Text 30462, 83 rader
Skriven 2016-01-08 20:29:57 av David Drummond (3:640/305)
  Kommentar till text 30455 av Bill McGarrity (22649.2fidonews)
Ärende: 30 days stats from a "no BBS"
=====================================
On 8/01/2016 08:35, Bill McGarrity -> David Drummond wrote:
 BM> even have to have local access)? Was that a BBS? It claimed to be....

 BM> Again, the discussion was about your jamnttp server.  I know what a mail
 BM> server does and how SMTP can be used to do exactly what I said it could
do.

Still doesn't make it a BBS.


 DD>> BBS have been around longer than Fidonet. In that day all interaction
 DD>> with the BBS was done locally after logging in (think RBBS-PC.bas). No
 DD>> messages were moved between systems.

 BM> BBS' have been around longer than your jamnttp server as well.

But not longer than nntp servers

 BM>  We're talking today, not 30 years ago. If you want to live in the past, I
suggest you
 BM> contact Doc Brown...

I don't need to contact a BBS - I can get my fidonet messages vi amy personal
gateway.


 DD>> Then we got Fidonet with the Fido BBS, then Opus, and Maximus and so
 DD>> on.

 DD>> All of those were one he of a lot more than "just a mail server".

 BM> Maybe, maybe not.  They all had there own specific way of transmitting
 BM> messages.

They did - but the BBS was the "online community" provided by the software as a
whole - not just that it could send messages to another system.

 DD>> I run a SMTP server (at a totally different location to the Fidonet
 DD>> node). Is it a BBS? I also run a web server. Is it a BBS.

 BM> OK... and you could run that SMTP server to transmit listserv messages.

But I don't - is it a BBS or not?

 BM> Why are you bringing a web server into this?

There are those who say that webservers are BBSs

 BM> Stay in the discussion David.  You're slowing shying away from the
original discussion of your jamnttp server.
 BM> Have you given up on your statements it's not there for the processing of
 BM> messages/bulletins from a remote source where it transmits your messages
to
 BM> others, whether linked to it or not?

It is there for processing messages from other systems, just like sendmail, MS
Exchange and countless other server that process messages from other systems.

What Jamnntp cannot do is take one message and address it to many others

 BM> Doesn't matter what my definition is.  I am using your description with
 BM> regard to moving messages/bulletins via transmission protocols.

A BBS is the user to host interaction, not the host - host interaction.

 BM> You have yours and I have mine... it's plainly obvious you're set in your
ways
 BM> even though someone who's worked with jamnttp for many years feels as if
 BM> it's basic design was to mimic the workings of a BBS when it comes to
 BM> message/bulletin transfers.

Except that a BBS package lets the user log in and write and read those
messages (and othe rthings) at the BBS - they do not have to be written /read
offline.


-- 

regards
David

--- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
 * Origin: Cleveland, Qld, Australia (mail only, no BBS) (3:640/305)