Hey g00r00,

I have been thinking about stuffs to do with managing a BBS network, and wondered how much work would be needed to add a new feature to the current area/file fix commands... my idea would look in practice something like...

I am sent a node application to join tqwNet (z1337)
I send a message to NodeFix @ 1337:1/100 (if it's for a UK node)...
I give it the password in the subject line to allow this to proceed...

In the body of the message I could do something like;

%CREATENODE 1337:1/102
%SETSYSTEMNAME 1337:1/102 thE nEw AmAzInG bbS
%SETSYSOPNAME 1337:1/102 dASySOp
%SETSYSDOMAIN 1337:1/102 tqwnet
%SETSYSTEMTYPE 1337:1/102 mystic/synchro/pcboard/mbse/etc
%SETSESSIONTYPE 1337:1/102 binkp
%SETPKTPASSWD 1337:1/102 PASS1234
%SETTICPASSWD 1337:1/102 PASS1234
%SETFIXPASSWD 1337:1/102 PASS1234
%SETEXPORTTYPE 1337:1/102 crash
%SETBINKPADDR 1337:1/102 bbs.thenewamazingbbs.com:24554
%SETIPTYPE 1337:1/102 IPV4
%SETSESSIONPASSWD 1337:1/102 PASS1234
%SETCRAMMD5 1337:1/102 yes
%SETHIDEAKAS 1337:1/102 yes

This would then create a new node in the config with the above details set,
and anything not set manually will assume default values as per the defaults
in Mystic currently...

It would also add the new node with the details given to the nodelist.txt
file, and create a new nodelist file just for the zone, with the right day number, zip it up with the right naming convention and automatically place it in the configured folder and hatch it to all nodes.

Having something like this system added, I could then create a more automated network application so that a user can log in, and run the node application software, and then when the sysop gets the notification of said application, when assigning a node number to the request, the software will just send a netmail to the hub with those commands to automatically create the node.

If multiple bbses act as hubs for the network, eg..
tqwNet UK = 1337:1/100
tqwNet AU = 1337:2/100
tqwNet CA = 1337:3/100

Then the sysop could specify which hub would need to configure in the application software, and then the "NodeFix" message would just be sent to
the relevant hub to create the node automatically.

What are your (or other peoples) thoughts on this?
It's been on my mind for a while now, something that might make managing a network a little easier and/or more efficient.

Would love to hear what others think, and definitely what you think about the effort/work involved to make this work in mystic. I know that hubs also run
on binkd rather than mystic too, but this could work for mystic hubs at least...

Anyway, that's my Sunday morning brainstorming session out in the wild... feedback appreciated guys.

---
|14Best regards,
|11Ch|03rist|11ia|15n |11a|03ka |11Me|03aTLoT|11io|15N

|07ÄÄ |08[|10eml|08] |15ml@erb.pw |07ÄÄ |08[|10web|08] |15www.erb.pw |07ÄÄÄ¿ |07ÄÄ |08[|09fsx|08] |1521:1/158 |07ÄÄ |08[|11tqw|08] |151337:1/101 |07ÂÄÄÙ |07ÄÄ |08[|12rtn|08] |1580:774/81 |07ÄÂ |08[|14fdn|08] |152:250/5 |07ÄÄÄÙ
|07ÄÄ |08[|10ark|08] |1510:104/2 |07ÄÙ

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A43 2019/03/02 (Linux/64)
* Origin: The Quantum Wormhole, Ramsgate, UK. bbs.erb.pw (21:1/158)

I have been thinking about stuffs to do with managing a BBS network, and wondered how much work would be needed to add a new feature to the
current area/file fix commands... my idea would look in practice
something like...

This is a direction I've been toying with moving a long time, although not necessarily with Areafix. Maybe Areafix would be a good thing to add
into my existing ideas so thank you for that! :)

Mystic already has some additional features that are partially finished for automated network joining. Its pretty much effortless automated. I don't want to go into more details just yet because...

One of the things I struggle with when I think about enabling it (and part of the reason why it doesn't exist now) is that I think the BBS scene being as small as it is might really suffer from being spread too thin.

If I make it ridiculously easy for people to setup up their own network without having much knowledge on the topic (and Mystic is already easier than most), then am I going to create a situation where everyone who has a BBS also tries to create their own network?

The result being that there are now 100 FTN networks with zero activity in them, and even existing strong networks like FSX suffer from it because people who'd normally post here now are trying to post only in their own network.

