[nos-bbs] nos-bbs Digest, Vol 156, Issue 15

[Brian]

On Thu, 2017-10-26 at 18:47 -0700, Michael Fox - N6MEF wrote:

> Reference please. I find no mention of WP in either the 1998 or 2012 version of the BBS specification.
F6FBB Documentation. If you're running WP and FBB type 2 compression you should
be familiar with it's specs.

> I don't see why.  Given that BPQ was also sending as B, this must be a widespread ambiguity.  (I'm not calling it a misunderstanding since I haven't yet seen a specification that says sending WP as type B is wrong.)

BPQ BBS is the only system which does this. 

> FWIW, I've reconfigured all of our BBSs to refuse WP@*.  We don't find them useful anyway.  We were just accepting and passing them along for the benefit of others.  Of course, this doesn't solve Ray's problem.  But just FYI.

The reason you don't find them useful is because SB WP@* is never
processed by the White Pages internal server with possibly the exclusion
of BPQ BBS. This is a standard used by BBS systems before JNOS2 and BPQ
were in existence. There's no need/reason to change how it's been done
for decades now and break what works and has been working.

Internal BBS server services such as MULTI or PING or WP read messages
received as SP directly to them as if they're a user on that BBS. When
they are received as SB they're ignored as the BBS assumes it's a
group/thread and thus it's never passed into the internal service. Maiko
does it right in JNOS2, as does MSYS, W0RLI, and others with the
exception of the one listed in the above paragraph.

I never suggested this as a fix to Ray's issue either.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 316 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.tapr.org/pipermail/nos-bbs_lists.tapr.org/attachments/20171026/c60d9fb5/attachment.asc>