
Tuesday 23-Mar-93 03:24:21

--800--

Ken, v2.63 "SS" displays:
# Title            Size   Credits
---------------------------------
1 SOC_FIDO.LHA       6K 100/   6K
2 GL_UD_Changer.L    4K   1/   4K
---------------------------------
2 Total             10K   1/   4K

100+1=1?
6K+4K=4K?
Looks like the credits-total is always just the same as the last
selected item, not a total at all.

--801--

Has anyone figured out all the new flag markers in mail's scan display?
"R" "N" "C" "?" etc
Ken, would it be possible for the "N" to change to a "n" for new msgs that I
just read?  (They currently all stay marked "N" (new) regardless of how many
times I've read them.)
(Until I exit mail and re-run it.)

Bravo on the new markers and #-# powers.

--802--

Pete, are beta-testers running v2.63?
Are things coming along fine?
Should be out soon?

(I sure wish 1 beta-tester would be available to create a [N]ews update once
or twice (or 7) times be per wk.
Just to let us know what's going on and how things are progressing.)

It's dark out here.

--803--

Ken, when doing a search&replace in the line-editor, would it be possible to
get rid of the "Line #x is full"?  Just squeeze the text in, shifting things
onto new lines, if neccessary.

(It might be tricky if that line ends in a hard carriage return, but shouldn't
be too tricky otherwise.  Maybe just force the text in, in BOTH cases.)

It would save A LOT of editing and re-typing.
(Sometimes just because a line is *1* char too long.)
Which is usually just my luck.

--804--

Ken, would it be possible to give many of the same flags that
scanning-mail now has (">" "R" "N" "C"), to [S]canning responses from the
respond/pass prompt?

1) One set of standard markers to memorize, not 2.
2) Much useful info added to response-scanning.
3) Similar display format.  (Flags/dates on far left, etc.)
(Consistency, consistency, consistency.)

--805--

Ken, I just did a "Z" search from this item's 'reponse/pass prompt'
for the word "repeat".

CNet v2.63 gave "No matches found".
(The string is definitely in response #268.)

I re-tried it 3 times.

Anybody else had any problems with 1-item searches like this?

Maybe due to this item's large # of responses???
Maybe an invisible line-noise char in response #268???

--806--

Ken, is there something significant about responses 2,4,6,100,103 and many
others?  Trying to EDit them just gives:
>Trouble locating this message.
This is NOT important, I was just wonder if something is amiss some place.

--807--
DM> I have already covered this BILL but here goes again.. The only true
DM> reason to use the quote option is in a message area such as those you find
DM> in a networked subboard like in a typical fido echo..  Now do you honestly

I see an ENORMOUS amount of quoting in non-networked msg bases.
Try telling all those users (including you) that it isn't even necessary.

Any time someone posts something that has more than 1 sentence in it,
how do you direct your reply to each topic, without quoting?

DM> think that a message numbered 47 on your bbs would be the same message
DM> that may be on my bbs in the same fido echo.. Not likely...

My request for a response-# would only be of value in local-type msg bases.
Maybe it could be part of the header.  Only msgs posted on the original BBS
would see.  (It wouldn't be part of the Fidonet/Usenet msg text.)

And if you are reading a carbon-copied version of someone's response
via your mail, you don't have easy access to any of the other
responses in that item.  Then how do you find out what was said, if
the user didn't quote?

--808--

Pete, what if ONLY non-networked subs had:
>On Mon 22-Mar-1993  2:41p, Pete Baker quoted from #203:

(The user specifically took that quote from #203, regardless of which # he was
at when he made the reply.)

A-N-Y-T-H-I-N-G would be helpful in finding the full-text quoted from.
(User's could keep their quotes a brief as possible, knowing that readers
could quickly refer to the full-text, if needed.)

On Wed 24-Mar-1993  8:14p, Big Brother wrote:
Ken> Because response numbers change (at least for users who "weed" responses in
Ken> amaint), how about:
Ken> 6 responses ago, on Mon 23-Jan-1993 12:12, Big Brother wrote:

Not having 'weeded', I didn't realize responses were #'ed in real-time.
(I thought, even with weeding, responses kept their original #s.  I guess
not.)

PB> Sorry Ken, that would mean that users would have to ADD and SUBTRACT.. and
PB> that verges on actual thought and effort.  It'd never work out.. and to be
But they can just enter "-6" right at the response/pass prompt.
So I think Ken's idea will do fine.  Are we overlooking anything else?

PB> BILL!  Before you blow a gasket.. I didn't say scrap the idea all-togethe.
PB>  Just need to do more in other areas first.  Fix the Buggies before adding
PB> new twists..
PETE!  I never have, nor ever will "blow a gasket" about things like this.
Nor did I say it should be added immediately, nor at the cost of delaying bug
fixes.  But for future reference:
How should threading/quote #s/reading replies/reading original posts/etc be
handled ideally?  (Eventually)

(Even if it isn't done for many months, or even if it is NEVER done, I'd still
like to get this 'ideal set-up' down on paper before I forget it.
Ken could always refer back to it months/years from now, when looking for
ideas.)

Pete!  Let's hear more bug reports!  Other than the 1s already mentioned by
others, I'm not seeing too much wrong with v2.61.

--809--

I think Ken might have to make maint-powers SysOp-configuratable,
sooner or later.  (It'll just get worse as things keep expanding.)

There's just TOO much power there, to say "give a user ALL, or give him
NONE".

