Not really. It doesn't tell me what revision of exec/load/sbbsdefs.js you have (as a random example). And it doesn't tell me (or anyone else) if the
revision you have of that file is newer than the revision which includes he fix for the problem being discussed.
I guess I dont understand your thinking. I've certainly used CVS before andurrently use git, and I find supporting downstream users far easier with a git nvironment (and that use case is well used). IE: By knowing what
hash or tag they've checked out, I know what their source enviroment looks (r should) look like.
Not really. It doesn't tell me what revision of exec/load/sbbsdefs.js you have (as a random example). And it doesn't tell me (or anyone else) if the
revision you have of that file is newer than the revision which includes he fix for the problem being discussed.
I guess I dont understand your thinking. I've certainly used CVS before andurrently use git, and I find supporting downstream users far easier with a git nvironment (and that use case is well used). IE: By knowing what
hash or tag they've checked out, I know what their source enviroment looks (r should) look like.
Hi All,
Here at CRBBS, I have been obtaining both Dovenet via QWK, and the Synchronet
echos via Fidonet. I know it's causing duplication, but I wanted to carry both
on here.
One thing I've noticed, is that messages coming in via QWK, seem to have the text cut off in mid-message. I'm not sure if this is a Mystic issue, or what, but I thought I'd throw it out there. I'll show examples in this message as well.
Another thing I've noticed lately, is word wrapping seems to get messed up in incoming messages. I haven't noticed it with other Mystic systems, but from other software it has been a bit of a pain to read these messages. You will see that in the examples below as well.
For the record, I'm using Mystic, but hpt is being used as my tosser. It is very possible the word wrapping is something with hpt, but I'm just not sure.
There has been a lot going on with SBBS lately to do with UTF-8 and other things. I don't know but I wonder if you would have better luck with a recent build of SBBS, if it's not already upto date?
I see that too. If I'm not mistaken (and I might be) messasges written
on a terminal >80 characters wide seem to have the wrapping a little
off. I suspect they would look good on a terminal >80 characters wide
but on my 80 character screen they are hard to read.
For the record, I'm using Mystic, but hpt is being used as my tosser. It very possible the word wrapping is something with hpt, but I'm just not
No, I think you'll have the same result with mutil or hpt.
One thing I've noticed, is that messages coming in via QWK, seem to havethe text cut off in mid-message. I'm not sure if this is a Mystic issue, or what, but I thought I'd throw it out there. I'll show
examples in this message as well.in incoming messages. I haven't noticed it with other Mystic systems, but from other software it has been a bit of a pain to read
Another thing I've noticed lately, is word wrapping seems to get messed up
these messages. You will see that in the examples below as well.BBBS for example, have had the same thing.
I know the word wrap issue is not just from Synchronet, as others using
For the record, I'm using Mystic, but hpt is being used as my tosser. Itis very possible the word wrapping is something with hpt, but I'm just not sure.
So I would report it as well to DM and potentially Nightfox might be interested as well (if you havent).
Is it just my messages that are messed up?
I am noticing some odities with message wrapping - and you will have
seen me discuss this in the past in Synchronet. I've actually think I've proved it to be Slyedit and UTF8 terminals and a wide screen (which is
what I use - and my screen is 212x57) - and I'm just doing some testing
to validate that claim before I give DM/Nightfox some data to work with (if they are concerned).
Well, I'm using Mystic to pull in the QWK feed from Vert.
I'm wondering if I could set up a fakenet, and use my SBBS setup to pull Dovenet, that would feed my Mystic setup...
I know that Synchronet now has the ability to use >80 width, but other systems, as far as I know, don't. I believe I've also seen this with other systems as well. I'll have to keep a closer eye on those messages to see where they are originating.
I have also noticed that on Mystic, if you import a message via file upload into a message, the word wrap seems to mess up as well. It will cut words and characters will be missing... That's why I'm thinking it might be a Mystic bug...
I am noticing some odities with message wrapping - and you will have
seen me discuss this in the past in Synchronet. I've actually think I've proved it to be Slyedit and UTF8 terminals and a wide screen (which is what I use - and my screen is 212x57) - and I'm just doing some testing
to validate that claim before I give DM/Nightfox some data to work with (if they are concerned).
I am noticing some odities with message wrapping - and you will have
seen me discuss this in the past in Synchronet. I've actually think I've proved it to be Slyedit and UTF8 terminals and a wide screen (which is
I know that Synchronet now has the ability to use >80 width, but other systems, as far as I know, don't. I believe I've also seen this with
other systems as well. I'll have to keep a closer eye on those messages
to see where they are originating.
Hi All,
Here at CRBBS, I have been obtaining both Dovenet via QWK, and the Synchronet echos via Fidonet. I know it's causing duplication, but I wanted to carry both on here.
One thing I've noticed, is that messages coming in via QWK, seem to have the text cut off in mid-message. I'm not sure if this is a Mystic issue, or what, but I thought I'd throw it out there. I'll show examples in this message as well.
I know that Synchronet now has the ability to use >80 width, but other systems, as far as I know, don't. I believe I've also seen this with other systems as well. I'll have to keep a closer eye on those messages to see where they are originating.
I've mentioned this to DM in the past, and his reply was basically that BBS softwares need to figure out how to format messages no matter how many columns or what type of quoting schema they use.
He also sent links to a written standard which describes message formats and more or less demonstrates that Synchronet is the only BBS which is actually doing things correctly.
In any case, Synchronet is the only BBS software that does it right, as far as I can tell, and all these other boards (to include legacy softwares reasonable for hobbyists to want to run and use in FTN, which aren't softwares we may ever see get updated) are basically hosed on message formats for things that have circulated through SBBS boards.
