Fidonet Portal
Greetings All!
Under the first heading of "Fidonet Reference Library" on ftsc.org, I
see numerous FSC's listed. I would be obliged if someone could tell me
if these documents are standards, proposals or what, thanks.
Regards,
Martin
--- OpenXP 5.0.48
* Origin: Bitz-Box - Bradford - UK (2:310/31.3)
Under the first heading of "Fidonet Reference Library" on ftsc.org, I
see numerous FSC's listed. I would be obliged if someone could tell me
if these documents are standards, proposals or what, thanks.
Regards,
Martin
--- OpenXP 5.0.48
* Origin: Bitz-Box - Bradford - UK (2:310/31.3)
From:
August Abolins (1:153/757.2)
To: All
Date: Thu, 07.01.21 11:50
Re: Fidonet Reference Library(FSC's)
To: All
Date: Thu, 07.01.21 11:50
Re: Fidonet Reference Library(FSC's)
> 'In use enough' means a lot more than 2 systems.
Yeah. But "what if" there were at most 3 systems/mailers (and the rest users)
in the world - one for each main zone? ;)
Technically, they could implement all the proposals and that would be their
standard - and as long those things don't break some of the older systems
should a 4th want to come onboard, then who is to say they are not following
standards? ;)
> You and Stas have something unique. There is no reason to not make a
> proposal on how it operates.
That would probably take place far from now. But currently it is just a tosser
project that complies to existing FTN standards. The Telegram "app" is not
modified. But maybe in the future someone could build a version that features
things like taglines, quoting options, etc..
> ..In ASIAN_LINK there is a discussion you are in
> relating to cell phones and SD cards. An example of a 3rd party utility
> following relevant portions of a 'standard' to inter-operate with TELEGRAM,
> would be a case of that if it allowed for use of SIM card storage (or
> pluggin mini-pin external HD?
to store a bigger backlog of messages than
> their own device could handle.
Correct. Better "offline" capability would be interesting. That could break
that advantage of portability though. But right now, the build-in S)earch of
the current app is pretty good - as long as one is still connected online.
> All I really know about TELEGRAM is it works and I have all the same
> moderator controls as expected. Including to remove a user if they prove
> problematic (which none have been). To me, it's a unique OLR type setup.
> Not really different from using Bluewave etc. on the end seen from others.
> Nice job!
Thank for saying that. I am not sure if the developer follows this echo, but
I'll forward your sentiments.
--- SBBSecho 3.12-Linux
* Origin: The Rusty MailBox - Penticton, BC Canada (1:153/757.2)
Yeah. But "what if" there were at most 3 systems/mailers (and the rest users)
in the world - one for each main zone? ;)
Technically, they could implement all the proposals and that would be their
standard - and as long those things don't break some of the older systems
should a 4th want to come onboard, then who is to say they are not following
standards? ;)
> You and Stas have something unique. There is no reason to not make a
> proposal on how it operates.
That would probably take place far from now. But currently it is just a tosser
project that complies to existing FTN standards. The Telegram "app" is not
modified. But maybe in the future someone could build a version that features
things like taglines, quoting options, etc..
> ..In ASIAN_LINK there is a discussion you are in
> relating to cell phones and SD cards. An example of a 3rd party utility
> following relevant portions of a 'standard' to inter-operate with TELEGRAM,
> would be a case of that if it allowed for use of SIM card storage (or
> pluggin mini-pin external HD?
to store a bigger backlog of messages than
> their own device could handle.
Correct. Better "offline" capability would be interesting. That could break
that advantage of portability though. But right now, the build-in S)earch of
the current app is pretty good - as long as one is still connected online.
> All I really know about TELEGRAM is it works and I have all the same
> moderator controls as expected. Including to remove a user if they prove
> problematic (which none have been). To me, it's a unique OLR type setup.
> Not really different from using Bluewave etc. on the end seen from others.
> Nice job!
Thank for saying that. I am not sure if the developer follows this echo, but
I'll forward your sentiments.