1) ON/OFF 'all or nothing' maint-flag.
2) Maint-power definition hardcoded into CNet.
I could live with #1 or #2, but NOT both limitations.

Its a shame to make Ken create yet another VDE, but I don't
know how else to do it.

A) Have a EM (Edit Maint) VDE similar to EG (Edit Group).
B) You could config 24 different SysOp/SubOp Local/Remote maint-levels.
C) Turn a flag ON/OFF for each feature, as you desire.
   (And we are talking about some pretty powerful stuff.  Currently
   totally non-configuratable.)
D) You'd then assign a maint-level # to each user.  Most would be 0.
   Some would be 1,4-7,10.  SysOp would be 0-23, for ALL powers.
   Whatever you like.

I really won't feel safe giving ANYONE maint-powers unless I can fully
control what that includes.

Other than you, how many users have maint-powers on *YOUR* BBS?
Is it 0 because it's so non-configuratable?

Another way to do it would be let SysOps define:
1) If SubOp w/ID
2) If SubOp w/o ID
3) Local-only powers w/ID
4) Local-only powers w/o ID
5) Local&Remote powers w/ID
6) Local&Remote powers w/o ID

Then each user would get allowed 1 (or more) of the above flags.

(My Co-SysOps would most likely get #1-2.  I'd most likely give myself #6.)

In a related matter...
With the ever-expanding software, and lack of docs, SysOps VS SubOp,
local VS remote maint, I'd be happy just *SEEING* exactly what maint-
powers includes these days.  Can anyone list ALL the powers?  (I'll
write the VDE screen mentioned in #A, above.)

--810--

R> I would also LOVE to see Skypix mouse click back. My old Skylin users loed
R> it and miss it
Instead of standard ANSI mouse stuff?
How many terms support SkyPix?  How many ANSI mouse stuff?
Which is more popular?
Since its unlikely that many term authors are going to specifically
ADD SkyPix support to their terms specifically for the very few BBSes
that are going to use it, I think it would be better for CNet to go
with something that a few terms already have (ANSI-mouse) and other
terms are more likely to add.

--811--

>Should [O]n[L]ine [M]essages (OLMs) be longer?

I also think 380 is fine.  That's more than 6 lines of 60 chars each.
I always thought that an initial OLM should just be a brief 'want to
chat?' or a short/quickie comment to a user.

1024 chars would be 3/4s of a full screen of text.  That's a lot to
dump on a surprised user for his initial OLM.

But I'd be in favor of a cfg setting INSTEAD of an increase.
(I'd probably LOWER mine to 180 chars or so.)

Holmes, can you give a few examples where you regularly need to send
1000-2000 char OLMs to unsuspecting users?
(That is probably the best way to get others (including Ken) to go
along with a new idea.  Instead of just saying, "change it so that
it's bigger".)

Why?

--812--

L> the BBS in term mode, and come home with a screen full of RINGs. Maybe if
L> in term mode if it rings three times jump back to the BBS and answer..???

This might occur when you are between dialout calls but still wish to
use the term.  Instead, I'd be in favor of:
> Drop out of TERM and back to BBS after x mins of idle usage.

Maybe also do it the other way too.
You hit a pulldown menu and as soon as the user logs off (without
forcing him off) CNet drops into the term mode and stops answering
incoming calls.  (Sometimes it can be hard to get an open dial-out
line on your own busy BBS.)

--813--

TK> In the mail/message prompts, make RETURN default to a Quit command
TK> rather than re-displaying the prompt.  This kind of confuses users
Or just have a new special char for BBSMENU.  Any cmd marked with a "*" (or
something) is the 'default/RETURN' choice.
We could then:
1)  Allow ANY/ALL menus to have a default.  (Not just this 1 you're
suggesting.)
2)  Allow ANY default we want.  (NOT the 1 CNet has hardcoded in.)

(There are other places where CNet just keeps re-re-redisplaying the prompt
line each time RETURN is hit.  We could make this actually DO something
useful.  Display a help-file, etc.)

TK> Have the Scan, Browse, etc. commands default to start with item #1
"S#-#" is the way CNet does it in MANY other places.
(But NOT here.)  :-(

TK> The suggested password for each subboard option (this would be
TK> an optional flag).
Won't even the users that have all these passwords get tired of typing them
in?  With the MANY ways we can already allow/disallow things (all without the
caller doing any additional work), where is 'passwording' need, TOO?

BA> TK> Have the Scan, Browse, etc. commands default to start with item #1
BA> "S#-#" is the way CNet does it in MANY other places.
BA> (But NOT here.)  :-(

Yikes.  I'm not sure when this was added.
But between the 24hrs that occurred between my post and now, this
feature is already available.

--814--

Another thing that would help novice sysops...

A 2nd set of VDE data files.
They would only show/edit 50-75% of the more commonly used/edited variables.

You could use the mini-set, the full-set, or mix/match as you see fit.
(Even a few non-novice sysops might like/use 1 of the mini-VDE screens for
quick and simple editing of The Basics.)

Also,
I was hoping by this time there would be a TON of alternative VDE data files
that we could drop right in, replacing CNet default ones.

1) Group common variables together.
2) Longer (or briefer) description strings.
3) "Dangerous" variables in RED.
4) "Harmless" variables in GREEN.
5) "Common" variables in YELLOW.
6) Mini-VDEs to just edit the basics.
7) Commonly edited variables near the top of the display.
   Rarely used/edited ones near the bottom.
8) Limit SubOps to only allow editing of certain 'safe' variables.
9) Different Fast-Cursor movements.
   (Moving off-screen to the left, jumps back to top.
    Moving off-screen to the right, jumps to bottom.
10)Quick-save.
   (Skips "save changes" "lose changes" prompt.)

