Hello. I thought about starting a topic regarding the fact of, when
you prefer to message into local boards or a network such as this one.
I think that one of the best things regarding the BBS are their local boards, because I tend to call often a board that offers a good
message base on these, with interesting messages and conversations.
SoDa7 wrote to All <=-
Even though, the network boards also offer interesting conversations, however these generate a bit of conflict imo - like, when do you think it's best to message on a local board, and when instead do you prefer
to send your message to a network, like in this case.
I'm sending this from 2oFB, which is one of the best BBS around, rich
of features such as a very extensive file base as well as their local boards, and some other local boards I like are the ones of ABSINTHE and Wizard's Castle (which offer some great door games aswell).
I think that one of the best things regarding the BBS are their local boards, because I tend to call often a board that offers a good message base on these, with interesting messages and conversations.
Hello. I thought about starting a topic regarding the fact of, when you pre to message into local boards or a network such as this one.
I think that one of the best things regarding the BBS are their local board because I tend to call often a board that offers a good message base on the with interesting messages and conversations.
features such as a very extensive file base as well as their local boards, some other local boards I like are the ones of ABSINTHE and Wizard's Castle (which offer some great door games aswell).
What are your thoughts about this?
telnet://bbs.roonsbbs.hu:1212 <<=-
here in hungary local message bases were never a thing, everything was networked. mostly fidonet but there were also some small friendly
Re: Local vs Network message boards
By: Roon to SoDa7 on Fri May 03 2024 09:12 pm
here in hungary local message bases were never a thing,
everything was networked. mostly fidonet but there were also some
small friendly
BBSes often had a local community of users though (at least in places
where local phone calls were free or inexpensive). Was local BBS
usage not really high enough where local messagebases would be used?
telnet://bbs.roonsbbs.hu:1212 <<=-
BBSes often had a local community of users though (at least in places
where local phone calls were free or inexpensive). Was local BBS usage
not really high enough where local messagebases would be used?
it was high but mostly for leeching files, not too many bothered with blue wave, they quickly switched to be a point. door games also wasn't so popular because of the costs.
Hello. I thought about starting a topic regarding the fact of, when you prefer to message into local boards or a network such as this one.
Even though, the network boards also offer interesting conversations, however these generate a bit of conflict imo - like, when do you think it's best to message on a local board, and when instead do you prefer to send your message to a network, like in this case?
Part of the issue here is that none of my users are
"local" to me any more. Back in the day, they were mostly
all local and the local boards would contain a lot of chat
about what was going on in the local area... upcoming
events, local news, etc. Now, what is local (in those
terms) to one of my users will not be local to *any* of
the others.
I do still get a few users who mention wanting a "local"
crowd to interact with. I fear they are dissappointed.
I think that one of the best things regarding the BBS
are their local boards, because I tend to call often a
board that offers a good message base on these, with
interesting messages and conversations.
Interesting that you specifically mention BlueWave.. BlueWave wasn't
the only way to read mail. But if even local phone calls cost money,
then I could see why people would often use an offline mail reader.
Even then, I thought there were other offline mail readers besides
BlueWave.
Maybe establish a board that is specific to "Frankfort USA or
the Greater Frankfort Area" ?
Nightfox wrote to Roon <=-
Interesting that you specifically mention BlueWave.. BlueWave wasn't
the only way to read mail. But if even local phone calls cost money,
then I could see why people would often use an offline mail reader.
Even then, I thought there were other offline mail readers besides BlueWave.
I never understood the allure of SLMR, but some people swore by it.
I never understood the allure of SLMR, but some people swore by
I've never used it, and to each their own. However, any message reader/editor that truncates the message subject is a no-go for me.
It truncates it now. Back then, most of the BBSes I used it with only allowed subjects of 24-30 characters even when you were posting directly on the boards. I only remember seeing BBSes that allowed longer after it became popular for BBSes to carry Usenet, which allowed subjects long enough for a poster to include their whole message in them. ;)
I would rather use multimail over slmr.
