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 01 Apr 24 01:17:44, всего сообщений: 7124
Ответить на сообщение К списку сообщений Предыдущее сообщение Следующее сообщение
= Сообщение: 6366 из 7124 ====================================== FTSC_PUBLIC =
От   : Carol Shenkenberger              1:275/100          13 Mar 22 19:55:15
Кому : Tim Schattkowsky                                    13 Mar 22 19:55:15
Тема : Re^2:  Directly include binary data in messages
FGHI : area://FTSC_PUBLIC?msgid=8614.ftsc_pub@1:275/100+2693dc09
На   : area://FTSC_PUBLIC?msgid=2:240/1120.29+39484084
= Кодировка сообщения определена как: ASCII ==================================
==============================================================================
  Re: Re^2:  Directly include binary data in messages
  By: Tim Schattkowsky to Rob Swindell on Tue Feb 22 2022 09:55 pm

> //Hello Rob,//
>
> on *22.02.22* at *19:22:28* You wrote in Area *FTSC_PUBLIC*
> to *Anna Christina Nass* about *"Re: Directly include binary data in
> messages"*.
>
>  RS> Pretty trivial. In fact, any echomail program that supports multiple
>  RS> packet formats (e.g. SBBSecho supports packet types 2.0, 2+, 2e, and 2.
>  RS> can be used as a gateway between old and even older technology systems.
>  RS> :-)
>
> IMHO this is lacking the total system perspective. There are open questions
> that level. How is the sending system supposed to know what packet format a
> receiver expects?
>
> This could be done in a lot of ways:
> - explicit configuration
> - nodelist flags
> - dynamically during the mail session (i.e., the mailer eventually triggers
> final packet format in some way depending on session handshake information)
> - ...
>
> The most important question for me is still, WHY is there any need for a new
> packet format? Other than the lack of zone (or even 5D) information, what ar
> the points?
>
> Regards,
> Tim
>

I can't answer as to why we need a new packet format, but of your 3 options
above Explicit configuration, possibly triggered by nodelist flags.

Say 2 softwares 'pop up' capable of both.  One will autoconfigure from the
nodelist, the other doesn't.  Both can be manually setup though.

I don't think option 3 is viable because it means at time of connection to
repack *.pkt into another format.  Once packed in one, you'd probably have to
touch the actual message base to repack right?  That or there wouldn't be much
point in it that I can see?  LOL, ok, I may be missing something!

  xxcarol
--- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
* Origin: SHENK'S EXPRESS telnet://shenks.synchro.net (1:275/100)

К главной странице гейта
Powered by NoSFeRaTU`s FGHIGate
Открытие страницы: 0.034318 секунды