Hi Rob,                         [Also posted in `FdN_SynchroNet SysOps']

     About "SBBS/W32 Kermit SABOTAGE" of October 13:

MS> ...`Kermit' is *NOT* ready on `SynchroNet'!
RS> Doesn't this contradict your message...

     I don't see a contradiction there at all but i'm not surprized that
you fail to notice the difference between the two methods, other than to
comment about mine being larger i see no echo coming from you relatively
to what really matters!  Now, about stating that `MSK.INI' is supposedly
working with `SBBS/W32', euh...  Pardon me!  This isn't my own saying as
i never had feed-back which clearly indicated that a SysOp ever cared to
have `MSK.INI' installed the way it was meant to be.  I wouldn't pretend
i can provide to your SysOps a FULLY TESTED "Ready-Made" kit off the top
of my head simply by giving it some thoughts on a quiet summer night (as
you have)...  Even if i keep repeating myself again and again, you won't
accept that THIS IS WORK IN PROGRESS and much less that `MSK.INI' is the
version which came AFTER your PROTOTYPE (it's not the other way around)!
                              ^^^^^^^^^
     No confusion here and, if you wish to make comments about what this
is worth, i'm afraid you'll need to give it a try and let me test it but
i don't see that happen!!!  I've tried `Kermit.INI' AS A USER and two of
your fellows AS SYSOPS, it's clear you have nothing to brag around since
`Kermit.INI' failed the PRELIMINARY PHASE of field-testing!  Be serious,
it was published right after you got the 1st `Kermit' transfers going...

     I warned you against OBSERVED failures!  Now, i warn the rest of us
against using `Kermit.INI' as found on the `SynchroNet' ~WEB~ site.  The
testing period *ISN'T* effectively over, as far as i'm concerned.  Those
SysOps who tried your setup so far all seemed to face trouble and that's
enough reason for me to declare it unfit for BBSing use.  Have your work
completed and when that's done we'll see.  When i'm satisfied with it, i
may care enough to seek the help of a 3rd-party to reproduce your setup.

                                  ;->

     Now, i'll wait patiently in hope that you have any On-Topic comment
to contribute with in the present echo but let me tell you right on that
i don't appreciate the lack of relevency in this particular case.  On my
worst days i always try to express at least one idea or two that i might
be able to connect with an area's topic...  The feed-back i get from you
doesn't open any doors so i believe all you're doing is to expect a more
favourable audience - since it's well know there are DOS bashers lurking
around and i happen to promote *UNIVERSALITY* by *INCLUDING* DOS BBSers.

     If you can't even mention `C-Kermit' then i suggest we move this to
a proper echo;  `Fido Util' will do just fine, if you want my opinion!!!

     `MSK.INI' is self-explanatory enough and it's there for all to see:

          http://fidonet.sensationcontent.com/echomail/searchlight/

     There's no doubt in my mind that `Kermit' is the ultimate solution.

     "SL/Valence Kermit SetUp" of October 10, 2004 was the last effort i
made this week to promote UNIVERSAL BBSing thru `Kermit' support...  You
probably will fullfil your role of SABOTEUR out there as well, no?!  %-o

     Still relatively to `SBBS' file transfer problems but regarding the
`ZMoDem' protocol, this time...  I've heard `SBBS' is failing to observe
~RFC~s #855 and #884, by the way!  Perhaps you should try to deal with a
task which really concerns you and let me handle `Kermit' installations:
it's the sort of cooperation i asked for when i made contact, after all.

                                                           Salutations,

                                                           Michel Samson
                                                           a/s Bicephale


... I can BBS using *LEGACY* DOS+TCP/IP+TelNet+ZMoDem+.QWK technologies.
--- MultiMail/MS-DOS v0.45 - Yes, TelNet OLMR BBSing COULD be UNIVERSAL!
 
--- MultiMail/MS-DOS v0.45