
Friday 06-Jan-95 21:24:18

--1900--

Here's some info directly from CNet's author ...

KEN> subj: Announcement: CNet 3.5, 4.0
KEN> from: Big Brother  (Ken Pletzer)
KEN> orgz: Perspective Software
KEN> on  : Fri  6-Jan-1995 12:58p
KEN>
KEN> Perspective Software, January 6th, 1994
KEN>
KEN> First, a "thank-you" to everyone who has patiently waited for an update
KEN> to CNet 3.05c.  You can be sure that support for this product, although
KEN> undergoing some changes, has not been dropped.  Changes include the fact
KEN> that the company "BJP" will no longer be handling support or sales for
KEN> CNet.  As a result of this, Future World may be returning to my residence
KEN> within the next couple of months.  I apologize that I personally have not
KEN> been able to spend much time if any on Future World.  I also apologize
KEN> that I have not been able to address many of the bug reports for 3.05c
KEN> because of a partial loss of the original 3.05c source code.  However, I
KEN> do want to give another "thank-you" to everyone who has found the time to
KEN> step in, giving fellow sysops the help and answers they need.
KEN>
KEN> I am planning many new and exciting things for CNet's future.  Following
KEN> is a list of what I have planned, and have been working on during the
KEN> last 6 months or so:
KEN>
KEN> CBase, CNet's new database engine.  CBase was designed to give CNet the
KEN> data storage horsepower it requires in order to integrate several other
KEN> advanced features.  CBase has been completely optimized for the typical
KEN> search and retrieval tasks of the BBS session.  CBase operates in a true
KEN> client/server environment--when the day comes to "add computers" to
KEN> provide additional phone ports, one computer will act as the "database
KEN> server" via LAN connections.  CBase gives CNet a more "open
KEN> architecture"--CBase can be accessed from any C program via library
KEN> calls.  And because ALL of CNet's data files will be in CBase format,
KEN> everything is easily accessible through C program add-on's.  Another
KEN> benefit will be the removal of several arbitrary limits, such as the 200
KEN> letters/mailbox, 1000 items/subboard, etc.  Record counts well into the
KEN> 100,000's will be possible for any database.
KEN>
KEN> "Yanking"--CNet's background packing of messages, has been transformed
KEN> into a client/server process, the "yank server."  Users create Yank
KEN> requests, and the single Yank process handles them one at a time.  Users
KEN> are easily able to abort and cancel Yank jobs.  Users will no longer be
KEN> required to wait for one Yank to finish before beginning another.
KEN>
KEN> "Testing" and "Transforming"--two operations that CNet performs on new
KEN> files, have been moved to a client/server process to be known as the
KEN> "subboard server."  Testing and Transforming will now occur via this
KEN> background task, immediately freeing users to continue to use the BBS.
KEN> Other time consuming operations, such as virus checking, may be
KEN> incorporated into the subboard server.
KEN>
KEN> CNet's event scheduler is now easier to use.  Instead of the "interval
KEN> and iteration" variables, you specify a re-schedule date in the form of
KEN> offset days, hours, and minutes.  The expired event is removed, and
KEN> REPLACED with the updated event.
KEN>
KEN> What WAS e-mail in CNet has been completely revised and updated.  CNet
KEN> email now more easily permits multiple recipients, file mail, and
KEN> "forwarding" addresses to non-local mailboxes.  CNet email now uses a
KEN> "folder" organization.  New messages are placed into a "new mail"
KEN> folders.  Users can move messages to existing or newly created folders to
KEN> organize mail in any way they choose.  Users can now more easily send
KEN> mail to "groups" of users.  A background "mail server" will handle the
KEN> actual transport of mail, relieving the user from having to wait for each
KEN> piece of mail to be delivered.
KEN>
KEN> CNet will take large strides to become more "object-oriented-like."
KEN> Access to just about everything will occur through a "tree-like"
KEN> structure.  Objects in this tree will include "branches" to more choices,
KEN> text messages, program file doors, and "areas" such as message bases,
KEN> chat rooms, and file libraries.  File libraries and message bases will
KEN> now be separate and distinct.  This format allows virtually unlimited
KEN> configuration possibilities.  Instead of just the "Base" and "UDBase"
KEN> areas, you can define any number of different branches to your system,
KEN> such as the "CNet area," the "Computer forum," right from the root level.
KEN> These areas may contain news files, programs, chat rooms, file libraries,
KEN> and messages bases, in any organization you desire!  A more object-
KEN> oriented approach will also be taken with the items in areas such as file
KEN> libraries and message bases.  Instead of reference by item numbers 1-526
KEN> for example, users may use file names, or choose a number 1-20 from the
KEN> current display on the screen.
KEN>
KEN> The concept of access groups will take on a whole new meaning to CNet.
KEN> No longer will each user be a member of one "group."  CNet will now allow
KEN> you to create as many access groups as you wish, and make any/all users
KEN> members of any group.  No longer will you have to choose from 32 group
KEN> numbers when assigning access to an area such as a message base.  CNet
KEN> will allow you to assign any combination of privileges
KEN> (read,wrrte,edit,delete,supervisory) to any group or user combination.
KEN> NEGATIVES of each privilege are also supported, just in case you want to
KEN> give read/write privileges to everyone (ie, the "everyone" group), and
KEN> then specifically deny the write privilege to certain users.  Gone
KEN> forever are the cryptic "access flags."  The "access number" still
KEN> remains, but will be used instead in a strictly greater/less than sense--
KEN> e.g., you must have a number at least this high in order to enter.
KEN>
KEN> CNet's "JoinLink" feature will be greatly extended.  "JoinLink" will
KEN> create a "virtual connection" to the other BBSs.  It will be possible to
KEN> send mail, chat, and even share specific/all message and file libraries
KEN> (provided the connection is fast enough).
KEN>
KEN> A preliminary timetable for potential releases is as follows:
KEN>
KEN> A "3.50" version is planned for the second quarter of this year.  This
KEN> release will encompass the CBase database, and all features relating to
KEN> it.  It will also contain the client/server job queue, subboard server,
KEN> and yank server.  3.50 will undergo an initial beta-release, and then a
KEN> "pre-release" to a larger group of willing participants before it is sold
KEN> to new customers.
KEN>
KEN> A "4.00" version is planned for the fourth quarter of this year.  This
KEN> release will encompass many cosmetic enhancements to the GUI, many
KEN> additional new features, such as the enhanced JoinLink, and new
KEN> documentation.
KEN>
KEN> Thank-you again for your continued support of the CNet project.  Great
KEN> things await the future of CNet!
KEN>
KEN> Ken Pletzer 1:2410/215

--1901--

Of course if you REALLY want to overkill, you can use a prg called
COUNTER and keep charts like:

>Number of WARM system-reboots ...
>    : 12am  2am  4am  6am  8am 10am 12pm  2pm  4pm  6pm  8pm 10pm    Totals
>    : ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----    ------
>Sun :    5    1    0    3    7    1    0    0    2    6    2    2  =     29
>Mon :    1    0    4    2    2    2    0    0    7    9    3    5  =     35
>Tue :    0    0    7    4    9    2    0    0    2    2    2    2  =     30
>Wed :    1    1    2    7    5    2    0    1    2    2    1    1  =     25
>Thu :    0    0    0    0    3    0    1    1    2    5    0    1  =     13
>Fri :    0    5    4    2    3    0    1    0    0    2    4    2  =     23
>Sat :    0    3    2    5    4    2    0    6    3    7    1    2  =     35
>    : ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ==== ====    ======
>TTL :    7   10   19   23   33    9    2    8   18   33   13   15  =    190

(Tracks cold-boots, warm-boots, or *ANY* event you like.)

You'll know the time, number, and date, that most of your reboots are
occurring.  I would definitely check into a suspect event if you saw 4712
reboots at 4am Monday, and very few during other dates/times.

The prg just takes a few seconds to run, and all the data is stored in
a little file less than 1K, so there aren't any real big time/space
demands.

