I belive the setting under Configuration -> Message Settings called "Force NL Match" if set to Yes allows you to send netmail only to recognized systems.

If set to No, it may allow you to send to my BBS before it is listed.

My mailer is part of BBBS so I have no such setting. I can either turn it off or on and it's better on. That way it catches my typos!

Cheers! Hopefully @ deon can add me to the list though I thought that was automated to some extend from his website into the nodelist files.

I suspect deon has already done this. The master nodelist is compiled by Avon automagically I think, so your node will be listed in the next update.

--- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Toy-7
* Origin: The Rusty MailBox - Penticton, BC Canada (21:4/106)

Re: Re: Netmail
By: CloudDancer to Accession on Fri Jan 23 2026 06:32 pm

Howdy,

So, clearly netmail of sorts is coming to me, at least from Clearing Houz. I know that works as I can send AreaFix and FileFix messages, and get replies back ...

But, no private messages whatsoever. :(

So odd...

I see Accession has been helping you out, so I've not jumped in yet.

Anyway thought I'd share a couple of things.

* On agency, you might not have sufficent security level to use Netmail (if you cannot see that message area). But it definately supports netmail.

* Mail to/from you is logged on the hub - look at the "Packets and Files Sent" tab of your BBS entry. When you click on a packet, you'll see what messages where in that packet was sent to you.

You can use this hub's information, together with your tosser and mailer logs to see what is going out and coming in, and whether stuff coming in is being processed.

If you dont see anything on clrghouz, it means you arent sending it out - or if you are expecting something, it hasnt come to the hub yet.


...ëîåï
--- SBBSecho 3.29-Linux
* Origin: I'm playing with ANSI+videotex - wanna play too? (21:2/116)

Re: Re: Netmail
By: CloudDancer to Al on Fri Jan 23 2026 08:58 pm

Howdy,

Cheers! Hopefully @ deon can add me to the list though I thought that was automated to some extend from his website into the nodelist files.

It is completely automated.

Nodelists only come out weekly :)


...ëîåï
--- SBBSecho 3.29-Linux
* Origin: I'm playing with ANSI+videotex - wanna play too? (21:2/116)

Hey Clouddancer!

On Fri, Jan 23 2026 17:25:21 -0600, you wrote:

However, since it's NetMail, will it be delivered if sent to
clouddancer@?

I wonder if Real Names must be used so Petar Smilajkov would be
better ... Hmmmm ...

If you allow aliases in netmail, it should be fine. I don't remember if that's an actual setting in Mystic or not, it may just be allowed all the time.

Regards,
Nick

... Sarcasm, because beating people up is illegal.
--- SBBSecho 3.35-Linux
* Origin: _thePharcyde telnet://bbs.pharcyde.org (Wisconsin) (21:1/700)

Hey Clouddancer!

On Fri, Jan 23 2026 17:57:14 -0600, you wrote:

So this should mean, my Netmail works ...

It means that netmail between you and Clearing Haus is working.

Yet, I do not receive any direct netmail from any of you guys :(

I feed from Avon in net 1, so there is a PATH my netmail would take to get to you:

21:1/200 (me) -> 21:1/100 (Avon) -> 21:3/100 (Deon) -> 21:3/226 (you) is the normal routing path netmail would take from me to you, and would go in reverse from you to me. Try sending me a netmail at Accession@21:1/200 and we can see if that works. Otherwise, something may be broken over on Avon's system, especially if Deon never got my netmail to forward on to you.

Regards,
Nick

... Sarcasm, because beating people up is illegal.
--- SBBSecho 3.35-Linux
* Origin: _thePharcyde telnet://bbs.pharcyde.org (Wisconsin) (21:1/700)

Accession,

in reverse from you to me. Try sending me a netmail at
Accession@21:1/200 and we can see if that works. Otherwise, something

Did this just now ... Not sure I will get your reply until I am in the node list, but you should at least get my message.

Cheers,

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
CloudDancer
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A48 (Linux/64)
* Origin: -= bbs.silfenpath.com | Columbus, Ohio (USA) =- (21:3/226)

Hey Clouddancer!