So mostly my hangup has been centered around that line of thinking. I am certainly interested in any feedback people have around that.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A43 2019/03/02 (Linux/64)
* Origin: Sector 7 (21:1/108)

If I make it ridiculously easy for people to setup up their own network without having much knowledge on the topic (and Mystic is already easier than most), then am I going to create a situation where everyone who has
a BBS also tries to create their own network?
The result being that there are now 100 FTN networks with zero activity
in them, and even existing strong networks like FSX suffer from it
because people who'd normally post here now are trying to post only in their own network.

Agree!

On the other hand, if someone wants to make a network it should be free and easy for him to do so. If its good or bad for the scene, the scene and the future will tell ;)

My advice... don't make it easy... but also don't tell anyone about it...
cause at the end, you will hear the complains. Perhaps i shouldn't also tell this.. :) ahahahaha...

.----- --- -- -
| Another Droid BBS
: Telnet : andr01d.zapto.org:9999 [UTC 11:00 - 20:00]
. Contact : xqtr@gmx.com

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A41 2018/12/27 (Raspberry Pi/32)
* Origin: Another Droid BBS # andr01d.zapto.org:9999 (21:1/111)

This is a direction I've been toying with moving a long time, although
not necessarily with Areafix. Maybe Areafix would be a good thing to add into my existing ideas so thank you for that! :)

No worries, glad you are toying with it... what would it take for you to go from toying with to actively working toward? =)

Mystic already has some additional features that are partially finished for automated network joining. Its pretty much effortless automated. I don't want to go into more details just yet because...

Really? how interesting, when you do want to go into more detail, I'd love to hear bout them =)

One of the things I struggle with when I think about enabling it (and
part of the reason why it doesn't exist now) is that I think the BBS
scene being as small as it is might really suffer from being spread too thin.

If I make it ridiculously easy for people to setup up their own network without having much knowledge on the topic (and Mystic is already easier than most), then am I going to create a situation where everyone who has
a BBS also tries to create their own network?

The result being that there are now 100 FTN networks with zero activity
in them, and even existing strong networks like FSX suffer from it
because people who'd normally post here now are trying to post only in their own network.

This all makes a ton of sense to me, although if people are going to try, and lets be honest here, this is all kinda what it's supposed to be about, right? fun, experimentation, tinkering, a hobby, etc... I totally get what you're saying, but there are two sides to this coin, and I want to sit on both
lol...

I am totally with you on the anyone can make a network = all the networks are spread too thin, however the opposite side of the coin is the current networks that are thriving, fsxNet being one, would benefit 100 fold or more if administration were to be made a lot easier by way of automation.

Double-edge sword? or a Win win, either way, I think it's worth doing... if the network is that good, and that busy, the other newnets (i'll call them that for now) will come and go... there has to be passion and a drive to keep at it.

So mostly my hangup has been centered around that line of thinking. I am certainly interested in any feedback people have around that.

I won't progress it any further until such times as you decide the idea is
good enough to make it possible, but this is definitely a feature that I would love to see come into fruition.

Thanks for your thoughts and feedback, it means a lot to me, as I'm sure it does to many many other people too.

---
|14Best regards,
|11Ch|03rist|11ia|15n |11a|03ka |11Me|03aTLoT|11io|15N

|07ÄÄ |08[|10eml|08] |15ml@erb.pw |07ÄÄ |08[|10web|08] |15www.erb.pw |07ÄÄÄ¿ |07ÄÄ |08[|09fsx|08] |1521:1/158 |07ÄÄ |08[|11tqw|08] |151337:1/101 |07ÂÄÄÙ |07ÄÄ |08[|12rtn|08] |1580:774/81 |07ÄÂ |08[|14fdn|08] |152:250/5 |07ÄÄÄÙ
|07ÄÄ |08[|10ark|08] |1510:104/2 |07ÄÙ

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A43 2019/03/02 (Linux/64)
* Origin: The Quantum Wormhole, Ramsgate, UK. bbs.erb.pw (21:1/158)

On 2019-03-18 14:51:38 +0000, g00r00 -> MeaTLoTioN said:

If I make it ridiculously easy for people to setup up their own network

without

having much knowledge on the topic (and Mystic is already easier than most), then am I going to create a situation where everyone who has a BBS also tries to create their own network?

Or worse, not understanding how the network is designed, might connect to every
node in the node list and create themselves as a downlink, and then enable all
networks, and then %RESCAN :-)

So mostly my hangup has been centered around that line of thinking. I am certainly interested in any feedback people have around that.