Also pretty handy for things like:
   How many people make it to your front-door, but never log-on?
   How many people make it to your name/password prompt, but never any futher?
   How many people log-on OK, but don't log-off correctly?
   How many people use the HELP cmd?
   How many times do callers read a certain text-file.
   How many times do callers play a certain pfile (door) game?
   When to most new-users register?
   How often does your mailer dial-out?
   How often does your mailer dial-out, and receive mail?
   How often does your mailer dial-out, and NOT receive mail?
   Anything else, too.

Can also count events not even related to CNet-BBS at all:
   Number of times a certain DOS-script (or arexx-script) is run.
   Number of times your machine is cold or warm rebooted.
   Number of times you run a certain program.

--1902--

DM> I call Future World Daily and I must have misssed this message. Has anyone
DM> else seen this?

I've seen it.

DM> I just called again and failed to see this message from Ken.

It's also been posted in various CNet echoes.  You can also file-requ a copy as
"CNET4INFO" from 1:2410/207.  Please spread that ACCURATE info around.  Thanks.

--1903--

KF> So, how are we supposed to acquire the new version???  Guess more phone
KF> calls to MI huh???

I hope Ken is going to use the same methods used for v3.05c.
Make it available at sites world-wide.  (Including a simple file-requ from
1:2410/207)

But it's not available just yet.  I'm sure many people will be posting BIG
announcements about it when it's released.  It's VERY unlikely that anyone will
miss the news.

--1904--

From: Reuben O'neale@1:278/520

RO> Subj: bad dates
RO> From: AutoMsg 789308937  (AutoMsg 789308937@3:711/934.0)
RO> On  : Thu  5-Jan-1995 10:29p
RO> ...[text]....
RO> -----------------------------------------------------------

RO> That was the complete message... So what's to do?

Send a copy to Ken Pletzer @ 1:2410/207 and please post his response.

I feel that Ken gets a lot of msgs from users like "something wrong
with the dates, but I don't know what".  Not too much help to a
programmer.

Your msg is exact and specific.  That's the kind of stuff Ken needs.

Perhaps Ken is already aware of all of that, but I would sure feel
better hearing *HIM* state that fact.

--1905--

TP> I figure this is a CNet program rather than a TrapToss.  Are there any
TP> existing programs that will use the TrapToss MSGFILTER as a trigger to
TP> rename echo messages addressed to "SYSOP" to "_SYSOP" or some such.  I'm
TP> sick of people abusing CNet's "replace SYSOP with <sysop's_name>" ability.

I've asked Ken to make "Address a network msg to SysOp" into a "user
must have sysop-powers" cmd.  (But I think I'm the only person that is
in favor of such an idea.)

It would *NOT* remove that handy feature from CNet.
But it would cut down on its abuse.

--1906--

DG> I will try. This does bring to mind one other thing I do miss about DLG
DG> PRO. CNet uses a seperate short and long file description for it's files.
DG> DLG PRO used just the long description and all it did for the short
DG> description (when doing file scans) was read off the first line of the
DG> long description.

Oddly it was one of the things that I downright disliked about DLG.

Seeing file bases like:

Filename1.LHA 01-Jan-95 123456 This is a really nice program, it allows...
Filename2.LHA 11-Jan-95  23456 This update make the v2.3 version into...
Filename3.LHA 22-Jan-95  28933 Don't try and run this with out having...
Filename4.LHA 15-Jan-95 893833 Can't get this one to work but if you...
Filename5.LHA 18-Jan-95 109883 Wow, this animation is for the best of...

(That's an extreme case.)

I *LIKE* forcing the user to be VERY brief and to the point in the short
descriptions.  And allowing verbose, free writing style in the long notes.
One just can't be chopped it create the other.

--1907--

MM> I just received three peices of mail from the 1:1/31 InterNet/FidoNet
MM> gateway system, and although Toss recognized them and imported them, they
MM> all appeared in my mailbox with nothing but a "From" line.  No text.

Mark, I had the same thing happen here a few times.  (I don't use 1:1/
31 for my gateway.)

You didn't say, but I assume you are using CNet's own TOSSER?  (I am.)

I need to grab an inbound mail packet BEFORE it gets tossed and deleted.
So I can examine it.  (My gateway hates test-msgs.  In fact he went
nuts just because I asked a few other local sysops if they are having
the same problem.  He immediately assumes that all comments are
blaming him for having a faulty gateway.)

I need to examine a raw inbound mail packet so I can find out things like:
1) Does it definitely contain the full text of the sent msg?
2) Does the user mailbox contain the full text?
3) Is CNet's Tosser at fault?

If the Tosser is at fault, I'd like to examine (side by side) an
inbound gated msg and an inbound non-gated msg.  (Both with the same
to/from/text/subjs.)  Maybe CNet's tosser is seeing the gate-packet as
having some difference (or significance) as compared to the non-gated
ones.

--1908--

P> I'd really like to see RIP support by CNet both for remotes and locally.

1) You can already do it remotely.  (Just send all the RIP code you want.)

2) For local viewing, you can use a piece of software like null-modem v2.14
and just use your favorite RIP term program.

But yes, I too would like to see local RIP-viewing built right into the CNet
screens.

Until that time we can use #1 and #2.

And maybe even #3....

3) Has anybody gotten an external RIP library working with CNet and its public
screen features?

--1909--

BB> I can't really recommend that anyone use "RAM:" these days.

CJ> For OVER TEN YEARS Ram: has worked flawlessly here. Must be a fluke since
CJ> you disagree!  :^)

You really should check on some of the speeds.  CBM's own "RAM:" drive
is one of the slowest around.  RAD: and FFS RAD: are *much* faster.
Last time I PERSONALLY bench-marked it (years ago), it was like 500%-
700% faster.  That is nothing to sneeze at.

CJ> I understand when one is still
CJ> learning that such 'neat programs' seem like a great accomplishment.

I'm always learning.  Always will be.

CJ> Duplicity and overkill do not a great program make.  A log of reboots is
CJ> unimportant to me past the last one.

It's totally unimportant that your machine may have crashed and
rebooted itself 25 times yesterday???  And you won't know it because
you can only see the LAST one reboot date/time.  It is WELL worth the
very little disk space used to keep at LEAST the last 10 reboot times
in a log.

CJ> Thanks for your response Bill..

No charge.  Always glad to help give new ideas and new, easier,
shorter, faster ways to do things.

--1910--

On Tue 10-Jan-1995  4:06a, High Spirit said to Mugwump:
HS> ok.. not gonna quote that whole thing but I have a question...
HS>  Would Ken actually call a BBS in another contry just to tell us that?
HS> Look at the last line:
HS> M> * Origin: LSB Cnet Support BBS +49-4136-8256 GEt IT ! (2:240/6000)
HS> See what I mean?

On Mon 16-Jan-1995  6:25a, The Proprietor said to High Spirit:
TP> You should stop trying to blast everything you see. If you spend all your
TP> life looking for the negative things, that's exactly what you will find
TP> and that'll be a pitiful sort of life, won't it?

I didn't see HS's simple, legitimate, easily-answered question as
"trying to blast everything he sees".  I'd much rather see him ask (as
he did) then wonder about it for the rest of the month.

Maybe a few other people were wondering the same thing.  Who knows?
Not everyone has exactly the same level of experience in the BBS
world.  What might be obvious to one person, isn't to another.  So
people ask questions.

And with all the wild rumors people have been spreading about CNet, it
can be surprising to see the real thing when it comes along.  (As it
did here.)

--1911--

Ken, please excuse the length of this msg.

In a nutshell, outbound Fidonet->UUCP gated msgs work fine.
Inbound UUCP->Fidonet gated msgs only end up with just the header
name/date/subject.  Zero text.

I'm not sure if it's CNetToss, or what.  If the msgs are coming from the gateway
with zero text, or what.