There likely would have been QWK then, with readers like SLMR. That
said, some BBS software only supported QWK while others may have only supported Blue Wave.
Quoting poindexter FORTRAN to Nightfox <=-
I never understood the allure of SLMR, but some people swore by it.
Either way, I don't remember MultiMail truncating a message subject recently, but I could be wrong. I have only seen it done by SLMR in
the recent past.
I remember BlueWave arriving here first, followed by QWK all door implementations. Later by QWK being written into most software that
still had
development. After that BW kinda disappeared.
This post got me thinking, though, so I fired up MM on a QWK packet. It truncates the subjects to ~24 on replies also. I wonder if that is a *QWK* standard and all QWK readers do it when processing QWK packages?
In BW packet mode, I do believe that MM allows for more, but it has been
a while since I have needed to read BW packets so my memory may be faulty here.
used Silver Xpress (reader and format) but the author of
that made me insane and it's horribly broken with y2k
issues anyway.
Tiny wrote to poindexter FORTRAN <=-
I always prefered Bluewave both format and reader. Still use it today.
:) I did go through a period of time where I used Silver Xpress (reader and format) but the author of that made me insane and it's horribly
broken with y2k issues anyway.
Utopian Galt wrote to Blue White <=-
And I tried to call my former bbs users to come back and it was even a tough sell in 1996.
I never understood the allure of SLMR, but some people swore by it.
I always prefered Bluewave both format and reader. Still use it today. :) I did go through a period of time where I used Silver Xpress (reader and format) but the author of that made me insane and it's horribly broken
with y2k issues anyway.
This post got me thinking, though, so I fired up MM on a QWK packet. It truncates the subjects to ~24 on replies also. I wonder if that is a *QWK* standard and all QWK readers do it when processing QWK packages?
I am friends with quite a few of my callers from the '90s. When I restarted the BBS as a telnettable BBS in the early 2000s, I invited
them back, and one or two of them called but never called back.
I didn't get that memo, apparently. Here I am, still reading my BBS echomail in the morning with a cup of coffee, as I've done most mornings since I started the BBS in 1991.
:) Much nicer then FB and some of the others. However, I use Discord and Reddit all the time.
Quoting Poindexter Fortran to Tiny <=-
Yeah, I never used Silver Express - Hector Santos' idea of customer service in public forums rubbed me the wrong way.
I had a couple of callers rave about Wave Rider, a BlueWave-compatible
GUI bluewave reader. To me, reading BBS messages needed to be in a
black console screen. GUI windows and proportional fonts didn't seem right.
tenser wrote to Dr. What <=-
EDS had a policy of effectively taking any outside work you do and "owning" it. I don't think it would ever hold up in court, but they
could make it difficult for you.
That's still pretty much par for the course for most
software companies in most places in the US. I believe
that California now has some protections in place, but
most have an IP ownership clause.
Never looked ar reddit, couldn't be fagged with more accounts when it arrived. I got to ask though, what do you do with discord? I have an account, but the only thing I've ever used it for is to talk to #1 son.
No idea what else you can do with it really.
used Silver Xpress (reader and format) but the author of
that made me insane and it's horribly broken with y2k
issues anyway.
Ah.. Hector! Yes.. he seemed angry and bitter most of the
time.
LOL, "angry and bitter" could describe a lot of folks that work in IT. :D
"That's my secret, Cap - I'm always Bitter and Angry"
<goes to re-image the PC for the dork in Accounting who deleted his system32 directory to make space for MP3s...>
It's around because it's the easiest to get and easiest to use. It's strange to see things come and go. Skype was big before Discord,
then one day nobody was uising Skype anymore.
