Text 553, 91 rader
Skriven 2004-10-24 21:52:56 av Maurice Kinal (1:153/401.1)
    Kommentar till text 523 av Robert Couture (1:229/2000)
Ärende: SBBS/W32 Kermit SABOTAGE
================================
Hey Robert!

Oct 24 18:47 04, Robert Couture wrote to Maurice Kinal:

 RC> The standard is deficient and needs improving.  Without trying out 
 RC> what is
 RC> needed for that improvement, there would be no way to make that
 RC> improvement.

True but then if they don't get airtime on the network due to lack of
compatibility then what?  Who gets to dictate what is an acceptable or
compliant message?

 MK>>   Suppose that there are Fido sysops out there running software,
 MK>> regardless of OS, that look at that MSGID as corrupted and refuse to
 MK>> toss it.

 RC> Unfortunately, that might happen.  However, no one has been able to 
 RC> name any
 RC> software that current does have that problem.

Nobody probably will.  Consider if these people never see the messages in
question.  How would you know?  Also consider if someone did know but thought
it best for whatever reason, right or wrong, not to say anything at all and
leave well enough alone.  Almost exactly what I decided to do.  The only reason
I don't tell you is because you people won't listen when bugs are pointed out
and would rather not subject anyone else to unreasonable demands.

 RC> Besides, the idea has now been tackled a different way.

Whatever.  Doen't really matter, does it?

 RC> That is how new and better standards are developed.  The current 
 RC> MSGID
 RC> standard is not sufficient for its designed purpose and needs to be
 RC> improved.

By bloating it with redundancy????????  It is obvious you guys don't have a
clue.

 RC> None.  It was placed there on the chance that software would look for 
 RC> it on
 RC> the right side of the kludge.

Why?

 RC> Who dropped out?  And was it his own software creation that had the 
 RC> problem?

The person you aimed the message at and no, not his software.  He quit when he
found his name on an internet search gated from a Fido echoarea.  He figured he
didn't need you people to do that for him, that he can do that for himself if
he wanted to.  He saw no use for running extra software for Fido.

 RC> FidoNet has been "gated" for many years now.  Look at how many Web 
 RC> based
 RC> systems you can read FidoNet from.

That has nothing to do with the internet.  I don't make much use of the web
myself so I wouldn't really know.  However I also object to Fido messages being
available on internet search engines.  I think that should be grounds for
dismsal on a private network.

 RC> However, your defination of "gated" seems to be strange.  I 
 RC> understand that
 RC> gated meant from one Network to another ... i.e.;  FidoNet to 
 RC> LinuxNet or
 RC> UseNet.

Right.  Or internet search engines.  No Fido nodenumber, no Fido messages.

 RC> I am just using a different message reader.

Not the same thing.

 MK>> Bonus!  I say strip all those kludges and make it impossible or at 
 MK>> least force Windows "sysops" (<- snicker) to deal with it themselves, 
 MK>> and when caught gating they should be forceably removed from Fido.

 RC> Your bias is showing again.  <g>  The quality of a sysop is not OS
 RC> dependent.

Whatever.  The fact that they can't get a simple MSGID straight and argue that
is someone else's problem or there is no problem is a fool, which is also not
OS dependant else there would be no Linux SBBS systems.  Right?

Life is good,
Maurice

--- Msged/LNX 6.1.2
 * Origin: Coffin Point - Ladysmith, BC Canada (1:153/401.1)