I'd love to just drop in any 1 replacement VDE from a list of a dozen possible
choices that users have written and released.
Aren't there currently 0?

--815--

RF> Here's an idea, why not have NASL pull up the new messages first, then the
RF> new files, that way you could start a yank then browse through files while

Or just get Ken to have 2 separate file-scan and msg-scan functions, instead
of 1 (NSAL).  Everyone could set it up any way they wanted.
1) files before msgs
2) msgs before files
3) just files
4) just msgs
5) neither

Everybody's happy.

Ken> Actually, the two ARE separated in 2.62/2.63.  The commands are NF and NM ...
Ken> new files/new messages.

Case closed.  Things like response #0 will never have to be dealt with again.

Ken, it would be great if many more things could be covered like this.
Don't listen to individual things like "Do it this way!", "NO, Do it this
way!".  Just give the user the power to do it any way he wants.

I realize not everything can be done like this.  But the more #1, and the less
#2, the better.
1)  Make it configuratable and/or give the user the power to do it any way he
    wants.  (Making 90%-100% happy.)
2)  Hardcode it in, trying to make the majority happy.
    (Could make 49% unhappy.)

--816--

I'm not sure if it is still available, but LD carriers like AllNet did
it best.  When you picked up the phone to dial, their computer would
automatically take into account the time of day, day of week, the
distance of your call, etc.  And instantly route your call through the
cheapest carrier AT THAT MOMENT.  So you basically had MCI/Sprint/
AT&T/Western Union/ITT, and *ALL* the others.

(Althought it didn't (couldn't) take into account special sign-up services
like F&F or Reach Out America, etc.)

Of course everyone knows, you can FORCE Sprint by preceeding your phone # with
"10333".  (Even if you aren't a Sprint user.)

Compare carrier prices BEFORE (not after) you switch over to them permanently.

(Once again, this will NOT (can not) take into account F&F and Reach Out
America or other special sign-up services.)

Pete, is "THE MOST" a special sign-up service or part of their standard
package subscriber deal?

--817--

PB> AO  (computer says...Gee which partition.. Don't know.. Ignore command)
PB> AO1 (Computer says...AH HA! Partition # 1 Adopt Procedures initiating)
Pete, wouldn't this be handier as:
1)  If you only have 1 partition set for this sub.  Use it, don't ask.
    (Unless there is a reason to ask a user a question with only 1 possible
     choice.  (???)
2)  If you have >1, then list my choices, and ask for 1.
    (Don't make me guess.  Don't make me run/exit VDE just to check.)

> Well, that is a good idea, but it didn't work. I just tried it. I only have
> one Ubase0:, and that is what it comes up with. The problem doesn't seem to be

My comments in #5 are suggestions to be added to a future version of CNet.
NOT something that it already in place and should be working like that now.
(Sorry.  I sometimes forget to mention these facts.)

--818--

P> I disabled "private messages" because I felt it was rude to display to all
P> the other users messages that were private and they couldn't read, so I am
P> only concerned about mail.
I don't know if it is 'rude', but I never did see what it accomplished.
Maybe make 2 nice global CONFIG settings:
1)  Display "Item #x is private" strings?
2)  Display "Item #x is unvalidated" strings?
(But I think most SysOps would set 1 or both to NO.)

Then we (like you) wouldn't have to entirely disable a pretty nifty feature.
(Private msgs in certain subs.)

Unless some one can list a handful of useful things that showing
#1 and #2 to all the users that can't see the items anyways (99% of the
callers) accomplishes, maybe it should just be hardcoded OFF.

--819--

AK> line the OLD way of MV NEW (read all new mail sent by all users since last
AK> call). That sure makes it quite a bit easier.
I'd like to see a way to just mail carbon-copies to a certain acct #.
You could choose who got to see them.
(SysOp, Co-SysOp, that sub's SubOp, a special created 'Mail Check' acct, etc.)

As well as, which msg types.
(Public but not private, private but not public, both, neither, Fidonet,
Usenet, local (non-network), and combo of the above.)

Mine would be configged to send carbon-copies to acct #1, all networked msgs.
(I'd feel better seeing these posts before they go around the world.  And I'd
be more likely to give 100% of the callers (new&old) full post-powers.  And I
wouldn't have to read through tons of private and non-network stuff that
really doesn't matter to me.)

We have the power to 'validate' an UL before others are allowed to DL it.

Why not also have the power to 'validate' a network post (or response)
before it is sent out to systems all over the world?

