> and outgoing stuff doesn't work as intended, which isn't a good thing.

:|

)\/(ark

Always Mount a Scratch Monkey

... We don't care how they do it in New York.

[g00r00]

NB> EXCEPT: When accessing that ONE area with something like Golded. This is

NB> a bug in Golded with Synchronet already, as you're able to read
NB> everything everyone has posted, and outgoing stuff doesn't work as
NB> intended, which isn't a good thing.

This likely wouldn't be an issue with Mystic and JAM, because the way I intend
to store the messages wouldn't be any different in the flag/header than what it
is doing now. GoldEd should only be concerned with the "To" field, and in that
case, if it works with private messages now, it would continue to the work the
same way.

Mystic will know exactly who the messasge was To because it accepted it either
from Netmail or via SMTP and validated that user at the time. Its going to
store it with a legit BBS user To field with any extra data stored elsewhere.

[Ben Ritchey]

Hi G00r00,

I imported my D'Bridge echomail areas successfully and created a new config for
GoldEd to access Mystic JAM bases, and it all seems fine so far (chuckle) but
where does Netmail go? I have email, general and test (local areas)

ALso I use port 24554 for most BinkD traffic, but I get incoming mail from one
node on port 24555, will Mystic handle this? Where do I specify the port?

[Stephen Walsh]

Hello Nicholas!

01 Mar 16 17:01, you wrote to me:

SW>> Combining the Netmail/Internet Email/Local Email in mystic is

SW>> going to make that even more of a problem.

NB> Did you ever notice that Synchronet already does all of this? If you

No I haven't. I just don't like the way synchronet's structure is setup. Have
a look at my user account on
your system. It's been used at most twice!

SW>> I run my netmail area's for each network in Seprate area's and

SW>> want to keep it that way.

NB> I wouldn't ask for that option to be taken away. But the option to
NB> combine everything into one area is also nice for others that are used
NB> to it that way.

OK.

NB> it completely or use third party software that option should be there
NB> as well (just like the rest of the MIS servers allow for already).
NB> Having it only benefits people that want to use it.

OK. I'm just waiting for IPV6 support in mystic, and then mystic's binkd
server will be used instead of the
standalone binkd.



Stephen

[Stephen Walsh]

Hello g00r00!

01 Mar 16 18:10, you wrote to me:

SW>> Combining the Netmail/Internet Email/Local Email in mystic is

SW>> going to make that even more of a problem.

gr> How so? Its funny you say that because the entire reason behind doing
gr> this is because its confusing *now* and only going to get worse if I
gr> add another message base type for internet email.

gr> Currently if you want to send netmail, you have to find the correct
gr> message base, sometimes even the correct netmail base in the right
gr> network. And if you want to send a local BBS email you have to execute
gr> an entirely different menu command. Now we're going to add another
gr> message base type for Internet email that sends the users back into
gr> message bases to dig around in the bases again?

I can only go on how my system is setup. I have Groups setup as:

Local
Agoranet
Amiganet
Fidonet
Gated News Groups

The mystic Email (Private) message area is only visable in the local group.
The same for the FTN network's with the Netmail area for each only visable in
that group for the FTN network.

gr> If anything its going to stop what you're describing entirely, not
gr> make it worse. When you execute the MW (write email) menu command,
gr> the user is asked:

gr> Do you want to send (L)ocal BBS email, (I)nternet email or (N)etmail?

Thet would be a good way to have the prompt.




Stephen

[g00r00]

BR> ALso I use port 24554 for most BinkD traffic, but I get incoming mail
BR> from one node on port 24555, will Mystic handle this? Where do I specify
BR> the port?

Why does this happen that a client has to use a specific port? I don't
understand. In any case, servers sit on a single port, so unless you are
running multiple copies of the server, it cannot be on two ports at once. But
your client (as a client) should be able to use whatever port you tell them to
use when they connect to you.

If you are a client you can use whatever port you want.

