Sorry for dupes. Completely rewrote sending messages from Fido. Now some messages should not be lost, the bug with cutting off the message by the ampersand symbol has been fixed, the UUdecoding has been corrected, pictures are now sent as pictures, not as a file. Some other bugs were caught and killed by the slipper.


--- tg2fido.pl
* Origin: Telegram to fido gate by Stas Mishchenkov (2:460/58)

Hello Brother!

*** Saturday 12.09.20 at 12:19, Brother Rabbit wrote to All:

Sorry for dupes.

No problem, don't worry about it.

Completely rewrote sending messages from Fido. Now some messages
should not be lost, the bug with cutting off the message by the
ampersand symbol has been fixed, the UUdecoding has been corrected, pictures are now sent as pictures, not as a file. Some other bugs
were caught and killed by the slipper.

Nice, thank you and keep up the good work :)

Regards,
Martin

--- OpenXP 5.0.46
* Origin: Bitz-Box - Bradford - UK (2:310/31.3)

Hi, Martin!

12 ᥭ 20 11:10, Martin Foster -> Brother Rabbit:

Sorry for dupes.

No problem, don't worry about it.

Nowadays, rare repetitions of messages are still possible in the event of system failures, for example, a power outage during packet processing. I think this is better than losing messages like it used to be.

Have nice nights.
Stas Mishchenkov.

--- ÅÑαóδ¼ »α¿º¡á¬«¼ ú½π»«ßΓ¿ ∩ó½∩ÑΓß∩ »«½¡«Ñ «ΓßπΓßΓó¿Ñ ßΓδñá. ç.öαÑ⌐ñ.
* Origin: Lame Users Breeding. Simferopol, Crimea. (2:460/5858)

Hello, Stas Mishchenkov.
On 9/12/20 1:50 PM you wrote:

No problem, don't worry about it.

Nowadays, rare repetitions of messages are still possible in the
event of system failures, for example, a power outage during
packet processing. I think this is better than losing messages
like it used to be.

I have a question. Elsewhere you were talking about the portability of the gateway. If multiple nodes had gateways, wouldn't that increase duplicate messages throughout? As the messages worked their way through the Fido system, any gateways which received them would then send them to Telegram, which could keep the process going ad infinitum?

--
Best regards!
Posted using Hotdoged on Android
--- Hotdoged/2.13.5/Android
* Origin: The Oasis, Houston, Texas, USA (2:240/1120.976)

Hello Charles!

** On Saturday 12.09.20 - 06:50, Charles Pierson wrote to Stas Mishchenkov:

I have a question. Elsewhere you were talking about the
portability of the gateway. If multiple nodes had
gateways, wouldn't that increase duplicate messages
throughout? As the messages worked their way through the
Fido system, any gateways which received them would then
send them to Telegram, which could keep the process going
ad infinitum?

The way I understand it: firstly, if the groups are kept
private super-groups (which they should be), TgM users would
link up by invitation. It is possible that in the future, BBS
X could be hosting a gate bot, and so could BBS Y. But, a
user would only need to pick one for a specific echo. Then,
since all messages get converted into fido format, they would
have unique MSGIDs anyway.


--
../|ug

--- OpenXP 5.0.46
* Origin: The future is not what it used to be. (2:221/1.58)

Hi, Charles!

12 ᥭ 20 06:50, Charles Pierson -> Stas Mishchenkov:

I have a question. Elsewhere you were talking about the portability
of the gateway. If multiple nodes had gateways, wouldn't that
increase duplicate messages throughout? As the messages worked their
way through the Fido system, any gateways which received them would
then send them to Telegram, which could keep the process going ad infinitum?

Also, I have already said that it is not a good idea to gate the same echo conference in Telegram on different nodes. Although, such an avalanche-like duplication can sometimes be avoided.

Have nice nights.
Stas Mishchenkov.

--- æó«í«ñ¡á∩ íáíá ñ«½ª¡á »«¬áºδóáΓ∞ ß¿ß∞¬¿. çá¼πª¡∩∩ ¡Ñ ñ«½ª¡á,¡« Γ«ªÑ ó»αáóÑ
* Origin: Lame Users Breeding. Simferopol, Crimea. (2:460/5858)

Answering a msg from August Abolins:

Hello Charles!

** On Saturday 12.09.20 - 06:50, Charles Pierson wrote to Stas Mishchenkov:

I have a question. Elsewhere you were talking about the
portability of the gateway. If multiple nodes had
gateways, wouldn't that increase duplicate messages
throughout? As the messages worked their way through the
Fido system, any gateways which received them would then
send them to Telegram, which could keep the process going
ad infinitum?

The way I understand it: firstly, if the groups are kept
private super-groups (which they should be), TgM users would
link up by invitation. It is possible that in the future, BBS
X could be hosting a gate bot, and so could BBS Y. But, a
user would only need to pick one for a specific echo. Then,
since all messages get converted into fido format, they would
have unique MSGIDs anyway.

--
../|ug

This can become a problem when the same messages from Fido will appear in the same Telegram group, gated on different nodes with different msgid.


--- tg2fido.pl
* Origin: Telegram to fido gate by Stas Mishchenkov (2:460/58)

Hello Brother!

** On Saturday 12.09.20 - 16:18, Brother Rabbit wrote to August Abolins:

This can become a problem when the same messages from
Fido will appear in the same Telegram group, gated on
different nodes with different msgid.

OK. I see the problem that you cite with the same FTN message
ending up at different pre-Telegram gates and then getting
delivered to the same Telegram group.

But that problem is solved if the group owner allows only one
bot to do the gating.

However, I see the advantages of having a single source group,
and multiple gate-bots as members.

Yeah.. how do you avoid letting through the same message being
shared around on the FTN side and ultimately being fed into
Telegram by different gate-bots? It's almost like your gate-
bot needs to share a database of msgids inorder to block the
ones that any ONE of the other bots have already processed.


--
../|ug

--- OpenXP 5.0.46
* Origin: The future is not what it used to be. (2:221/1.58)

Answering a msg from August Abolins:

Hello Brother!

** On Saturday 12.09.20 - 16:18, Brother Rabbit wrote to August Abolins:

This can become a problem when the same messages from
Fido will appear in the same Telegram group, gated on
different nodes with different msgid.

OK. I see the problem that you cite with the same FTN message
ending up at different pre-Telegram gates and then getting
delivered to the same Telegram group.

But that problem is solved if the group owner allows only one
bot to do the gating.

However, I see the advantages of having a single source group,
and multiple gate-bots as members.

Yeah.. how do you avoid letting through the same message being
shared around on the FTN side and ultimately being fed into
Telegram by different gate-bots? It's almost like your gate-
bot needs to share a database of msgids inorder to block the
ones that any ONE of the other bots have already processed.

--
../|ug

Once I finish everything that has already been started, I will start experimenting with two bots in the same group. I have everything ready for this.


--- tg2fido.pl
* Origin: Telegram to fido gate by Stas Mishchenkov (2:460/58)