--820--

R> item: 19 of subboard UUCP programs
R> subj: UseNet & C-Net 261 interface (response 8)
R> from: Rog
R> to  : David Prothero
R> on  : Fri 26-Mar-1993  6:26p
R>
R> I was unsatisfied with all of the UUCP Shells for CNet.  I had registered
R> UUCP<->CNET and was disgusted with the updates, lack of UUCP 1.16 support for
R> eons, etc.  MEta-Usenet was nicer, but lacked some features and Heavy Metal is
R> busy working on all of his other software.  UCI seemed nice, but I figured I'd
R> wait for UUCP integration into CNet which Ken hinted to over a year ago.
R> Finally, after seeing a friend (David Prothero, to whom this message is
R> addressed to) switch, I threw my hands up in the air and said to heck with it,
R> I'm tired of Shells for the main purpose of my BBS.  I have now switched over
R> to Excelsior BBS software.  I won't go back to CNet unless I see direct UUCP
R> support.  Don't get me wrong, in most respects I prefer CNet over Excelsior.
R> Its just that I don't have time to muck about with network shells when I could
R> just plug and play.
R>                               -Rog (Wizard Online 604-322-3266)

item: 19 of subboard UUCP programs
subj: UseNet & C-Net 261 interface (response 9)
from: Bill Allen
to  : Big Brother  (Ken Pletzer)
on  : Fri 26-Mar-1993  7:19p

Ken, you just gotta read the above.
It may very well be the most significant explanation on UUCP support (and I'll
extend it to include Fidonet, too) I have EVER read here.

If you get a minute, what is your opinion on making CNet rely less and less
(at first) on 3rd party stuff for *ANY* kind of Fidonet/UUCP support.  And
slowly, but surely, have CNet handle more and more of Fidonet/UUCP itself.
(Even if the entire process takes YEARS to complete.)  Is this where you are
headed?  If so, even a wild guess as to the time-table, will be of great help.

B> Does ANYBODY have a UUCP shell out yet for 2.60+??????????  I've been
B> waiting.. I'm going mad!

Brian, an excellent reason why any state-of-the-art BBS needs to fully support
Fidonet and UUCP WITHOUT 3rd party support programs. (They are OK 'optionally'
but shouldn't be 'mandatory' to run a simple, small, common Fidonet or UUCP
msg base.)

CNet SysOps are at the mercy of 3rd party updates that have to keep up with
CNet upgrades.  Any time an author decides to wait 1-2 months (or years)
before he updates his code, you will have to suffer without ANY Fidonet or
UUCP.

A very few SysOps don't seem to realize, care about this,
or see the importance.
The majority do.

Only Ken can change this very unfortunate situation.  And hopefully soon.

--821--

item: 53 of subboard Amiga Telecommunications
file: hydrakit.lzh  (245957 bytes, 23 xfers)
from: Bill Allen
to  : Big Brother  (Ken Pletzer)
on  : Wed 17-Mar-1993  3:44a
info: "Hydra" 2-way protocol specs & source C as of 11Jan93

Ken, the source is geared towards IBM machines, but this (or ANY 2-way
protocol) sure would be handy in CNet.

--822--
DM> Yes for gods sakes lets add a couple more configuration flags to confuse
DM> sysops with and bloat the hell out of this already rather large code used
DM> in C-Net..  Hell who knows if Bill and other keeps your suggestion up
DM> about bullcrap we may even manage to get Ken to code C-Net so that the
DM> only machines it will run on are ones that have 16 megs of ram or more.. I
DM> sometimes think that is exactly why some of this crap is being suggested..
I was 1 of the users NOT wanting or seeing a need for this increase that
was suggested by some one else.

DM> Hell who knows if Bill and other keeps your suggestion up...
"Suggestions" (1 or 100s) will add absolutely 0 bytes to CNet.
It is upto Ken to use/skip suggestions.

DM> sometimes think that is exactly why some of this crap is being
suggested.  What would this accomplish?  You feel 100s of users are
spending 1000s of hrs calling here long distance at great expense, to
specifically destroy CNet?  Comparing the ReadMe for v2.40 to v2.63,
looks like they've mistakenly done just the opposite.

--823--

D> Bill,
D>         Ken's been WAY MORE than your "average" help source when it came
D> to finding SOME of those values.

Yes.  Same here.  He's helped me out more than a few times.
I just wonder why he prefers to answer/address the same things over and over
again, 1-on-1 in mail.  Posting/answering public things allows him to address
1000 callers at a time.
Which is easier/faster and less time consuming?

In fact, I've hesitated many times to send him private mail about
something, for fear that he's already answered my question 100 times
before, and I hate to bother him again.

> Maybe Ken could create an area that only he can write to.
> He'll forward some of the better (private) questions he gets asked, to it.
> Everyone will be able to read and benefit by reading them.
> (Maybe remove the user's names.)

--824--

B> Does ANYBODY have a UUCP shell out yet for 2.60+??????????  I've been
B> waiting.. I'm going mad!

R> I'm tired of Shells for the main purpose of my BBS.  I have now switched
R> over
R> to Excelsior BBS software.  I won't go back to CNet unless I see direct
R> UUCP support.

Don, what would you tell the *MANY* users posting things like this?
Don't worry?  Their concerns aren't real?  All is fine?  UUCP isn't
important?  3rd party stuff is great?  You just don't have it setup right?
Stick with an older version of CNet?  Write your own shell?
I'm sure the shell's author will update it some day.

(I'm not telling, I'm asking you.)
What's the answer for all those users?

--825--
I'll continue my long list of CNet thoughts and ideas in this 3rd
installment of "Random CNet Q&A, Part III".  These all pertain to CNet
v2.61 (or better).

Comment #825...

Ken, CNet already does an excellent job at stripping all trailing blank lines
from short file descriptions.  Please consider having it strip all leading
blank lines/spaces, too.

