Добро пожаловать, Гость. Пожалуйста авторизуйтесь здесь.
FGHIGate на GaNJa NeTWoRK ST@Ti0N - Просмотр сообщения в эхоконференции FTSC_PUBLIC
Введите FGHI ссылку:


Присутствуют сообщения из эхоконференции FTSC_PUBLIC с датами от 13 Sep 13 18:57:24 до 15 Nov 24 00:30:01, всего сообщений: 7128
Ответить на сообщение К списку сообщений Предыдущее сообщение Следующее сообщение
= Сообщение: 5325 из 7128 ====================================== FTSC_PUBLIC =
От   : Rob Swindell                     1:103/705          19 Dec 20 12:05:02
Кому : Maurice Kinal                                       19 Dec 20 12:05:02
Тема : alternative DateTime (ref: fts-0001.016)
FGHI : area://FTSC_PUBLIC?msgid=30779.ftsc_pub@1:103/705+24440b29
На   : area://FTSC_PUBLIC?msgid=1:153/7001+5fddc190
= Кодировка сообщения определена как: ASCII ==================================
Ответ: area://FTSC_PUBLIC?msgid=1:153/7001+5fde69b9
==============================================================================
  Re: alternative DateTime (ref: fts-0001.016)
  By: Maurice Kinal to Rob Swindell on Sat Dec 19 2020 09:02 am

> Hey Rob!
>
>  RS> SBBSecho defaults to exporting type 2+ packets
>
> Okay I had a looksee at a pktheader parser I wrote awhile back and I now see
> that I was confusing 2+ with 2.2 so your statement above would put SBBSecho
> amongst the majority.

Earlier you stated "Most are 2.2 only and don't even know it.", so even allowing that you confused 2+ with 2.2, that's still not true of SBBSecho.

> All my links support type 2+ pkts while only one
> supports type 2, while another can do 2.2.  So from my perspective both 2
> and 2.2 are equally rare.

The term "support" and "do" here are rather vague: those terms could refer to the production of packets of a particular type, the consumption of packets of a particular type, or a combination.

>  RS> FidoNet (collectively) is vehemently opposed to anything that is
>  RS> not interoperable with FidoNet software from the 80's or 90's.
>
> I wish I could say that them were the days but my heart wouldn't be in it.
> Everyone I knew from that time is no longer in the game and whatever
> software they were using back then has long since been abandoned even before
> y2k and the two digit year became real issues of concern.  I am convinced
> that had the four digit year replaced the packed msg DateTime back in 1999
> or 2002 there would have been minimal problems with it.

<shrugs> If a new date/time format can be introduced in a backward-compatible manner, that's how it should be done, IMHO. And FidoNet should use an existing standard this time, stop making up new (badly defined) ones.
--- SBBSecho 3.11-Linux
* Origin: Vertrauen - [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net (1:103/705)

К главной странице гейта
Powered by NoSFeRaTU`s FGHIGate
Открытие страницы: 0.080269 секунды