On Sat, Jan 24 2026 12:20:36 -0600, you wrote:

Did this just now ... Not sure I will get your reply until I am in
the node list, but you should at least get my message.

Received, and replied. You should now be getting a response, as for some reason Golded isn't allowing me to use my nickname/alias for FSXnet netmail (which may have been the reason it didn't work before).

FYI, nodelists are not /needed/ for netmail. They can be used, and nodelist lookups like Mystic's "nodelist browser" are just helpful if you don't actually know how to reach someone or what their node number is. Otherwise, as long as proper routing is in place, netmail goes where it should.

Regards,
Nick

... Sarcasm, because beating people up is illegal.
--- SBBSecho 3.35-Linux
* Origin: _thePharcyde telnet://bbs.pharcyde.org (Wisconsin) (21:1/700)

Re: Re: Netmail
By: Accession to CloudDancer on Sat Jan 24 2026 01:37 pm

Howdy,

FYI, nodelists are not /needed/ for netmail. They can be used, and nodelist lookups like Mystic's "nodelist browser" are just helpful if you don't actually know how to reach someone or what their node number is. Otherwise, as long as proper routing is in place, netmail goes where it should.

This is mostly true, but...

Some folks use RTNtrack (?) which will bounce a netmail addressed to a non-nodelisted system. Not sure if Paul is using it...

Clrghouz will also bounce netmail back if you send it to a non-existant address (for addresses that it is reponsible for). Well, it should anyway... :) Its better to get a reply (no system exists), then nothing and wondering why nobody responded.


...ëîåï
--- SBBSecho 3.29-Linux
* Origin: I'm playing with ANSI+videotex - wanna play too? (21:2/116)

Hello CloudDancer!

23 Jan 26 18:32, you wrote to Accession:

So, clearly netmail of sorts is coming to me, at least from Clearing
Houz. I know that works as I can send AreaFix and FileFix messages,
and get replies back ...

I also sent you a netmail around 8:55 PM Pacific Standard Time (UTC-8:00) to clouddancer@21:3/226 from the BBS (21:3/208) as a test and also to test the route. However, I find it is still in my outbound mail folder for my hub. Something to figure out on my end,too.


73 de Ray
Visalia, CA DM06ii
W6RAY/WRKZ506

... Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6!
--- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20240306
* Origin: Ray's Road Node | Somewhere in California. (21:3/209)

Hi Ray,

I also sent you a netmail around 8:55 PM Pacific Standard Time
(UTC-8:00) to clouddancer@21:3/226 from the BBS (21:3/208) as a test and also to test the route. However, I find it is still in my outbound mail folder for my hub. Something to figure out on my end,too.

It may be because I am not yet in the weekly nodelist... Once I am it'll probably propagate at that time.

I do believe I have everything set up now correctly as I am exchanging netmail with a few others as well.

Thank you!

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
CloudDancer
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

... "No comment" is a comment.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A48 (Linux/64)
* Origin: -= bbs.silfenpath.com | Columbus, Ohio (USA) =- (21:3/226)

Hey Deon!

On Sat, Jan 24 2026 16:07:59 -0600, you wrote:

Some folks use RTNtrack (?) which will bounce a netmail addressed to
a non-nodelisted system. Not sure if Paul is using it...

Doesn't seem like Avon uses that, netmail flowed just fine in this case via proper routing.

Clrghouz will also bounce netmail back if you send it to a non-
existant address (for addresses that it is reponsible for). Well, it
should anyway... :) Its better to get a reply (no system exists),
then nothing and wondering why nobody responded.

That's your opinion and what you choose to do with your own program. You have also mentioned that Clrghouz stops echomail from flowing in certain conditions, too. Both of which I don't agree with, but YMMV.

If proper routing is in place, it should work just fine. If a non-nodelisted address sends a netmail, and routes /* to the hub, it should still go there, no matter if there's a nodelist in place or not. The hub would then route the netmail to the destination address via proper routing, also.

If the /destination/ address is not known or setup properly, then this is when it would/could fail. Since I route 21:* to Avon, if his system can deal with a /999 address, it should work no matter what, with or without a nodelist. If RNTrack stops that from happening, that's RNTrack's problem. I don't use it, and it seems neither does Avon.. or maybe he does and it still doesn't require a nodelist, but instead uses his HPT config's defined links/routing table, rather than a nodelist.

