1. Forum
  2. FidoNet
  3. MBSE

  • Error 10054

    From Vince Coen@2:250/1 to mark lewis on Mon Mar 3 17:23:18 2014
    * Originally in BINKD
    * Crossposted in MBSE

    Hello mark!

    Saturday March 01 2014 15:57, you wrote to me:


    On Sat, 01 Mar 2014, Vince Coen wrote to Michiel van der Vlist:

    Can you verify that mbse was set for the specific sysop/node
    address to force binkd protocol to v1.1 as it is possible that
    it was set to v1.0 only.

    It WAS set to v1.0 only for my node and then I got the error. When
    that setting was removed, the error disappeared.

    In that case, it seems to be working correctly.

    IIUC, mbse showed that it was in binkp 1.1 mode even though it was
    forced to binkp 1.0 mode... this doesn't seem correct...

    Sound like ypu are saying that the report is only showing the mbse mode as designed and not the 'Actual' mode it is currently in for the 'current' connection?

    If that is correct then yes it is a bug (cosmetic).
    Confirm the above and I will pass to the mbse echo for reference and discussion
    before looking at the code by myself or one of the other support team.



    Vince

    --- Linux/Mbse/GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20120229
    * Origin: Air Applewood, The Linux Gateway to the UK (2:250/1)
  • From Vince Coen@2:250/1 to All on Mon Mar 3 17:27:24 2014
    =============================================================================
    * Forwarded by Vince Coen (2:250/1)
    * Area : BINKD (The ubiquitous BinkD TCP/IP FTN mailer a)
    * From : Vince Coen, 2:250/1 (Saturday March 01 2014 17:41)
    * To : Michiel van der Vlist
    * Subj : Error 10054 ============================================================================= Hello Michiel!

    Saturday March 01 2014 00:57, you wrote to me:

    It is my understanding that you are the present maintainer of
    MBSE. Could you have a look at it?

    Can you verify that mbse was set for the specific sysop/node
    address to force binkd protocol to v1.1 as it is possible that it
    was set to v1.0 only.

    It WAS set to v1.0 only for my node and then I got the error. When
    that setting was removed, the error disappeared.


    In that case, it seems to be working correctly.


    Vince

    -!- Linux/Mbse/GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20120229
    ! Origin: Air Applewood, The Linux Gateway to the UK (2:250/1) =============================================================================

    Hello All!

    See other msgs related to topic.

    Sysops thoughts on this issue.

    Vince

    --- Linux/Mbse/GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20120229
    * Origin: Air Applewood, The Linux Gateway to the UK (2:250/1)
  • From Vince Coen@2:250/1 to All on Mon Mar 3 17:28:38 2014
    =============================================================================
    * Forwarded by Vince Coen (2:250/1)
    * Area : BINKD (The ubiquitous BinkD TCP/IP FTN mailer a)
    * From : Michiel van der Vlist, 2:280/5555 (Friday February 28 2014 12:54)
    * To : Vince Coen
    * Subj : Error 10054 ============================================================================= Hello Vince,

    On Thursday February 27 2014 23:33, you wrote to me:

    My apologies for 'assuming' it has been many years since I have had a need to look at this setting that I totally forgot about it.

    It what happens when the system just works (well, normally).

    Yeah, that sounds familiar. ;-)

    Ok, so we have found a work around. So far so good. What remains is the question
    why binkd thinks mbicico is in 1.1 mode when the sysop has forced it in 1.0 mode.

    Is mbcico sending the wrong signal or is binkd misreading mbcico's signal?

    It is my understanding that you are the present maintainer of MBSE. Could you have a look at it?


    Cheers, Michiel

    -!- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20110320
    ! Origin: http://www.vlist.eu (2:280/5555)

    =============================================================================

    Hello All!

    FYI


    Vince

    --- Linux/Mbse/GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20120229
    * Origin: Air Applewood, The Linux Gateway to the UK (2:250/1)
  • From Vince Coen@2:250/1 to All on Mon Mar 3 17:29:30 2014
    =============================================================================
    * Forwarded by Vince Coen (2:250/1)
    * Area : BINKD (The ubiquitous BinkD TCP/IP FTN mailer a)
    * From : Kees van Eeten, 2:280/5003.4 (Saturday March 01 2014 22:41)
    * To : mark lewis
    * Subj : Error 10054 ============================================================================= Hello mark!

    01 Mar 14 15:57, you wrote to Vince Coen:

    In that case, it seems to be working correctly.

    IIUC, mbse showed that it was in binkp 1.1 mode even though it was forced to binkp 1.0 mode... this doesn't seem correct...

    As far as I know, the version line in de system handshake said the version
    supports binkd v1.1.

    I see no reason why that banner should change if program is forced to
    v1.0 by an available option.

    Kees

    -!- FPD v2.9.040207 GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5
    ! Origin: As for me, all I know is that, I know nothing. (2:280/5003.4)

    =============================================================================

    Hello All!

    More FYI.

    Vince

    --- Linux/Mbse/GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20120229
    * Origin: Air Applewood, The Linux Gateway to the UK (2:250/1)
  • From Vince Coen@2:250/1 to Vince Coen on Mon Mar 3 17:30:57 2014

    =============================================================================
    * Forwarded by Vince Coen (2:250/1)
    * Area : BINKD (The ubiquitous BinkD TCP/IP FTN mailer a)
    * From : Michiel van der Vlist, 2:280/5555 (Sunday March 02 2014 10:48)
    * To : Kees van Eeten
    * Subj : Error 10054 ============================================================================= Hello Kees,

    On Saturday March 01 2014 22:41, you wrote to mark lewis:

    As far as I know, the version line in de system handshake said the version supports binkd v1.1.

    While it actually didn't because it was forced into 1.0 mode.

    I see no reason why that banner should change if program is forced to
    v1.0 by an available option.

    So that it does not put the other side on the wrong foot?

    This is from the log with log level 10:

    20 Feb 00:32:36 [7804] Read 43 bytes
    20 Feb 00:32:36 [7804] got block: 43 (msg)
    20 Feb 00:32:36 [7804] rcvd msg NUL VER mbcico/0.50.0/GNU/Linux-i386 binkp/1.1
    - 20 Feb 00:32:36 [7804] VER mbcico/0.50.0/GNU/Linux-i386 binkp/1.1
    20 Feb 00:32:36 [7804] remote uses binkp v.1.1
    20 Feb 00:32:36 [7804] tv.tv_sec=60, tv.tv_usec=0
    20 Feb 00:32:36 [7804] selected 1 (r=1, w=0)

    As you can see, this side receives the string that contains the banner with the
    version. From that it concludes that the remote is 1.1 capable. The version number in the banner is used to determine the actual capability of the remote.

    Advertsing 1.1 while being forced in 1.0 mode puts the remote on the wrong foot.


    Cheers, Michiel

    -!- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20110320
    ! Origin: http://www.vlist.eu (2:280/5555)

    =============================================================================

    Hello Vince!

    Hopefully the last FYI on this subject ...


    but I will not take any bets on it !


    From the above this test was on an old copy of mbse (0.50.0).
    so the test is not a good one as we need to see if it applies on v1.01.1


    Vince

    --- Linux/Mbse/GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20120229
    * Origin: Air Applewood, The Linux Gateway to the UK (2:250/1)