Thus avoiding displays like:
CNet > 1 15-Mar   0 tester0     LHA  5K
CNet >
CNet >
CNet >
CNet >
CNet >                                  This is a file note also
CNet > 2 15-Mar   0 tester1     LHA  6K This is a file note also
CNet > 3 15-Mar   0 tester2     LHA  3K This is a file note also
CNet > 4 15-Mar   0 tester3     LHA  1K This is a file note also

DOS filenotes also get messed up:
DOS > tester0                       25228 ----rwed 05-Nov-92 08:32:20
DOS > :
DOS >
DOS >
DOS >
DOS >
DOS > tester1                       23226 ----rwed 05-Nov-92 08:32:20
DOS > : This is a DOS note also
DOS > tester2                       23358 ----rwed 05-Nov-92 08:43:42
DOS > : This is a DOS note also
DOS > tester3                       23282 ----rwed 05-Nov-92 08:43:58

(Unless someone can think of a few reasons to specifically need that.)
It can really pointless space out your scan-displays much.

--826--
Can anyone think of a solution for the following problem...

A SysOp puts a new CD-ROM online.
He adds 100-400 new subs and subsubs.
40,000 new files.
600,000,000 bytes of stuff.
All appear with the same U/L date.

All callers that call-in see ALL OF THAT as 'new' during their BA/SA cmds.
It can take a great deal of time just to [D]rop/[J]oin 100s of subs.
Not counting the scanning/browsing of the actual files.

Maybe give users the ability to [D]rop/[J]oin all the sub-dirs
without actually going into each one?  Thus avoiding the:
CNet>  You must enter a directory to DROP/JOIN its subboards.

Currently, it's kind of like telling everyone they specifically have
to go inside each and every dir, just to specifically tell CNet that
that do NOT want to go into that dir at all.  (???)

Be handy for large, non-CD-ROM systems, too.

--827--
Forget about 2-way transfers.  A few Amiga/Proteus-BBS systems are now
doing 3-ways.  "UL" and "DL" and "still use the BBS", all at the same
time.

I contacted the author and asked if he'd be releasing any source/
concepts/specs/info or door-modules. (Proteus-BBS SysOps can just drop-in
his 3-way door.).  So that other term authors and BBS authors can add
it, too.  He sounded interested it doing so.

He said to check back in 1-2 weeks.
Although, I'm not sure what we will be getting, at that time.
("A compatible, generic door-module" or "the ability for Ken to add it
directly into CNet".  I hope it's the latter.)

What's available, as of today, can be file requ'ed from my BBS @
1:2410/207 as the name "3WAY" and "3WAYTERM".  Not much info, yet.

The author's name is Chris Laprise, his BBS is 508-677-4535, run
Proteus-BBS software.

And yes, he overcomes The Big DrawBack that the VBBS propriety setup had.
You *CAN* use his system in the normal-mode or 2 or 3-way modes.
Your choice.

--828--
Does anyone know of an arexx cmd that displays text to the screen
(only), but without appending a carriage return?  (#2)

1) 'screenOut'  (Send to screen       w/  CR)
2) '?????????'  (Send to screen       w/o CR)
3) 'sendModem'  (Send to modem        w/  CR)
4) '?????????'  (Send to modem        w/o CR)
5) 'transmit'   (Send to screen&modem w/  CR)
6) 'sendString' (Send to screen&modem w/o CR)

Also, how to I 'sendFile' without any kind of MCI expansion?

--829--
"RA" is just about the only cmd I use for my regular reading.  I often
need to "check and get back to you" regarding certain posts.  I'd love
to be able to hit a key at the "Respond/pass" prompt and have that
item re-appear as "New" next time I do another "RA", too.  It can be
pretty hard (sometimes near impossible) to find that msg quickly
again, without it.  (Some systems have 5000+ of msgs online.)

Anyone have a better idea or something I can use instead as a work-around?

--830--
AM> I have a suggestion. There should be a global user definable default for
AM> the order of a base (Chronological, Rev. Chrono, etc), because changing
AM> the default on every base wears upon a person.

This was suggestioned long ago...

Just allow ORder to accept a range of subs.
"OR 4"   Set sub #4
"OR 1-9" Set subs 1-9
"OR *"   Set all subs
"OR 1"   Set all subs within dir #1
What sort-type you pick after that, is applied to all the subs you've
specified.

No new "global user definable default" variable would have to be added.
You could effect just the subs you wanted, instead of ALL of them.
The ranging method is consisent with CNet's other cmds.

--831--

The keyword is "PRIVATE" not "PRIV".  CNet, unfortunately, doesn't like
short forms of secondary keywords/options/parameters.  It allows it on the
first word, but not after that.

S or SC or SCA or SCAN are fine.
PR PRI PRIV PRIVA PRIVAT are not.

Ken, would it be possible to parse these also?
User's would only need to enter the 1st few chars, just enough to achieve a
unique match.  Save some typing.  (And questions like "PRIV doesn't work".)

--832--
DM> We already have fido support programed into C-Net, we really don't need
DM> anything else for fido support..
Nothing else???  At all???  I keep seeing long, long lists of things that
users need added for fidonet support.  And I'm not talking about a
whole new frontdoor or tosser.

DM> BTW bill would you kindly quote to me the lines that lead you to believe
DM> that I was talking about Usenet support in my previous response..  I was
You covered Fidonet in your response and didn't mention anything of Usenet,
which is why I asked you about it.  I wasn't "lead to believe" you meant
Usenet each time you said Fidonet.  That's why I asked "What about Usenet?".

DM> mail tosser..  So instead of continuing to harp on Ken to write C-Net
DM> specifice versions of these files, let's ask him to write C-Net specific
I hope Ken didn't see it as 'harping on him'.

