HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: grant@bluemoon.rn.com (Grant DeLorean)
Subject: Re: BBS Standards Committee Formed
Organization: Blue Moon
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 92 13:27:54 GMT

undermind!cmc@overmind.mind.org writes:


> >I am sure that I am not the only "bbs author" around that has not heard of 
> >ONE BBSCON. If I am, well........................ 
>  
> you're not. i didn't see any citadel developers on that list. neither did i 
>notice waffle's author. it seems to be a rather fido'ish list of authors. i 

 What did you expect? It seems to be what grew out of the deceased FidoCon
and FidoNet has a hard time admitting that anything else exists...

-- 
\   Grant DeLorean  - IHMSA & NRA Life Member -  (grant@bluemoon.rn.com)   /

        Tested on dolphins and assorted helpless furry creatures

Newsgroups: alt.bbs
From: mbarry@nyx.cs.du.edu (Marshall Barry)
Subject: Re: BBS Standards Committee Formed
Organization: IBECC - A Non-Profit Educational/Scientific Corporation
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 92 07:34:02 GMT

In article <1992Aug22.132754.2215@bluemoon.rn.com> grant@bluemoon.rn.com (Grant DeLorean) writes:
>undermind!cmc@overmind.mind.org writes:
>
>
>> >I am sure that I am not the only "bbs author" around that has not heard of 
>> >ONE BBSCON. If I am, well........................ 
>>  
>> you're not. i didn't see any citadel developers on that list. neither did i 
>>notice waffle's author. it seems to be a rather fido'ish list of authors. i 
>
> What did you expect? It seems to be what grew out of the deceased FidoCon
>and FidoNet has a hard time admitting that anything else exists...
	
	Huh?
 
	FidoCon is in Texas this year - labor day weekend.
 
	As for it growing out of a deceased FidoCon... I have no idea what
	you're talking about, but (sigh...) If you'd care to explain it
	to some of us.
 
	We ran the "opposing" conference (IBECC '92) which was planned,
	announced, and advertised before "ONE" ever existed.  If you had
	followed many of the newsgroups, including CUD and Telecom Digest,
	you would have seen mention of our conference.
 
	Neither of the conventions had anything to do with this year's
	(living) FidoCon or FidoNet "per se".  I am one of the people
	who organized last year's "IBECC/FidoCon'91" so I *DO* have some
	(likely) accurate information.
 
	Would you care to state the rumors and allow them to be put
	"to rest" before you harangue Fight-O-Net for something it
	actually doesn't deserve?
 
// Mb // (take all the above with a half-smile)
--
 <mbarry@nyx.cs.du.edu> is also <Marshall.Barry@f169.n104.z1.FidoNet.Org> 
   "If you're going to (mis)quote me, at least Spell my Name CORRECTLY!"   
           Data: (303) 657-0126 +&+ (303) 426-1942 3/12/2400 baud          
            Snail Mail: P.O. Box 486, Louisville, CO  80027-0486           
Newsgroups: alt.bbs,comp.bbs.misc
From: fnord@panix.com (Cliff Heller)
Subject: Re: BBS Standards Committee Formed
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 13:45:02 GMT
Organization: Right Bleedin' Church of Libertine Obfuscatology

In <1992Aug20.114807.9366@qiclab.scn.rain.com> leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com (Leonard Erickson) writes:

>Seriously, this looks suspiciously like an attempt to define a 
>standard to get rid of Fidonet and Usenet as competition to these
>*commercial* BBS's. 

>By Commercial, I mean that this whole *conference* was aimed at the
>"BBS as a business" folks, rather than the fact the the programs are 
>sold commercially.

This is quite untrue.  In fact the person who called the conference, Frank
LaRosa of Searchlight Software has always been an outspoken opponent of the
"BBS as a business."

I would like to distinguish between a BBS that charges money for access to
it's message bases and files, and a BBS which provides access to some other
service, ie. one that works in conjunction with some other business.  It is
the former that I am and always have been opposed to.  There are some
businesses that run a BBS which allows you to order products and get
technical support, and I think this is fine, provided the fees (if they
exist) are reasonable.  