I can't test it with that earlier Fidonet->UUCP->Fidonet msg I sent you.
My gateway doesn't allow that.  It just turns all such msgs into Fidonet->Fidonet
msgs and my test is pointless.  I will (later today) send a few UUCP->Fidonet
msgs your way and they "*should*" appear with zero text.  Maybe it'll help us
track this one down.

Here are more details...

--- cut here ---

Subj: Toss @ Internet Gateway?
From: Mark Morissette
On  : Thu 12-Jan-1995 12:10p

I just received three peices of mail from the 1:1/31 InterNet/FidoNet gateway
system, and although Toss recognized them and imported them, they all appeared
in my mailbox with nothing but a "From" line.  No text.

They were all regarding the announcement by Ken of the Cnet updates, and I'm
pretty sure they were sent automatically..

Does all InterNet routed netmail get handled this way?  I seem to remember
reading something about this being mentioned a few weeks back, but I never
really looked at it too much..

If this is a bug, is it going to be addressed in the future updates of Cnet?
Is there any way around it currently?
     Mark...

  FidoNet: Mark Morissette@1:229/422.0
    NaNet: Mark Morissette@81:905/133.0
 InterNet: Mark.Morissette@f442.n229.z1.fidonet.org
        SysOp - Ground Zero BBS
--- CNet/3
 * Origin: Ground Zero, Oshawa, CAN.  All Amiga! (905)404-1867  (1:229/442)

Subj: Toss @ Internet Gateway? (response 1)
From: Bill Beogelein  (SysOp)
To  : Mark Morissette
On  : Sun 15-Jan-1995  1:31a

MM> I just received three peices of mail from the 1:1/31 InterNet/FidoNet
MM> gateway system, and although Toss recognized them and imported them, they
MM> all appeared in my mailbox with nothing but a "From" line.  No text.

Mark, I had the same thing happen here a few times.  (I don't use 1:1/31 for
my gateway.)

You didn't say, but I assume you are using CNet's own TOSSER?  (I am.)

I need to grab an inbound mail packet BEFORE it gets tossed and deleted.
So I can examine it.  (My gateway hates test-msgs.  In fact he went nuts just
because I asked a few other local sysops if they are having the same problem.
He immediately assumes that all comments are blaming him for having a faulty
gateway.)

I need to examine a raw inbound mail packet so I can find out things like:
1) Does it definitely contain the full text of the sent msg?
2) Does the user mailbox contain the full text?
3) Is CNet's Tosser at fault?

If the Tosser is at fault, I'd like to examine (side by side) an inbound gated
msg and an inbound non-gated msg.  (Both with the same to/from/text/subjs.)
Maybe CNet's tosser is seeing the gate-packet as having some difference (or
significance) as compared to the non-gated ones.

- Bill "Mr. BBS" Beogelein, ag775@detroit.freenet.org
- Giant Amiga CNet-BBS real-time chat on the Internet/IRC
- every Sunday 8-9pm EST, Look for channel "#AmigaCNet"

Subj: UUCP gates and TOSS
From: Jon Berry
On  : Tue 23-Aug-1994  7:07a

I have added UUCPGate (nice program Bill!) to my system, and the users really
like it, but when responses com back via the gate, TOSS is mangling them.  The
PKT contains the whole message, but after it has been tossed, what ends up in
the mailbo is just the header information.  The body of the message gets
stripped out.

This also happens to one of my downlinks.  I'm a FIDO hub, and he gts alot of
gated netmail (well, he was until he switched to me as a hub) and the same
thing happens to him, except he is running Maximus on an IBM.  Toss strips the
body of the message out of HIS UUCP gated netmail before sending them off to
him.

Has anyone else seen this problem?  Sounds more like a bug than a setup
problem, but I'm REALLY hoping there is something I can do besides go back to
foozle/ifido.

Jon Berry -or- The Edge
--- CNet/3
 * Origin: The Traveler BBS - Multi-Node Chat! (215)442-1794  (1:2614/704)

Subj: UUCP gates and TOSS (response 1)
From: Jeremy Rusnak
To  : Jon Berry  (The Edge)
On  : Fri 26-Aug-1994 12:39p

On Tue 23-Aug-1994  7:07a, Jon Berry wrote:

JB> Has anyone else seen this problem?  Sounds more like a bug than a setup
JB> problem, but I'm REALLY hoping there is something I can do besides go back
JB> to foozle/ifido.

A couple of my users have reported this problem to me as well.  It really
blows, TOSS needs a BIG overall and fast.  But, you know, I realize that isn't
possible.  I bought C-Net half because I loved the software, and half because
I loved the support.  It used to be that you reported a problem or two and a
new version was out a few weeks later with several fixes.

Has anyone even thought of compiling a real bug list of v3.05c for submission
to Ken?  I think it needs to be done as there are a LOT of things that keep
recurring... Maybe we should start a thread here for that purpose...

Jeremy Rusnak
(SysOp, Energy Telecommunications)
.
--- CNet/3
 * Origin: Energy Telecommunications <Amiga/4 Nodes> 412-339-0590 (1:129/265)

Subj: Gated Internet Mail (response 1)
From: Bill Beogelein  (SysOp)
Orgz: CNet-BBS V3.05a Beta-Tester
To  : Geoffrey Setser
On  : Mon  7-Feb-1994  3:52p

GS> Our network coordinator is now able to gate Internet mail into our
GS> FIDO net.  I am not quite sure how to get the mail addressed properly.  He
GS> says that it should be addressed to UUCP 1:3626/1.0.

Sounds like you need a pfile that handles all that for you.

UUCPgate.LHA               15830 ----rwed 05-Feb-94 18:42:02
: Send UUCP-mail to 10,000,000 Internet users in 110 countries from a CNet-BBS

File-requ "UUCPgate" from me at 1:2410/207 (810-473-2020).
(Or an older release is available on FutureWorld.)

Bill Allen Beogelein, CNet Beta-Tester v3.05a-Beta, 1:2410/207, 1-810-473-2020

Item: 672
Subj: Gated Internet Mail (response 7)
From: Geoffrey Setser
To  : Bill Beogelein  (SysOp)
On  : Wed  9-Feb-1994  8:24p

On Mon  7-Feb-1994  3:52p, Bill Beogelein said to Geoffrey Setser:
BB> Sounds like you need a pfile that handles all that for you.

BB> UUCPgate.LHA               15830 ----rwed 05-Feb-94 18:42:02
BB> : Send UUCP-mail to 10,000,000 Internet users in 110 countries from a
BB> CNet-BBS

BB> File-requ "UUCPgate" from me at 1:2410/207 (810-473-2020).
BB> (Or an older release is available on FutureWorld.)

     Even though my problem was that I wasn't using the correct syntax and it
is working fine, I freq'ed this file from you to see if it would make it any
easier for my users.  This is a great utility.  It makes it very easy for the
users.  All they have to know is where they want the mail to end up at.  It
can't get any easier than that.

     I have only been using this program for a short while, but it seems to be
working without a hitch and the users are going to love it.  I recommend that
anyone who sends gated internet mail out get this program.

Thanks
--- CNet/3
 * Origin: The E-Pages BBS Savannah,GA (912)927-4857 (1:3626/11.0) (1:3626/11)

--- cut here ---

--1912--

Q> 3. saving of preferences are sometimes ignored - after starting the
Q> prefs-editor again, the old settings are still present.

Are you referring to the online cmd "EP" or the offline CNet/Config stuff?

The latter has been confirmed by Ken to *NOT* allow the changing and saving of
certain config values.

Try this instead...
1) Shut down all ports.
2) Shut down the CNet-Control Panel.
3) Run CNet CONFIG.
4) Edit, save, and exit CNet CONFIG.
5) Reboot
(Do NOT skip ANY steps.)

Let me know if that helps.

