[nos-bbs] B2F (compression) success !!!

[Bill Vodall WA7NWP]

>  > NOS has always had the ability to deliver it's own mail.  It does
>  > not have to pass it to a central server.
>
>  Excellent observation, Maiko!  I have been asking myself this
>  question for over a year now:  Given that this is the case, then
>  what is all the hysteria about over Airmail?  Is this all because
>  the ARRL has decided that this is what packet hams will use, and
>  they *will* like it?
>
>  Now Bill, don't get upset.  This is just simply an observation from
>  somebody who has heretofore stayed completely out of the Airmail
>  "debate".

I agree completely..   There is a bit of confusion in terms here...

---
Airmail is an incredible "program" that supports both real Internet
protocols and BBS forwarding techniques.

JNOS is an incredible "program" that supports both real Internet
protocols and legacy BBS forwarding techniques.

Winlink2000 is an incredible Email system using some real Internet
protocols with a focus on using their enhanced BBS forwarding.
---

JNOS is open source and has by far the richest functionality.

Airmail is far easier to set up and runs native in the Windows
environment.  It has B2F forwarding so it is compatible with
Winlink2000.  Airmail has both SMTP/POP servers and clients (as does
JNOS.)

I suggest that if a stripped down version of JNOS was built for a
windows environment, it would essentially be Airmail with B1, but not
B2F BBS forwarding.

>  But my question is:  WHY must hams constantly invent new protocols
>  or applications when an existing protocol or application will do
>  the job that you want to have done?

Partially because we can..  Partially because there's a need to
fulfill.   Winlink2000 needed multiple addresses and attachments.  We
already had that by using JNOS as a mail transfer agent and external
Email applications.  Apparently Winlink2000 wanted it natively so they
enhanced the BBS forwarding to support it.

There's a big difference in forwarding efficiency between FBB
forwarding and TCP forwarding.  FBB or equivalent (UUCP would be my
solution) was needed.

>  Everyone seems to be jumping through hoops trying to figure out the
>  big secrets about Airmail, WL2K protocols, etc. etc. in order to make
>  them work with the existing tools we have to accomplish these exact
>  same goals and which have been around in xNOS and Linux for years!

It's a usability issue.  Sending Email with Airmail through a Telpac
gateway is relatively trivial.   Far easier then setting up and using
a JNOS system.  Winlink2000 took care of most of the admin issues
where the average user never sees it.

>  But then again, I am not very smart.

Finally something I can disagree with...

>  My impression is, we keep shooting ourselves in the foot because we
>  constantly try to reinvent the wheel over and over again by adding
>  somebody's idea of how-complicated-can-we-make-it-this-time protocol
>  overhead into something and then and calling it "new and improved".

Essentially true but sometimes it is a good thing to have changes.
The WL2K/B2F system is a good solution.  Not the one that I would have
gone for but they have "simplified packet,"  sped it up, made it
essentially "Internet Standard" and set up the infrastructure to make
it viable.

>  73, de Barry, K2MF >>

Bill - WA7NWP