No disrespect intended to DM, I just find this whole thing frustrating. I guess if there are Synchronet-only networks, maybe they can use the compliant message schema, but if it's intended for communication with multiple BBS softwares, can we maybe do quoting and line wrapping the way everyone else does?
Make sure you have your QWKnet account configured to strip Ctrl-A codes (likely treated as FTN kludge lines by Mystic) and probably don't want
to includes QWK Kludges either (MSGID/REPLY/VIA/TZ) - as they're also
not supported by Mystic.
On 03 Sep 2019, Digital Man said the following...
Make sure you have your QWKnet account configured to strip Ctrl-A codes (likely treated as FTN kludge lines by Mystic) and probably don't want to includes QWK Kludges either (MSGID/REPLY/VIA/TZ) - as they're also not supported by Mystic.
Hi DM,
Got it changed now. The Ctrl-A codes and most of the kludges were on.
We'll see what happens when some new messages come through.
Didn't even think to check the QWK settings.
Thanks DM!
Yeah, no problem. The Ctrl-A codes would explain why a lot of the
message text was missing. The QWK kludges are those @VIA, etc. lines you see at the top of messages.
If you're talking about long-line-paragraphs, 2 Synchronet editors (fseditor.js and slyedit.js) only *recently* started storing written messages in that way. And that behavior is configureable.
blah blah blah (past column 80).......blah blah
this is the second quoted line (past 80).......blah blah blah
Line one, up last word of line ends prior to column 80etc
Line two begins
Line three
If you're talking about long-line-paragraphs, 2 Synchronet editors (fseditor.js and slyedit.js) only *recently* started storing written messages in that way. And that behavior is configureable.
It's possible I'm not talking about the same thing as everyone else in the thread. *shrug*
What I'm discussing is not only long line paragraphs, but long line paragraph quoting. Essentially I expect if someone with a Synchronet BBS responds to
this message and quotes me, there will be lines similar to
blah blah blah (past column 80).......blah blah
this is the second quoted line (past 80).......blah blah blah
Instead of
Line one, up last word of line ends prior to column 80etc
Line two begins
Line three
Ah. Well Synchronet's internal message re-flow (line/word-wrap) logic
does handle re-flowing of quote lines just fine, so it is possible
that's an issue for systems that can't do that. Unfortunately, in a
world where not everyone is using exactly an 80 column terminals (some fewere, some more), it is best to not make assumptions and just use longe-line-paragraphs and let the viewer handle the display to the user based on the display environment at the time.
We do have options to change the behavior of quoted text, but I have
have me system/editor set to maximize the use of wide terminals while displaying nicely in 40-column (e.g. C64) terminals as well. If I just forced all quoted to wrap assuming a 79/80 column terminal (which is an option), the results are not nearly as universally flexible.
Ah. Well Synchronet's internal message re-flow (line/word-wrap) logic does handle re-flowing of quote lines just fine, so it is possible that's an issue for systems that can't do that. Unfortunately, in a world where not everyone is
assuming a 79/80 column terminal (which is an option), the results are not nearly as universally flexible.
I also see some new graphic Demo on Vert.(Very Cool)
Where is BBSing going with all this? Inquisitive minds want to know. ;-)
Is that going to be a users choice in Synchronet? Or will it beAutodetected? When I first got back into BBSing I found some boards even asked to chose between UTF-8 or CP437? So now the user needs to know
if they are using UTF or CP437 with ANSI or without? I also see some newgraphic Demo on Vert.(Very Cool) Where is BBSing going with all this? Inquisitive minds want to know. ;-)
Ah. Well Synchronet's internal message re-flow (line/word-wrap) logic does handle re-flowing of quote lines just fine, so it is possible that's an issue for systems that can't do that. Unfortunately, in a world where not everyone is using exactly an 80 column terminals (some fewere, some more), it is best to not make assumptions and just use longe-line-paragraphs and let the viewer handle the display to the user based on the display environment at the time.
Yep, sounds like this is the core of the issue - there really aren't any BBS softwares out there as modern and/or feature rich as Synchronet. In fact I don't know of any other which appear dos-based and are popular in the same type of use case.
NB, door games assume 80 column terminals.
We do have options to change the behavior of quoted text, but I have have me system/editor set to maximize the use of wide terminals while displaying nicely in 40-column (e.g. C64) terminals as well. If I just forced all quoted to wrap assuming a 79/80 column terminal (which is an option), the results are not nearly as universally flexible.
On the one hand I agree and admire the flexibility but on the other hand I have to emphasize how no other software (particularly legacy ones which happen to be popular in this hobby) think in those terms. Really much of the BBS world assumes a fixed 80x25ish terminal.
Re: Re: Mystic QWK vs FTN
By: Digital Man to ryan on Wed Sep 04 2019 06:18 pm
Ah. Well Synchronet's internal message re-flow (line/word-wrap) logic does handle re-flowing of quote lines just fine, so it is possible that's an issue for systems that can't do that. Unfortunately, in a world where not everyone is
assuming a 79/80 column terminal (which is an option), the results are not nearly as universally flexible.
Maybe this is off topic but I'm wondering why the push for UTF-8 compatability?
Is that going to be a users choice in Synchronet? Or will it be Autodetected?
When I first got back into BBSing I found some boards even
asked to chose between UTF-8 or CP437? So now the user needs to know if they are using UTF or CP437 with ANSI or without? I also see some new graphic Demo on Vert.(Very Cool) Where is BBSing going with all this? Inquisitive minds want to know. ;-)
| Sysop: | sneaky |
|---|---|
| Location: | Ashburton,NZ |
| Users: | 2 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 96:12:13 |
| Calls: | 2,123 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 11,149 |
| D/L today: |
51 files (22,102K bytes) |
| Messages: | 950,695 |