--- SBBSecho 3.12-Linux
* Origin: The Rusty MailBox - Penticton, BC Canada (1:153/757.2)
From:
Carol Shenkenberger (1:275/100)
To: All
Date: Sat, 30.01.21 15:00
Re: Fidonet Reference Library(FSC's)
To: All
Date: Sat, 30.01.21 15:00
Re: Fidonet Reference Library(FSC's)
Re: Re: Fidonet Reference Library(FSC's)
By: August Abolins to Carol Shenkenberger on Thu Jan 07 2021 10:50 am
>
> > 'In use enough' means a lot more than 2 systems.
>
> Yeah. But "what if" there were at most 3 systems/mailers (and the rest user
> in the world - one for each main zone? ;)
>
> Technically, they could implement all the proposals and that would be their
> standard - and as long those things don't break some of the older systems
> should a 4th want to come onboard, then who is to say they are not following
> standards? ;)
>
>
> > You and Stas have something unique. There is no reason to not make a
> > proposal on how it operates.
>
> That would probably take place far from now. But currently it is just a toss
> project that complies to existing FTN standards. The Telegram "app" is not
> modified. But maybe in the future someone could build a version that featur
> things like taglines, quoting options, etc..
>
>
> > ..In ASIAN_LINK there is a discussion you are in
> > relating to cell phones and SD cards. An example of a 3rd party utility
> > following relevant portions of a 'standard' to inter-operate with TELEGRA
> > would be a case of that if it allowed for use of SIM card storage (or
> > pluggin mini-pin external HD? to store a bigger backlog of messages than
> > their own device could handle.
>
> Correct. Better "offline" capability would be interesting. That could break
> that advantage of portability though. But right now, the build-in S)earch o
> the current app is pretty good - as long as one is still connected online.
>
>
> > All I really know about TELEGRAM is it works and I have all the same
> > moderator controls as expected. Including to remove a user if they prove
> > problematic (which none have been). To me, it's a unique OLR type setup.
> > Not really different from using Bluewave etc. on the end seen from others
> > Nice job!
>
> Thank for saying that. I am not sure if the developer follows this echo, bu
> I'll forward your sentiments.
I still need to add in your echos. They should be on but not configured.
xxcarol
--- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
* Origin: SHENK'S EXPRESS telnet://shenks.synchro.net (1:275/100)
By: August Abolins to Carol Shenkenberger on Thu Jan 07 2021 10:50 am
>
> > 'In use enough' means a lot more than 2 systems.
>
> Yeah. But "what if" there were at most 3 systems/mailers (and the rest user
> in the world - one for each main zone? ;)
>
> Technically, they could implement all the proposals and that would be their
> standard - and as long those things don't break some of the older systems
> should a 4th want to come onboard, then who is to say they are not following
> standards? ;)
>
>
> > You and Stas have something unique. There is no reason to not make a
> > proposal on how it operates.
>
> That would probably take place far from now. But currently it is just a toss
> project that complies to existing FTN standards. The Telegram "app" is not
> modified. But maybe in the future someone could build a version that featur
> things like taglines, quoting options, etc..
>
>
> > ..In ASIAN_LINK there is a discussion you are in
> > relating to cell phones and SD cards. An example of a 3rd party utility
> > following relevant portions of a 'standard' to inter-operate with TELEGRA
> > would be a case of that if it allowed for use of SIM card storage (or
> > pluggin mini-pin external HD?
to store a bigger backlog of messages than
> > their own device could handle.
>
> Correct. Better "offline" capability would be interesting. That could break
> that advantage of portability though. But right now, the build-in S)earch o
> the current app is pretty good - as long as one is still connected online.
>
>
> > All I really know about TELEGRAM is it works and I have all the same
> > moderator controls as expected. Including to remove a user if they prove
> > problematic (which none have been). To me, it's a unique OLR type setup.
> > Not really different from using Bluewave etc. on the end seen from others
> > Nice job!
>
> Thank for saying that. I am not sure if the developer follows this echo, bu
> I'll forward your sentiments.
I still need to add in your echos. They should be on but not configured.
xxcarol
--- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
* Origin: SHENK'S EXPRESS telnet://shenks.synchro.net (1:275/100)