It has already been confirmed that Ken is planning some kind of Fax/
Fidonet/Usenet call-in recognition for Cnet v3.0.

Initially, I hope it's as simple as allowing us to choose between:
1)  Have CNet answer the phone and run TrapDoor, if needed.
2)  Have TrapDoor answer the phone and run CNet, if needed.

Don, just wondering, what % of the calls to your system are Fidonet
instead of human callers?  On my system it's around 1%.  Doesn't it
make sense to do #1 instead of #2?  (And even if 45% of your calls are
Fidonet.)  What do you think the avg is for the avg BBS?  Around 10%?
If so, that means 90% of the calls have to pass through Trapdoor for
absolutely no reason.  (Just incase.)

--833--

I like CNet's file/byte ULer payback/reward system.
Would anyone like CNet to track a new variable for each user?

It would be the "overall number of times all of his ULs have been DLed
by others".

I'd gladly offer special additional access to the top 10 users that
ULed a handful of files that were so popular they were DLed 100s of
times more than other files online.

I guess we can currently search for all ULs from all users, add up all the
times each have been DLed to get this value.  But that can take quite a while.

--834--

While reading responses, currently we can...
SPACE:  Abort and skip to next response.
SLASH:  Abort and skip to current response's "response/pass" prompt.

Is there a keystroke (or should/could there be) that will abort my
currently reading and quickly place me at the *LAST* reponse's "End of
item. Respond or Pass>" prompt?

BACKSLASH maybe?

There are some items that don't interest me at all.  And I currently
have to SLASH and read LAST and PASS.  Or is there a quicker/better
way to 'catch-up' on those items?

(I'd love to execute "FORGET" and have CNet not even scan them
anymore.  But no comment from Ken if this old suggestion is being
considered.)

And/or maybe a hot-key stroke that skips the whole darn item and instantly
starts reading the next one.

--835--

PB> Bill quite a few users are having trouble with the BBS locking up ports
PB> during downloads and log offs.  This is first priority.
PB>
I fully agree.  Did I say fixing this should take a back-seat?
Should we all stop making any suggestions until this bug is fixed?

I'd rather mention ALL bugs, and make ALL suggestions and let Ken
decide which are more important.  I'm pretty sure he (like you and I
and most everyone) will want the bugs fixed 1st.

--836--

Does anyone live in a part of the country that has Caller-ID that
sends the caller's phone # and also his *NAME*?  Radio Shack (RS)
sells a Caller-ID box for this purpose.  But no one can tell me if
this NAME-part is being generated as part of the Caller-ID info or is
the black-box looking-up and matching/displaying the caller's name
from a small internal database.  (I asked this question at RS and they
look at me, as if to say, "Bill, why don't you come back when you are
sober.")

Anyone know which?

If it's the former method, Ken might want to expand cnet.h from:
BYTE CallerID[x];

into:
BYTE CallerID[x];
BYTE CallerIDName[x];

for future support.


--837--
>New idle-out timer warning bell suggestion...

Would anyone like a SmartBell Idle-Out Timer?

If a port is about to idle-out on a user, Ken could ring the bell
every x secs initially.
Then after a while, every x/2 secs.
Then x/4.
Then x/8.
Faster and faster ringing means you are getting closer and closer to
an idling-out time cut-off.

(But don't over do it.)

Some cars have rear brake lights that flash slower during minor
braking.  And progressively faster and faster under heavier and
heavier braking.  Studies show many less rear-end collisions, even if
you are NOT consciously aware of the slow/fast flashing.  It just
intuitively works better.

--838--
Ken, I can't find it now, but I thought I read that XPR-Task was kept as an
external prg because it couldn't be made resident as a part of CNet itself.

No?  Other BBS authors are doing it.

It's not a big deal, just wondering.  9K memory & load-time savings would
probably be small.   So I don't know if it is worth the extra work.

(Maybe 8-line systems would like it.)

Is v2.63 coming up soon?  Can I post a statement about an April release?
(Early, mid, late?)

--839--
E>     What could you possibly be doing to your system everyday that requires
E> 20 hours of attention????  Aside from logging on, answering some mail or
*ME*???
I thought you were the one that said 'work' is 'fun'?
Why not have as much 'fun' as possible?
If 1 hour of 'fun' is good.
2 is better.
Right?
10 will be a blast.

I was speaking of 1-20 hrs of maint work, if CNet didn't have all of its slick
automatically features.  The 1s that you say are:
E> most [of Bill's suggestions] seem to be directed
E> at simply making your life easier and geared toward relieving the
E> responsibilities that go along with being a sysop.

I've been misunderstood.  So I'll clarify *MY* position...
BBS 'work' is not fun.  It is boring and repetitive to be forced to edit
1-by-1 accounts, files, msgs, access levels, purges, ORder settings, etc.

The more things that can be globally, the better.
The more things that can be done with #-# ranging, the better.
The more things that can be done automatically, the better.
A computer is ideal for such repetitive tasks.  Faster and more accurate than
any human.

All that I *DO* ask, is that I can control what is/isn't done by my software.
CNet already does this on *MANY* MANY levels.  But not all.

That leaves me more time to do what I like.  Non-maint tasks.  Read/write
msgs, check-out new ULs, etc.  Things that humans do much better than
computers.

As always, your opinions my differ.  You may like "boring and repetitive"
tasks.  You may want things less (or more) automated.  You may like doing
things 1-by-1 instead of specifying ranges.

