| |
UT1HZM > DPBOX 02.04.24 08:42l 45 Lines 1740 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 25458_UT1HZM
Read: GAST
Subj: Re: DPBOX & others
Path: DB0FFL<OE5XBL<OE2XZR<OE6XPE<DB0ERF<OK0NAG<F3KT<F3KT<UT1HZM
Sent: 240402/0702Z 25458@UT1HZM.KREM.POL.UKR.EU BPQ6.0.24
Hi Gustavo.
I0OJJ:
>
> Ah ah, look at english language text used by WFBB ante year 2000.
> That file is NOT the *original* one edited for (x)FBB by LA6CU
> and amended/restyled by I0OJJ which you can find inside the recent
> LinFBB releases.
BPQMail don't use any of FBB's language-text files, sorry
can't understand that point about "bpq bbs get source from winfbb",
its not true.
>
> The telnet feature as been and is today the best resource introduced
> by F6FBB since the phisical packet nodes went dismantled and PBBS
> number reduced to historycal minimum after 2000.
On my imho, its was bad thing where hams dropped radio and later off axUDP
nodes-linking and replaced it all by "dumb" telnet-fwd, even if you recall,
near year 2000 most of normal packet ops called them "LLL" (land-line-lids).
And just now with fresh (Lin)BPQ(32) development we back live to original
nodes links system based on netrom or imp3. Although it is now based mostly
on axudp, it works fine if proper setup.
Its our ham thing, why we should not use it or lost it in regards to telnet?!
Even some type of "auto-routing" forward feature of German's BBS s/w use
nodes linking to find a route!
> By the way, the method adopted on BPQ and regarding the two different
> telnet approach (see TCPPORT and FBBPORT) are a true disaster!
> Why not simply use the (one) telnet feature of other STANDARD PBBS?
Because developer was not considered to add telnet-fwd at all,
originally telnet server ("tcpport") was done just for sysop's terminal
remote access to node. Later by few asks he added fbb-telnet mode too.
Your founded problem of non-compatible telnet fwd from (or to?) BPQmail
should checked again. Of course its good to fix it.
73, Sergej.
Lese vorherige Mail | Lese naechste Mail
| |