-- 
    / \      Reverend fnord                 | "King Kong died for your sins!"
   /   \     fnord@panix.com                | 
  / <0> \                                   | "Don't just eat a hamburger, 
 /_______\   Church of Obfuscatology, Inc.  |  eat the HELL out of it!"
Newsgroups: alt.bbs,comp.bbs.misc
From: bell@teal.csn.org (Bell Scott)
Subject: Re: BBS Standards Committee Formed
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 08:53:32 GMT

In article <1992Aug19.201527.7261@Princeton.EDU> shari@room.Princeton.EDU (Shari L. Landes) writes:
>In article <1992Aug19.190628.3908@clarinet.com> brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton) writes:
>>My guess is that they will standardize on rfc822 as a message format,
>>with perhaps a few mods the way that rfc1036 modifies that standard.
>>I think that's a positive move.
>
>Standardizing message formats is a good idea...  but it's also impractical.
>Standardizing just about anything regarding BBSs is pretty much impractical.
>There are THOUSANDS of BBS writers, writing THOUSANDS of BBS programs.
>Standardizing something on that scale is a pretty tough job.  When ANSI made
>its standards, there were less 'un-standards' that had to 'convert.'  And still,
>ANSI terminal emulation is not standard.  Many BBS programs - especially UNIX ones -
>do not support ANSI graphics.
>
>I'm half-writing my own BBS software, and if someone gives me a standard,  I'll
>use it.  But until then, I'm making it configurable to fit certain formats that
>are in my own and my user's needs.
>
>Harlan Landes
>Gates of Dawn BBS
>609-426-1618
>

	Here's a novel idea!  Why not make this the standard!  (IE: the format
used for headers here on InterNet)  After all, I do believe that the number
of hosts and messages outnumbers all others and it does tend to work pretty
well.  (Well, as good as any other I have seen)  After all, if we don't choose
this, then a 'comittee' will most likely choose something as unwieldy as X.400!
(I tried to look into it at one point and got a head-ache after about an inch
or so paper....)

Scott R. Bell

Newsgroups: alt.bbs,comp.bbs.misc
From: Denny.Chuang@bbs.oit.unc.edu (Denny Chuang)
Subject: Re: BBS Standards Committee Formed
Organization: Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 07:29:41 GMT

In article <1992Aug21.205050.10876@pdnfido.fidonet.org> erik@pdnfido.fidonet.org (Erik VanRiper) writes:
>In article <1992Aug19.220653.23387@anomaly.sbs.risc.net> kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan (KD1HZ)) writes:
>>cambler@zeus.calpoly.edu (Christopher J. Ambler,				Who?Phish) writes:
>>
>>>Top companies in the BBS and communications industry met this August
>>>14th at the ONE BBSCON in Denver, Colorado,in an unprecidented cooperative
>>>effort to define and implement interoperable standards in graphics,
>>>messaging, and other aspects of BBS communications.
>>
>>I don't think that these companies are hardly representative of the
>>"top companies in the BBS and communications industry".
>>
>
>But they certainly DO represent BBS-for-profit, which I am ENTIRELY AGAINST.
>
>These people really make my skin crawl, which, of course, makes me want to 
>ignore everything that they do.  They "think" that they can guide the "industry"
>when in fact all they do is make money off of people that don't know any
>better in the first place.  ARGGGH!
>
>/* Erik */
>
	I'm not quiet sure what they are doing, but one thing for sure that
with all the BBSes out there without a guideline of some sort that really makes
me (I'm a sysop) feel bad about our BBS feature.  
   I'm against, if those companies are going to use BBS as a tool for making
profit .    If they can do us some good for free that would be great!  
But, nothing is free right?  
-=chi=-

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  bbs.oit.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: alt.bbs
From: tweek@netcom.com (Michael D. Maxfield)
Subject: Re: help! how to set up a bbs?
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 92 19:18:42 GMT
Organization: Movement to Ban or Re-Regulate the CABLE MONOPOLIES
Distribution: usa

In article <hd7ms5m.mwang@netcom.com> mwang@netcom.com ( ) writes:
>Hi folks! I am thinking of setting up a bbs and need some help
>with :
Are you crazy?