In this specific case, Avon obviously has some kind of routing for /999 in place. New systems use that address for testing purposes, so the destination's connection address changes (so I assume Avon holds the mail on his system for /999 to pick up - which can mean that /any/ system with that address setup could connect and get the netmail, which can be a point of failure if a different system connects at the right time using that same node number, but the netmail's TO field doesn't match the sysop/user name), but it did seem to work in this case.

Regards,
Nick

... Sarcasm, because beating people up is illegal.
--- SBBSecho 3.35-Linux
* Origin: _thePharcyde telnet://bbs.pharcyde.org (Wisconsin) (21:1/700)

Accession,

In this specific case, Avon obviously has some kind of routing for /999
in place. New systems use that address for testing purposes, so the destination's connection address changes (so I assume Avon holds the
mail on his system for /999 to pick up - which can mean that /any/
system with that address setup could connect and get the netmail, which can be a point of failure if a different system connects at the right
time using that same node number, but the netmail's TO field doesn't
match the sysop/user name), but it did seem to work in this case.

I think this is the case... It worked for me to pick up mail as I was probably the only guy testing with /999 ... If there were more, then someone else could have picked up my messages before me.

FYI - I now have proper node on FidoNet 1:226/20 (thanks Nick Boel), and need not use /999 for anything any more ;)

Cheers!

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
CloudDancer
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

... Classic: A book which people praise but don't read. - Mark Twain

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A48 (Linux/64)
* Origin: -= bbs.silfenpath.com | Columbus, Ohio (USA) =- (21:3/226)

Hey CloudDancer!

On Sun, 25 Jan 2026 11:43:04 -0500, you wrote:

I think this is the case... It worked for me to pick up mail as I was probably the only guy testing with /999 ... If there were more, then
someone else could have picked up my messages before me.

Yep. Not very often are multiple people trying to use an address like that at the exact same time these days, but it is definitely possible for it to happen.

FYI - I now have proper node on FidoNet 1:226/20 (thanks Nick Boel),
and need not use /999 for anything any more ;)

Glad everything worked out smoothly! ;)

Regards,
Nick

... Sarcasm: because beating people up is illegal.
--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20250409
* Origin: _thePharcyde telnet://bbs.pharcyde.org (Wisconsin) (21:1/200)

Re: Re: Netmail
By: Accession to deon on Sun Jan 25 2026 10:25 am

Howdy,

That's your opinion and what you choose to do with your own program. You have also mentioned that Clrghouz stops echomail from flowing in certain conditions, too. Both of which I don't agree with, but YMMV.

Both? So when this text started, the request was to send a netmail to 21:3/262, (when the node is listed as 21:3/226).

Had you not picked that up, the converstation would have gone:

* sender: I sent you a netmail
* receipient: I didnt get your netmail
* conclusion: The network is broken somewhere

Instead, had you sent the netmail to 21:3/262 - which clrghouz is authoritive over, it would have bounced the netmail (or rather discarded it) - and sent you a netmail back saying there is no host to collect it. [Well it should do that, and if it isnt anymore, I will fix that.]

If this is a situation you dont agree with, then that suprises me.

On the same topic, if a hub 3 node send a netmail to 21:1/32700, then clrghouz will happily send it to hub 1 to figure out what to do to it.

Regarding the echomail, yes, clrghouz doesnt process echomail when the sender has set up their system correctly (ie: wrong AKA, or missing origin line from which the AKA is derived) - and again, it sends back a netmail to them with an explanation.

Both those are intended to help the (new) sysop setup there systems correctly, and is very affective in its outcome - across multiple othernets.

In this specific case, Avon obviously has some kind of routing for /999 in place. New systems use that address for testing purposes, so the

We know that sending addresses to Paul's /999 addresses works without an issue, nodes have been doing that for years. I brought up the comments about rtntrack for mail originating from /999 and going the other direction (especially fidonet).

Assuming that all gets routed, and since the sender was saying they were not getting it, I suggested that perhaps rtntrack somewhere in the network was blocking it. I dont use rtntrack, so do know if it rejects based on source AKA as well, or uplinks are using other home grown tools to interceipt mail for non-nodelisted or test AKAs.


