Hi Nancy, [Also posted in `FdN_Blue Wave']

About "DOS TelNet U/L's by ZMoDem" of October 12:

...I wanted to let people know that my resident wizard managed to accomplish the impossible, and now I AM able to do zmodem uploads
with my still totally DOS telnetting setup!!!

...peering at TCP packet traces and comparing them to the ZModem and
TelNet documentation finally led me to realize the problem is caused
by the TelNet IAC character (0xff). ...TCPPORT doesn't escape the
IAC character on sends. It doesn't handle IAC sequences on receive
very well either. The ZModem part was working to specification...

It works a lot faster than the kermit I had been using... He's
uploaded his program to Chowdanet...

Thanks a lot for making an *EFFORT* to share such good news, Nancy!

8^)

Of course, you already know that i don't personally experience much significant file transfer problems on the BBSes i keep visiting (since i
told you about my configurations based on `RLFossil' before), euh... In
any case, i tested `TelNet Port v0.1' by Richard J. Backus yesterday and
i wish he had been a BBSer too when i mentioned the ~IAC~ issue in `FdN_ DOS-InterNet' many years ago! 8'-) I know right now my test isn't fair
but i compared my cps rates and the `MS-Kermit' transfers are about 18 %
faster when i substitute `TNPort.EXE' to `RLFossil.EXE' - i say not fair because, at 9K6 cps, euh... i simply can't find a remote system (nor an application) which will let me conduct an equivalent `ZMoDem' test under
a DOS environment!... I tried telnet://guest.sailor.lib.md.us but there
is little hope since 'nix-like `ZMoDem' flavours are different about the
Return Character via ~TelNet~ protocol, if i'm not mistaking... Well, i observe that `{Commo}'/`ZMoDem' fails, anyway. It would have been great
to read Richard when this was On-Topic and we had Ruurd Beerstra hanging
around in the now defunct `FdN_DOS-INet' echo, nonetheless! :) Please, express a warm Thank You to your relative (brother, son or husband?)!...

I tried to integrate `ZMoDem' and `MS-Kermit' together in `{Commo}'
but i've got no luck so far. I know `Conex' does just that but then the `Kermit' packet-size happens to be limited to less than 23 % of what the official Columbia protocol allows, actually!... I attempted a switch of applications while my connection to the ~TelNet~ session was still "hot"
but there may be a problem regarding ~FOSSIL~ level-5 compliance; there
isn't a lot more i can contribute with and, since you have it going, the chances are that no such improvement really matters. Nice try though!!!

Salutations, ;-)

Michel Samson
a/s Bicephale
http://public.sogetel.net/bicephale/


P.S.: Just in case, please mention Tim Strike's `FKFossil v1.02' to the
attention of mister Backus. The `Turbo Pascal' source-code isn't
of much help as is (it's a client) but perhaps it will inspiring?


... DOS+TCP/IP+TelNet+ZMoDem/Kermit+.QWK technologies with XTs or better
--- MultiMail/MS-DOS v0.45 - It could make TelNet OLMR BBSing UNIVERSAL!
* Origin: BBS Networks @ www.bbsnets.com 808-839-6036 (1:10/345)

Re: Pure DOS TelNet ZMoDem
By: MICHEL SAMSON to NANCY BACKUS on Wed Oct 13 2004 18:45:00

a DOS environment!... I tried telnet://guest.sailor.lib.md.us but there
is little hope since 'nix-like `ZMoDem' flavours are different about the Return Character via ~TelNet~ protocol, if i'm not mistaking... Well, i

The ZModem protocol doesn't use a return character. The odds are very good that the *nix system is in fact using a ZModem based on code from Omen (or even THE code from Omen) Which, as the guys who designed ZModem is probobly correct. If you can't interoperate with an Omen ZModem program, you're doing something wrong... and yes, it's probobly the IAC character.
--- SBBSecho 2.10-FreeBSD
* Origin: FreeBSD Synchronet - telnet://FreeBSD.synchro.net (1:140/17)

Quoting MICHEL SAMSON from a message to NANCY BACKUS <--

Thanks a lot for making an *EFFORT* to share such good news,
Nancy!

And what a lot of sysops don't know that ZModem is one of the worst protocols to use over telnet because its timing is designed for POTS, not Internet. However, it was the most plentiful, so therefore, it proliferated even more.

I will say that using CEXYZ/2 under OS/2 (which is 32 bit) does make a bit of a
difference and I have a lot less problems with lost packets than I do under Windows using mTel. I don't know about "straight" DOS, but I'd imagine that there might be speed issues or protocol issues as Nancy rightfully pointed out (and that doesn't suprise me that there is).

I only wish I knew more about protocols to help. I am pretty proficient at Pascal, but I'm not as good as some of the people I know.

Also-are you still wanting me to try to get Kermit running under my system again? Just wasn't sure if you did or not.

Later,
Sean
--- Telegard/2 v3.09.g2-sp4/mL
* Origin: Outpost BBS - outpostbbs.us (1:18/200)

Re: Re: Pure DOS TelNet ZMoDem
By: Sean Dennis to MICHEL SAMSON on Thu Oct 14 2004 00:27:22

And what a lot of sysops don't know that ZModem is one of the worst protocol to use over telnet because its timing is designed for POTS, not Internet. However, it was the most plentiful, so therefore, it proliferated even more.

Actually, ZModem was specifically designed to avoid this... perhaps you're thinking of XModem or YModem (Both have this issue). Now, granted that many implementations of ZModem are braindead... the one with the version of HyperTerminal that installs with Windows 98 leaps unbidden to mind
--- SBBSecho 2.10-FreeBSD
* Origin: FreeBSD Synchronet - telnet://FreeBSD.synchro.net (1:140/17)

And what a lot of sysops don't know that ZModem is one of the worst protoc to use over telnet because its timing is designed for POTS, not Internet.

i believe digital man has written SEXYZ to work with synchronet for windows. besides.. why aren't you guys just using NTP to begin with? :) it's with the times. truly external, too.

isn't ymodem so much better?

|07 --haliphax |15//|07rMRS
|02 cotm.dyndns.org
|07 vanguard mods
--- Mystic BBS v1.07.3 (Win32)
* Origin: constipation of the mind :: cotm.dyndns.org (1:2800/18)

Re: Re: Pure DOS TelNet ZMoDem
By: haliphax to Sean Dennis on Thu Oct 14 2004 17:17:00

i believe digital man has written SEXYZ to work with synchronet for windows. besides.. why aren't you guys just using NTP to begin with? :) it's with the times. truly external, too.

