Re: Re^2: Directly include binary data in messages
By: Tim Schattkowsky to Rob Swindell on Tue Feb 22 2022 09:55 pm
> //Hello Rob,//
> on *22.02.22* at *19:22:28* You wrote in Area *FTSC_PUBLIC*
> to *Anna Christina Nass* about *"Re: Directly include binary data in
> messages"*.
> RS> Pretty trivial. In fact, any echomail program that supports multiple
> RS> packet formats (e.g. SBBSecho supports packet types 2.0, 2+, 2e, and
> RS> 2.2) can be used as a gateway between old and even older technology
> RS> systems. :-)
> IMHO this is lacking the total system perspective. There are open questions
> at that level. How is the sending system supposed to know what packet format
> a receiver expects?
In SBBSecho, each link can be configured with a preferred packet format. Of
course, that only works for explicitly-configured links. Otherwise, it just
defaults to stone-age type 2 packet generation.
> This could be done in a lot of ways:
> - explicit configuration
> - nodelist flags
> - dynamically during the mail session (i.e., the mailer eventually triggers
> the final packet format in some way depending on session handshake
> information)
> - ...
> The most important question for me is still, WHY is there any need for a new
> packet format? Other than the lack of zone (or even 5D) information, what are
> the points?
<shrug> I'm not saying there is a need. I can theorize packet and
packed-message header improvements all day long, but I don't know if that means
there's a factual "need".
--
digital man (rob)
Sling Blade quote #19:
Doyle: I can't so much as drink a damn glass of water around a midget
Norco, CA WX: 53.5°F, 66.0% humidity, 5 mph SSE wind, 0.00 inches rain/24hrs ---
SBBSecho 3.14-Linux
* Origin: Vertrauen - [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net (1:103/705)
|
