Subj : Re: Hello?
To   : KEN HRYNCHUK
From : William McBrine
Date : Fri Apr 02 2004 01:29 pm

-=> KEN HRYNCHUK wrote to WILLIAM MCBRINE <=-

 KH> Understood. In case you're wondering why I keep both types here, Ed
 KH> Koon (Sysop of Doc's Place) has recommended the use of Multimail in OPX
 KH> mode for offline Netmail messaging, but, for everyday use, I prefer
 KH> QWK, simply because I've been using it for years, and I trust it.

There's really no reason to _trust_ a _format_ -- the reliability of QWK
and OPX are strictly implementation-dependent. In particular, MultiMail had
a _very nasty_ QWK reply bug for a while; there's been nothing comparable
on the OPX side, AFAIK.

But there are some reasons to prefer QWK on Doc's Place:

1. In OPX, there are a bunch of areas misflagged as Usenet, which messes up 
   the character set and headers. This doesn't happen in QWK because it 
   doesn't have that flag. But this is more of a problem on Fonix, IIRC.

2. Hello/Goodbye screens don't show up in OPX. (Then again, some might see 
   this as a feature.)

3. Offline config doesn't work. (OPX has an offline config system, but the 
   Wildcat OPX door doesn't implement it.)

4. QWK packets work with a wider variety of readers, not just MultiMail and 
   SX.

Note that 1-3 aren't limitations of OPX, but just of the way it's
implemented in that version of Wildcat, or even specifically on Doc's
Place.

The advantages of OPX are basically:

1. As you note, Netmail works.

2. Subject lines aren't limited to 25 characters.

I used OPX on Doc's Place for a while, but now I use QWK myself, on the
rare occasions I connect there. Offline config is too useful, while I long
ago wrote off Fido netmail as too unreliable to worry about. YMMV.
 
--- MultiMail/Linux v0.46
 * Origin: COMM Port OS/2 juge.com 204.89.247.1 (281) 980-9671 (1:106/2000)

.