--1913--

LF> correctly.. (the 8-line limit DIZ' worked fine with this, but afterwards
LF> they use a seperate file for each description)  Maybe shorten what it
LF> shows in the scan line down to 4 lines, and then for the long description
LF> putting it all in.  Also, maybe have it scan the first 3 lines and if
LF> there are more than x graphic characters (-'s, ='s, etc..) then use the
LF> last 4 lines, because usually this means that there is some sort of ad at
LF> the beginning.

Maybe have variables like....
"-=*/\"    (These are considered graphic characters)
40%        (If the first x lines contains more than 40% of those characters,
            do NOT use that as a short-desciption.)
4          (The value of x above.)
6          (The max length of a short-description.)
30         (The max length of a long-description.)

All those things should be config-variables in a *GOOD* DIZ prg.
Does anyone know of such a prg?
Should I begin writing one?  (I'll only do so if one's not yet available.)
(And even then, it'll be quite a while before I can start work on it.)

I hope that one is already available.  No?

--1914--

TW> I would like to see DIZ processing built in also, a great addition to
TW> CNet!

A lot of folks seem to what it, but no one will stated EXACTLY how (or what)
they need it to do.

Who's willing to post a step-by-step description of *ANYTHING* you can think
of regarding what you'd like a DIZ processor to do.

I'd like a COMPLETE list of everything imaginable.  (Hopefully from several
different people.)  Then maybe someone (maybe Ken) can weed out the good and
bad suggestions and make The Ultimate Diz Processor.

I thought there already was one, but from the folks I've talked to, there
apparently is NOT.  (I've yet to even run any DIZ Processor.  I just get
scared off by all the short comings I keep hearing about.)

--1915--

PB> NO, I didnt know they were being gated, but i dont see that as a big
PB> hurdle.. you can make the unique dirname anything you want..

How can you convince your gateway to use "MFCPMotherboards" instead of
"misc.forsale.computers.pc-specific.motherboards" for the tagname?

1) Some folks tell me too many gateways can't (or won't) make that
   change for them.

2) Others tell me that their gateways will (and can) gladly do it.

What if we are stuck with gateway #1?  Then what do CNet SysOps do?

--1916--

JA> ok bill, I just wrote this easy and simple program which cuts down on
JA> hackers and will also not affect other callers.  You simply put this as
JA> the first thing to run after the system recognizes the person logged on.
JA> I use it just for myself.

All that program does is to prevent anyone named "COOTA" from logging
in.

I'd much rather just make my password be "d_keiu83kjc.js" and not have
to worry about it.

It would be EXTREMELY unlikely that some user would just happen to
guess "d_keiu83kjc.js" for your password.

And if you are really concerned that users are downloading your
password file and getting ahold of everyone's password, well, then
you've got a lot more to worry about than "COOTA log-in" problems.
Your whole BBS is unsecure and pointless.

--1917--

MM> ARGH!  I routinely have to weed out about 15+++ messages a day from my
MM> mailbox thanks to this, as for all 800 message areas I have online here, I
MM> have Carbon Copy enabled.

#1
MM> I'd LOVE to see a feature in the base VDE,

#2
MM> or the Tosser config that will
MM> allow me to toggle a "CC messages addressed to sysop?" feature on or off.

I'd like to see #2.  But either would work.  But either would only
effect INBOUND msgs.

What would you like to see added to CNet to help cut down on the #
of "SysOp addressed msgs" going OUT of your system?

#3 How would you feel if CNet would only allow callers with maint
(or subop) access to even address "msgs to SysOp" in the 1st place?

Then all the sites that got msgs (even non-CNet systems) would see
fewer SYSOP addressed msgs.

If more BBS software had #3, maybe I would NOT need to even use #2
or #1 that much.

(And important msgs FROM SysOps would still be allowed to get
addressed TO "Sysop".)

--1918--

S> The reason I ask, isn't a up-load considered a post?  and if I set
S> it to purge after 30 days.  Won't it purge the up-loads that have been
S> on-line more than 30 days also?

Posts are purged after x days of no one responding to them.
(NOT "after x days online".)

Files are purged after x days of no one D/Ling them.
(NOT "after x days online".)

I made a proposal to Ken (long ago) that would have allowed
different values for x based on items that are msgs VS files.  If
you'd like to see that feature in a future release of CNet, let Ken
know that you are interested.

Just type "MS Ken Pletzer@1:2410/215" at any prompt.

I'd most likely set my file-purge days much higher than my msg-
purge days.

--1919--

S> what I did.  I set the Highest to 5, my specific to 1 and my password to
S> AUTO.  When I save the config and go back into it it changed the Highest
S> back to 0.  What's up with that?  I did it with the ports loaded,
S> unloaded, reloaded, preloaded, hotloaded and everything else I could think
S> of and nothing...  Any Ideas?

Try 1 more...

1) Shutdown all ports.
2) Shutdown the control panel.
3) Run config.
4) Edit/save your values.
5) Re-run the control panel.
6) Re-run your ports.

#2 is the important step.

I have NOT specifically tried 1-6 with the joinlink config
settings.  But 1-6 works great for setting changes that don't
appear to "stick" when changed.

--1920--

Regarding Ken Rumsey's gated test msgs...

On Wed 01-Feb-1995  8:31a, Ken Rumsey wrote:
KR> Apparently-to: Bill.Beogelein@f207.n2410.z1.fidonet.org
KR> From 3633-1701!ken.rumsey 27 Jan 95 10:26:29 -0500 remote from satlink

The header looks fine, but the above text is all I got in the msg body.

How does this "theory" sound...

Perhaps the Internet->Fidonet conversion process tries to force its
lengthy TO and FROM strings into the Fidonet msg structure, thus
overrunning the field's width.  CNet uses...
> char from[36];
> char to [36];
> char dateline[20];
> ....

The overrunning string's \0 characters gets shoved into the NEXT
field.  Thus the tosser finds the \0 and thinks that the end of the
NEXT field, when it's actually the end of the PREVIOUS field.
(Although, if you are overrunning field-widths all kinds of wacky
things can occur.)

Can you (and a few other people) try gating a few msgs to me as
"SysOp@f207.n2410.z1.fidonet.org" or "1@f207.n2410.z1.fidonet.org"
or "x@f207.n2410.z1.fidonet.org" something?

And have them come FROM you as "SYSOP" or "X" or shorter names too.

--1921--

Subj: C-Net TOSS & UUCP Gateway
From: Ron Hanick
On  : Mon 20-Feb-1995  2:29p

RH> All messages get out to
RH> the internet and back to me just fine. But when C-Net toss tosses them it
RH> only shows the message subject header but no message. I checked the packet
RH> before it was tossed and sure enough the complete message was there. Is
RH> this a problem with the C-Net toss, wrong toss config settings?

Many people are having that same problem.  (Me too.)

You should have addressed your post to James Ankuda@1:101/665.

He's one of the very few sysops that doesn't seem to have any problems at
all like that.

JA> I've been using the internet/fidonet gateway here for like 4
JA> months, and I haven't had a problem with it.  All my message go out
JA> fine and come in fine.

But every time someone asks him to relieve what he is doing different
than the rest of us, he won't respond with any solid info.

But we are getting closer to finding out.  His recent post said that
he'll tell us all, but every one of us has to individually call his
BBS long-distance and read his text file.  I've already asked him
to post the info publically.  Maybe he will some day.

He gets furious when I ask him why he won't just tell everyone.
Maybe now he'll speak up.  But we'll never know why his info was keep
secret for so long.

--1922--

S>          View format: C:LZX >%s l "%s"
S>          Test format: C:LZX >%s t "%s"
S>         Test keyword: all files OK
S>         Keyword line: 1
S>       Keyword column: 23
S>         Ok, just to double check, and for anyone else who need the info.
S> This (above) should be the right way to set up LZX on your CNet/3 BBS!

How does "all files OK" end up on column #23 at all times?
Some archives have 2 files in them.  Others 22.  Others 222.