>           What are the laws regulating a bbs?
Tariffs relating to interfacing to the phone network,  distribution of
copyrighted material/pornography, slander, libel, etc...  Nothing really
specific to BBSes.

>           What are the recommended software?
It sounds like you have not run a BBS before.  I suggest you get your 
feet wet first, before diving right in to a multiline system.  Try a
simple, but yet good bbs system like WWIV.

>           What are the recommended hardware/speed/etc?
Minimum : MSDOS XT with 1 floppy, 10 meg HD, 1200 baud modem.
Minimum preferred: XT or greater, 640K, 40+meg HD, 2400 baud modem
(well, really, you can run WWIV off of floppy only system, but you
will be very limited as to features/users/message subs)

>	   How do I get a multi-line phone #?
You call the phone company and ask for (many different names to describe 
the service) 2 (or more) lines with bleedover, rotary cue,  automatic...
whatever (okay, somewhere there is a specific tariff name for this type
of service, but if you describe it to any decent phone rep, they will
know what you are reffering to)  Try a single line bbs first... 

>          
>Any info/suggestions/help from any bbs hackers/guru/wiz
>would be greatly appreciated!
>Thanks in advance.
>Mike
>
From: davidsen@ariel.crd.GE.COM (william E Davidsen)
Newsgroups: alt.bbs
Subject: Re: Complete List of bbs software for UNIX?
Keywords: bbs software unix
Date: 18 Aug 92 19:40:07 GMT
Reply-To: davidsen@crd.ge.com (bill davidsen)
Organization: GE Corporate R&D Center, Schenectady NY

In article <Bt32B9.BDo@xcluud.sccsi.com>, paul@xcluud.sccsi.com (Paul Hutmacher) writes:
| In article <1992Aug14.204750.16855@nervous.com> pizzi@nervous.com (Riccardo Pizzi)  writes:
| >In article <c-6m=+a.dhawk@netcom.com> dhawk@netcom.com (David Hawkins) writes:
| >
| >>OK, there's AKCS, Waffle, and what else?
| >
| >UniBoard? :-)
| 
| There's mbox and xbbs too.

And Citadel and MBS.

-- 
bill davidsen, GE Corp. R&D Center; Box 8; Schenectady NY 12345
    I admit that when I was in school I wrote COBOL. But I didn't compile.
Newsgroups: alt.bbs
From: bell@teal.csn.org (Bell Scott)
Subject: Re: Kermit vs. Zmodem
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 09:04:53 GMT

In article <4163@winnie.fit.edu> ree88132@zach.fit.edu (Keith Ledig) writes:
>
> I still have a problem with using zmodem from my unix host.
>I dialup through a terminal server.  from there I connect to
>my unix host, then enter my username and password.
>
>I can't get sz to work.  It always says 'data packet too long' 
>until I abort it then fills my screen with garbage for the next
>minute or so.  Kermit seems to work on files below 100-200K
>Anything larger than that (only approximate values here) kermit
>seems to choke.  I have NO problem with zmodem on ANY other
>BBS I dial into.  I can get sz to work on a text file, though.
>
>I have tried several settings in my term prg and modem.  This 
>problem occurrs with any term prg I try.  My modem is a 
>USRobotics dual standard 14.4, v.42bis, if that matters.  
>The modems I connect to are 2400 and 1200 baud and all give
>me the same results.
>
>
>HELP!!
>
>
>
>-- 
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------      
>Keith Ledig   ree88132@zach.fit.edu         [Tech-Forum BBS 407-722-4400]

        Probably a very simple problem, tell 'sz' to 'Escape Control characters'
I have this problem often as well.  The 'Control Characters' are interpreted by
whatever server/annex/port is between you and the Unix box.