The "official" site has no info on it, can't find a protocol spec...
--- SBBSecho 2.10-FreeBSD
* Origin: FreeBSD Synchronet - telnet://FreeBSD.synchro.net (1:140/17)

Also-are you still wanting me to try to get Kermit running
under my system again? Just wasn't sure if you did or not.

for that matter, i (finally) saw that you had uploaded a private package to me,
a long while back, of kermit stuffs... i've not had time to try to do anything with it and have never been asked about kermit other than by you... are you still wanting to do/try something with it on my OS/2 system, too??

)\/(ark
* Origin: (1:3634/12)

Quoting haliphax from a message to Sean Dennis <--

windows. besides.. why aren't you guys just using NTP to begin with?

What's NTP?

isn't ymodem so much better?

Not really, it's designed for phone lines too and suffers the same timing problems as Zmodem.

Later,
Sean
--- Telegard/2 v3.09.g2-sp4/mL
* Origin: Outpost BBS - outpostbbs.us (1:18/200)

Re: Re: Pure DOS TelNet ZMoDem
By: Sean Dennis to haliphax on Fri Oct 15 2004 01:09:34

isn't ymodem so much better?

Not really, it's designed for phone lines too and suffers the same timing problems as Zmodem.

YModem-g is actually well suited for for telnet, however it's missing some nice feautues that ZModem has (ie: resume). No other YModem should be used on high-latency links.
--- SBBSecho 2.10-FreeBSD
* Origin: FreeBSD Synchronet - telnet://FreeBSD.synchro.net (1:140/17)

windows. besides.. why aren't you guys just using
NTP to begin with?

What's NTP?

looks like Network Time Protocol to me ;)

isn't ymodem so much better?

Not really, it's designed for phone lines too and
suffers the same timing problems as Zmodem.

zmodem is a streaming protocol unless you explicitly switch it to ACK blocks...
zmodem's normal mode of operation is to not say a thing on receive unless there
is a problem with a bad or missing block or (yes) and overly long time period in which nothing is received...

)\/(ark
* Origin: (1:3634/12)

Hello Sean!

Friday October 15 2004 01:09, you wrote to haliphax:

windows. besides.. why aren't you guys just using NTP to begin
with?

What's NTP?

Network Time Protocol, used for synchronizing clocks. In some environment where
the clock is essential it's used, like in IP telephony.

isn't ymodem so much better?

Not really, it's designed for phone lines too and suffers the same
timing problems as Zmodem.

All transfer protocols is designed for a phone line, but it bet it wouldn't make a difference over ip, why should it?

Bo
--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5
* Origin: The Night Express - 45-36959335 - 1200 BPS only (2:236/100)

Re: Pure DOS TelNet ZMoDem
By: Bo Simonsen to Sean Dennis on Fri Oct 15 2004 18:23:55

Not really, it's designed for phone lines too and suffers the same timing problems as Zmodem.

All transfer protocols is designed for a phone line, but it bet it wouldn't make a difference over ip, why should it?

Because XModem and YModem both send a block, wait for confirmation, rinse and repeat... this means that (for XModem) every 128 bytes requires a round trip to be completed before the next 128 bytes are sent...
--- SBBSecho 2.10-FreeBSD
* Origin: FreeBSD Synchronet - telnet://FreeBSD.synchro.net (1:140/17)

windows. besides.. why aren't you guys just using NTP to begin with?

What's NTP?

nemesis transfer protocol, created by the acidic modding group i believe.
more specifically, and individual who calls himself mercyful fate.

http://east1999.icednet.org/ntp is the url, if i remember. so far, you can
only use it for downloads... but the next version is well underway. it's
more or less a client/server based transfer protocol, independent of the bbs.

|07 --haliphax |15//|07rMRS
|02 cotm.dyndns.org
|07 vanguard mods
--- Mystic BBS v1.07.3 (Win32)
* Origin: constipation of the mind :: cotm.dyndns.org (1:2800/18)

windows. besides.. why aren't you guys just using NTP to begin
with?

What's NTP?

Network Time Protocol, used for synchronizing clocks. In some environment where the clock is essential it's used, like in IP telephony.

haha.. funny that it parallels what we're talking about, but no. i was referring to the nemesis transfer protocol. i've been buggin the author for
a while to change the name because of this definition conflict. :)

|07 --haliphax |15//|07rMRS
|02 cotm.dyndns.org
|07 vanguard mods
--- Mystic BBS v1.07.3 (Win32)
* Origin: constipation of the mind :: cotm.dyndns.org (1:2800/18)

Re: Re: Pure DOS TelNet ZMoDem
By: haliphax to Sean Dennis on Fri Oct 15 2004 13:25:00

http://east1999.icednet.org/ntp is the url, if i remember. so far, you can only use it for downloads... but the next version is well underway. it's more or less a client/server based transfer protocol, independent of the bbs

Nothing... and from playing with it a bit, it has a number of biggish issues... If there's some way of getting touch with the authour, I'd be more than happy to help him fix stuff. But I haven't even been able to verify his existance as of yet. :-(
--- SBBSecho 2.10-FreeBSD
* Origin: FreeBSD Synchronet - telnet://FreeBSD.synchro.net (1:140/17)

Quoting Stephen Hurd from a message to Sean Dennis <--

YModem-g is actually well suited for for telnet, however it's missing
some nice feautues that ZModem has (ie: resume). No other YModem
should be used on high-latency links.