LZX> ** 2 file(s) tested, all files OK
LZX> ** 22 file(s) tested, all files OK
LZX> ** 222 file(s) tested, all files OK

I think you need to do something like:
BB>         Test keyword: OK
BB>         Keyword line: 2
BB>       Keyword column: -3

--1923--

AP> that AMaint needs, and I cant locate it anywhere.  Can anyone Please give
AP> me ahand here??

AP> 1 - Where Should it be (he may have just moved it)

"AMAINT" can be placed anywhere you like.  You just need to set-up
an event to run it with that given path.  Most likely found as
"Pfiles:bbs/amaint".

AP> 2 - What does it do? (dumb question, but he did most of
AP> the Tech stuff.)

A long list of purging.  Posts, responses, U/Ls, old user accts,
old BBS listings, old gfiles/pfiles/news-files, etc.

AP> 3 - Can it be added in at this time, of its now here at all??

Sure.  Just get your original disks, or the free CNET demo disks.
Find the "amaint" file and copy it over to your HD.

Also, certain files *NEED* to be in certain paths.  These are
hardcoded right into CNet...

pfiles:bbs/join
pfiles:bbs/bbslist
pfiles:bbs/ulist
pfiles:bbs/mverify
pfiles:maintenance/repair_sub
pfiles:bbs/bmaint
pfiles:bbs/vote
Pfiles:bbs/lmaint

You can see that list at any time by typing "Search CNet:BBS
pfiles" at any DOS-prompt.

--1924--

BG> Well, if you are using the 3.04 version of the BBSTEXT you will be able to
BG> save it.  People told me I had to replace the BBSTEXT, but, what I did was
BG> just load two of them into CED and search for the {} lines.  You will find
BG> them...  And, just replace them all with what they are supposed to be.

If you accidentally add or remove even just *1* line, your whole
system will be messed-up beyond belief.  And you'll spend days
trying to find which of the 2104 lines you've deleted/added.

Programs like UpBBStxt.LHA update all 2104 lines (only the ones
that need it) in about 5 seconds.  No chance for human error.

File-requ "UpBBStxt.LHA" from the address below.

--1925--

JB> Please respond to this test message (sorry Mr. Moderator) because it seems
JB> that CC is not working right and I'm not getting messages to me into my
JB> mailbox as I should. Either that or everyone is ignoring me..., nah...

Did you say something?

Several things can make CC appear not to work,
when in fact is works fine:
1) Do you have >200 msgs in your mbox?
2) Do you have this sub's EL "Carbon copy to EMail: Yes/Def. On"?
3) Have you used the "CA" cmd to enable or disable carbon-copy for this sub?

I'm sure there are several other easily overlooked factors, too.

--1926--

TB> I am running C-Net's TOSS.
TB> My log is Sysdata:log/toss
TB> I've copied TossReport.rexx to REXX:
TB> I have an Amiga 3000, 10 megabytes, Dos 2.1 and C_Net 3.05c

Always mention the prg version # too.
I hope you are using "TossReport v0.5 Tue 08-Nov-94 18:55:35".
(That's the latest.)  File-requ TossReport.LHA from the address below.

TB> The only thing I am unsure of is the requirment to set "Toss VERBOSITY 2".

That's probably the problem.  Without the higher verbosity setting,
your logs will be too brief for TossReport to do its work correctly.

When you run the CNet-Tosser just use "CNet:Fido/Toss VERBOSITY 2"
from the CLI or a DOS-script.

If that doesn't solve the problem, I'll need to see a copy of your log.
(Using VERBOSITY 2, of course.)

TB> BTW, there is a minor error in your documentation.  On or about line
TB> 66, is:

BB> A typical CLI usage would be:
BB>    CLI> rx Rexx:TossReport.rexx TOSS INBOUND OUTBOUND
BB>    CLI> alias Report rx Rexx:TossReport.rexx TOSS INBOUND OUTBOUND

TB> "TOSS" should be "TOSSES".

It's mentioned in the docs and the help-screen too:
BB> All options can be abbreviated to just the 1st 4 chars.

So even "rx Rexx:TossReport.rexx TOSS INBO OUTB" is valid.

I'm glad you've asked all these things in PUBLIC.  You just saved
me a lot of time answering tons of email 1-by-1 that all seem to
ask similar questions.

Everyone!  Let's keep CNet questions and answers PUBLIC, not PRIVATE!
Thanks.

--1927--

MR> I had locked the system except that unlock said that it was not locked. I
MR> ended up replacing the CNet bbs program. Once I replaced that it would
MR> work again. I guess that somehow it can (VERY VERY RARE) become corrupt.
MR> So, if nothing else works, replace the bbs file and see it that helps.

Next time that happens, can you send me the old, corrupt BBS program?

I'd like to do a "CMP BBS.old BBS.new FULL" and see exactly what
got changed byte-by-byte.

Thanks.

It would be VERY rare to have a corrupt 266,156 byte executable and
have it still work in every way, EXCEPT for the tab key.  Giant,
corrupt, complex executables usually have massive problems or won't
even run at all.

Take even a small 3K c:dir cmd and change just 5-10 bytes at random
places and watch it go wacko all over the place.

--1928--

TB> Bill, I'm having some trouble and I was wondering if you (or anyone
TB> else) can help.  I bought 3.05c and sent in the registration card about
TB> 10 days ago.  Since then, I've also sent 4 Netmail messages asking for
TB> my license data.  Now I realize that 10 days is not too long, but it
TB> took over 10 weeks just to get C-Net 3.05c sent to me.

I certainly hope you were running CNet in the mean time.  Anyone
on planet Earth can file-requ CNet from me and set it up and run it
with absolutely NO 10 week (or even 1 day) waiting period.  (You
will still have to wait for a license file.  Only Ken can do that.
But you can run CNet in the mean time.)

TB> I think you are in Michigan.  I don't know how close you are to Ken,
TB> but if you can do anything, I'd appreciate it.  I like C-Net and I
TB> appreciate Ken for writing it, but on March 23rd (30 days), I'm writing
TB> the postal inspector.  I know Ken is busy, but it wouldn't kill someone
TB> to at least acknowledge that my Netmails arrived.

About all I can do is forward a copy of your msg to Ken.

I really have no contact with him other than the same echos,
netmail, voice, fax, BBS methods that everyone has access to.  (I
haven't spoken to him via voice-phone in 2-3 YEARS.)

About all I can say it to keep track of the exact dates/times/
methods you've used thus far.  And tell anyone/everyone about them.

I do think *EVERYONE* should hear about the good (as well as the
bad) side of CNet.  What people perceive as delibarate (as well as
accidental) avoidance in issuing license #s.  I bet this is just an
accidental oversite on Ken's part.  He couldn't possibly be gaining
anything by EVER deliberately NOT issuing someone their license #.
After all, he already has the money, so there's no profit gained by
not issuing license #s afterwards.  Is there?  Would you, if you
were selling a commercial computer software package?

I wish I could do (or say) more.

--1929--

JS> I`ve have some wishes for the upcoming new Version of CNet:

JS>  - LengthLimit of FileDescriptions should be bigger than 8
JS>    Many files (especially for the PC have much longer File_IDs
JS> Descriptions

How long would you like those to be?  Remember CNet already has
both a SHORT and a separate LONG description.  Why not keep the
short short (already 8 lines), and the long long (already 100s of
lines possible.)  Why mix the two?

JS>  - Password protected Subboards ...

Imagine what it would be like if just 10 BBSs each had 2-3 passworded subs.
Do you really want to remember 20-30 *MORE* passwords?
And have to key them in EVERY time you visit those subs.

(And those are subs that already can have a massive amount of
security...  By age, by computer type, by access level, by post, by
UL, by DL, by invite only, etc.)

Imagine the slowdown that passwords would cause even in a fast
"FIND" or "NSAL" search.

--1930--

Ken, I don't know if you know about this one.  Maybe it only
happens during the 1st few days of the month.  (And/or during the
1st 0-9 hours of the morning.)