	Often you can simply tell your terminal package to do this elsewise,
type this: 'sz -e <filename>'

Scott R. Bell
From: bob@teamate.UUCP (bob)
Newsgroups: alt.bbs
Subject: Re: BBS software for sun U(UNIX ) system
Summary: TEAMate UNIX BBS Software
Date: 19 Aug 92 19:13:51 GMT

We sell a UNIX BBS product called TEAMate.  If you'd like to give it a try
         on Internet, telnet to supernet.ans.net or we can send you
         written info.

Bob Baskerville (MMB Development Corp). 310 318 1322

-- 
  MMB Development Corporation, 904 Manhattan Ave, Manhattan Beach, CA  90266
       "The TEAMate UNIX BBS for SUN, DEC, IBM, AT&T, HP and INTEL"
             VOICE: (800) 832-6022 or teamate@uunet.uu.net
Xref: sparky alt.bbs:5279 comp.bbs.misc:545
From: leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com (Leonard Erickson)
Newsgroups: alt.bbs,comp.bbs.misc
Subject: Re: BBS Standards Committee Formed
Date: 20 Aug 92 11:48:07 GMT
Article-I.D.: qiclab.1992Aug20.114807.9366
Reply-To: 70465.203@compuserve.com
Organization: SCN Research/Qic Laboratories of Tigard, Oregon.

brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton) writes:

>I think this is a good step.  The current BBS world is a morass of
>different formats -- pointlessly different formats.   Ie. they all do
>pretty much the same thing, just differently.  Getting them to exchange
>messages is work.  There are about 4-5 different formats to do that.

>My guess is that they will standardize on rfc822 as a message format,
>with perhaps a few mods the way that rfc1036 modifies that standard.
>I think that's a positive move.

Or perhaps they'll go for the formats specified in the Fidonet Technical
Standards? 

Seriously, this looks suspiciously like an attempt to define a 
standard to get rid of Fidonet and Usenet as competition to these
*commercial* BBS's. 

By Commercial, I mean that this whole *conference* was aimed at the
"BBS as a business" folks, rather than the fact the the programs are 
sold commercially.

-- 
Leonard Erickson		      leonard@qiclab.scn.rain.com
CIS: [70465,203]			 70465.203@compuserve.com
FIDO:   1:105/51	 Leonard.Erickson@f51.n105.z1.fidonet.org
(The CIS & Fido addresses are preferred)
Newsgroups: alt.bbs
From: bell@teal.csn.org (Bell Scott)
Subject: Re: BBS Standards Committ
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 13:15:13 GMT

In article <1992Aug21.173208.3878@uvm.edu> cblaise@moose.uvm.edu.UUCP (Chris Blaise) writes:
>From article <BtB38u.4y2@gator.rn.com>, by larry@gator.rn.com (Larry Snyder):
>> mr.mike@ozonehole.new-orleans.la.us (Mr Mike)  writes:
>> 
>>>You would be in the minority then.  As far as the PC industry and
>>>BBSing and Communications go...these are, in fact, the top in the
>>>industry.
>> 
>> for DOS machines, maybe -- but DOS machines don't rule the
>> world.  DOS machines make up the majority of single line BBS
>> systems -- yes -- 
>> 
>
>	What about multi line systems as well?  I would say that DOS
>and Unix based multi-line systems are pretty much equal in terms of raw
>numbers...
> 
> TTYL
> Chris

	Chris:  I have to disagree.  Nearly ALL Unix systems are multi-line.  If
Unix systems outnumber MS-DOS su=ystems, then the same would logically apply to
multi-line systems.

