Text 287, 60 rader
Skriven 2012-07-12 12:02:00 av Paul Quinn (3:640/384)
    Kommentar till text 284 av Nicholas Boel (10286.fidonews)
Ärende: .fidonet
================
Hi! Nicholas,

On Wed, 11 Jul 12, you wrote to me:

 >> Pardon?  Better?  Why do I or anyone else need to know the message
 >> number in the named message area on your node?
 NB> Maybe Synchronet needs it, and you don't. You've thought of that
 NB> point of view, though, so this response is just out of irritation. 
 NB> :)

Now you've done it.  My face hurts from wanting & resisting the need to crack a
smirk.

 NB> There is, however, Synchronet support fidonet echos if you choose to 
 NB> carry them.

I used to read the support echo regularly ("SYNCHRONET")(with GoldEd).  Dunno
why, though I did like the overall look and capabilities of the software. 
(It's more than I need, I think.)  In fact I do have both the Synchronet & Wiki
websites saved as favourites, and I do use Synchro's telnet client
preferentially.  I see that for some obscure reason that I have saved the
Wiki's page on SEXPOTS as a .PDF file.  It must have been in relation to using
SEXYZ in conjunction with my Mystic BBS dabblings.

Mmm... but I digress.

 NB> ..and it works from my end. The fact that people still want to use 20+
 NB> year old software that isn't supported anymore, and yet works "just
 NB> fine" for this technology.. really is a hinderance and limits the
 NB> people that want to take the technology further (take the UTF-8
 NB> discussions, for example).

Okay.  Let me tell you a story...

-----8<-----C-U-T--H-E-R-E----->8-----
Once upon a time, MSGID identifiers used to be generated in the form:

 
"[local.message.number'.'[local.area.tag['@'[Z:N/F.P]]]<space>[serial.number]"

That works well for the 200-odd(?) operators of _our_ BBS software, and has
done so for the last X number of years.  Now, a pack of wanker Fido operators
(numbering about 2,300) want to change that 'standard' in favour of a new
method:

  "[Z:N/F.P]<space>[serial.number]"

How f#cking ridiculous!  Imagine!  Why should the 2,300 requirement (for a
differing standard) outweigh our 200-odd 'standard practice' that works
perfectly well, for us.  The bloody upstarts.  F#ck'em!
-----8<-----C-U-T--H-E-R-E----->8-----

Recall that I have no expectation of change, Nicholas.  The "ignorer" is in the
ON position.  ;-)

Cheers,
Paul.

--- 
 * Origin: COLDBEER.CAN not found!  COOLUSER.SYS not loaded... (3:640/384)