> Mess: 174
> Subj: bad dates
> From: AutoMsg 794488022@3:711/934
> To  : SysOp
> On  : Mon  6-Mar-1995  6:07a
>
> This is an automatically generated message
>
> Messages are coming from your system with a date that
> doesn't conform to FTS-0001.
> Common reasons for this are:
>
> 1. Date has day number as ' 5' instead of '05' (e.g.)
> 2. Month name is in uppercase (e.g. MAY instead of May)
> 3. Seconds field has a number 60 or greater
> 4. Date is 19 bytes long instead of 20
>
> I have included my log below.  Could you please inform the
> author of the mailprocessor you are using of this problem?
> If there are any problems, please contact Paul Edwards
> at 3:711/934.  I am also interested to know the name of the
> software myself.
>
> Using an out-of-spec date means that your message was
> semi-rejected by this system.  What has actually happened
> is that the date has been converted to '01 Jan 94  01:01:01'
> and processing has continued.  Your message may be flagged
> as a dupe further down the track because of this.  Further
> out-of-spec messages will be similarly processed, but to
> avoid cost, I will not be sending any more warning messages
> for a while.
>
> If you want to check the spec yourself to see whether the
> message you sent really is out-of-spec, then look for a
> file called FTS-0001.* from somewhere near you, or FREQ
> it from 3:711/934.  A common problem is with Opus being
> used in conjunction with oMMM - the date isn't correctly
> converted.  If you use Qmail 1.30g it is converted.
> Alternatively there are fix programs available that will
> do this for an Opus system.  One is called FIXDMSG.ZIP
> available for FREQ from 3:711/934
>
> One more point is that SOMEONE always has to be the first
> to inform you of out-of-spec messages.  This message could
> well be the first, so don't be surprised!
>
> There is also the possibility that someone has grunged a
> message from your system in-transit.  If a check of your
> outbound packets shows that your messages are in-spec
> then let me know so we can try to find out which system
> is doing the grunging.  One such piece of software that
> grunges in-transit messages is EzyMail (it converts the
> date to uppercase)
>
> DTS001 Bad date:  1 Mar 95   4:33:42
> MLP010 From: Gary Sindey
> MLP011 To: All
> MLP012 Subject: Which modem to buy???
> MLP013 Conference is: HS_MODEMS
> MLP014 Origin line is: * Origin: Amiga ShareWare HeadQuarters 1-810-473-2020
>        (1:2410/207)

--1931--

Ken, I hate to keep bothering you with these things.  But they
appear in worldwide echos and really make CNet look bad.  This user
is saying he's been waiting *9 months* (and counting) for his
license.  Is there some general quote I can post whenever I see
those types of msgs?  Some sort of "THIS METHOD WILL GET YOU A
QUICK LICENSE, GUARANTEED"?

SG> TB> 10 days ago.  Since then, I've also sent 4 Netmail messages asking for
SG> TB> my license data.  Now I realize that 10 days is not too long, but it
SG> TB> took over 10 weeks just to get C-Net 3.05c sent to me.  I'm not
SG> waiting
SG> TB> another 10 for the license.

SG> Get in line. I've been waiting since June 1 1994 :-)  Logged onto the bbs,
SG> crashmailed countless times, even sent routed netmail via CLink!. All to
SG> no avail so far.

SG> (For those in CLink! my handle is Veg :-) ).
SG> Ciao for now,

SG> Shaun.
SG> sgamble@verbal.apana.org.au
SG>                 *** using CNet3.05c with TrapDoor 1.85 ***
SG> --- CNet/3
SG>  * Origin: Verbal Verbatim! 24hrs 300-14400 baud 61-7-396-4054 (3:640/375)

--1932--

JB> Maybe someone should start a cnet FAQ file since this is about the 20th
JB> time I have answered a message similar to this.

Who's going to start the CNet FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) file?

Gathering the questions are easy.  (Just read the echos.)

And I'm sure someone will help with the answers.

All we really need is *1* volunteer to gather them all under *1* central site.

Any takers?

--1933--

> I've been trying to get my CNet license file and can't...

The company that did both the "support and sales" of CNet changed hands
as of 06-Jan-95.  Have you tried since then?  Please try again.

Here's a quote from CNet's author as of 09-Mar-95...

KP> Subj: C-Net License Needed
KP> From: Ken Pletzer@1:2410/215.0
KP> To  : SysOp
KP> On  : Thu  9-Mar-1995  1:04p
KP>
KP> All it takes is netmail (or local mail, if they prefer), containing
KP> the serial number, and two registration numbers.  I will reply
KP> immediately with the license number.  In the event that a fidonet
KP> netmail exchange is not possible, I can be reached on the internet
KP> at Ken Pletzer@aol.com
KP>
KP> Ken

--1934--

How do I get a current list of all the latest CNet-BBS pfiles and
tools on the aminet internet sites?

Three easy steps...

1) Send email to "bitftp@pucc.princeton.edu".
2) Make the SUBJECT anything you like.
3) Make the BODY of the letter read:
   open wuarchive.wustl.edu
   cd /pub/aminet/comm/cnet
   dir
   quit

And you'll get your file-list by return email in a few minutes.

If you'd like to see a short description of each CNet file, replace
step #3 with:
   open wuarchive.wustl.edu
   cd /pub/aminet/comm/cnet
   get INDEX  -
   quit

If you'd like info about ALL the newest files in ALL the aminet
dirs (not just CNet), replace step #3 with:
   open wuarchive.wustl.edu
   cd  /pub/aminet
   get RECENT -
   quit

Remember, the wuarchive.wustl.edu site can "only" have 500 users
online at once.  So it may take longer during busy periods.  If
your request fails, you will be notified by return email, and your
request will automatically be tried 10 additional times later.

This info brought to you buy...
   Bill Beogelein
   Amiga ShareWare HeadQuarters BBS 1-810-473-2020
   Fido: 1:2410/207,  UUCP: ag775@detroit.freenet.org

--1935--

BB> Even if you have 15,000 files online, and "keep headers" for every
BB> single one of them, it should only use less than 500K.

AD> After a couple of days, I went from having 20+ Meg free to a
AD> combined total of (Chip/Fast) about 1Meg.

But with how many files (or msg posts) online?  I've been on some
systems that have literally several hundred thousand posts.

Perhaps a few of us could get together and track this down...

1) Add a line like "AVail | {#4 c:Avail}" to BBSMENU.
   (So you can easily check memory usage right online.)
2) Do an "AVAIL" before entering (and after exiting) a LARGE sub that
   has "headers in memory" set ON.
3) Try it again with "headers&items" in memory.
4) Try it again with "neither in memory".
5) Post the # of items, and the exact bytes used in each of the 3 tests.

After you exit the sub, the memory values "should" be something like:
"headers in memory" :  34 bytes per item
"headers & items"   : 168 bytes per item
"neither in memory" :   0 bytes

Perhaps try it all again before (and after) doing an "RR" on that sub.
And again before (and after) running amaint.

A million different things can be causing a loss of memory.
But *WHERE* is it occurring exactly?

--1936--

> 1) CNet already offers that.  Its called the -LONG- Discription.
> Why make the Short discription longer?  Thats like having a Jumbo
> Shrimp!

JG> Actually, I'd like that too, because hardly anyone checks out the
JG> long description.

It depends on which kind of a BBS you wish to run:
1)  The users can read the short-descriptions if they want a little info.
    The users can read the long-descriptions if they want more info.

2) Cram the long-descriptions down their throats and force them to read
   every one of them.

But why would you want/need #2?
Imagine reading the long-descriptions to 100s (or 1000s) of files.
No thanks.

I don't know why a file_id.diz reader can't be made (or built into CNet) that
does it all:
A)  File_id.diz's shorter than 8 (or a config'ed 1-8 setting) lines
    will appear in the short-descriptions.
B)  File_id.diz's longer than 8 (or a config'ed 1-8 setting) lines
    will appear in the long-descriptions.

