Subj : Web access, false BBS ID To : TODD BOYD From : MICHEL SAMSON Date : Tue Nov 02 2004 02:57 am Hi Todd, About "Web access, false BBS ID" of November 1: TB> The technologies are strikingly similar. MS> ...that's what i've heard but ~RLogIn~ would be closer... TB> ...does rlogin inherently support blowfish and... Given what i wrote, previously, you're not addressing your question to the right person but i noticed Stephen Hurd is willing to discuss it. TB> I just look at ssh like a secure telnet session. MS> ...the whole `W32' OS itself is rarely running when i manage my MS> correspondance... TB> leputty... ...and bterm... I took note of this information when it was mentioned the 1st time. TB> It has the same ansi graphics, etc... MS> ...it would be interactive enough to ~TelNet~ to an ~FTP~ server... TB> Why bother? This question already suggests the answer which suits you better... TB> Why not just use the ftp server? It lacks significant .QWK door features like the interactive setup. TB> ...just use most bulletin board softwares' built-in .qwk... There has been, there are and there will be BBSers for whom there's no satisfying .QWK solution yet. Systematic objectors will focuss their attention on me each time i bring `Kermit' on topic but ~FTP~ appears to be acceptable to both parties (those who'd need it and those who don't). TB> ...mystic and synchronet both have a system for offline mail... In theory `ZMoDem' shouldn't have to be OS dependent but in reality i require an alternative. I've made contact with no `Mystic' SysOp just yet but i already tried to contribute to the addition of `Kermit' on the `SynchroNet' BBS systems; the author terminated our experience the same day i submitted my 1st draft: he didn't appreciate the file-names, etc. %-b, Right now, `ZMoDem' on `SBBS' is using `FDSZ' (a prototype) and the `Kermit' alternative, as installed, fails to address too many issues. I now try to get `Kermit' installed on a `TeleGard' system, hoping that it will be possible to make that draft progress thru a normal cycle of test and revision... Short of being a SysOp myself, i do my share by helping to fix a very old problem which no BBSer is responsible for, actually!!! MS> ...promote various ways to make the UpGrade Path smoother... TG> Like piling a bunch of crap on top of telnet and http? What you suggest has nothing to do with a smoother UpGrade Path. I don't favour modified (extended) ~TelNet~ protocols (and modified ~HTTP~ protocols even less), which is the right definition when features sit on top of a protocol... My previous posts opened no door to your assertion relative to protocol extensions and i don't find it less subjective than expressions such as "crap"! My separate ~SSH~ session scenario includes no obligation relatively to using the ~TelNet~ protocol neither, perhaps your correspondance will be more satisfying if you could just discuss it with the person who pretended to see those piles, in the 1st place. The parts about an extended ~FTP~ protocol involve a very different context: there were no mentions of a method to make it "secure", or even "safer"; no leak there... As for the macro scenario, it doesn't compare with any of those from above because no interference with the ~TelNet~ channel is to be caused by scripts/macros - which is what ~TLS~ over ~TelNet~ does: yes, procedures like ~TLS~ "Take Over" ~TelNet~, if i'm not mistaking... %-o I didn't imply that making scripts/macros is for everyone, not even when a terminal emulator happens to be worth my time and it will support features like a "Command-Line" or the "Drop to DOS" option... Something _possible_ isn't necessarily mandatory. Hummm... Sounds like deja vu?! ~SSH~ is great if it retains the same functionality as ~TelNet~, my comments about ~IP~ patterns didn't apply to any BBSer who has access to fully compliant SoftWare. Is this too much nuance for a `FidoNet' echo? ~TelNet~, ~SSH~ and ~HTTPS~, etc. must stay as they are. No piling seems desirable to me since i already consider this situation to be very complicated as it is - for the BBSer, i mean. Authors/SysOps should try to solve problems THEY cause; `Opera' wasn't faulty when some stanger's name showed up in place of mine because i just dared try the ~WEB~-based interface i mentioned last month! The pile of "crap" is out there, IMO. Salutations, Michel Samson a/s Bicephale http://public.sogetel.net/bicephale/ .... I might have sent it with DOS+TCP/IP+TelNet+Kermit+.QWK technologies --- MultiMail/MS-DOS v0.45 - Numbers making TelNet OLMR BBSing UNIVERSAL * Origin: BBS Networks @ www.bbsnets.com 808-839-6036 (1:10/345) .