[nos-bbs] bleeding this versus bleeding that

[Michael Fox - N6MEF]

Hi Maiko,

Whether the default should be the new behavior (obey the RFC regarding telnet IAC) or the legacy behavior (ignore telnet IAC) is largely philosophical.  An argument can be made either way.  I don't have a strong preference either way, as long as the functionality exist to deal with both incoming and outgoing connections of either type on a per-forwarding-partner basis (i.e. turn on/off compression, IAC, CRONLY in either direction).  

Concerns:
1) Bob Tenty reported some address problems, but I don't know if he was reporting bleeding1 or bleeding2 or both.  It would be good to clarify.

2) Bleeding1 still has problems with compressed FBB over telnet.  I reported several problems with bleeding1, including JNOS logs and telnet traces for each.  I summarized the list in a later email.  I can resend if needed.

3) Once the new functionality is final, it would be a huge help if you could summarize which configuration options still exist.  For example:
-- telnet server options (like noiac and others?)
-- incoming login options (like preceding call sign with a ".")
-- outgoing telnet options (like "!" and noiac, cronly, ... others?)
-- incoming session options in mbox (like mbox nob2f)
Once we know all of the "ingredients", we as a group should be easily able to come up with a recipe for each combination of forwarding between JNOS with other BBS types.

As always, thanks for all you do.

Michael
N6MEF

> -----Original Message-----
> From: nos-bbs [mailto:nos-bbs-bounces at tapr.org] On Behalf Of Maiko
> Langelaar
> Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2016 9:45 AM
> To: TAPR xNOS Mailing List <nos-bbs at tapr.org>
> Subject: [nos-bbs] bleeding this versus bleeding that
> 
> Good day,
> 
> It's been a couple of weeks since the last announcment, and I have
> to apologize in advance for being 'quiet', but I felt I had to remove
> myself from the list for a few weeks after all the troubles surfacing
> with the latest bleeding edge. It was just stressing me out.
> 
> Decision time, since I would like to get moving on with this :(
> 
> Sounds to me that bleeding1 is the one to continue on with, so unless
> anyone has any objections I guess we'll continue with bleeding (the
> first one). Let me know your concerns, then I'll repackage the first
> one and we can continue on.
> 
> Thanks for all your support (or not) and your patience :)
> 
> Maiko