To each his own.

--840--

I see mail's prompt has changed from:
>Kill all messages [No]?
to
>Kill the messages you've just read [No]?

How about covering all bases, once and for all:
>Kill [A]ll, [O]ld read, [N]ew read, [save all]:

Is this overkill?  (pun intended)  Which aren't needed?
Underkill?  Think of anything else to add?

--841--

I feel this is one of those features that should be a part of the BBS
itself, for several reasons:

1)  It would be very heavily used by many.
2)  We could count on it being available on EVERY CNet BBS we call.
3)  All the view/pack/test/extract strings that would be needed are
    already part of CNet's config.
    (Although it might be a good idea to have a separate EXTRACT string,
     for this use, separate from current "QWK EXTRACT" string.)
4)  Wouldn't have to worry about bugs/virus/back-doors running 3rd party stuff.
5)  The 4 functions needed (view/ask-user/extract/display-file) are already
    coded into CNet, for use at various other places.
    (So CNet's size/complexity wouldn't need to be expanded greatly.)
6)  You could still run an external "fileview/docread" prg, if you wanted to.

In additional to "view a text file", Ken could also allow 3 lines in
BBSTEXT like:
1> rad:c/Type >%s %s
2> c:Version  >%s %s
3> c:ShowPic  >%s %s
(All three allow your choice of executables, and your specified path.)

Line #1 would be the executable used to display the text file.
 You could view Docs or ReadMe's before you DL.

Line #2 would be used on executables/libraries/devices within the archive.
 You could actually see the file's version #, before you DL it!!
 (I wish more authors would use "$VER: v1.1" strings in their code.)

Line #3 would take IFF/HAM/24bit/GIF picture files and convert them
into ANSI pictures.
 You could actually view simple ANSI representations of pictures
 before you DL them!!!!

In all 3 cases, the BBSTEXT string would just appear in front of the
archive filename the user picked.  It's STDI/O output would be sent
to the BBS.  Very simple.  ("c:Type %s" expands into "c:Type Foo.txt")

You could, of course, use 3 totally different prgs, to do 3 totally different
things.   I just used Type/Version/Show as 1 example.
(You could c:More, c:Search, s:Sort, text reformat/indent/strip CR/LFs, etc.
Even the dangerous "c:Execute a script file."  All right online.)

I have not seen all this power on ANY of the 58 (and counting) Amiga
BBS packages I've tried to investigate.

--842--
AK> Autoinstall is a good idea, but beware, I guess we would have to make sure
AK> all of OUR config files are NOT overwritten (as ken does supploy
AK> bbsconfig3 in every release). I dont want that updated AUTOMATICALLY.

A correctly designed Autoinstall could take many things into acct.
Replace newer/old files based on the date/time stamps.
Check version #s, file sizes, disk space, etc, etc, etc.
Default to 1.  Default to the other.  Or prompt the user.

CBM's own Installer comes with a complete install-type *LANGUAGE*!
Design an Autoinstall prg any way you want.
(Their Installer language/executable is freely distributable.)

--843--

Ken, is "HELP" parsing input correctly?
CNet> help;ranges
Doesn't work as expected.

--844--

BB> The filenotes are taken from DOS ... do they have filenotes?
Ken, was this done for speed?

I thought if SS contained info to point to each file's InfoX and InfoLen
positions, it could:
1)  Not be dependent on DOS filenotes.  (or lack, thereof, as in this case.)
2)  Not be limited by DOS's filenote limits
    (79 VS 352 can be a loss of 273 chars)
3)  Not confuse the user if the SysOp has tweeked the DOS note making it very
    different the the online note that the user saw when he marked the file.
4)  CD-ROM's would also display filenotes.

I guess the whole key would be:  speed.
Would "SS" output be slower or faster looking at DOS notes or online notes.
#1-4 would be extra bonuses, if the speed came out pretty much equal.

--845--
Bigger does NOT always mean better, but...

An ad in this month's Amazing_Computing_Magazine claims 302-836-6175
is the W-O-R-L-D-'-S largest Amiga run BBS.

10 HST-DSs, 2 gig HD, etc...

Guess which software the owner chose to run this BIG, BIG investment on?

It has to say something great about that BBS software.

(HINT:  It isn't Paragon/Starnet!!!)

--846--
When you see someone post a msg stating that a certain BBS package is
the "greatest of all time" or "the worst", you have to ask yourself a
few questions about the person stating these facts:

1)  How long has he run this BBS software?

2)  How long has he been calling BBSes?
    [3 yrs] or (15 yrs)?

3)  How long has he been calling Amiga BBSes?
    [3 yrs] or (7 yrs)?

4)  How long has he been running an Amiga BBS?
    [2 months] or (7 yrs)?

5)  Is he the BBS's author?  Or an impartial judge?
    [Yes] or (No)?

6)  How many of the 61 (and counting) Amiga BBS packages has he
    actually run?   (To compare features from the "SysOp's Side".)
    [2] or (12)?

7)  How many of the 61 (and counting) Amiga BBS packages has he
    checked into?
    [7] or (42)?

8)  How many of the 61 (and counting) Amiga BBS packages is he
    even aware of?
    [15] or (61)?

9)  How many Amiga BBSes does he regularly call? (To check/compare
    features from the "Caller's Side"?)
    [10] or (400+)?

10) How long has he been checking/comparing Amiga BBS features?
    [4 months] or (7 years)?