Or is there already such a pfile?  If so, what is the name and
latest version #?

--1937--

DA> I have many concerns about his message.  We'll have to see what happens.

Let's hear about some of those concerns.  Maybe Ken will do
something about them *BEFORE* he gets too far along in his coding.

AA> EMAIL: Redone.  Users may maintain messages in separate "folders."  An
AA> "inbox"
AA> and "trashcan" folder appear automatically.  Users may easily maintain a
AA> personal address list, as well as personal address groups.  Messages may

I'm really anxious to see that "folders" method used.
I don't know how extensive Ken is going to go with it.
But it would sure be handy if we could "group" our inbound email any
way we wanted:
 1) These are all my new msgs.
 2) These are all my old msgs.
 3) These are all the msgs that I've already responded to.
 4) These are all the msgs that still need responding to.
 5) These msgs are in the trashcan ready for deletion.
 6) These are fidonet.
 7) These are internet.
 8) These are clink.
 9) These have files attached.
10) These are party-mail.
11) These I need to forward to Joe Doe tomorrow.
12) These are very urgent msgs.
13) These are msgs from the internet SHOES&SOCKS mailing-list.
14) And on and on.

Of course, you could "group" them any way you wanted, or not at all.

--1938--

TP> Cnet puts ASCII(13) in the comment which is illegal in AmigaDOS.

Does CNet only do that at certain times?  Which?

I just typed "List >fname" from DOS and looked at the results in a binary
editor and NONE of the 100s of files had any ASCII(13)s in any comments.

Are you guys running a certain DIZ handler that could be doing the
ASCII(13)s?

I'd like to report this to Ken but I need a way to *MAKE* the bug surface
on demand.

--1939--

JG> I am refering to that and the fact he is breaking his own contract with us
JG> the user.. (page 22, paragraph 2, lines 10-12 of paragraph 2).. all "3.X"
JG> updates will be free... he is charging us for a free update... which I is
JG> REALLY bad business and is illegal...

Like people have be saying in other echos....

All Ken would have to do is to relabel v3.50 into v4.00 and he
would no longer be (in your words/viewpoint) "REALLY bad business"
or "illegal".

(I don't see anything "illegal" here.  I don't know how each
state's laws read.  Don't really care.  Are you saying that NO
company ANYWHERE can EVER change its price/update policy at all???
Can someone post a quote from the actual Michigan law?)

Do you want v3.50 called v4.00?  Would you feel much better?
(Nothing else would change.  Same update, same features, same costs, same everything.)

I'm more interested in *WHAT* the update contains, not the version number.
I could care less if Ken calls if v3.50 or v4.00 or v12.378.
*CONTENT* is what's important here.
If you feel that the *CONTENT* of the update is worth the money, buy it.
If you feel that it is NOT, then don't buy it.
If you feel like waiting for the *NEXT* update after, then buy the next
update instead.
If you feel like waiting for 7 updates to be release.  Then buy #8.
Everybody can do whatever they feel is right.

But I bet tons of people (including you) will buy the next update
i-m-m-e-d-i-a-t-e-l-y.

If I'm wrong about that, oh well.
Ken loses the money.
SysOps that don't update, lose all the slick new v3.50 and v4.00 features.
I lose nothing either way.  I'll be busy enjoying the update and
using all the slick new features.

--1940--

JA> I'm curious as to what people have their DEF PURGE STATUS set to for
JA> your
JA> FIDONET ECHOS?  I am wondering which I should use, AUTO or @AMAINT  ??
JA> Anyone care to tell me which you use and why?
JA>                  --Coota

CB> I use Amaint and the time limit verys from 7 to 30 days
CB> It just depends on the volume of messages that is processed in each echo
CB> but running a stock machine it sometimes takes awhile to run through
CB> thousands of messages and AMAINT is usually ran when the BBS is least
CB> Active.  This is why i use it.

Don't confusion these 2 *VERY* different things...

Auto:  Remove the msg (and all responses to it) during the next run of
       amaint, if the thread has not been responded to in the last
       x days.

@Amaint: Remove the msg (and all responses to it) during the next
         run of amaint.  (Using this as a sub-default would cause *ALL* msgs
         and files in that sub to be deleted every night.)

See page #152 for more info.

--1941--

RH> Can anyone give me a Idea why my upload log does not log anything, my
RH> download log is working great all the time.. I have my upload limits set
RH> to 999 would that cause a problem in logging uploads?

"Upload limits" shouldn't effect that.

What info is displayed offline in your CNet CONFIG window when you
click on "Logs..." and then "Upload"?

What info is displayed online when you edit a user acct with "EA" and then pick...
"Limits/ratios/flags"
and then...
"Log verbosity flags"

--1942--

BB> Do you want v3.50 called v4.00?  Would you feel much better?
BB> (Nothing else would change.  Same update, same features, same costs,
BB> same everything.)

JG> I could care less anymore Ken and his software is not worht my money.

100s of people seem to disagree with you.  There are more CNet BBSs
running today than ever.  And I bet MANY sysops (including me) jump
at the v3.50 and v4.00 updates.  Sounds like the biggest update in
a long, long time.  Oddly, you pick THAT time to switch BBS
software.  Why wait so long, and then switch *BEFORE* you even see
the updates?  But as always, the choice is yours.

JG> Well.. I am personally fed up with the way CNet is handled and have
JG> alreaddy ordered my DLG Pro.. which Is the only real CNet competition..

That's probably the best thing to do.  I highly recommend that
ANYONE that thinks Brand X is better than Brand Y, to definitely
buy Brand X.  (Who wouldn't?)

JG> Personally I don't believe any piece of software is worth anything if the
JG> author doesn't care anymore..

I can't base my software purchases on "does the author care?"
I have to take *DOZENS* of different things into consideration.
(Mainly, the features in the software itself.)

JG> which from what I have seen Ken doesn't
JG> really care.. and heck he never bothered to fix the bugs in 3.0

That is a false statement.  Several *DOZEN* bugs were fixed in the
v3.0 -> v3.05c updates.  If you get a minute, you can check Ken's
HISTORY file yourself.

JG> why should *I* believe that any bugs if 3.5/4.X be fixed ?

No need to "believe".
You'll be able to run the free v3.50/v4.00 demos and see for yourself.
Something that just isn't possible with many other BBS packages.
(They don't even *have* demos.)

--1943--

DC> I believe if it's set to @AMAINT, the msgs will be deleted at the NEXT
DC> maintenance run w/o regard for the purge settings.

David, you are correct.
But how are other users (successfully?) doing things like:

On Sat 06-May-1995  7:36p, Rainer Hauer said to Craig Brawner:
RH> I do basically the same but I have all my message bases set to @Amaint and
RH> at 30 days for old messages , My Amaint is set to run every morning at a 4
RH> am.

He sets *ALL* his msg bases to @Amaint.
And runs amaint every 24hrs.
Yikes!
I fear that other users will see that msg and say, "hey, I'll try that too".

--1944--

KR> Does anyone have the address to use to subscribe to the CNet Mailing List?
KR> I used to have it but I can't find it and I want to subscribe. Thanks.

I don't know if this is the very latest, but it's worth a try.
Please let us know.

cnet-request@dplanet.xbbs.com

--1945--

MS> Gee.. Ever wonder why there is so many pfiles for cnet..

I'm *GLAD* there are so many choices.  That's *NOT* a drawback,
that's a big, big benefit.

MS> because 75% of them FIX problems/make things easier to use..

Oh, I don't know about that 75% guess.  Sounds far too high to me.

MS> FIX problems...

Most of the problems that I can see within CNet, can't really be
fixed with a pfile.  They need to be fixed my Ken himself.

MS> make things easier to use...

Sure.  And I like things easier to use.  But who defines "easier"?
Me?  You?  Ken?  Everybody?  Different views differ.  What's easy/
better to you, might not be seen as such to me.  Put the power into
the hands of the sysop and/or pfile author instead.