Ah, okay. I never was quite sure what YModem/G was used for. I haven't seen it in many terminal programs that I've come across, except for Hyperterminal, Zap-O-Comm and QModem Pro.

Later,
Sean
--- Telegard/2 v3.09.g2-sp4/mL
* Origin: Outpost BBS - outpostbbs.us (1:18/200)

Quoting mark lewis from a message to Sean Dennis <--

zmodem is a streaming protocol unless you explicitly switch it to ACK blocks... zmodem's normal mode of operation is to not say a thing on receive unless there is a problem with a bad or missing block or
(yes) and overly long time period in which nothing is received...

If that's the case, then why doesn't someone use the non-ACK mode for telnet connections? Every terminal program I've used seems to use that, even those that are designed for telnet (including ZOC, QModem Pro, HT)... doesn't make sense.

Later,
Sean
--- Telegard/2 v3.09.g2-sp4/mL
* Origin: Outpost BBS - outpostbbs.us (1:18/200)

Quoting Bo Simonsen from a message to Sean Dennis <--

All transfer protocols is designed for a phone line, but it bet it wouldn't make a difference over ip, why should it?

As Mark explained to me, ZModem is using ACKs and that slows it down terribly.

I was experimenting with Kermit when I was running Maximus/2 and it seemed to have the uncanny ability to run wide open with unlimited packet size. Unfortunately, I have not been able to figure out how to get Kermit working under Telegard/2.

Later,
Sean
--- Telegard/2 v3.09.g2-sp4/mL
* Origin: Outpost BBS - outpostbbs.us (1:18/200)

Re: Re: Pure DOS TelNet ZMoDem
By: Sean Dennis to Stephen Hurd on Fri Oct 15 2004 11:44:20

Ah, okay. I never was quite sure what YModem/G was used for. I haven't see it in many terminal programs that I've come across, except for Hyperterminal Zap-O-Comm and QModem Pro.

YModem/G is basically YModem that doesn't wait for ACKs...
--- SBBSecho 2.10-FreeBSD
* Origin: FreeBSD Synchronet - telnet://FreeBSD.synchro.net (1:140/17)

Re: Re: Pure DOS TelNet ZMoDem
By: Sean Dennis to mark lewis on Fri Oct 15 2004 11:45:32

zmodem is a streaming protocol unless you explicitly switch it to ACK blocks... zmodem's normal mode of operation is to not say a thing on receive unless there is a problem with a bad or missing block or
(yes) and overly long time period in which nothing is received...

If that's the case, then why doesn't someone use the non-ACK mode for telnet connections? Every terminal program I've used seems to use that, even those that are designed for telnet (including ZOC, QModem Pro, HT)... doesn't make sense.

Hrm... I recall ZOC having excellent throughput... possibly it's the ZModem implementation on the BBS that's faulty though.

99% of telnet ZModem stuff is broken unfortunately... *nix users are the 1%. :-)

I'm not a Win32 guy,so I'm not sure what the best thing to do about that is...but if you can find the source code for an external protocol driver, I'll be willing to convert it to telnet for you. I need one that currently WORKS... either one that currently uses COM ports or FOSSIL, or one that seems to only work with some telnet packages.
--- SBBSecho 2.10-FreeBSD
* Origin: FreeBSD Synchronet - telnet://FreeBSD.synchro.net (1:140/17)

Re: Re: Pure DOS TelNet ZMoDem
By: Sean Dennis to Bo Simonsen on Fri Oct 15 2004 11:50:32

All transfer protocols is designed for a phone line, but it bet it wouldn't make a difference over ip, why should it?

As Mark explained to me, ZModem is using ACKs and that slows it down terribl

I was experimenting with Kermit when I was running Maximus/2 and it seemed t have the uncanny ability to run wide open with unlimited packet size.

ZModem alwaysuses delayed ACKs... the only time that Kermit is faster than ZModem is when it can compress the file using run length compression... so ZIP files do not transfer any faster for example.

Kermitas of last time I looked at it used a fixed packet size, ZModem uses and adaptive packet size... ZModem is also about 100 times easier to set up and use.
--- SBBSecho 2.10-FreeBSD
* Origin: FreeBSD Synchronet - telnet://FreeBSD.synchro.net (1:140/17)

Re: Re: Pure DOS TelNet ZMoDem
By: Stephen Hurd to Sean Dennis on Fri Oct 15 2004 04:53 pm

As Mark explained to me, ZModem is using ACKs and that slows it down terr

I was experimenting with Kermit when I was running Maximus/2 and it seeme have the uncanny ability to run wide open with unlimited packet size.

ZModem alwaysuses delayed ACKs... the only time that Kermit is faster than ZModem is when it can compress the file using run length compression... so Z files do not transfer any faster for example.

Kermitas of last time I looked at it used a fixed packet size, ZModem uses a adaptive packet size... ZModem is also about 100 times easier to set up and use.

Have you setup gkermit on your board? It's pretty simple. http://synchro.net/docs/kermit.txt :-)

digital man

Snapple "Real Fact" #20:
Broccoli is the only vegetable that is also a flower.

YModem-g is actually well suited for for telnet, however it's missing
some nice feautues that ZModem has (ie: resume). No other YModem
should be used on high-latency links.

Ah, okay. I never was quite sure what YModem/G was used for.
I haven't seen it in many terminal programs that I've come
across, except for Hyperterminal, Zap-O-Comm and QModem Pro.

Y-Modem-g and the other -g protocol(s) rely on the modem's error-detection and correction... these protocols are faster since they don't have to pollute the datastream with error stuffs trying to retrieve missing or corrupt blocks as the modem should already be doing such...

)\/(ark
* Origin: (1:3634/12)

zmodem is a streaming protocol unless you explicitly switch it to ACK
blocks... zmodem's normal mode of operation is to not say a thing on
receive unless there is a problem with a bad or missing block or
(yes) and overly long time period in which nothing is received...