11) How many doors/tools has he written for this BBS?  Or other BBSes?
    [2 doors for 1 BBS] or (100+ for 8 BBSes)?

12) How many suggestions has he made to further improve Amiga BBSes?
    [25] or (1400+)?

Be careful when you see "XXXXXX is the greatest BBS package in the
world", if the poster's answers to the above questions are in [xxx].

My answers are shown as (xxx).

Don't be too quick to believe everything you read.  Ask the person
to answer the above questions.

--847--
>CNet v2.63...

More and more amazing with each passing release!
(And I'm NOT easily impressed.)

PB> 196.    CD-ROM support continues.  CNet will now copy all CD-ROM files
PB>         to the temporary download directory all at once, at the beginning
PB>         of the transfer.  Provided users to not often abort transfers,
PB>         this method is more efficient then copying them one at a time
PB>         during the transfer.
'During' meaning 'as a background task'?
I thought that would be the way to go.
(No big, initial 'copy all' delay.)
While the user is DLing file 1-2-3, a low priority backgrnd task is copying
4-5-6...

PB> 204.    Changes were made to the /, <, and > commands in the subboards:
PB>         <,>     These commands now "search" for the next subboard,
PB> entering
PB>                 and exiting subdirectories as needed.  From the Upload
PB> base>
PB>                 or Message base> prompt, a user can now traverse all of
PB>                 your subboards by using only the > command.
How does this differ from the old method?

PB>         New GETUSERS are:

Ken, can you squeeze 1 more into v2.63?
It would expand into the full path of the current items' file.
UDBASE3:MyDir/MySub/Foo.LHA
For arexx scripts, as well as %xx parameter passing, as well as custom MCI
header displays.
I REALLY had to jump through hoops in an arexx script recently to
assemble "UDBASE3:MyDir/MySub/Foo.LHA" myself.
(I hope I haven't overlooked the obvious.)
(Determine if it BASE or UDBASE, get the partition #, get the default
dir name, get the filename, add all the ":" and "/" characters...)

Also, when will "{#xx pFiles:Rexx/Mine.rexx %4 %9}" pass its parameters to the
arexx script via PARSE ARG ...
(For arexx scripts that do many different things, I'd rather instruct users to
modify %4 %9, instead of telling non-programmers to dig into the code and
start modifying things.)

PB>   { }
PB>  ( V-)
PB>  "|Y|"
PB>  _|||_ Pete Baker (T-Bag 813-889-9467)

Pete, please mail me a blank msg.
I want to check why your tagline is shown fine in PUBLIC posts, but
in PRIVATE emails, I get:
^c7^z4  _  ^q1
^c7^z4 { } ^q1
^c7^z4( V-)^q1
^c7^z4"|Y|"^q1
^c7^z4_|||_^q1

Thanks for the README post, too!

--848--

PB> 207  A new option was added to EP's "message reading" feature.  Due to
PB>      popular demand, it's now possible to read a message using "ANSI
PB>      screen scrolling" ... the message header stays at the top of the
PB>      screen while the cursor continuously jumps from the bottom of the
PB>      screen to the top of the screen to delete lines and print new
PB>      ones.

Ken, I have a 27 char high term, and a 27 set in my ET.

All works fine elsewhere, but things scroll too far with the new ANSI-
scrolling.  (I miss reading a few lines for each screen full.)  I
don't think it is taking into acct the lines used by the header.
Things should actually scroll 3-4 lines LESS than my ET setting.

I don't want to change my ET setting myself, for then I won't get
correct screen-fills on my non-msg-reading displays.

Also, could "MORE" be made to recognize a "-" or up/down cursor keys?
Scrolling lines (I might have missed), back downwards.

--849--
Mark Dickenson...
MD> This is definately a bug but I like it much better than the older bug
MD> where you received mail in your box from echos you have TURNED OFF.  :)
MD> I point off the BBS and read messages in this manner and hated having t
MD> wade through any responses I had each time I called the BBS.  I couldn'
MD> turn the COPY TO MAIL off because others loved that feature for FIDO.
MD> But there is still a bug in that portion.  He need to have it all linke
MD> so it check both the DROPPED and COPYMAIL variables before putting any
MD> mail into your mailbox.

I don't know how CNet can ever fully cover this, until it allows THE
CALLER (not the SysOp) to turn carbon-copy ON/OFF (on a per-sub basis)
themselves.

1)  [D]rop/[J]oin for new-scans.
2)  [D]rop/[J]oin for carbon-copying.

In fact, I think it would be VERY common for users to say to themselves:

"I can't read the 1000s of msgs that come through this echo.  I'll [D]rop
it from my new-scan, but turn ON carbon-copy, so I'll still receive all
the msgs addressed to me."

OR
"I read this echo on 10 other BBSes I call.  I don't need to read it
during my new-scans and I don't want to receive carbon-copies either."

OR
"I've [J]oined this echo to read every post in it.  But, I don't need
to specifically get carbon-copies, too."

OR
"I want to visit this sub during new-scans AND get carbon-copies
of the posts addressed to me."

OR
"I'm not interested in this echo at all.  I need to turn off both
#1 and #2."

(And it just gets worse with 10-100 such echos.)

I feel the above statements are very common and represent real-life
examples of the way callers actually interact with a BBS.

Cover all bases.

--EOF--

Sunday 04-Apr-93 04:14:23

-Bill "Mr. BBS" Beogelein, 313-473-2020, 2-line HST 14.4k USR DS, 1:2410/207

