Subj : Re: QWK vs. FTN
To   : Irish_Monk
From : Vk3jed
Date : Tue Aug 30 2022 13:59:00

-=> On 08-29-22 19:58, Irish_Monk wrote to All <=-

 Ir> So whats the pros and cons of QWK vs. FTN. Hopefully I said that right.
 Ir> So right now I have Mystic BBS setup. Basically right now just use it
 Ir> for myself mostly. (few friends wanted to check it out that seem
 Ir> interested in BBSing). I have had FSXNET setup with FTN (BinkP) and now
 Ir> I have DoveNET setup thru QWK. Is there any problems with that I guess
 Ir> Im asking and whats the Pros and Cons of each? And either way would it
 Ir> have any affect on someone like me who set it all up just so I can
 Ir> basically use it for myself at this point? I actually have a 3rd NET
 Ir> setup but have not recieved a message yet on it, and I sent out a test
 Ir> message. So that will probably be my next little challenge. Thanks for
 Ir> everything!!

Originally, QWK was more primitive, FTN was the full featured solution, but
modern software, especially Synchronet, with its QWK networking extension has
changed the game.  Today, the feature set is closer.

QWK:  Easy setup, particularly between Synchronet BBSs.  QWK also requires a
lot less intervention from the hub node - it's possible for downlinks to "self
serve".  Other shortcomings of QWK, like short subkect lines and lack of
netmail have also been addressed by modern software.  QWK now supports wouted
netmail, using an addressing scheme reminiscent of the old UUCP "bang paths",
except that the network can work out the routing, if it's not specified.

The biggest downside of QWK these days is that a lot of older software requires
add on software that can do QWK networking, and extensions may not be
supported.  But between compatible software, QWK lives up to its name (as well
as easy). :)

FTN requires more setup, has more moving parts that can go wrong (mailer,
tosser, BBS, possibly other components, depending on software stack).  FTN has
always supported netmail, and supports both routed and direct netmail.  Like
QWK, FTN has evolved on some newer software.  Some mailer software (e.g. BinkD,
BinkIT) supports nodelist lookup via DNS, which can be handy in a modern
environment for crash/direct mail.

And of course, FTN has a more comprehensive addressing scheme (love it or hate
it ;) ).  Finally, FTN is supported by almost all BBS software these days, old
and new.  FTN might be the system of choice for those running legacy software.

As for mixing FTN and QWK, you can do that on a given system.  I have a mix of
FTN and QWK feeds.  Some of these feeds are also gated to the other network
type on my Synchronet system.  So mixing and matching is no issue.

One final comment is that FTN can get tricky when you have more than about 15
AKAs (at that point you have to tell your system which ones to present to the
other end).  In today's environment of multiple small nets, using QWK where
available can help keep FTN from getting out of hand.

Final comment - Use which you prefer and what suits the situation, if you're
running Mystic, Synchronet or other software of similar capabilities, it really
doesn't matter from a technical perspective which you use.  If you're using
something else, check compatibility.


.... Error reading REALITY.SYS - Solar System halted.
=== MultiMail/Win v0.52
--- SBBSecho 3.10-Linux
 * Origin: Freeway BBS Bendigo,Australia freeway.apana.org.au (21:1/109)

.