Subj : Re: SBBS/W32 Kermit SABOT To : Stephen Hurd From : Nancy Backus Date : Mon Nov 22 2004 11:35 pm -=> Quoting Stephen Hurd to Michel Samson on 11-09-04 17:19 <=- SH> I do understand that there are at least a couple people who use Kermit SH> on a regular basis. For those people, I'm therefore interested in SH> allowing them to use their protocol of choice. Kermit will never be SH> the first file transfer tool I reach for, but I can readily understand SH> that it may the the first one someone else reaches for. My interest is SH> therefore to provide a useable Kermit file transfer to those people SH> who use Kermit because they want to. In my case, until my wizard hubby came up with his replacement for TCPPort, the only* protocol that I could use with Telnet uploads was kermit (the slow original), as Zmodem only worked for downloads for me. And the other X and Ymodem protocols were no better for uploads (didn't need to try them for downloads). SH> Personally, SH> I would believe that these are the people who would have a sane Kermit SH> implementation... not people using HyperTerminal for example which has SH> a terrible Kermit implementation. Again, in my case, being fully in DOS only, I wasn't using HyperTerminal (holding up crossed forefingers to ward off evil ). And my protocol implementations were in the ConEx I am using. SH> I have a bit of resistance to providing a 7-bit slow kermit as a SH> choice... on a telnet connection (which they have) there is no reason SH> to use a 7-bit paranoid Kermit. SH> However, I'm even willing to go a step further and provide them with a SH> 7-bit slow kermit if that's what they want... but I don't want to SH> promote the use of 7-bit slow kermit in the face of protocols which are SH> better than 7-bit slow kermit for the purpose of transferring a file SH> from a BBS over a telnet connection. In my case, it wasn't what I wanted so much as what I needed. I was very thankful to find that 7-bit paranoid Kermit available when it was, so that I was* able to upload my message reply packets, and not have to enter messages online. Now that hubby has replaced TCPPort in our set-up with his TelNetPort, things work a lot better, and I can now use Zmodem for my telnet uploads as well, and still entirely work in DOS. :) SH> Ideally, I personally feel the SH> best bet would be to have the choices something like this: SH> Kermit [7]-bit (Compatible) - SLOW SH> XModem - SLOW SH> XModem/1K - Sluggish SH> YModem - SLOW SH> YModem/1K - Sluggish SH> YModem/G - Good SH> ZModem - Fast SH> Kermit (Modern) - Fast SH> So the new user has a resonable chance of picking the appropriate SH> protocol. A sysop after my own heart! :) Choices are good. Thank you! ttyl neb .... Spill chequers dew knot awl weighs wok ass wee eggs peck. ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.20 --- ViaMAIL!/WC v1.60d * Origin: Chowdanet (401-331-0615) telnet://chowdanet.com (1:323/120) .