If that's the case, then why doesn't someone use the non-ACK
mode for telnet connections? Every terminal program I've used
seems to use that, even those that are designed for telnet
(including ZOC, QModem Pro, HT)... doesn't make sense.

i dunno... the mailers we generally use seem to unless they are using the block
modes... some mailers also use DSZ externally so their author's don't have to screw around with that stuff...

)\/(ark
* Origin: (1:3634/12)

Re: Re: Pure DOS TelNet ZMoDem
By: Rob Swindell to Stephen Hurd on Fri Oct 15 2004 15:28:07

Kermitas of last time I looked at it used a fixed packet size, ZModem use adaptive packet size... ZModem is also about 100 times easier to set up a use.

Have you setup gkermit on your board? It's pretty simple. http://synchro.net/docs/kermit.txt :-)

Me? Yeah... ZModem was easier though. :-)
--- SBBSecho 2.10-FreeBSD
* Origin: FreeBSD Synchronet - telnet://FreeBSD.synchro.net (1:140/17)

Quoting haliphax from a message to Sean Dennis <--

you can only use it for downloads... but the next version is well underway. it's more or lessa client/server based transfer protocol, independent of the bbs.

Oh, like BinkP... but that's more peer-to-peer.

Later,
Sean
--- Telegard/2 v3.09.g2-sp4/mL
* Origin: Outpost BBS - outpostbbs.us (1:18/200)

Quoting mark lewis from a message to MICHEL SAMSON <--

kermit other than by you... are you still wanting to do/try something
with it on my OS/2 system, too??

Well, if we can get Michel working on it with us... unfortunately, at this time
and for reasons I'm not sure of, my board can not be reached outside of my LAN.
So it'll have to wait until I get broadband again.

Later,
Sean
--- Telegard/2 v3.09.g2-sp4/mL
* Origin: Outpost BBS - outpostbbs.us (1:18/200)

Quoting Stephen Hurd from a message to Sean Dennis <--

need one that currently WORKS... either one that currently uses COM
ports or FOSSIL, or onethat seems to only work with some telnet
packages.

I've got two or three Pascal implementations... want them? :)

Email me at hausmaus@midnightshour.org with your email-I'll send them your way.

Later,
Sean
--- Telegard/2 v3.09.g2-sp4/mL
* Origin: Outpost BBS - outpostbbs.us (1:18/200)

Quoting Stephen Hurd from a message to Sean Dennis <--

uses and adaptive packet size... ZModem is also about 100 times
easier to set up and use.

Yes, I'll agree. I have a very nice setup of CEXYZ/2 here, but it's a 32-bit implementation of ZModem, so it's still very, very fast... even if it is 10 or so years old. :)

Later,
Sean
--- Telegard/2 v3.09.g2-sp4/mL
* Origin: Outpost BBS - outpostbbs.us (1:18/200)

Quoting mark lewis from a message to Sean Dennis <--

Y-Modem-g and the other -g protocol(s) rely on the modem's
error-detection and correction... these protocols are faster since
they don't have to pollute the datastream with error stuffs trying to retrieve missing or corrupt blocks as the modem should already be
doing such...

So I should set up a ymodem/g protocol in my board? :) I wonder if CEXYZ/2 does it, actually... let me check...

....
--- Telegard/2 v3.09.g2-sp4/mL
* Origin: Outpost BBS - outpostbbs.us (1:18/200)

Quoting Rob Swindell from a message to Stephen Hurd <--

Have you setup gkermit on your board? It's pretty simple. http://synchro.net/docs/kermit.txt :-)

Something you wrote?

Later,
Sean
--- Telegard/2 v3.09.g2-sp4/mL
* Origin: Outpost BBS - outpostbbs.us (1:18/200)

Re: Re: Pure DOS TelNet ZMoDem
By: Sean Dennis to Rob Swindell on Sat Oct 16 2004 02:10 am

Have you setup gkermit on your board? It's pretty simple. http://synchro.net/docs/kermit.txt :-)

Something you wrote?

Yes. Just instructions for setting up kermit protocol drivers for Synchronet-Win32 and Synchronet-Unix.

digital man

Snapple "Real Fact" #36:
A duck's quack doesn't echo.

Y-Modem-g and the other -g protocol(s) rely on the modem's
error-detection and correction... these protocols are faster since
they don't have to pollute the datastream with error stuffs trying to
retrieve missing or corrupt blocks as the modem should already be
doing such...

So I should set up a ymodem/g protocol in my board? :) I
wonder if CEXYZ/2 does it, actually... let me check...

i can't say that you "should", really... but that is what it does... my system comes with it by default, IIRC...

)\/(ark
* Origin: (1:3634/12)

Re: Re: Pure DOS TelNet ZMoDem
By: Sean Dennis to Stephen Hurd on Sat Oct 16 2004 00:42:00

need one that currently WORKS... either one that currently uses COM ports or FOSSIL, or onethat seems to only work with some telnet packages.

I've got two or three Pascal implementations... want them? :)

If they are known to work, yeah... the nice thing about a protocol driver is that it doesn't NEED to handle any issues with file locking etc. :-)

Of course, there would remain an issue with two people uploading two different files with the same filename simultaneously... but I don't think I'm going to loose sleep over THAT.

Send 'em to deuce@bbsdev.net
--- SBBSecho 2.10-FreeBSD
* Origin: FreeBSD Synchronet - telnet://FreeBSD.synchro.net (1:140/17)

Re: Re: Pure DOS TelNet ZMoDem
By: Sean Dennis to mark lewis on Sat Oct 16 2004 00:43:54

So I should set up a ymodem/g protocol in my board? :) I wonder if CEXYZ/2 does it, actually... let me check...

