I'm just playing around with Mystic some more. I know it can act as a
hub for a QWK based Network. Are there any instructions or tutorials on how it's exactly done. I know I'm close but I seem to be missing
something obvious. So if any one has a primer or something please let me know.
I'm just playing around with Mystic some more. I know it can act as a
hub for a QWK based Network. Are there any instructions or tutorials on how it's exactly done. I know I'm close but I seem to be missing
something obvious. So if any one has a primer or something please let me know.
I'm just playing around with Mystic some more. I know it can act as a
hub for a QWK based Network. Are there any instructions or tutorials on how it's exactly done. I know I'm close but I seem to be missing
something obvious. So if any one has a primer or something please let me know.
I would be interested to know if there is a Mystic QWK hub working out
in BBS land. I've tried to hub using Mystic and I could never get it to work.
If I get it working, I'll let you know. Right now my issue is the fact that I can't seem to get the qwk node account I set up to select scanned message bases. I suspect this is why when that account ftps in, there is no qwk package for them. I'm still working on things but it will be a
few days before I can get back to look at it.
g00r00 wrote to nblade <=-
There is a guide in the WHATSNEW for one of the versions probably 1.10.
The QWK networking system isn't nearly as strong as echomail in
Mystic, because its really quite an inferior technology that isn't
often used.
I need to add some new features to it sometime.
Feel free to ask any specific questions you might have.
extensions to add some features (like netmail) to QWK networking. I disagree that QWK is not often used. I've been on several networks that employ QWK networking, and have been running a QWK hub for a few myself
Well, I'm currently led to believe that Mystic's not ready for prime
time as a QWK hub, though it does work well as a leaf node. Is that
still correct, or urban misinformation?
g00r00 wrote to vk3jed <=-
QWK networking has never even had a fraction of the popularity or implementations as FTN technology, and its severely crippled on top of that.
I think it is used now simply because Synchronet runs DoveNet off of
it, and it comes pre-configured with their default install.
Well, I'm currently led to believe that Mystic's not ready for prime
time as a QWK hub, though it does work well as a leaf node. Is that
still correct, or urban misinformation?
I guess thats a matter of opinion. I haven't worked on it since the initial support was added in like 5 years ago, but it works fine for me
in my test QWK network. No one really uses it, because there is no
reason to use it over FTN.
Who is "leading you to believe" this?
I've double checked all that. I'm sure it's just something stupid. It's not a pressing need. It was just something I wanted to play with between my working BBS and a test one I had setup on a laptop. I'm going to
switch to doing a simple FTN one for testing.
Just general discussion over the past year or so in various echoes. I haven't tried Mystic's QWK networking at all, primarily because I
I'll give it another go but I will not have time to mess with it until tomorrow eveing. I'll send you an update once that's done.
- Jeff
g00r00 wrote to vk3jed <=-
Just general discussion over the past year or so in various echoes. I haven't tried Mystic's QWK networking at all, primarily because I
As a node its simple. Setup the details for your QWK network, create
the message bases and set the QWK network and ID, type "qwkpoll
<network ID>" and it does all of the import/export and FTPing for you.
On the HUB side:
Setup the QWK network details in the configuration, create your message bases assigned to the QWK network and ID, and then enable the FTP
server.
When you want to add a node to the network, create a new user and then flag that user as a "QWK Network user" and set the QWK network in the
user editor.
That's it.
I would be interested to know if there is a Mystic QWK hub working ou in BBS land. I've tried to hub using Mystic and I could never get it work.
I just tested it on my test setup here and it appears to be working.
What are you having issues with?
extensions to add some features (like netmail) to QWK networking. I disagree that QWK is not often used. I've been on several networks t employ QWK networking, and have been running a QWK hub for a few myse
QWK networking has never even had a fraction of the popularity or implementations as FTN technology, and its severely crippled on top of that.
I've double checked all that. I'm sure it's just something stupid. It not a pressing need. It was just something I wanted to play with betw my working BBS and a test one I had setup on a laptop. I'm going to switch to doing a simple FTN one for testing.
If you provide some details on where you're stuck I could help you.
After Gryphon posted that QWK Hub doesn't work, I spent 10 minutes and setup a new QWK network between two Mystic systems and it worked just fine. I seem to recall this very sequence repeating many times with him...
Sounds pretty similar to Synchronet in the basics.
I think that while QWK has some limitations, I think of it more as Network-Lite technology. Where FTN requires setups on both the node and the uplink, only the node needs to do any sort of configuration to join
or maintain it's inclusion into the network. QWK networks are more of a free-for-all mentality, in that nodes can join or leave without any
hassle on the host hub end. From a hub point of view, there's no
I downloaded the previous message you made to NB regarding how to setup QWK and I'll review it and see if I can reproduce it on my end. It
might take some days before I can get to it, but if I forget, please remind me.
I think that while QWK has some limitations, I think of it more as Network-Lite technology. Where FTN requires setups on both the node the uplink, only the node needs to do any sort of configuration to jo or maintain it's inclusion into the network. QWK networks are more o free-for-all mentality, in that nodes can join or leave without any hassle on the host hub end. From a hub point of view, there's no
Paul and I have talked about this in the past as well, although not directly in comparison to QWK networking. There isn't really a reason
why FTN couldn't be offered in a similar way, where a user can call a
BBS and "apply" to have the BBS create the user setup. Or a utility can be used to contact the hub and automatically configure itself.
This of course would require a BBS that can do all pieces which Mystic can.
This is something on my list to investigate.
I downloaded the previous message you made to NB regarding how to set QWK and I'll review it and see if I can reproduce it on my end. It might take some days before I can get to it, but if I forget, please remind me.
I didn't do a thorough test but I was able to send a message from HUB to node, so there could still be problems or something that is unclear.
One thing I noticed is it uses the "BBS QWK" name on the HUB and not the "QWK Networking Packet ID" when you're a network HUB. I found this to
be confusing at first and if I hadn't connected with a FTP client and noticed it I might have expected it to use the Packet ID from the QWK network configuration.
That poses an interesting question. Can something be done to generate
raw nodelists from the mystic node setup? Maybe make an mutil function that could read from the echonode.dat file and generate nodelists or nodelist segments.
ftp'ing to the hub as a network qwk user. In every case, the network
qwk file never listed, whereas the bbs qwk file always did. This may
have been different behavior than qwkpoll would have seen thought.
ftp'ing to the hub as a network qwk user. In every case, the network qwk file never listed, whereas the bbs qwk file always did. This may have been different behavior than qwkpoll would have seen thought.
When you are a HUB the BBS's QWK filename is what is used for the QWK network and the BBS. The actual content you get in the QWK packet
changes based on if you are logged in as a QWK Network user or a BBS
user.
The Packet ID in the QWK Network configuration is for your uplink's QWK packet name when you are operating as a node, not what shows up as the
QWK packet on your FTP server when you're a hub.
I am changing this to pull the name from the Packet ID in the QwkNet configuration though in MIS2 FTP, since I think this is where a couple of people have gotten confused.
g00r00 wrote to vk3jed <=-
Sounds pretty similar to Synchronet in the basics.
Its def not as robust as Synchronet's QWK networking and maybe never
will be since no one really uses it.
| Sysop: | sneaky |
|---|---|
| Location: | Ashburton,NZ |
| Users: | 2 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 92:32:49 |
| Calls: | 2,122 |
| Calls today: | 3 |
| Files: | 11,149 |
| D/L today: |
48 files (22,099K bytes) |
| Messages: | 950,672 |