Something I would like to talk with you and Rob about, using our BBS engines as
backends to front-ends like PHPBB. Allowing us to product a PHPBBnet... so you
can post on a forum, in a specific topic, and it is not limited to only people
who know of that network. In recent years (last 2 for example), I have found Quora, StackOverflow siblings, but still have to go to Free Pascal/Lazarus to interact with them, then down to Australia's NexusDB's NNTP server to interact with them... on a busy day I spent 5 to 10 hours all over the place, and not coding. :-(

Our engines could also be amazing back-ends for Blogs!

Unlike all these horrible SQL schemas for vBulletin, PHPBB, etc. we get away with much more complex security features, can tag an area as (Not Visible, Read
Only, Read Write, etc). Some of the Web Forums just have (a) NEW, (b) VERIFIED, (c) MODERATOR, (d) ADMIN... and if you ever read the SQL they do to re-thread a topic, OMG! hahaha...

I too agree Mystic is ridiculously easy to setup ... I think I was up and running in 2 minutes when I realized, Oh it's a Daemon... (ExchangeBBS is Daemon or Console or Apache Mod).. I have not taken the time to install Rob's yet... one day. :-)
--
.. Ozz Nixon
... Author ExchangeBBS (suite)
.... Since 1983 BBS Developer

--- FMail-W32 2.0.1.4
* Origin: ExchangeBBS WHQ (21:1/144.0)

On 18 Mar 2019 at 10:51a, g00r00 pondered and said...

If I make it ridiculously easy for people to setup up their own network without having much knowledge on the topic (and Mystic is already easier than most), then am I going to create a situation where everyone who has
a BBS also tries to create their own network?

Not *everyone* but I'd agree certainly more would.

The result being that there are now 100 FTN networks with zero activity
in them, and even existing strong networks like FSX suffer from it
because people who'd normally post here now are trying to post only in their own network.
So mostly my hangup has been centered around that line of thinking. I am certainly interested in any feedback people have around that.

I think that the risk of that outcome happening is certainly higher than the current status quo of more effort required on the part of motivated people to set up a FTN network.

My feeling is that in general 'less is more' I feel this way about echomail areas, and places and spaces to congregate online - especially when the
overall numbers active in current online BBS spaces are not that great and
are already spread. So I agree, why seek to spread those voices even more thinly etc.?

That said, I do think a tool such as we're discussing to simplify and assist people to join an established community could well help to grow that community further. Under that line of thought I would argue for a tool with limited access and/or focused functionality vs 'create your own XYZ FTN
network' press this button' option.

Obviously I'm vested in fsxNet and would put it forward as a candidate for such future investment and growth. I think as an open and inclusive BBS community, fsxNet has done well to develop to the point where it is now three years since inception. More turnkey functionality to help people get up and
running with this aspect of Mystic and in turn get connected to an
established and supportive community would be welcome.

Should it be the only one? I'm not sure. Could it be an ideal candidate to first trial for 6-12 months and then evaluate pros and cons of such a system? Well yes I think it is. After all we're all about being experimental here :)

If we wish to explore ways of enabling more people to engage with BBS, discover online communities that can be an alternative to mainstream social media, and find enjoyment in software being developed in 2019 to help with these reasons... then I think we should explore new ways of thinking and new systems to support those ideas. :)

It seems others active in fsxNet are already talking about creating
variations of software (open source?) along these themes. I'd guess for
Mystic it's going to be a case of opting to decide to engage in that space
(or not) and if it's a yes, under what terms of engagement do you feel most comfortable with for the software?

It's a great conversation to be having.

Best, Paul

--- E:avon@bbs.nz ------ W:bbs.nz ---
--- K:keybase.io/avon --------------

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A43 2019/03/03 (Windows/32)
* Origin: Agency BBS | Dunedin, New Zealand | agency.bbs.nz (21:1/101)

On 03-18-19 13:04, Ozz Nixon wrote to g00r00 <=-

Something I would like to talk with you and Rob about, using our BBS engines as
backends to front-ends like PHPBB. Allowing us to product a
PHPBBnet... so you
can post on a forum, in a specific topic, and it is not limited to
only people
who know of that network. In recent years (last 2 for example), I have found Quora, StackOverflow siblings, but still have to go to Free Pascal/Lazarus to interact with them, then down to Australia's
NexusDB's NNTP server to interact with them... on a busy day I spent 5
to 10 hours all over the place, and not coding. :-(

Interesting. I HATE web forums, because I find them invariably slow and clumsy. Because of my history, I'm a believer in using multiple front ends to access the same information. The reason is that each of us has specific preferences and needs. For example, I like a clean, simple text interface, but one that has excellent navigation. So far, the best candidates have been offline readers (QWL/Bluewave) and sysop editors (Golded(+), etc). I also much prefer to be disconnected from the network link to the backend - either running in pure offline mode as I am now, or with asynchronous data transfer to the network. Being "online" as such adds a lot of annoying lag for me.

