Subj : very interesting
To : Janis Kracht
From : Maurice Kinal
Date : Sun Nov 15 2009 04:06 pm
Hey Janis!
You may have noticed that I've moved this discussion to here. Offhand I am
guessing it is a good idea.
> I did some testing here and it did work for bluewave archived
> packets.
> First I had to set my GF (grab format) to BlueWave in the
> Utilitey menu
I saw that and at one session did change it but changed it back to text after
since I couldn't find the grab via ftp. However ...
> zip file was in my telnet program download directory when I
> exited.
> down/testgrab.su5
Errrrr ... where is that wrt the chroot jailed directory? Also the text
archive doesn't seem to require a telnet login and can be tweaked into action
with either a wget or ftp login given a username and password which makes it
perfect for scripting into a client.
The only outstanding problem is the uploaded reply's expected filename and
format.
However I am willing to try the more traditional method of offlining as long as
it doesn't require zmodem. In that case I am going to have to know where to
upload to and if an ftp session cannot work without telnetting then I cannot
see how any of this will be of any consequence.
For my part I'd rather leave the faking it to the DOS-think people and totally
get rid of anything other than 8 bit characters in the headers, etc. and then
use transfers that are less hoggy resourse-wise than faking out a serial
connection - especially nonstandardized ones - on a tcpip connection. We both
know this is doable since we've done it this way in the past. In that case it
was Fido formats but the actual transfers of those pkt's was ftp. That worked
better, no doubt about it, and I was tranferring raw Fido compliant pkt's. I
still have the scripts here that generated those but personally would much
rather to ditch the headers for ones that stuck to purely 8 bit characters and
strings (<- null terminated) not unlike what I see in the BBS's echo bases. Far
more standardization there with REAL standards as opposed to FTN so-called
standards that aren't standards and never were. The whole argument about
backwards compatibilty is a joke at best.
Like I've been saying all along, I am in no rush about any of this, and if I am
just here to repeat past mistakes then I'll stick to the way I am doing this
now. Seems to work excellent all things considered and doesn't require ANY
DOS-think to be compatible across the board. No faking either. :-)
Life is good,
Maurice
--- BBBS/LiI v4.01 Flag
* Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/38)
