Subj : Easier solution?
To   : Jan Vermeulen
From : Rick Van Ruth
Date : Thu Jan 02 2003 05:36 pm

G'Day Jan,

02 Jan 03 01:34, you wrote to Charles Cruden:

 cc>> - BBSs keep the relevant information for other fields constant, so
 cc>> IONs can list their sysop name and BBS name.

 JV>     You have a point there. It is to be seen, tho, how many would really
 JV> need that with the number of real BBSes left in the net.

Just sticking my 2c worth here. Most currently running active BBS systems are
in actual fact internet connected. From where I sit there are a large number
of BBS's available via telnet that cater mainly for things like games and a
few files. These are still somewhat popular and are easily maintained due to
near permanent internet connections economically available in some parts of
the world. Most of these systems are either non-fidonet or are very inactive
within fidonet. When considering the days of writing messages in echoareas
then I would agree with you - there are few BBS's that have users that still
do this (you only need to look in the echos to see that). Fidonet is doing
nothing for the current style of BBS systems, that is why most are active in
othernets or elsewhere. I get around 20-30 users a day logging in here, a
number of them are regulars but they aren't interested in what fidonet has to
offer. Then again, fidonet really offers nothing for my BBS side of things so
I guess it all comes out even in the end.

Fidonet is mainly an old sysops club from Zone 1 that only likes doing things
they want to do and forget anyone else.

Now I'll let you get back to your development :-)

Cheers,
                Rick

.... We all live in a yellow subroutine...
--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5 - Debian/GNU
 * Origin: Vampyre's Heaven BBS (3:640/954)

.