Subj : Network messsage information missing
To : Accession
From : Nightfox
Date : Tue Oct 20 2015 05:11 pm
Re: Network messsage information missing
By: Accession to Nightfox on Tue Oct 20 2015 17:13:24
Ni>> instance, in SCFG, I have Synchronet set up to prefix my Dove-Net
Ni>> internal codes with "DOVE_", so the "General" area, which normally
Ni>> has an internal code of DOVE-GEN, becomes DOVE_DOVE-GEN. GoldEd+
Ni>> didn't deal with that very well - GoldEd+ would see that the
Ni>> "General" area should have an internal code of "DOVE-GEN", and it
Ni>> wasn't reading it correctly because it's actually "DOVE_DOVE-GEN" on
Ni>> my system.
Ac> Ah yes. I remember that one too, now. Then again, how and/or why would
Ac> Golded+ understand something that Synchronet does internally (prefixes are
Ac> only something for Synchronet itself. When messages in those echos get
Ac> exported to other systems, the prefix is dropped off of them, I believe).
Ac> Either that, or the whole prefix things gets broken when msgs.cnf is read,
Ac> which also wouldn't be a Golded+ problem, would it?
Well, it has to do with the filenames. The filenames used for the messagebase
files in Synchronet correspond directly to the internal codes, so using my
above example, the Dove-Net General area on my BBS is stored in filenames such
as DOVE_DOVE-GEN.xyz (where "xyz" is the filename extension - There are a few
files for each message area). So, GoldEd+ would have to know about those
filenames. Since GoldEd+ wasn't recognizing the group prefixes, GoldEd was not
reading from the correct filenames. Thus, GoldEd+ was not showing any messages
for any of my configured message areas. GoldEd+ would somehow have to know how
Synchronet names its messagebase files, so I'd think this is somewhat of a
GoldEd+ issue (lacking complete support for Synchronet message bases). If not
a GoldEd+ issue, I'm not sure where else the issue would be. Synchronet itself
handles its own messagebase files just fine, and I'm not sure if it would be
Synchronet's responsibility to cater to GoldEd+.
Ni>> When I posted about this last time (several months ago), I remember
Ni>> someone saying Synchronet added the internal code prefixes after
Ni>> GoldEd+ implemented its Synchronet support, so it sounded like
Ni>> GoldEd+ simply has limited Synchronet support. I'm not sure if
Ni>> there's a good way around the issue without GoldEd+ being updated.
Ac> Or it's possible msgs.cnf isn't giving that information to Golded+?
Ac> I'm not sure if we ever got an answer on any of that (or if we actually
Ac> asked someone that would know). If we did, I don't remember. :)
Yeah, I'm not sure if we did. I don't know enough about GoldEd+ to know
whether msgs.cnf is able to specify enough information about Synchronet's
messagebase files to GoldEd+.
Nightfox
---
� Synchronet � Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com
