Subj : SBBS/W32 Kermit SABOTAGE To : Stephen Hurd From : Michel Samson Date : Wed Nov 10 2004 08:54 am Hi Stephen, About "SBBS/W32 Kermit SABOTAGE" in two parts of November 9: MS> ...each... ...was supposed to contribute with what he knew best... SH> Not sure what the deal was... You should find some clues in the *1* week record i made available: http://public.sogetel.net/bicephale/Vert-801.QWK.ZIP (284 Kb) SH> ...I only know of two people with any real hands-on kermit... ^^^^^^ I wrote it before: i'll discuss the `Kermit' protocol, preferably. SH> My use of kermit... ...faster to use something else. Believe me, _your_ use of `Kermit' isn't involved! I just react to a situation where SysOps (like Gregg Somes, for example) can't manage to install Rob's .INI without getting `Kermit' aborts ("UnKnown FileSize"); one may also conclude you experienced no proper `Kermit' setup just yet. SH> ...provide a useable Kermit file transfer to those people who use SH> Kermit because they want to. Personally, I would believe that these SH> are the people who would have a sane Kermit... not people using SH> HyperTerminal for example which has a terrible Kermit... When Swindell wrote about `HyperTerminal' he didn't care to mention *NUMBERS*; the chances are he was getting below 600 cps even in a local ~TelNet~ session because he didn't say otherwise when it was on topic... But reality is even more complex! We're aware that practically all `Kermit' transfers in `HyperTerminal' are bound to crawl but i also made comments about a very controversial information here: when i tested the `C-Kermit 5A(189)'/`HyperTerminal' duo side-by-side via `VSPD XP v4', it revealed excessive errors and a failure to terminate on completion but i observed transfer rates which went FAR BEYOND MY EXPECTATIONS (3K5 cps), nonetheless! I didn't have much time to invest for discovering a "magic spell" which brings it back to life, euh... so, `HyperTerminal' remains unfit for `Kermit' sessions until further notice but it doesn't mean the issue can't be solved just because i have my own limits as a human. ;^> SH> If HyperTerminal is their terminal of choice, it would be silly... Boths sides must be suitable, `MS-Kermit' for a `WilCat!' or `BBBS' session is DECEIVING and the reverse is also true because i never got it right when `HyperTerminal' connected to suitable remote systems, so far. SH> ...I have a bit of resistance to providing a 7-bit slow kermit... It differenciates us: i don't. My system may be the bottleneck so i won't say `Kermit' can reach beyond 25K7 cps but even if using Control Character Escaping costs a lot in terms of overhead, it seems probable a `Kermit' transfer will be better than an hesitating `ZMoDem' transfer or none at all. I regret no sturdy `Kermit' has been put to test just yet! SH> ...there is no reason to use a 7-bit paranoid Kermit. There's even less to care about anthropomorphism over a protocol... SH> ...I personally feel the best bet would be to have the choices SH> something like this: ...Compatible... ... ...Modern... So the SH> new user has a resonable chance of picking the appropriate protocol. Liberty of choice is a topic which does get my attention, under the circumstances... I've done more than my share in order to dissociate my name from Swindell's `Kermit' setup by making `MSK.INI' self-documentary and by addressing the problem of SysOps failing to get his configuration to work. The guys who would disagree to offer the whole set of `Kermit' features as found in the `MSK' setup are left the CHOICE to only support the BASIC configuration, i'm not liable for Rob's decision to render his `Kermit' support restrictive and the responsability isn't mine since the additional `Kermit' features are OPTIONAL BUT YET PROVIDED in `MSK.INI'. Anyway, i expect no change with `SBBS' anytime soon and i believe a sequence such as the one you suggested wouldn't reflect reality neither. MS> `MSK.INI' was more "Ready-Made" in 2003 than Rob's setup is now!... SH> I didn't bother reading the .INI file at all... I noticed. I confess my creterias of quality differ: Rob pretends he can find the FINAL answer while having lapses of inspiration on a hot summer day, not me... Don't bother, i'll know it if more people fail at the task after another fifteen months but feel free to refer them to me! SH> ...I'm wondering about users... Could it be reduced... Stop wondering, Winston and i are the only `Kermit' users you heard of, right?... Don't expect me to add an ~APC~ remote configuration or a "8.3" to ~LFN~ FileName reconversion mechanism in a breeze, i'm sorry if assymetry fails to meet esthetical standards but those comments below my "Suggested Presentation" also display when `UlProt.ASC'/`DlProt.ASC' are used and i cared to COLOUR-diffentiate too! See `Kermit' documentation. It's mission accomplished for me so i'll be leaving Borg space soon since there's no opportunity to discuss issues related to `Protocol.LOG' or else and you've required too much of my patience, if you ask me! The http://public.sogetel.net/bicephale/MSK.INI setup will remain available, refer to it any `SBBS' SysOp (or BBSer) who requires help - if you mind. Salutations, Michel Samson a/s Bicephale .... Rob's SBBS/Kermit: spend spare-time just to prove he got it trashed ___ MultiMail/XT v0.45 - If only TelNet OLMR BBSing could be *UNIVERSAL* --- Maximus/2 3.01 * Origin: COMM Port OS/2 juge.com 204.89.247.1 (281) 980-9671 (1:106/2000) .