Part of my issue is that the best threading engine I have access to lives in my head (thanks to fast cognitive processing and off the scale recognition), which means I need to be easily able to scan just about every message. Offline mail allows me to do this in multiple ways, while web forums leave me wading through the "treacle" of network and database access in real time. The result is I can scan BBS messages dozens of times faster than web forums.

While I hate web forums, I'd be the first to provide web forum access, because it would suit some _other_ people.

Our engines could also be amazing back-ends for Blogs!

That could be interesting too!


... When you're a little rabbit, carry a big gun.
=== MultiMail/Win v0.51
--- SBBSecho 3.03-Linux
* Origin: Freeway BBS Bendigo,Australia freeway.apana.org.au (21:1/109)

On 2019-03-20 04:33:00 +0000, Vk3jed -> Ozz Nixon said:

Interesting. I HATE web forums, because I find them invariably slow and clumsy. Because of my history, I'm a believer in using multiple front ends

to

access the same information. The reason is that each of us has specific preferences and needs. For example, I like a clean, simple text interface,

but

one that has excellent navigation. So far, the best candidates have been offline readers (QWL/Bluewave) and sysop editors (Golded(+), etc). I also

much

prefer to be disconnected from the network link to the backend - either

running

in pure offline mode as I am now, or with asynchronous data transfer to the network. Being "online" as such adds a lot of annoying lag for me.

Part of my issue is that the best threading engine I have access to lives in

my

head (thanks to fast cognitive processing and off the scale recognition),

which

means I need to be easily able to scan just about every message. Offline

mail

allows me to do this in multiple ways, while web forums leave me wading

through

the "treacle" of network and database access in real time. The result is I

can

scan BBS messages dozens of times faster than web forums.

While I hate web forums, I'd be the first to provide web forum access,

because

it would suit some _other_ people.

ON> Our engines could also be amazing back-ends for Blogs!

That could be interesting too!

Firstly, thank you for a positive feedback post! (I recently accepted FTSC committee position, and OMG everything I say starts a "Bitch at Ozz" thread!)... so thanks!

.... so far the best web interface for a BBS I have found is on a Synchronet site "Electronic Chicken"... it's not perfect, but, damn nicer than many other systems (especially PHP based!).

I agree, our BBSes have given us message base and file base features that the web community lack! Searches (even just "if word exists in body" is so much faster and better than most web systems), let along, (I have implemented word indexing for every post in my JAM base, the ability to search these words by soundex, metaphone, levenshtein, etc). I do not mind sharing and code... as long as we (the BBS community) come out with the best f'ing forum and blog systems out there!

Today I am doing my finishing tests for a NNTP server (using JAM right now) as I like the offline experience, but, with the ability to go betong 7bit text/plain stream! I currently am using JAMNNTPd, which has its flaws - but I am not a C (can read it, but do not know the libraries) coder to fork the project -- so, I just whipped out a pascal implementation today and now I am reading the RFC's to see what I want to implement that JAMNNTPd does not. (I do
like that it's Message-ID: ss <JAM MSG # + '$' + ECHONAME + '@JAMNNTPd> however, under the hood it is using real MSGID: and REPLYD: ... except it is stripping SEEN-BY from the reader, making it impossible to help debug routes - I still have GoldEd installed for that). By using a custom Message-ID, when the
client connects in and says this is reply to 3$FSX_BBS@prodname ... I know JAMObj.Open('FSX_BBS'); JAMObj.SeekTo(3); JAMObj.UpdateReplyThreadAdding(17); ... and all my headaches are done for me. (I rewrote JoHo's JAMAPI.ZIP to make it SUPER easy to be a backend to NNTP, SMTP, and a couple other projects I am testing).