It's unlikely that anyone why has support for YModem-g won't have support for ZModem... and ZModem is superior... but it's possible that if you have a bad ZModem implementation that the YModem-g would result in better throughput. I'd set it up and test it first, then add it if it actually performs better.
--- SBBSecho 2.10-FreeBSD
* Origin: FreeBSD Synchronet - telnet://FreeBSD.synchro.net (1:140/17)

Nothing... and from playing with it a bit, it has a number of biggish issues...
If there's some way of getting touch with the authour, I'd be more than ha to help him fix stuff. But I haven't even been able to verify his existan as
of yet. :-(

well, he exists. i assure you. i'm trying to think of a public domain where
you could reach him. he is rather private.

as for the issues... i hate to burst your bubble, but it is running fairly
well on at least 10 systems that i can think of personally. most of the
issues you have are probably related to tying it in with the board itself a
bit more, and he is addressing those with ntp 2.0.

i will try to find an email address or some way you can contact him.

|07 --haliphax |15//|07rMRS
|02 cotm.dyndns.org
|07 vanguard mods
--- Mystic BBS v1.07.3 (Win32)
* Origin: constipation of the mind :: cotm.dyndns.org (1:2800/18)

Re: Re: Pure DOS TelNet ZMoDem
By: haliphax to Stephen Hurd on Sat Oct 16 2004 13:30:00

as for the issues... i hate to burst your bubble, but it is running fairly well on at least 10 systems that i can think of personally. most of the issues you have are probably related to tying it in with the board itself a bit more, and he is addressing those with ntp 2.0.

They're issues that a BBS programmer and/or a paranoid SysOp (Rare breed these days) not a lay SysOp.

They are most definatley not UNSOLVABLE problems however... which is why I looked to get in contact with him at one point. I was actually looking into the feasability of adding NemTP support into Synchronet internally and adding it to SyncTERM also.

A couple things off the top of my head that I can think of regarding the issues I'm talking about:
1) File scans/repacks/zip message diddling etc... ie: archive processing don't work.
2) Keeping tack of the uploader.
3) Credits systems based on up/downloads... for example, in Synchronet you can configure the credit system to give the original uploader credits anytime a different user downloads the file...

Most of them come from the fact that it's an out of band transfer... having internal NemTP support would allow many of the issues to be addressed.

Basically, this is the same situation that happened when YEnc became popular --- SBBSecho 2.10-FreeBSD
* Origin: FreeBSD Synchronet - telnet://FreeBSD.synchro.net (1:140/17)

Hello Bo,

BS> All transfer protocols is designed for a phone line,
> but it bet it wouldn't make a difference over ip, why
> should it?

Out-of-order packet reception springs to mind.

- Andy Ball

* SLMR 2.1a *
--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5
# Origin: FamilyNet Sponsored by http://www.christian-wellness.net (8:8/2)
* Origin: BBS Networks @ www.bbsnets.com 808-839-6036 (1:10/345)

Hi Stephen,

About "Pure DOS TelNet ZMoDem" of October 13:

I tried telnet://guest.sailor.lib.md.us but there is little hope
since 'nix-like `ZMoDem' flavours are different about the Return
Character via ~TelNet~ protocol, if i'm not mistaking...

The ZModem protocol doesn't use a return character.

I just won't search for the private correspondance i had with Ruurd Beerstra three years ago but i can attempt to put in words what i recall
about it; it's quite regrettable i can't point you at some ~WEB~ hosted records of `FdN_DOS-InterNet' between August and December 2001 though...

Don't ask me to make any sense out of it, i only tried to collect a
few tips to pass on: remember, i'm not the SysOp here! ;-> Well, what
he wrote was about the 'nix origins of his source-code and a natural way
in which it all fell into place... He commented about a difference with
DOS and i believe it was the Return Character. I leave the rest to you,
you must figure out where it fits between ~TelNet~ and `ZMoDem'. Sorry.

If you can't interoperate with an Omen ZModem program, you're doing something wrong... and yes, it's probobly the IAC character.

I interoperate with whatever the authors/SysOps of the time decided
to provided to their DOS BBSers, which is rather limited. `TNPort' does address the ~IAC~ problem, it seems, but yet there's more trouble ahead.

In the good old days of TeleNet (not ~TelNet~), the users were able
to adjust `ZMoDem' (in a similar way as with `Kermit') but most terminal emulators no longer give access to such long forgotten options and hence
the difficulties encountered by DialUp SoftWare using a ~TelNet~ "shim".

Salutations,

Michel Samson
a/s Bicephale


... DOS+TCP/IP+TelNet+Kermit+.QWK technologies will run on XTs or better
--- MultiMail/MS-DOS v0.45 - Numbers make BBSing UNIVERSAL, not sugar...
* Origin: BBS Networks @ www.bbsnets.com 808-839-6036 (1:10/345)

Hi Sean,

About "Pure DOS TelNet ZMoDem" of October 14:

...ZModem is one of the worst protocols to use over telnet because
its timing is designed for POTS, not Internet. However, it was the
most plentiful, so therefore, it proliferated even more.

In the case of `ZMoDem' i call it positive re-inforcement. This is
about the same as `Windows' vs `OS/2', Motorola's 68000 processor series
vs Intel's 8088/8086 family. As i'd have argued before, if BBSers could
access `ZMoDem's options, euh... `Kermit' would be harder to promote!!!

%-)

I don't know about "straight" DOS, but I'd imagine that there might
be speed issues or protocol issues...

I appologize for the lack of precise numbers but `ZMoDem' transfers
rarely reach over, say, 4K cps on selected remote systems while `Kermit' doubles that figure and more (i've seen transfers around 12 Kcps); take
note i use .ZIP file archives to rule out compression for all my testing
and the connection is thru a router feeding on a 128 Kbps ~DSL~ MoDem...

;-)

If `ZMoDem' didn't have it's parameters hard-coded in `{Commo}', it
might have its rate improved but i do use the Escape function already...

I only wish I knew more about protocols... I am pretty proficient
at Pascal, but I'm not as good as some of the people I know.

There are many more ~FOSSIL~ source-code packages available but i'm
one of the very few guys who happen to see advantages in having `Kermit'
and `ZMoDem' side-by-side in a single ~TelNet~-compatible application...

