Hi James,

     About "Telnet" of March 12:

JK> I'm moving my BBS from dial-up to DSL...  ...I've tried several
JK> transfer protocols...  I've been looking for a program called COM\IP
JK> but it isn't sold or supported anymore and it doesn't look like I'm
JK> going to have any luck finding it.
MR> Are you using FDSZ rather than DSZ?
DP> Run it in dosemu on linux?

     The ~FOSSIL~-related interface issue sounds like deja vu but i'm no
SysOp and, since you were about `ZMoDem', i thought it was somewhat more
appropriate for me not to intervein - until `COM/IP' got mentioned, that
is.  ;^)  Now, i'm no longer silent so please allow me to repeat one old
warning for you:  first of all, before i begin, keep in mind that `FDSZ'
still happens to be a -= PROTOTYPE =- and that its "e" flag is about all
the control you get should you have to deal with failures over ~TelNet~!

                                  8-b,

     Why, after decades of BBSing, is this still on topic?  My theory is
that it seems our BBS community just failed to address the file transfer
problem adequately in times when some SysOps and their Power Users began
to move toward Windows/INet and the rest of us could stand aside if that
worked for the lucky few.  :(  My opinion is that the Authors and SysOps
simply couldn't foresee the upcoming need for the Padding Controls which
came with `ZMoDem' when it was inherited from some ~ISP~ ancestors (like
CompuServe in the DialUp BBSing era);  if i figured it all properly, the
"e" switch is a remnant dating back to when CompuServe and such ruled...

     I'd also like to remind the SysOps (and users) that it doesn't help
much to run the "fastest" ~FOSSIL~-compatible external `ZMoDem' protocol
driver if it's bound to cause speed drops because of retries & hangs (in
some severe cases i even observed aborted sessions and file corruption)!

                                  %-o

     Where's it leading me?  We jumped in the `ZMoDem' wagon when it was
brand new, we closed the door behind us to taste its fragrance even more
and now most people who tasted enough of it finally embraced the upgrade
wave, leaving newbies discouraged as none of those who could help stayed
with them.  Now it's the whole community that stands aside, gradually...

                                   :(

     What's my solution?  Well, if `ZMoDem' can't or won't be fixed once
and for all then perhaps it's time to switch to something else (`Kermit'
for example) but my bet is that ~TelNet~ BBSing may as well die instead!

     Don't get me wrong, i'm no demolition expert preaching in hope that
`Kermit' takes over so...  "Peace man"!  ;-)  And now, about `COM/IP'...

                                  8-)

     Here's the information i've gathered concerning Tactical Software's
`COM/IP'.  If you found my introduction lenghty then this might help you
move forward (reading the post, i mean!)...  First, chronology and size:

          COMIP240.EXE, 2001, October 15, 12h09, 1184645 Bytes
          COMIP302.EXE, 2002, September 20, 3h02, 1635373 Bytes
          COMIP310.EXE, 2003, May 1st, 3h10, 1427013 Bytes
          COMIP311.EXE, 2003, August 5, 11h31, 1428781 Bytes
          COMIP400.EXE, 2003, October 8, 4h00, 2602273 Bytes

     Quite evidently, i'm mising many but i couldn't locate the archives
for these versions on the InterNet:  v1.2.2, v2.2.3, v3.0, v3.01, v3.04,
v3.041, v4.01, v4.03, v4.1, v4.2, v4.2.2, v4.3, v4.3.2...  Most `COM/IP'
SECOND-HAND PACKINGS (from outside Tactical Software's site) are .ZIP or
.RAR archives which themselves contain an auto-extractible with its date
stamp modified in the same way the .ZIP or .RAR archives are, typically.

     In any case, two of these should retain your attention if you still
intend to evaluate `COM/IP' and these are v2.4 and v3.02 because the 1st
has its Serial Number published everywhere (in a Google search you would
add "serial number" to "comip" for example), while
v3.02 can provide you
with the "INT14 Support" option.  :)  Unless the 30 days trial option is
sufficient or you've got time to spare i'd simply forget about v3.1x and
later...  Of course, it's better to contact the owner$ if money is not a
concern but then you have to know that `COM/IP' is LICENSED PER COMPUTER
and EACH MACHINE on a ~LAN~ has got to use ITS OWN Serial Number - which
is especially true of v4.x!  There ARE old archives around, nonetheless:

 -->      http://www.dwp.nm.ru/soft/comip240.zip (No Serial-Number)
 -->      http://pq.ozersk.ru/ftp/fechos/any_os/ftn/misc/comip302.zip

     If you must, i'd suggest you install the "INT14 Support" feature of
v3.02 1st (and take care to use a SEPARATE directory for it while you're
at it because it can work ALONE and requires NO REGISTRATION)...  Select
"INT14 Support" (requires only 597 Kb of space) after
"COM/IP" and "HTML
Documentation" have been deselected;  \Program Files\INT14 Support might
sound right as you browse...  When done, complete the install with v2.4,
"COM/IP" needs 2151 Kb of space and "HTML
Documentation" 629 Kb.  If you
verify in control panel, "DOS / INT14 Configuration Utility" shows up as
v3.0 so if you insist for the latest then go there - but this is a BETA:
                                                                   ~~~~
          http://pcmicro.com/INT14/DOSINT14-310b1.exe
 -->       (BUGGY "INT14 Support" installer, 440 Kb, 2003-May-1)
            ^^^^^
     I would have liked to list the eight major bugs corrected before v4
which are present in v2.4 but my post has come to its end so, good luck!

                                    Salutations,  ;^)

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


... *LEGACY* Technology used:  DOS+Packet_Driver+`RLFossil'+`MS-Kermit'.
___ MultiMail/XT v0.45 - Will TelNet OLMR BBSing ever be made UNIVERSAL?

--- Maximus/2 3.01