Subj : Re^2:  Directly include binary data in messages
To   : Tim Schattkowsky
From : Rob Swindell
Date : Tue Feb 22 2022 02:40 pm

  Re: Re^2:  Directly include binary data in messages
  By: Tim Schattkowsky to Rob Swindell on Tue Feb 22 2022 09:55 pm

 > //Hello Rob,//
 >
 > on *22.02.22* at *19:22:28* You wrote in Area *FTSC_PUBLIC*
 > to *Anna Christina Nass* about *"Re: Directly include binary data in
 > messages"*.
 >
 >  RS> Pretty trivial. In fact, any echomail program that supports multiple
 >  RS> packet formats (e.g. SBBSecho supports packet types 2.0, 2+, 2e, and
 >  RS> 2.2) can be used as a gateway between old and even older technology
 >  RS> systems. :-)
 >
 > IMHO this is lacking the total system perspective. There are open questions
 > at that level. How is the sending system supposed to know what packet format
 > a receiver expects?

In SBBSecho, each link can be configured with a preferred packet format. Of course, that only works for explicitly-configured links. Otherwise, it just defaults to stone-age type 2 packet generation.

 > This could be done in a lot of ways:
 > - explicit configuration
 > - nodelist flags
 > - dynamically during the mail session (i.e., the mailer eventually triggers
 > the final packet format in some way depending on session handshake
 > information)
 > - ...
 >
 > The most important question for me is still, WHY is there any need for a new
 > packet format? Other than the lack of zone (or even 5D) information, what
 > are the points?

<shrug> I'm not saying there is a need. I can theorize packet and packed-message header improvements all day long, but I don't know if that means there's a factual "need".
-- 
                                            digital man (rob)

Sling Blade quote #19:
Doyle: I can't so much as drink a damn glass of water around a midget
Norco, CA WX: 53.5øF, 66.0% humidity, 5 mph SSE wind, 0.00 inches rain/24hrs

.