If `Conex's source-code were modified to make it interface directly
with the the packet-driver this shouldn't even involve any file transfer protocol, nonetheless... Instead of depending on ~BIOS INT-14~/~FOSSIL~ support in `TNPort', for example, i'd imagine a version of `Conex' where
my ~TelNet~ session can be redirected through the ~FOSSIL~ port in order
to gate the data stream toward an external file transfer protocol driver
(just like it's done with a BBS system)... `Conex' with Novell ~ODI~ or packet-driver interfacing would give `ZMoDem' a boost, `MS-Kermit' would
make a competitive addition provided that `Conex' behaves like `TNPort'.

`Conex' has a dialing directory which allows easy connection to the
remote systems, the BBSers who `ZMoDem' alone can satisfy would probably appreciate an extra Novell ~ODI~ or `Waterloo TCP' packet-driver option.

;^)

Of course, it's more of a project than to simply add `Kermit' as an external protocol driver - which is why i chose this very modest goal...

Also-are you still wanting me to try to get Kermit running under
my system again? Just wasn't sure if you did or not.

After the feed-back that i finally got from other source this year,
i'm even more convinced than before that my approach helps to avoid some
very concerning problems caused by using the .INI as suggested by Rob...

I asked him to erase all references to me about helping to create a previous version of `Kermit.INI', actually! Should you feel comfortable
with the idea of switching to `MSK.INI, plug it in and i'll continue the work... :) I still want to bring our cooperation to completion but i'm
at a point where Wayne Warthen's `Kermit for Windows' represents quite a serious threat: `Kermit.INI' disables transfer recovery, won't leave me
much time to start my protocol and its parameters make the session hang.
^^^^
Can you please remind me which of `CKOKer16.EXE' or `MS-Kermit.EXE'
works with `Telegard/2' under `OS/2', instead of `CKOKer32.EXE'? It was tempting to replace `C-Kermit v5A(191)' of April 24, 1995 (`CKO191.ZIP')
with something, euh... more recent! The last time i checked this, your `CKermit.INI' configuration-file forced `C-Kermit' to load `CKerMod.INI'
and the later was connecting to ~COM1~!!! Which, i must confess, got me
quite a bit puzzled (since i didn't expect ~TelNet~ using `SIO'/`VMoDem'
to redirect data to ~COM1~). A "Named Pipe" or else was mentioned but i
heard you had urgent matters to cope with so i waited for better news...

:)

As i wrote, i waited for years litterally... A few more days/weeks
won't change my mind much as long as i see hope. I wish you a nice day!

Salutations, ;^)

Michel Samson
a/s Bicephale
http://public.sogetel.net/bicephale/


P.S.: Can i still use `SpiffyTelnet' and, once i switched to BINARY, be
able to D/L using Sailor's `ZMoDem' (which is very special here)?


... I BBS using LEGACY DOS+TCP/IP+TelNet+ZMoDem/Kermit+.QWK technologies
--- MultiMail/XT v0.45 - Let me try a TelNettable BBS with an OLMR door!
* Origin: BBS Networks @ www.bbsnets.com 808-839-6036 (1:10/345)

Hi Mark,

About "Pure DOS TelNet ZMoDem" of October 14:

...are you still wanting me to try to get Kermit running...

...for that matter, i (finally) saw that you had uploaded a private
package to me, a long while back, of kermit stuffs... Are you still wanting to do/try something with it on my OS/2 system, too??

I didn't change my mind about what it's worth if you just could get
it installed (though, i confess i forgot what's in the archive exactly)!

Salutations,

Michel Samson
a/s Bicephale
http://public.sogetel.net/bicephale


... Exploring DOS+TCP/IP+TelNet+ZMoDem/Kermit+.QWK since mid-1996 or so.
--- MultiMail/MS-DOS v0.45 - We could make TelNet OLMR BBSing UNIVERSAL!
* Origin: BBS Networks @ www.bbsnets.com 808-839-6036 (1:10/345)

Hi Nancy,

About "Pure DOS TelNet ZMoDem" of October 14:

It would have been great to read Richard when this was On-Topic and
we had Ruurd Beerstra hanging around...

I think I was asking in there (with help from him) shortly after
Rurrd was there...

If only i could locate records on the ~WEB~, for the period between
August 2001 and January 2002, in this given case! I guess you were. :)

Euh... Sorry to insist over this but i wish to use the opportunity
to remind everyone that, neither of `WildCat!' (Hector Santos) or `BBBS'
(Kim Heino) are, euh... recommended for `Kermit' support, and much less
over ~TelNet~ at that! %-b, Both are ARCHAIC pre-1985 implementations.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Salutations,

Michel Samson
a/s Bicephale
http://public.sogetel.net/bicephale/


... Sometimes, the cost of new features is too high, really! Is it not?
--- MultiMail/MS-DOS v0.45 - Help TelNet OLMR BBSing to become UNIVERSAL
* Origin: BBS Networks @ www.bbsnets.com 808-839-6036 (1:10/345)

Hi Rob,

About "Pure DOS TelNet ZMoDem" of October 15:

Have you setup gkermit on your board? It's pretty simple. http://synchro.net/docs/kermit.txt

You shown how "charitable" you can be at times, lately, so i wonder
if you will agree to remove all mentions relative to me on `SynchroNet's
~WEB~ site - or at least, make them clear enough not to let people think
i actually approved `Kermit.INI'? Should you feel like you're in one of
your good days, euh... it makes more sense to just point at the UpDate:

http://public.sogetel.net/bicephale/MSK.INI

The "Set File Collision OverWrite" line is one mistake i avoided in
order to retain `Kermit's Transfer Recovery ("ReSend") feature, this one
is incompatible with Wayne Warthen's `Kermit for Windows' unless special
care is taken but `ZMoDem' users wouldn't settle for less functionality.

