-=> MAURICE KINAL wrote to ANDY ALT <=-

 MK> Hey Andy!

 MK> Sep 05 19:32 04, Andy Alt wrote to Maurice Kinal:

 AA> Maybe one that tunnels file downloads thru ftp, to eliminate zmodem?
 AA> :)
 AA> That would be cool. I could go for that.

 MK> For the internet I would strongly suggest as secure a connection that
 MK> is humanly possible.  The trouble with dealing with users whose IP
 MK> address is subject to change, such as most dialup connections, is that
 MK> it dillutes the protection provided by /etc/hosts.{allow,deny} which
 MK> telnetd can normally use. That same level of protection, and then some,
 MK> can be accomplished with sshd but then requires the client (user) to
 MK> login using ssh.  All things considered sshd would be the way to go if
 MK> any public line is to be used.  On a trusted wired LAN I would
 MK> definetly stick to telnetd but even there the user requires telnet,
 MK> right?  So it looks in either situation the user still might need an
 MK> extra program that they may or may not have.  Oh well!  Can't win them
 MK> all eh? Anyhow I figure any machine connected to the outside world
 MK> ought to have ssh handy anyhow, so I figure the BBS would be doing a
 MK> favour to any user by tweaking them in that direction.

I don't see SSH as being a big issue. For a Windoze user - Putty, for 
instance - is not only free, but around 250K.

But let's talk about, what do BBS'es offer that the Internet doesn't? 
What's the incentive for a person who's been using the Internet for 5 or 
10 years to even look into logging onto a BBS; especially when one of the 
first thing that's asked is "What is your real name" or
"Where are you 
from" and some still ask for a telephone number.

I can hear most people say, "I can message on the Internet, I can play 
games on the Internet; there are more people in the games. Web site-run 
games and messages are more reliable than a BBS, because they are usually 
hosted on ISP's that are up 24/7 and connected to a T3 Line on a UPS 
networked to 10 other clients and servers, not a home computer that's 
subject to power outages and cable companies that have flaky connections 
and go down for an hour or two twice a week."

Most people don't even write to the local message areas on a BBS. There 
are hardly any local boards left that you can dial up. I mean, one of the 
reasons I enjoyed dialing into BBS'es back in the early nineties was that 
I knew I was talking to people in the same calling area. I met a few 
friends that way whom I actually hung out with in "real life."

I personally think a BBS has stuff to offer that the Internet doesn't. I 
think a lot of people would find them interesting if they tried it. I 
think with the release of free BBS software, *that* has gone a long way to 
promote a surge in BBS users and sysops.

I don't even see many sysops trying to promote *other* boards. There is 
the default installation of SBBS that has a menu with outbound telnet to 
other boards, and the ocassional logoff screen that lists a few other 
boards, and the url to the Synchronet BBS List...

Sometimes it reminds me of a high school clique. Again, I am mostly 
ignorant in these matters, I've been in and out of the BBS scene for 
years, so any points I may be mistaken on, feel free to set me straight. 
:)

Why don't ISP's allow hosting for a BBS to run? The telnet security issue? 
Other security issues? A sysop would have to be able to install it, and 
then ssh to make any changes. Would not an ISP be able to set up their 
server so that the security on their entire system could not be 
compromised by allowing a sysop to do this?

I don't see bandwidth as a problem. If the bandwidth limit was exceeded, 
then they charge, just like they would for a web site being hosted.






 
--- MultiMail/Linux v0.46
www.amateurbbs.net (1:14/250)