Subj : Is binkp/d's security model kaputt?
To   : Avon
From : Oli
Date : Fri Sep 10 2021 07:23 am

Avon wrote (2021-09-10):

 At>> The second problem is FTN software traditionally continues the
 At>> trend of backwards compatibility. That stifles any serious
 At>> innovation.

 A> I agree it doesn't make innovations easier. I guess it comes down to what
 A> rules of engagement any developer wants to adopt (or not) when they
 A> looking at these questions. If they choose to just build and create
 A> something new with only fringe tie-ins to current FTN then so be it. I
 A> think if they create something that is seen to be of value and benefit
 A> then people will vote with their 'usage' feet.  I sorta feel the shift
 A> from EMSI mailers to BinkD is an example of that over time.

But binkd / binkp mailers are very similar to EMSI mailers. It uses the same BSO inbound/outbound, it sends the same files. You can add it to most traditional FTN setups without changing much. That's very different to running the "core" on new technology and only have binkp/pkt/tic on the "edge".

It's funny that the original topic was about binkd/p and soon we were talking about creating a new message network infrastructure/technology with FTS-compatible access.

I'm more interested in fixing the current software and standards.

---
 * Origin: 1995| Invention of the Cookie. The End. (21:3/102)

.