MS> the things that should be done by KEN!..

I wish every single known thing could be added into a piece of
software.  It just plain is not possible.  And who WOULD want code
bloated with tons of features that very, very few people would use.
That's the beauty of pfiles.  Add whatever you like, leave out the
rest.

MS> -- i can prove it to.. i just have to look at my 500 some
MS> odd pfiles of cnet support files..

I'd like to see quite a bit added into CNet itself.  But nothing
too extreme.  Imagine a BBS that needs 20 megs to run.  No thanks.

MS> and oh got to love that index message
MS> stucture.. works well... Until you have to run Repair_sub and that takes
MS> all night!..

Why not just rebuild the VERY few subs that need rebuilding?  I
have my system set-up to find only the 2-3 most fragmented subs,
and only rebuilds those each night.  Takes about 5-10 minutes.  And
yes, that's done with a simple arexx script pfile.

--1946--

JG> Personally I don't believe any piece of software is worth anything
JG> if the author doesn't care anymore..

BB> I can't base my software purchases on "does the author care?"
BB> I have to take *DOZENS* of different things into consideration.
BB> (Mainly, the features in the software itself.)

JG> I should have clarified my statement more.. "... author doesnt' care
JG> anymore.." to keep with the policies in his manual..

I STILL can't base my software purchases on "do policies change?"
I have to take *DOZENS* of different things into consideration.
(Mainly, the features in the software itself.)
Policies change.  That one did.

JG> which from what I have seen Ken doesn't
JG> really care.. and heck he never bothered to fix the bugs in 3.0

BB> That is a false statement.  Several *DOZEN* bugs were fixed in the
BB> v3.0 ->
BB> v3.05c updates.  If you get a minute, you can check Ken's HISTORY file
BB> yourself.

JG> yes but how many PUBLIC NON-BETA FIXES WERE THERE?  For me I have not seen
JG> any bug fixes

JG> and heck he never bothered to fix the bugs in 3.0

Your statement is still false.  There *WERE* bugs fixed between v3.0 and
v3.05c.  And released to the public as NON beta version(s).

Or are you asking if there were bugs fixed between v3.05c and the latest
release (also v3.05c)?  Nope.

Also keep in mind that there have NOT been any beta-releases recently.
In fact the latest known release (the one you have) came after the most recent
beta-release.  *YOU* are running newer code than any of the beta-tester
versions.

#1...
JG> why should *I* believe that any bugs if 3.5/4.X be fixed ?

#2...
BB> No need to "believe".
BB> You'll be able to run the free v3.50/v4.00 demos and see for yourself.

JG> You didn't answer my question there.. all you said is to see 3.5/4.0 you
JG> are not telling me if there is going to be REAL SUPPORT for it..

Luckily I'm not obligated to answer specific questions.  I can answer and/or
skip whatever questions I like.  I feel #1 DEFINITELY answers #2.

As for your other question... "Will there be REAL SUPPORT?"
Who knows?  Do you know for certain that support will continue for *ANY* BBS
program?  No one can predict the future, I'm afraid we'll just have to wait and
see.

I STRONGLY suggest that you try an IBM or a different Amiga BBS package.
It's no loss to me.

--1947--

If you ever want to see the *REAL* times that Future World (FW) has been
offline, dial 1-810-473-2020 and type "!FW" at the log-in prompt.
(Don't forget the "!")

It will show three pieces of info:
1) A chart containing the days that FW couldn't be reached over the last six
   months.  (Prior to the recent problems there have only been 5 occurrences.)
2) The last date/time that FW was successfully reached.
3) The dates/times of the last 5 failed attempts.

The data will look like this...

> Future World BBS did NOT answer their 313-255-2464 line as of 18-May-95 ...
>                          1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3
>        1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
>  Dec94                                                               Dec94
>  Jan95                                                               Jan95
>  Feb95   X                                                           Feb95
>  Mar95       X                                                   X X Mar95
>  Apr95                 X                                             Apr95
>  May95                                 X X                           May95
>        1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3
>                          0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
>
> Node 1:2410/215 last reached Wed, 17-May-95, 07:33 (30:22 hrs ago)
>
> Last few failed attempts were...
> Thursday 18-May-95 09:31:03
> Thursday 18-May-95 11:31:00
> Thursday 18-May-95 13:15:50
> Thursday 18-May-95 13:22:57
> Thursday 18-May-95 13:31:02

--1948--

JB> I was merely pointing out the fact that saying all (or
JB> nearly all) software requires payment for updates is a false statement.

I can't find where anyone said that, or even assumed that, or even
IMAGINED that would be the case.  Perhaps I missed that comment.  I will
have to have a 2nd look.

BB> So you think Ken has *NOT* lost the CNet source code?  What info do
BB> you have that shows that?

JB> None. But I have heard that this has happened several times in the past.

Can I ask where you heard it, and the names of the folks that have said
it?  I *REALLY* would like to find out how many times Ken has lost the
source code to CNet.  I only know of one.

JB> that something as important as the source code to your 'bread & butter'
JB> program could perhaps be better looked after.

I sure would.  I have backups of backups of backups.  Many people are NOT
like you or I.

JB> I suppose its a good thing that CNet/Ken has a champion on the nets.....

Who is that?  Me?  I don't think so.  I owe Ken absolutely nothing.  I'll
be switching BBS software the *SECOND* I feel there is something better/
cheaper/faster/easier/more powerful than CNet.  (And it must fit *MY*
definition of those terms.)  I know of absolutely no other such BBS
software.  And I've looked at quite a few of the more than *60* different
Amiga BBS packages that have (or have been promised) in recent years.

I think the true "champions" that you speak of are the *100s* of sysops
(including you) worldwide that continue to run CNet.  If someone dislikes
it, and sees something better... switch.

--1949--

MB> This BS with Cnet just put the last nail in the coffin.

BB> 1) Finally an update announcement.
BB> 2) Finally a 2nd update coming soon too.
BB> 3) CNet source code for sale.
BB> Odd coffin nails.

MB> Funny, you use the word, FINALLY.

Why is the word "finally" so funny?  I admit it, you admit it, Ken himself
admits it.  The soon-to-be-released CNet update *HAS* been a long time
coming.  That's certainly no secret.  I guess I just don't see the "funny"
part of it.  The update *IS* long overdue.  No?  I hope you don't think
I've said (or even implied) "Let's wait another few years for it.  1995 is
TOO SOON."  Nope.

MB> switch
MB> BB> BBS software, and your right to switch entire platforms.  Are you
MB> going to
MB> BB> continue to read the CNet echos?  If so, why?

MB> Maybe perhaps because I started this echo for support for other Cnet
MB> SysOps, and will continue to be here until Ken realizes he needs to talk
MB> to his sysops, in order to better support is program.

Just wanted to know what your plans are.  Just asking.  Remove the echo
from the backbone?  Turn it over to Ken, or another moderator?  Do
absolutely nothing?  I don't think it's odd to ask those questions.  I bet
a lot of people are wondering those very same things.  (Most people keep
quiet.  I speak up.)  What *DOES* happen when the CNet Echo's own
moderator stops running CNet himself?

MB> Do you have a problem with that?   After all, this *IS* my echo.

I'm loaded with problems.  You know that.  I am also aware you own this
echo.

I just feel it is *VERY* odd for anyone to continue with an echo for
software that are no longer interested in.  I certainly wouldn't.  (In
fact, it sounds like you down-right HATE CNet and Ken.)  As is your right,
if that's the case.

If I ever drop CNet, I just won't have the time to read, or even receive,
the (then needless) echo.  To each their own.

I hope it's OK to ask, and discuss all this here.  People have been asking
*ME* these very questions in netmail.  *I* don't know what's going to
happen any more than anybody else.

--EOF--

Thursday 01-Jun-95 23:17:41

-Bill "Mr. BBS" Beogelein, 1-810-473-2020, 2-line HST 14.4k USR-DS, 1:2410/207