"Set Retry 10", as far as i'm concerned, sure does sound like users
are given some time to launch their protocol but the delay which will be achieved via this option is going to vary with the `Kermit' packet-size.

A few more features have been overlooked in `Kermit.INI. Character Translation which makes it possible to use ~ASCII~ UpLoad for pre-writen
text from a foreign environment isn't available. The Transaction Log as
it stands requires touch-up before anything is done, etc. Well, anyway!

Salutations,

Michel Samson
a/s Bicephale


... DOS+TCP/IP+TelNet+ZMoDem/Kermit+.QWK technologies on 8088s or higher
--- MultiMail/MS-DOS v0.45 - Help TelNet OLMR BBSing to become UNIVERSAL
* Origin: BBS Networks @ www.bbsnets.com 808-839-6036 (1:10/345)

Hello Stephen!

Friday October 15 2004 11:35, you wrote to me:

Not really, it's designed for phone lines too and suffers the
same timing problems as Zmodem.

All transfer protocols is designed for a phone line, but it bet it
wouldn't make a difference over ip, why should it?

Because XModem and YModem both send a block, wait for confirmation,
rinse and repeat... this means that (for XModem) every 128 bytes
requires a round trip to be completed before the next 128 bytes are sent...

Yes but it's doesn't make them more optimized for modems than for telnet.. :) Or does it?

Bo
--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5
* Origin: The Night Express - 45-36959335 - 1200 BPS only (2:236/100)

Re: Pure DOS TelNet ZMoDem
By: MICHEL SAMSON to ROB SWINDELL on Sat Oct 16 2004 04:02 am

About "Pure DOS TelNet ZMoDem" of October 15:

Have you setup gkermit on your board? It's pretty simple. http://synchro.net/docs/kermit.txt

You shown how "charitable" you can be at times, lately, so i wonder
if you will agree to remove all mentions relative to me on `SynchroNet's ~WEB~ site - or at least, make them clear enough not to let people think
i actually approved `Kermit.INI'?

Sure, no problem.

Should you feel like you're in one of
your good days, euh... it makes more sense to just point at the UpDate:

http://public.sogetel.net/bicephale/MSK.INI

Unfortunatley, this .INI file is not a "drop-in" replacment for the kermit.ini I've provided for Synchronet sysops.

The "Set File Collision OverWrite" line is one mistake i avoided in order to retain `Kermit's Transfer Recovery ("ReSend") feature, this one
is incompatible with Wayne Warthen's `Kermit for Windows' unless special care is taken but `ZMoDem' users wouldn't settle for less functionality.

Since Synchronet doesn't allow users to resume uploads, this point is moot. If a file transfer is aborted, the file is deleted and removed from the database. If a file exists in the database, Synchronet does not allow a user to upload the same filename, so no "transfer recovery" is possible.

"Set Retry 10", as far as i'm concerned, sure does sound like users
are given some time to launch their protocol but the delay which will be achieved via this option is going to vary with the `Kermit' packet-size.

This option increased the amount of time MS-Kermit will wait for the first packet from the sender, so it achieve the results I was looking for.

A few more features have been overlooked in `Kermit.INI. Character Translation which makes it possible to use ~ASCII~ UpLoad for pre-writen text from a foreign environment isn't available. The Transaction Log as
it stands requires touch-up before anything is done, etc. Well, anyway!

Perhaps we have different definitions of "ASCII Upload", but my definition is just raw ASCII, terminated by a Ctrl-Z char usually. This has nothing to do with Kermit or any other transfer "protocol".

digital man

Snapple "Real Fact" #45:
Elephants are capable of swimming 20 miles per day.

Hello haliphax!

Friday October 15 2004 13:26, you wrote to me:

windows. besides.. why aren't you guys just using NTP to
begin with?

What's NTP?

Network Time Protocol, used for synchronizing clocks. In some
environment where the clock is essential it's used, like in IP
telephony.

haha.. funny that it parallels what we're talking about, but no. i was referring to the nemesis transfer protocol. i've been buggin the
author for a while to change the name because of this definition
conflict. :)

Aha, I guess the Network Time Protocol is just more common used. :)

Bo
--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5
* Origin: The Night Express - 45-36959335 - 1200 BPS only (2:236/100)

Hello Sean!

Friday October 15 2004 11:50, you wrote to me:

Quoting Bo Simonsen from a message to Sean Dennis <--

All transfer protocols is designed for a phone line, but it bet it
wouldn't make a difference over ip, why should it?

As Mark explained to me, ZModem is using ACKs and that slows it down terribly.

Yes but to maintain constistency you have to, I mean you need to ACK for CRC correctness, but maybe Zmodem is sending acks in other times too, can't rememeber.

I was experimenting with Kermit when I was running Maximus/2 and it
seemed to have the uncanny ability to run wide open with unlimited
packet size. Unfortunately, I have not been able to figure out how to
get Kermit working under Telegard/2.

Doesn't it support external protocols like max?

Bo
--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5
* Origin: The Night Express - 45-36959335 - 1200 BPS only (2:236/100)

Hello Andy!

Saturday October 16 2004 01:37, you wrote to me:

All transfer protocols is designed for a phone line,

but it bet it wouldn't make a difference over ip, why
should it?

Out-of-order packet reception springs to mind.

Hm. Please explain, not familear with that expression.

Bo
--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5
* Origin: The Night Express - 45-36959335 - 1200 BPS only (2:236/100)

Re: Pure DOS TelNet ZMoDem
By: MICHEL SAMSON to STEPHEN HURD on Sat Oct 16 2004 03:02:00

In the good old days of TeleNet (not ~TelNet~), the users were able
to adjust `ZMoDem' (in a similar way as with `Kermit') but most terminal emulators no longer give access to such long forgotten options and hence
the difficulties encountered by DialUp SoftWare using a ~TelNet~ "shim".

If the "telnet shim" properly handles IAC characters (ie: OS/2s VModem, COM/IP) then there will be no problems unless the SysOp is using a buggy/broken ZModem implementation.

