Hello Roy.

07 Apr 04 04:07, you wrote to me:

 RJT>> Rather than mess with that at all,  if I had something
 RJT>> that would work with bink (which I understand compiles
 RJT>> okay under linux),  used squish bases,  let me stick
 RJT>> with a familiar editor like TimED,  and *looked* like
 RJT>> Max to the callers that'd be good enough for me.  If
 RJT>> it'd use some or all of the existing ctl files so much
 RJT>> the better.

 BS>> Mess?! It works...

 RT> Does it?  I've been watching the discussion in here for quite some
 RT> time,  ever since this echo pretty much died and then came back to
 RT> life again when the source to Maximus was finally released.

Well I did work on Max the whole January month, and I did fix MEX and other
stuff, and the thing seems to work, I did successfully call my BBS by ISDN
(Modem or ISDN doesn't matter).

The only thing I'm not sure of is how to get Binkley working with MAX, I
did try to use "BBS Exit", but the modem hangoff. So it should
use BBS Spawn, but I can't test it by a NULL-modem cable, binkley is doing
mistery things.

 RT> My
 RT> immediately accessible archives go back at least four years and some
 RT> months,  but I've been in here a lot longer than that.

 RT> I've seen problems mentioned,  and have seen some of the resolutions
 RT> to them posted,  but by no means all.

What problems, I would like if you could be a bit concrete.

 BS>> I don't see you problem, in what way shouldn't max work properly
 BS>> under UNIX. Modem is tested and it works well. (I did
 BS>> successfully do transfering and so on by a NULL-modem cable).

 RT> Yes?  Will I be able to use it under binkley as I'm doing now under
 RT> dos/desqview?  And perhaps use TimED or some sort of a workalike to
 RT> get at those message bases?

There is a bit of a problem there, In theory it should work, I'm just
missing the right configuration parameter for binkley.

But it doesn't seems like any of the Binkleyterm maintainers is here anymore. :(

 BS>> Sorry Roy, but it seems like you haven't tried it for the last
 BS>> half of a year.

 RT> I know one thing for sure,  there are posts that are out there in
 RT> echos that I carry that don't make it here.  I guess you can't expect
 RT> perfection in fidonet, it bein an amateur network and all,  but my
 RT> understanding of the situation was that things weren't finished yet.

Aha, but I need some concrete problems...

 RT> If this is indeed not the case,  and I don't have to worry about such
 RT> silly stuff as paths embedded in the code,  the cases of filenames,
 RT> and some of the other things I've seen mentioned in here then by all
 RT> means pass me a URL and I'll snag a copy and have a go at it.

Now we are being concrete, the cases of filenames is fixed in QWK where
it's needed too, I couldn't find any other problems.

 RT> I have a particular reason for strongly wanting to have this work,
 RT> too,  *if* it will work for me to replace my current setup.  I'm
 RT> currently one of only three active systems in NET270.  Both of the
 RT> other guys are long distance from me and from each other.

Yes I see, but Squish has been stable for a year or so.

 RT> I'm also LD
 RT> from any possible feed,  so it's costing people money to move this
 RT> echomail to and from my system.  Admittedly not anywhere near as much
 RT> as it did when fidonet was much bigger,  but still a situation I'd
 RT> like to do away with.

I understand. I'm a leafnode so I can do what I want.

 RT> And there are a few more bits that I need to make the transition,  as
 RT> well...

You might be missing third party tools yes..

Bo

--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-31012