[g00r00]

SW> OK. I'm just waiting for IPV6 support in mystic, and then mystic's binkd
SW> server will be used instead of the
SW> standalone binkd.

Hopefully Verizon gets their act together sometime soon and gets me IPV6.

[Ben Ritchey]

* An ongoing debate between g00r00 and Ben Ritchey rages on ...

BR>> ALso I use port 24554 for most BinkD traffic, but I get incoming

BR>> mail from one node on port 24555, will Mystic handle this? Where
BR>> do I specify the port?

gr> Why does this happen that a client has to use a specific port? I

Filegate.net (Janis Kracht) uses two BinkD servers (one is BBBS on 24555). I
send outbound mail on 24554 as a client. She sends me mail on 24555 with me as
the server. D'Bridge handles it fine and I just pass both ports thru on router.

Unsecure inbound traffic comes in on 24554 with me as a server. It all works
somehow {chuckle} i just give filegate.net session info as port :24555.

gr> don't understand. In any case, servers sit on a single port, so
gr> unless you are running multiple copies of the server, it cannot be on
gr> two ports at once. But your client (as a client) should be able to use
gr> whatever port you tell them to use when they connect to you.
gr> If you are a client you can use whatever port you want.

I know this lol

[g00r00]

BR> Filegate.net (Janis Kracht) uses two BinkD servers (one is BBBS on
BR> 24555). I send outbound mail on 24554 as a client. She sends me mail on
BR> 24555 with me as the server. D'Bridge handles it fine and I just pass
BR> both ports thru on router.

Okay this is even more confusing to me now. D'Bridge doesn't have a BINKP
server. If you want your BINKP server to run on port 24555 you just have to
set it up to run on that port in the settings.

[Ben Ritchey]

* An ongoing debate between g00r00 and Ben Ritchey rages on ...

BR>> Filegate.net (Janis Kracht) uses two BinkD servers (one is BBBS

BR>> on 24555). I send outbound mail on 24554 as a client. She sends
BR>> me mail on 24555 with me as the server. D'Bridge handles it fine
BR>> and I just pass both ports thru on router.
gr> Okay this is even more confusing to me now. D'Bridge doesn't have a
gr> BINKP server. If you want your BINKP server to run on port 24555 you
gr> just have to set it up to run on that port in the settings.

D'Bridge comes with a BinkD server it talks to automatically as if it were a
part of DB {chuckle} I'll just have to try the setup on Mystic and see what
happens. The session info for filegate.net shows filegate.net:24555 and it
works {shrug} been so long I don't remember how! No matter, I'll get something
going eventually on one port or the other lol

[Leslie Given]

03 Mar 16 13:45, you wrote to Ben Ritchey:

gr> Okay this is even more confusing to me now. D'Bridge doesn't have a
gr> BINKP server. If you want your BINKP server to run on port 24555 you
gr> just have to set it up to run on that port in the settings.

I think the confusion is that he said Dbridge handles the port just fine. When
he should have said, Binkd works well with Dbridge and handles the port just
fine. The bottom line is just setup Janis with filegate.net:24555 and his
router forwards the ports to whatever servers hes using.

In a another day or two, Mystic will take full control of 67 echolinks,
somthing irex handled with only 33 sceure sessions. Because, irex node manger
will let you enter the links aka's if desired. I know this day would come just
wish i'd done it before I had to figure it all out. Now I see the reason why
Nick has not switch over agoranet. I'm sure the network size does matter.
Shortly I'll find out just how many typo's and passwords I got wrong. Any yes,
I do have a backup (:

[Nicholas Boel]

Hello Stephen,

On 03 Mar 16 16:01, Stephen Walsh wrote to Nicholas Boel:

NB>> Did you ever notice that Synchronet already does all of this? If

NB>> you

SW> No I haven't. I just don't like the way synchronet's structure is
SW> setup. Have a look at my user account on your system. It's been used
SW> at most twice!

Then it has most likely expired and deleted, so I wouldn't be able to look at
it.

SW> OK. I'm just waiting for IPV6 support in mystic, and then mystic's
SW> binkd server will be used instead of the standalone binkd.