...ëîåï
--- SBBSecho 3.29-Linux
* Origin: I'm playing with ANSI+videotex - wanna play too? (21:2/116)

Hey deon!

On Mon, 26 Jan 2026 08:24:54 +1100, you wrote:

Both? So when this text started, the request was to send a netmail to 21:3/262, (when the node is listed as 21:3/226).

Had you not picked that up, the converstation would have gone:

You must have missed this part of the conversation:

* sender: I sent you a netmail
* receipient: I didnt get your netmail

* sender: Oh, I realized I used the wrong node number, here is a new reply using the correct one.
* recipient: Received!

* conclusion: The network is broken somewhere

I don't think this conversation ever got to this "conclusion." Right before realizing the wrong node number was used I said there was a possibility something was broken somewhere. That didn't mean anything /is/ "broken". We (very) soon realized that was not the case, which is about the time you jumped into the conversation to try to tell me I was wrong about nodelists not being needed to route netmail, and then went on about RNTrack, which wasn't even part of the conversation to begin with.

Instead, had you sent the netmail to 21:3/262 - which clrghouz is authoritive over, it would have bounced the netmail (or rather discarded
it) - and sent you a netmail back saying there is no host to collect it. [Well it should do that, and if it isnt anymore, I will fix that.]

Let's go with: (1) The first two netmails I sent were addressed wrong, and they didn't work. I don't know where they ended up after they left here and went to Avon. If they never made it to you, re-read (1). I never got anything from clrghouz, if that matters any (it really doesn't, to me).

We know that sending addresses to Paul's /999 addresses works without an issue, nodes have been doing that for years.

We figured that out, already. Thanks for the clarification, though!

Assuming that all gets routed, and since ...

Welp, it did indeed work (both ways), which we mentioned in the next few messages in the same conversation/thread.

For the record, you jumped into the discussion to tell me "This is mostly true, but..." and then started talking about RNTrack (which was never brought up in the first place), when I simply stated a nodelist is /not/ needed for routing netmail. My statement still stands, with no ifs, ands, or buts about it. I haven't used a nodelist in.. ever.

Honestly, I was just helping someone out. I've been doing this stuff for quite some time, and don't need a rundown on how things work (or how you think it should work). EOT.

Regards,
Nick

... Sarcasm: because beating people up is illegal.
--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20250409
* Origin: _thePharcyde telnet://bbs.pharcyde.org (Wisconsin) (21:1/200)

Re: Netmail
By: Accession to deon on Sun Jan 25 2026 05:34 pm

Howdy,

Both? So when this text started, the request was to send a netmail to 21:3/262, (when the node is listed as 21:3/226).

Had you not picked that up, the converstation would have gone:

You must have missed this part of the conversation:

* sender: I sent you a netmail
* receipient: I didnt get your netmail

* sender: Oh, I realized I used the wrong node number, here is a new reply using the correct one.
* recipient: Received!

I didnt, you quoted it above. I was talking "ifs" - by using the statement: "Had you not picked that up...". I know the (fsx) netmails were sent and received, I read that too. I also read that the fidonet ones finally worked as well when something was done to the message bases...

jumped into the conversation to try to tell me I was wrong about nodelists not being needed to route netmail, and then went on about RNTrack, which wasn't even part of the conversation to begin with.

I didnt say you were wrong, I used the phrase "This is mostly true, but...". I added more context to your statement "FYI, nodelists are not /needed/ for netmail.", and then you finished with "Otherwise, as long as proper routing is in place, netmail goes where it should.".

Based on my experience, I certainly have had netmails not meet their destatination because a new node hasnt made it to the nodelist yet, as well as a node no longer listed in the nodelist. In those examples it was a tool like RTNtrack (if that is what is called) used by a system in the path, send me a netmail telling me so.

Honestly, I was just helping someone out. I've been doing this stuff for quite some time, and don't need a rundown on how things work (or how you think it should work).

Me too...


...ëîåï
--- SBBSecho 3.29-Linux
* Origin: I'm playing with ANSI+videotex - wanna play too? (21:2/116)