Subj : Re: JAM versus Squish?
To   : Kurt Weiske
From : Alan Ianson
Date : Sat Nov 14 2015 10:15 am

On 11/13/15, Kurt Weiske said the following...
 
 KW> I'm running Synchronet now with its proprietary message base. I'm
 KW> playing with Mystic and debating whether JAM or SQUISH (and their
 KW> respective tossers) are a better choice. Does anyone have experience
 KW> with both you'd like to share?

In my early days as a Sysop I used squish with maximus as well.. :)

Since then I have always prefered squish over jam probably for no reason
other than it worked for me. I liked the way in squish msg bases you didn't
need to pack your msg base if you deleted a message. The freed space would be
used by the next incoming msg that would fit in that space or simply be freed
when you packed your msg bases. I liked the way that worked in netmail bases
were msgs can come and go quickly.

I asked this question in the husky (a tosser for squish and jam) area
recently to see if someone had an answewr for me. I got one reply that said
that the squish base can only link 12 (i think it was 12) reply links to the
original message). It's a limit of the quish message base format that I never
new of and has never been a problem. He told me he had one base with over
100,000 msgs!

On the jam side I have also used jam extesively with RA and MBSE (and now
Mystic) and have never had a problem with it.

I also like to look at other bbs software from time to time and Synchronet is
on my hit list. I rather like it's format to, very configurable I have never
had a problem with it either.

 Ttyl :-),
         Al

--- Mystic BBS v1.11 (Linux)
 * Origin: The Rusty MailBox - Penticton, BC Canada (1:153/757)

.