Something to think about...
...from the people at Petty.

bell@teal.csn.org

Newsgroups: alt.bbs,comp.bbs.misc
From: cblaise@moose.uvm.edu.UUCP (Chris Blaise)
Subject: Re: BBS Standards Committee Formed
Originator: cblaise@moose.uvm.edu
Organization: University of Vermont -- Division of EMBA Computer Facility
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 17:49:32 GMT

From article <BtBsBM.CG4@csn.org>, by bell@teal.csn.org (Bell Scott):
> In article <1992Aug19.163738.14506@uvm.edu> cblaise@moose.uvm.edu.UUCP (Chris Blaise) writes:
> regularly log on to other BBS's!  Obviously it was not widely publicised,
> normally this would simply be a case of bad marketing, however, since this
> committee will be deciding what kind of Z-Modem and graphics interface I HAVE
> TO IMPLEMENT if I hope to get ANY traffic on my system.  I am a bit upset.  It
> is not as though I am simply just another BBS twit here, I have written and will
> continue to write telecommunications software for Unix, Macintosh and MS-DOS.
> I would be very curious to see the list of representatives on this 'committee'.

	I hear you.  Like I said, while I heard a lot about it in the
"fido" world of things (mainly because the TBBS echo is the primary
echo I read), I think I saw *1* posting of it in this newgroup some
months back.  I would try to say that since this was their first
outing, it might count as some sort of excuse, but if living in Denver,
you had never heard of ONE, it seems that there were some serious
publicity problems which need to be addressed...

> If you would be so kind as to forward (or better post it here) this list of
> my representatives then perhaps I can have a hand in these decisions being
> made in our representative democracy.

	I'll ask Phil this weekend and see what he'll say.

> 	Chris: Noone should take my comments personally as they are not directed
> personally.  I do hope you have not taken them as such.  (Though Mr. Rickard
> might have just cause for doing so...by the way, WHERE IS HE???)A

	I have absolutetly no problem with that.  When I talk, I feel
the same way *grin*.

 TTYL
 Chris

Xref: sparky alt.bbs:5196 comp.bbs.misc:487
From: cholette@JSP.UMontreal.CA (Cholette Martin)
Newsgroups: alt.bbs,comp.bbs.misc
Subject: Offline 1.40
Date: 13 Aug 92 02:29:08 GMT
Organization: Universite de Montreal

I seem to having some problems with my Offline 1.40. I have been using it
for about 1 month now and have had no problems until 2 days ago.  What has
been happening is that some of the mail packets that it creates are no good
(the BBS where I call gets hung when it sorts the packet into the various
groups. needless to say my sysop is NOT impressed!) Since this problem has 
occured I have made a "good" packet (i.e. I can still get some good packets
out) I don't think I am doing anything differently.  Sometimes Offline just
deletes everything in the work directory, including my return packet wihout
even TRYING to zip the return packet.

I have tried everything including re-instaling it and the editor on the disk
( I am using it on an xt with 360/720 k drives. I have lots of room on the disk
for the zipping/unzipping to be done.)

Please help me!
Please e-mail, I don't get around to reading as much as I should :-(

Thanks in advance

 
Michael Bertrand, TKE, KX.
Tau Kappa Epsilon, Changing the Image of Fraternities.
cholette@jsp.umontreal.ca 
Newsgroups: alt.bbs
From: au032@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Adam Cohen)
Subject: Any public telnet access in 617 or 508 areas?
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 92 06:21:18 GMT


Does any know of any telnet dialups, preferably free (of course)
in eastern Mass? Thanks for any info.
Newsgroups: alt.bbs
From: JDOYLE@deimos.ucc.umass.edu (JAMES R DOYLE)
Subject: Seeking advice for for free BBS software
Organization: University of Massachusetts at Amherst
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 16:09:49 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.20

I am looking for advice and information on public-domain BBS software for
Unix (compatible with DEC Ultrix V4.2A or BSD4.3). Basically, I will be
setting up a single-line BBS in my house in the next month.  I want to
host the BBS code and files on my DECStation 3100 ; I will be using a Mac SE
running MachTen as communications front-end to the network in my house. The
Mac may later serve a second serial line for another dial-in line. The
Mac runs a derivative of 4.3BSD thuse dial-in users will see a login from
the Mac and proceed with an automated session startup to the DECStation.

I would like software that is customizable and extensible and not completely
harrassing like Teleguard or TBBS. 

Thanks

..... J.D.