<goes to re-image the PC for the dork in Accounting who deleted his system32 directory to make space for MP3s...>
People *did* that? :/
<goes to re-image the PC for the dork in Accounting who deleted his
system32 directory to make space for MP3s...>
People *did* that? :/
Discord started as another piece of software for commuinicating with people who played games, but it's best to describe it as an odd amalgamation of IRC, and AIM. It's veristle and does whatever you want
to use it for. It can be a benefit or a , honestly. It's around because it's the easiest to get and easiest to use. It's strange to see things come and go. Skype was big before Discord, then one day nobody
was uising Skype anymore.
Used to use skype before it got swallowed by Micro$loth... it all went to shite after that. Had never really figured Discord out though.. or how you'd find anything to look at over there.
I miss IRC and ICQ. :D
I miss ICQ too. I first started to use ICQ in late 1995 or 1996, and
back then, I liked that it had a little form you could fill out with some information about yourself and it could find a random person for you to chat with. I made some friends online that way.. And I also miss Yahoo Messenger and MSN Messenger - I had many of my in-person friends and people I had met on those. I thought they were a very convenient way to keep in touch with people.
Nightfox wrote to niter3 <=-
I miss ICQ too. I first started to use ICQ in late 1995 or 1996, and
back then, I liked that it had a little form you could fill out with
some information about yourself and it could find a random person for
you to chat with. I made some friends online that way.. And I also
miss Yahoo Messenger and MSN Messenger - I had many of my in-person friends and people I had met on those. I thought they were a very convenient way to keep in touch with people.
TRILLIAN.
It's a multi-platform chat program, handled all of the commercial platforms, Jabber, oddball platforms like SILC, and even IRC. Loved having that open on my desktop, wondered what the infosec people thought when they saw all of the outbound ports.
I miss IRC and ICQ. :D
I miss IRC and ICQ. :D
i still use IRC! :D
i still use IRC! :D
i still use IRC! :D
You find there is much activity ?
You find there is much activity ?
Utopian Galt wrote to Mary4 <=-
I also wished I still had my old icq number
i still use IRC! :D
You find there is much activity ?
Arelor wrote to niter3 <=-
I find the best IRC networks are the ones operated by a small group of people for friends and family. --
Hello Blue,
On Sun, 5 May 2024 13:07:18 -0500, you wrote:
This post got me thinking, though, so I fired up MM on a QWK packet.
It truncates the subjects to ~24 on replies also. I wonder if that is a *QWK* standard and all QWK readers do it when processing QWK packages?
That's definitely possible. I haven't kept up with (or even looked at) QWK standards. But even taking a look at Synchronet's wiki about QWK it does seem to show the length of 25 bytes (with the last byte reserved for an ascii 32 character = 24 bytes). So good call on that, as that would explain it.
This post got me thinking, though, so I fired up MM on a QWK packet.
It truncates the subjects to ~24 on replies also. I wonder if that is a *QWK* standard and all QWK readers do it when processing QWK packages?
You are correct - 24 characters is the limit for subject lines in QWK packets.
The specs are a 25-byte ASCII string for the subject line - the last character must be NULL, so 24 printable characters. http://wiki.synchro.net/ref:qwk
I assume the above site is considered a reputable source. ;)
I don't know the history behind it, whether the limit was arbitrarily chosen for QWK packets or if it was a pre-existing limit enforced by some BBS software.
The specs are a 25-byte ASCII string for the subject line - the last character must be NULL, so 24 printable characters. http://wiki.synchro.net/ref:qwk
I assume the above site is considered a reputable source. ;)
It is. :-) But you're misreading it: there's no subject
string termination needed (space or NULL), so the full
25 characters can be used in a standard/original QWK
message. QWKE extends the subject lengths beyond 25
chars.
Sysop: | digital man |
---|---|
Location: | Riverside County, California |
Users: | 1,042 |
Nodes: | 16 (1 / 15) |
Uptime: | 02:20:09 |
Calls: | 500,920 |
Calls today: | 7 |
Files: | 109,372 |
D/L today: |
18,131 files (2,709M bytes) |
Messages: | 305,082 |
Posted today: | 7 |