Wednesday August 29 2007 01:31, you wrote to me:

 NV>> Almost every ftn software I knew support jam. Not all. But it
 NV>> quite widespreaded.
 MK> And how much of that software is in use today

I don't know about software that isn't in use. I'm not historian :)

 MK>  and how much of that is native Linux?

All using smapi + golded for sure. I don't know many linux ftn users
anyway. Mostly they are on some version of windows (or write through
gates).

 MK>>>  Undocumented?
 NV>> Why do you think so? It's perfectly documented. Way better than
 NV>> many other.
 MK> Where and by what?

Filename....: JAM-001
Rev.........: 001
Dated.......: 93-07-01
Status .....: Released
Subject.....: JAM message base proposal
Author......: Joaquim Homrighausen
Co-Authors..: Andrew Milner, Mats Birch, Mats Wallin

 NV>> What's the point of direct use? :) To spend someone's time?
 MK> If no user can read/write the format it is highly unlikely it will
 MK> ever get used.  No?

Yes! Yes! Sure! But what it does with direct usage? :) Don't tell me that
you really think that anything but plain text is highly unlikely ever be
used. :) I don't buy it.

 NV>> have more interesting things to do than to rewrite existing and
 NV>> working code.
 MK> Where is this working code and how many are using it?  Anyone beyond a
 MK> few sysops?

I think that currently jam is on par with squish or slightly less used, and
these two are most used types of messagebases.

 MK>   Any of those sysops on a pure Linux box?

"pure Linux box" is something beyond my knowledge.

 NV>> To allow people access via nntp? To use nntp software for some
 NV>> reason? I know people who prefer their favorite newsreaders to
 NV>> golded. It's a matter of taste.
 MK> And how does that help potential Fido users exactly?

It helps anyone who prefers nntp, will it be due to technical reasons or
matter of taste. I don't know anything in particular about potential Fido
users. How? Strange question. It allows access. That's quite enough to use
it. :) Today in several alive and populated echoareas that I read a
significant amount (if not majority) of users write through various gates.
Mind, that doesn't mean that some ftn formats are "obsolete",
that means that ftn itself, as a whole, is obsolete. And the reasons for
that aren't pure technological (in terms of protocols and formats). It is
mostly software UI that puts ftn in such unfavourable situation. People
these days don't like console much :)

    WBR, Nick

np: 2004. Ilkae / Stained Glass Pinata->[14] the pomegranate of vice
--- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20060703