Quoting Stephen Hurd to Michel Samson on 11-09-04 17:19 <=-

I do understand that there are at least a couple people who use Kermit
on a regular basis. For those people, I'm therefore interested in allowing them to use their protocol of choice. Kermit will never be
the first file transfer tool I reach for, but I can readily understand that it may the the first one someone else reaches for. My interest is therefore to provide a useable Kermit file transfer to those people
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).

Personally,
I would believe that these are the people who would have a sane Kermit implementation... not people using HyperTerminal for example which has
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 <G>). And my protocol implementations were in the ConEx I am using.

I have a bit of resistance to providing a 7-bit slow kermit as a
choice... on a telnet connection (which they have) there is no reason
to use a 7-bit paranoid Kermit.
However, I'm even willing to go a step further and provide them with a 7-bit slow kermit if that's what they want... but I don't want to
promote the use of 7-bit slow kermit in the face of protocols which are better than 7-bit slow kermit for the purpose of transferring a file
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. :)

Ideally, I personally feel the
best bet would be to have the choices something like this:
Kermit [7]-bit (Compatible) - SLOW
XModem - SLOW
XModem/1K - Sluggish
YModem - SLOW
YModem/1K - Sluggish
YModem/G - Good
ZModem - Fast
Kermit (Modern) - Fast
So the new user has a resonable chance of picking the appropriate protocol.

A sysop after my own heart! :) Choices are good. <G> 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)

Re: Re: SBBS/W32 Kermit SABOT
By: Nancy Backus to Stephen Hurd on Mon Nov 22 2004 23:35:03

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. :)

Out of curiosity, was FTP or HTTP not an option?
--- SBBSecho 2.10-FreeBSD
* Origin: FreeBSD Synchronet - telnet://FreeBSD.synchro.net (1:140/17)