Subj : Is binkp/d's security model kaputt?
To   : Avon
From : Oli
Date : Fri Sep 10 2021 07:23 am

Avon wrote (2021-09-10):

At>> The second problem is FTN software traditionally continues the
At>> trend of backwards compatibility. That stifles any serious
At>> innovation.

A> I agree it doesn't make innovations easier. I guess it comes down to what
A> rules of engagement any developer wants to adopt (or not) when they
A> looking at these questions. If they choose to just build and create
A> something new with only fringe tie-ins to current FTN then so be it. I
A> think if they create something that is seen to be of value and benefit
A> then people will vote with their 'usage' feet.  I sorta feel the shift
A> from EMSI mailers to BinkD is an example of that over time.

But binkd / binkp mailers are very similar to EMSI mailers. It uses the same BSO inbound/outbound, it sends the same files. You can add it to most traditional FTN setups without changing much. That's very different to running the "core" on new technology and only have binkp/pkt/tic on the "edge".

It's funny that the original topic was about binkd/p and soon we were talking about creating a new message network infrastructure/technology with FTS-compatible access.

I'm more interested in fixing the current software and standards.

---
* Origin: 1995| Invention of the Cookie. The End. (21:3/102)

You are viewing proxied material from cvs.synchro.net. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.