Subj : MS-Kermit To : WINSTON SMITH From : MICHEL SAMSON Date : Sun Sep 21 2003 04:02 pm Hi Winston, About "MS-Kermit" of September 13 and "Kermit Protocol" of September 14: WS> If an upload was vital I can still UUENCODE it and post it Reliability in today's communications will make this "viable", yes. I, myself, would call this method creative - it's bound to work (if files won't go thru anything else but raw ~ASCII~ transfer, that is). A `ZMoDem' transfer remains prone to failure even after a file-encode, the channel would become transparent to the .UUE encoded data but some high- bit character(s) still must come into play within the `ZMoDem' protocol. I like In-Band transfers using `ZMoDem' or `Kermit' because my data is checked for errors before my eyes and i only need a ~TelNet~ session; one problem is getting decent support for any of those protocols at all. :( Did you honestly expect a SysOp to clear this all up over night?... WS> ...a bit sloppy, perhaps, but it works. It does work indeed: the last French-Canadian Messaging NetWork we had around here allowed us to ~E-Mail~ our .REPs many years ago already; anonymous .QWKs were published via the WEB daily, `ZMoDem' was optional. WS> I don't do uploading all that often, anyway. (Usually I am just WS> moving pre-exisiting files around with FTP.) Whatever works, ~FTP~ can be 100 % LEGACY-friendly IF SUPPORTED - a matter which wasn't discussed enough on `Vertrauen', most unfortunately. :( WS> The KERMIT file transfer protocol is now active on TuneMan BBS AG> What is this bbs's software package running... WS> Synchronet BBS. Kermit downloading works. Kermit uploading... Ha, i thought you were having difficulties on SkullKeep instead?... As mentioned before, preliminary tests said (in the early phase) it is probably not a matter of `Kermit' protocol, or at least not exclusive to it. Your conclusion could be somewhat premature at this point, Wayne Warthen's `Kermit' for `Win 16/32 v0.85' has failed on the system you've mentioned and that was during DownLoad operations - which otherwise went just fine elsewhere (on `Vertrauen', for example)! %-b, This elsewhere is the very place from where i find reasonable to suppose that `TuneMan' got its `Kermit' configuration (.INI) file; the next item i question is which driver to use. Both subjects got flatly closed (promptly) when it was discussed on Dove-Net/`Vertraun', i seen no garantee `MSK316B10.EXE' gets enough memory (and i asked often). The recommandations i submitted this summer to Rob Swindell - which he ignored - were rejected At Priori in a controversial atmosphere; perhaps some basic configuration matters need to be examined 1st; then, try check if the .INI file doesn't carry its own surprizes within. At least, a swap to `MSK315M.EXE' won't hurt. When you have D/Ld files using Wayne Warthen's `Kermit' for `Win 16 v0.85' on `WfWG' (while connected to `Vertrauen') and failed at the same test on `TuneMan') we could come to discuss over what's next after code- dependant protocol-driver failure theories... The source of the problem may be hidden to the eye, it's no reason for divinations yet; have your DownLoads work equally well using Wayne Warthen's `Kermit', when this is done the chances are you'll get UpLoads to function correctly as well!!! WS> I haven't figured out what is going wrong... ...Maybe I need to WS> start over with a fresh archive in its basic configuration. If it's not the protocol-driver, if it's not the .INI, if the code- dependant failure theory can be discarded, euh... Then maybe elsewhere? Salutations, ;^) Michel Samson a/s Bicephale .... Sometimes, the cost of new features is too high, really! Is it not? --- MultiMail/XT v0.42 - Who wants to make TelNet OLMR BBSing UNIVERSAL? * Origin: BBS Networks @ www.bbsnets.com 808-839-6036 (1:10/345) .