If one end or the other does not properly handle IACs, neither ZModem nor a non-escaped (and therefore slow) Kermit will work properly under these conditions. Essentially, ZModem (And Kermit, and XModem, and any other transfer protocol on the planet that may send an ASCII 255 char ie: any 8-bit protocol) will work if one of the following is true:

1) Both ends are broken.
2) Both ends work correctly.

If only one end works correctly, the protocol will fail.
--- SBBSecho 2.10-FreeBSD
* Origin: FreeBSD Synchronet - telnet://FreeBSD.synchro.net (1:140/17)

Re: Pure DOS TelNet ZMoDem
By: Bo Simonsen to Stephen Hurd on Fri Oct 15 2004 23:32:21

Because XModem and YModem both send a block, wait for confirmation, rinse and repeat... this means that (for XModem) every 128 bytes requires a round trip to be completed before the next 128 bytes are sent...

Yes but it's doesn't make them more optimized for modems than for telnet.. : Or does it?

It most definately does... XModem *will not* send the next 128 bytes util the previous 128 bytes have bee nrecieved by the remote system AND the remote system has replied saying it has recieved them. If you pink the other host for example, you get the round trip time...

My round trip time to vert.synchro.net is currently 645.339 ms.
That is the time between EVERY 128 bytes in an XModem transfer... so say I want to transfer a 5k file...
5*1024 = 5120
5120/128 = 40
40 * .645339 = 25.8

This means that 25.8 seconds will pass while my vert is just sitting there waiting for my system to acknoledge the previous 128 bytes... 5k can be transferred by both systems in under 1 second.
--- SBBSecho 2.10-FreeBSD
* Origin: FreeBSD Synchronet - telnet://FreeBSD.synchro.net (1:140/17)

Quoting MICHEL SAMSON from a message to SEAN DENNIS <--

`MS-Kermit.EXE' works with `Telegard/2' under `OS/2', instead of `CKOKer32.EXE'? It was tempting to replace `C-Kermit v5A(191)' of

It's CKOKER16.EXE that should be used, not CKOKER32.EXE, according to some documentation I have. CKOKER32.EXE has a problem (read: bug) in it somewhere that prevents it from working right.

(since i didn't expect ~TelNet~ using `SIO'/`VMoDem' to redirect data
to ~COM1~). A "Named Pipe" or else was mentioned but i heard you had

Under OS/2, using SIO/VMODEM, everything uses comports, no telnet sockets. It's all as if you're using a dialup BBS (which is why Telegard/2 works so well
with it). You don't use any sockets, named pipes, et al. Just good 'ol comports.

I am actually having a harder time getting the configuration of TG/2's protocol
setup rather than getting Kermit to work. For that, we should probably move this over to TG_SUPPORT. :)

Later,
Sean
--- Telegard/2 v3.09.g2-sp4/mL
* Origin: Outpost BBS - outpostbbs.us (1:18/200)

Quoting Bo Simonsen from a message to Sean Dennis <--

Doesn't it support external protocols like max?

Yes, but not at all like Maximus. I am using CEXYZ/2 with it, which runs extremely fast and smooth. I'd set up Kermit just as an experiment. :)

Later,
Sean
--- Telegard/2 v3.09.g2-sp4/mL
* Origin: Outpost BBS - outpostbbs.us (1:18/200)

Hello, Stephen.

16 Oct 04 11:46, you wrote to me:

Send 'em to deuce@bbsdev.net

When trying to deliver your message, the mail server
encountered problems with the following addresses:

For <deuce@bbsdev.net>, Site (bbsdev.net) said: 550 5.1.1 <deuce@bbsdev.net>...
User unknown


Later,
Sean
--- GoldED+/W32 1.1.5-31012
* Origin: Stranded at the Outpost... (1:18/200)

Re: Pure DOS TelNet ZMoDem
By: Sean Dennis to Stephen Hurd on Tue Oct 19 2004 12:02:28

For <deuce@bbsdev.net>, Site (bbsdev.net) said: 550 5.1.1 <deuce@bbsdev.net> User unknown

Argh... stupid... mutter...

Ok, admin@bbsdev.net then :-)
--- SBBSecho 2.10-FreeBSD
* Origin: FreeBSD Synchronet - telnet://FreeBSD.synchro.net (1:140/17)

Quoting Stephen Hurd from a message to Sean Dennis <--

Argh... stupid... mutter...

I'll resend to admin. :)

Later,
Sean

// hausmaus@midnightshour.org | ICQ: 19965647
--- Telegard/2 v3.09.g2-sp4/mL
* Origin: Outpost BBS - outpostbbs.us (1:18/200)

Hello Stephen!

Saturday October 16 2004 20:58, you wrote to me:

Because XModem and YModem both send a block, wait for
confirmation, rinse and repeat... this means that (for XModem)
every 128 bytes requires a round trip to be completed before
the next 128 bytes are sent...

Yes but it's doesn't make them more optimized for modems than for
telnet.. : Or does it?

My round trip time to vert.synchro.net is currently 645.339 ms.
That is the time between EVERY 128 bytes in an XModem transfer... so
say I want to transfer a 5k file... 5*1024 = 5120 5120/128 = 40 40 * .645339 = 25.8

This means that 25.8 seconds will pass while my vert is just sitting
there waiting for my system to acknoledge the previous 128 bytes... 5k
can be transferred by both systems in under 1 second.

Oh yes I see. Thanks for the explaination Stephen. :)

Bo
--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5
* Origin: The Night Express - 45-36959335 - 1200 BPS only (2:236/100)

Hello Sean!

Saturday October 16 2004 23:54, you wrote to me:

Doesn't it support external protocols like max?

Yes, but not at all like Maximus. I am using CEXYZ/2 with it, which
runs extremely fast and smooth. I'd set up Kermit just as an
experiment. :)

Aha. :) I've not played with Kermit for years. :)

Bo
--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5
* Origin: The Night Express - 45-36959335 - 1200 BPS only (2:236/100)