Knowing g00r00, the code is probably at least half way done already. :)

Regards,
Nick

[Stephen Walsh]

Hello g00r00!

03 Mar 16 11:58, you wrote to me:

SW>> OK. I'm just waiting for IPV6 support in mystic, and then

SW>> mystic's binkd server will be used instead of the standalone
SW>> binkd.

gr> Hopefully Verizon gets their act together sometime soon and gets me
gr> IPV6.

Why don't you setup a tunell or get a cheap VPS that has IPV6 support?


Stephen

[g00r00]

LG> In a another day or two, Mystic will take full control of 67 echolinks,
LG> somthing irex handled with only 33 sceure sessions. Because, irex node
LG> manger will let you enter the links aka's if desired. I know this day

As I sort of touched on earlier, IREX isn't doing anywhere close to the same
thing as Mystic is doing. It doesn't need to have information separated in the
same way because its just sending and receiving files.

In order to be accurate in comparison of your efforts, you'd need to be
comparing the configuration effort of defining an echomail node in Mystic vs
setting up a new node in IREX, Allfix, and FastEcho. And the efforts to manage
and remove those things too (including file/msg base definitions).

Anyway, I came up with a simple solution to your woes although it might be a
bit too late for your initial conversion, I hope its a step in a better
direction:

I think a /Copy /Paste would have made your conversion a LOT less painful and
certainly less error prone. I'm adding that to the 1.12 TODO!

[Leslie Given]

04 Mar 16 11:24, you wrote to me:

gr> I think a /Copy /Paste would have made your conversion a LOT less
gr> painful and certainly less error prone. I'm adding that to the 1.12
gr> TODO!

I think that the hardest part was sorting through FE areas.bbs then globally
adding them to the correct echo areas that matched the right export nodelink.
It would have been easier on me to force all to just areafix/filefix new system
for adding what you have lost due to changes. Thanks for adding to the todo! It
should add to the already user friendly ENV.

[g00r00]

LG> I think that the hardest part was sorting through FE areas.bbs then
LG> globally adding them to the correct echo areas that matched the right
LG> export nodelink. It would have been easier on me to force all to just
LG> areafix/filefix new system for adding what you have lost due to changes.
LG> Thanks for adding to the todo! It should add to the already user
LG> friendly ENV. --- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20150715

Yeah I hadn't thought of that, I can see how that would be a pain in the ass.

I am adding the /Copy /Paste /Move and then also the ability to link exported
bases in bulk by tagging them into the echonode editor. I also have a global
parameter editor in the plans but I haven't started that yet.

[Leslie Given]

05 Mar 16 01:15, you wrote to me:

gr> I am adding the /Copy /Paste /Move and then also the ability to link
gr> exported bases in bulk by tagging them into the echonode editor. I
gr> also have a global parameter editor in the plans but I haven't started
gr> that yet.

This sounds like a very good idea, I'd welcome about anything that helps
speeding up the system config process. Looks like I was wrong about at least
three system passwords that should have be made UPPERCASE :( 1 was Argus 1 was
Radius and the other was mystic. Live and learn.. I guess (: Thinking about
another test run soon. Plus switching some to HOLD, I never could understand
why the hell people have a CM flag in the nodelist but refuse to keep their
binkp server port open. lol

[Dennis Ayala]

g0>> Maybe now is the time to consolidate, so netmail, local BBS
g0>> email, and internet e-mail are all the same things.

PH> They are not, I see netmail as a FTN style communication and internet
PH> e-email as well SMTP etc. local is local... but by you saying this I
PH> *really* think you mean treating them all as one in the same as far as
PH> the end user is concerned. So they login and can read/send mail...
PH> they can choose to look up an address book that becomes a hybrid of
PH> local bbs users, the compiled nodelists, *and* a email list of people
PH> they can add to or a sysop can compile. Just a thought :)

You're right Paul, but I guess what g00r00 meant ias they're all private
correspondence.

Dennis