Newsgroups: alt.bbs,comp.bbs.misc
From: larry@gator.rn.com (Larry Snyder)
Subject: Re: BBS Standards Committee Formed
Organization: The Gator Public Access Unix Site - 219-289-3745
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 1992 10:23:41 GMT

kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan (KD1HZ)) writes:

>I don't think that these companies are hardly representative of the
>"top companies in the BBS and communications industry".

I would have to agree with you.  Like another poster had mentioned,
most of the companies support DOS platforms - which is the amateur
market - the majority of which are single line machines.

Real men use UNIX :)


-- 
Larry Snyder                                    internet: larry@gator.rn.com
keeper of the Gator                                  uucp: uunet!gator!larry
Newsgroups: alt.bbs
From: dhawk@netcom.com (David Hawkins)
Subject: Complete List of bbs software for UNIX?
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 92 03:24:45 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Distribution: na
Keywords: bbs software unix

OK, there's AKCS, Waffle, and what else?
Is there a place to buy PicoSpan any more?
What's happening with Xchange?

later, david
--
David Hawkins    dhawk@netcom.com
They who give have all things; they who withhold have nothing.  
                      -- Hindu proverb
Newsgroups: alt.bbs,comp.bbs.misc
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Subject: Re: BBS Standards Committee Formed
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 07:17:35 GMT

erik@pdnfido.fidonet.org (Erik VanRiper) writes:
>In article <1992Aug19.220653.23387@anomaly.sbs.risc.net> kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan (KD1HZ)) writes:
>>cambler@zeus.calpoly.edu (Christopher J. Ambler,				Who?Phish) writes:
>>
>>>Top companies in the BBS and communications industry met this August
>>>14th at the ONE BBSCON in Denver, Colorado,in an unprecidented cooperative
>>>effort to define and implement interoperable standards in graphics,
>>>messaging, and other aspects of BBS communications.
>>
>>[Vendor list deleted]
>>
>>I don't think that these companies are hardly representative of the
>>"top companies in the BBS and communications industry".
>>

>But they certainly DO represent BBS-for-profit, which I am ENTIRELY AGAINST.

The TBBS (eSoft) people and the PC-Board people, Mustang, and
Galacticomm certainly, but all the rest?  Certainly not Mr.
Searchlight.  Apple Computer?  Resnova?  Magee?  Datastorm?  All
BBS-for-profiters?  I suspect that the reason all the big for-profit
BBS companies were there because they were wanting to push their
software at the BBSCON and could afford to send some people.  Mr.
Amber has given an address at which anyone, including the non-profit
types, can join.


>These people really make my skin crawl, which, of course, makes me want to 
>ignore everything that they do.  They "think" that they can guide the "industry"
>when in fact all they do is make money off of people that don't know any
>better in the first place.  ARGGGH!

If people don't like what they come up with, they don't have to
support it.  The only way I can see anything bad coming out of such a
committee would be if they charged outrageous prices for any
proposed "standards" they came up with.
-- 
God is not dead.  He is alive and autographing Bibles at Waldenbooks.
Newsgroups: alt.bbs,comp.bbs.misc
From: brad@clarinet.com (Brad Templeton)
Subject: Re: BBS Standards Committee Formed
Organization: ClariNet Communications Corp.
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 1992 05:31:57 GMT

MIME and RFC822 are different things, unless you feel you need multimedia
in headers.

In effect, all RFC822 does is define a message as a header and body,
split from each other by the first double newline in the message, and
the header consisting of field names, colons and fields, with indented
continuation lines.

It then adds formats for some predefined fields but others can be added.

About all it is missing are international character set header data and
possibly binary header data.

The format of the body is not defined.

And I really don't care what format people use internally on the BBSs.
The prime interest is to get an exchange format.

Though I would strong encourage BBS authors to get away from the
concept of fixed fields with fixed-width values, if they want to
do meaningful message exchange.
-- 
Brad Templeton, ClariNet Communications Corp. -- Sunnyvale, CA 408/296-0366