PS. Didn't mean to hi-jack the Create Node topic! ;-)

--
.. Ozz Nixon
... Author ExchangeBBS (suite)
.... Since 1983 BBS Developer

--- FMail-W32 2.0.1.4
* Origin: ExchangeBBS WHQ (21:1/144.0)

On 03-20-19 22:19, Ozz Nixon wrote to Vk3jed <=-

Firstly, thank you for a positive feedback post! (I recently accepted
FTSC committee position, and OMG everything I say starts a "Bitch at
Ozz" thread!)... so thanks!

You're welcome! :) And congratulations on the FTSC position. :)

.... so far the best web interface for a BBS I have found is on a Synchronet site "Electronic Chicken"... it's not perfect, but, damn
nicer than many other systems (especially PHP based!).

I have tried ECwebv4 on other BBSs and it is quite good. Still has some of the web issues for me, but overall, one of the better web interfaces I've seen. Has a nice clean look as well. Must set it up on my Synchronet system too. :)

I agree, our BBSes have given us message base and file base features
that the web community lack! Searches (even just "if word exists in
body" is so much faster and better than most web systems), let along,
(I have implemented word indexing for every post in my JAM base, the ability to search these words by soundex, metaphone, levenshtein, etc).
I do not mind sharing and code... as long as we (the BBS community)
come out with the best f'ing forum and blog systems out there!

I see the BBS platform has a lot of pluses. Flexibility being one of them. Flexibility of access, and network connectivity too, which means a BBS (or point) can aggregate feeds from multiple sources and instead of a dozen logins, only one is needed. :) Aggregation is a major use I have for FTN and QWK networking. :)

Today I am doing my finishing tests for a NNTP server (using JAM right now) as I like the offline experience, but, with the ability to go
betong 7bit text/plain stream! I currently am using JAMNNTPd, which has its flaws - but I am not a C (can read it, but do not know the
libraries) coder to fork the project -- so, I just whipped out a pascal implementation today and now I am reading the RFC's to see what I want
to implement that JAMNNTPd does not. (I do

For NNTP, it might help with a few corner cases, but the big issue I have with it is that it stores last read and subscription data on the client side, which isn't good for a "device hopper" like me. :( This issue is pretty much a show stopper for NNTP for me as a user. :( However, NNTP still has potential as a means of propagating posts over a network. In that role, it's proven itself over several decades on Usenet.

One thing BBSs and terminal software do need to look at is supporting better is UTF-8. Character encoding and languages have moved on. :)


... Whosoever diggeth a pit shall falleth therein.
=== MultiMail/Win v0.51
--- SBBSecho 3.03-Linux
* Origin: Freeway BBS Bendigo,Australia freeway.apana.org.au (21:1/109)

On 2019-03-22 07:12:00 +0000, Vk3jed -> Ozz Nixon said:

On 03-20-19 22:19, Ozz Nixon wrote to Vk3jed <=-

Starting new topic - to be more (accurate in description)

--
.. Ozz Nixon
... Author ExchangeBBS (suite)
.... Since 1983 BBS Developer

--- FMail-W32 2.0.1.4
* Origin: ExchangeBBS WHQ (21:1/144.0)

On 03-23-19 11:59, Ozz Nixon wrote to Vk3jed <=-

On 2019-03-22 07:12:00 +0000, Vk3jed -> Ozz Nixon said:

On 03-20-19 22:19, Ozz Nixon wrote to Vk3jed <=-

Starting new topic - to be more (accurate in description)

And destrying the context in the process by not quoting enough! LOL


... A year spent in AI is enough to make one believe in God.
=== MultiMail/Linux v0.51
--- SBBSecho 3.03-Linux
* Origin: Freeway BBS Bendigo,Australia freeway.apana.org.au (21:1/109)

On 2019-03-23 22:24:00 +0000, Vk3jed -> Ozz Nixon said:

On 03-23-19 11:59, Ozz Nixon wrote to Vk3jed <=-

ON> On 2019-03-22 07:12:00 +0000, Vk3jed -> Ozz Nixon said:

> -=> On 03-20-19 22:19, Ozz Nixon wrote to Vk3jed <=-

ON> Starting new topic - to be more (accurate in description)

And destrying the context in the process by not quoting enough! LOL

Yeah my 23.99% quoted vs your 46.50% is puney ... I will work on it for this week's Stats ;-)

--
.. Ozz Nixon
... Author ExchangeBBS (suite)
.... Since 1983 BBS Developer

--- FMail-W32 2.0.1.4
* Origin: ExchangeBBS WHQ (21:1/144.0)