Hey Janis!

You may have noticed that I've moved this discussion to here.  Offhand I am
guessing it is a good idea.

> I did some testing here and it did work for bluewave archived
> packets.

> First I had to set my GF (grab format) to BlueWave in the
> Utilitey menu

I saw that and at one session did change it but changed it back to text
after since I couldn't find the grab via ftp.  However ...

> zip file was in my telnet program download directory when I
> exited.

> down/testgrab.su5

Errrrr ... where is that wrt the chroot jailed directory?  Also the text
archive doesn't seem to require a telnet login and can be tweaked into
action with either a wget or ftp login given a username and password which
makes it perfect for scripting into a client.

The only outstanding problem is the uploaded reply's expected filename and format.

However I am willing to try the more traditional method of offlining as
long as it doesn't require zmodem.  In that case I am going to have to know
where to upload to and if an ftp session cannot work without telnetting
then I cannot see how any of this will be of any consequence.

For my part I'd rather leave the faking it to the DOS-think people and
totally get rid of anything other than 8 bit characters in the headers,
etc. and then use transfers that are less hoggy resourse-wise than faking
out a serial connection - especially nonstandardized ones - on a tcpip
connection.  We both know this is doable since we've done it this way in
the past.  In that case it was Fido formats but the actual transfers of
those pkt's was ftp.  That worked better, no doubt about it, and I was
tranferring raw Fido compliant pkt's.  I still have the scripts here that
generated those but personally would much rather to ditch the headers for
ones that stuck to purely 8 bit characters and strings (<- null
terminated) not unlike what I see in the BBS's echo bases. Far more
standardization there with REAL standards as opposed to FTN so-called
standards that aren't standards and never were.  The whole argument about
backwards compatibilty is a joke at best.

Like I've been saying all along, I am in no rush about any of this, and if
I am just here to repeat past mistakes then I'll stick to the way I am
doing this now.  Seems to work excellent all things considered and doesn't
require ANY DOS-think to be compatible across the board. No faking either. 
:-)

Life is good,
Maurice

--- BBBS/LiI v4.01 Flag