Re: Re: New offline QWK mail
By: Gamgee to Digital Man on Sat Mar 28 2026 08:21 pm

Right. It was a rhetorical question. :-)

Oops, yes... I was in a hurry and thought I was replying to the other
guy, after his reference of having used it "back in the day"... ;-)

You did. :-)
--
digital man (rob)

This Is Spinal Tap quote #33:
Nigel Tufnel: Well, so what? What's wrong with bein' sexy?
Norco, CA WX: 78.0øF, 34.0% humidity, 8 mph W wind, 0.00 inches rain/24hrs
---
þ Synchronet þ Vertrauen þ Home of Synchronet þ [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net

Re: New offline QWK mail
By: Tiny to Accession on Fri Mar 27 2026 06:23 am

All done automatically so for me it's great since in the summer I operate
on limited bandwith when I'm in the woods.

Off topic, but is cost an issue there? I heard something recently about Starlink service.. after signing up, there's some super cheap option that basically just keeps your account active and gives you a very throttled/slow connection, which I think is unlimited. The "mini" kit was recently on sale for around 200-250usd. Sounds like something I'd try if I was in the boonies.

---
þ Synchronet þ TIRED of waiting 2 hours for a taco? GO TO TACOPRONTO.bbs.io

Hi Phigan,
On <Mon, 29 Mar 26>, you wrote me:

Off topic, but is cost an issue there? I heard something recently
about Starlink service.. after signing up, there's some super cheap

I don't really need a full internet connection when I'm relaxing. ;)

... Honk if you love peace and quiet!


* SeM. 2.26 * If Trump slaps a tariff on Canadian maple syrup... It's gonna ---
þ Synchronet þ _thePharcyde telnet://bbs.pharcyde.org (Wisconsin)

Re: New offline QWK mail
By: Tiny to Phigan on Mon Mar 30 2026 05:45 am

I don't really need a full internet
connection when I'm relaxing. ;)

I would go as far as to say that an
internet connection actively sabotages
relaxation.


--Just Post, World Is A Fuck!--

This Quality Shit-Post Brought
To You Via Commodore 64 Ultimate

---
þ Synchronet þ Vertrauen þ Home of Synchronet þ [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net

Tiny wrote to Phigan <=-

Off topic, but is cost an issue there? I heard something recently
about Starlink service.. after signing up, there's some super cheap

I don't really need a full internet connection when I'm relaxing. ;)

There's a lot to be said for sneakernet and QWK packets. Before I fly
anywhere, I'd download a qwk packet and respond at my leisure.



--- MultiMail/Win v0.52
þ Synchronet þ .: realitycheckbbs.org :: scientia potentia est :.

Re: New offline QWK mail
By: Tiny to Phigan on Mon Mar 30 2026 05:45 am

I don't really need a full internet connection when I'm relaxing. ;)

...as opposed to a partial internet connection? I'm not sure what "full internet connection" means? :P

Nightfox

---
þ Synchronet þ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com

Off topic, but is cost an issue there? I heard something recently
about Starlink service.. after signing up, there's some super cheap

I don't really need a full internet connection when I'm relaxing. ;)

Might be more relaxing to *not* have one. ;)


* SLMR 2.1a * I was a tall person before I used PKZIP...!
---
þ Synchronet þ CAPCITY2 * Capitol City Online

There's a lot to be said for sneakernet and QWK packets. Before I fly
anywhere, I'd download a qwk packet and respond at my leisure.

It was fun bbsing in a different country. I was calling bbses 5000 miles
away from home.


***wcTaglines: Bell announces, FREE call waitiØng“æØ*¥8>Ÿ
---
þ wcQWK 10.0 ÷ Inland Utopia * iutopia.duckdns.org:2323

Re: Re: New offline QWK mail
By: Matthew Munson to POINDEXTER FORTRAN on Mon Mar 30 2026 08:36 pm

It was fun bbsing in a different country. I was calling bbses 5000 miles away from home.

I only ever called a long-distance BBS once or twice, and it was a company's BBS, where I was looking for something (perhaps an updated driver or something, I don't remember for sure).

These days, though, I've heard the BBS scene is still popular in China, due to China's policy of censoring things online (people can go under the radar with BBSes, as China hasn't censored them yet, apparently). I've been curious to call some, though I don't read Chinese.

Nightfox

---
þ Synchronet þ Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com

Re: Re: New offline QWK mail
By: Matthew Munson to POINDEXTER FORTRAN on Mon Mar 30 2026 20:36:00

There's a lot to be said for sneakernet and QWK packets. Before I fly
anywhere, I'd download a qwk packet and respond at my leisure.

It was fun bbsing in a different country. I was calling bbses 5000 miles away from home.

***wcTaglines: Bell announces, FREE call waiti­ng"­­*­8>­

It is still fun. The message centers are still the most fun thing to enjoy on aBBS other than some of the 'door' games. Have fun with it!

Rixter,
telnet://ricksbbs.synchro.net:23
http://ricksbbsy.synchro.net:8080
IRC www.irccloud.com/irc/ricksbbs/channel/ricksbbs

---
þ Synchronet þ themegabbs.ddns.net 6400

Re: Re: New offline QWK mail
By: poindexter FORTRAN to Tiny on Mon Mar 30 2026 07:09 am

Tiny wrote to Phigan <=-

Off topic, but is cost an issue there? I heard something recently
about Starlink service.. after signing up, there's some super cheap

I don't really need a full internet connection when I'm relaxing. ;)

There's a lot to be said for sneakernet and QWK packets. Before I fly
anywhere, I'd download a qwk packet and respond at my leisure.

I can imagine an offline mail reader would be good for travel. If you HAVE to see the messages. Sometimes you cannot always be connected. What QWK program do you use? We had starlink here for about a year at 120.00 a month. It was ok. The spectrum cable ran a line out to the sticks here 5 years ago and 1gb service for 99.99 a month. I am very happy with it so far. We are in the mountains and whenever weather tanked so did the starlink and we had to use t mobiles mobile hotspot for back up and at best it was 10mbsp down and 1.8 up at best. Maybe it was mbps :) better than nothing. I think T-mobile was the worst one we used ever. The cable RARELY gives us issue and we just added a hotspot plan to our verizon phone account now for just in cases. I can see the QWK coming in handy for quick message grabs and sends during bad weather events or travel.
Rixter
telnet://ricksbbs.synchro.net:23
http://ricksbbs.synchro.net:8080
IRC www.irccloud.com/irc/ricksbbs/channel/ricksbbs

---
þ Synchronet þ Rick's BBS telnet://ricksbbs.synchro.net:23

Re: Re: New offline QWK mail
By: Rixter to poindexter FORTRAN on Mon Apr 06 2026 06:57 am

I can imagine an offline mail reader would be good for travel. If you HAVE t see the messages. Sometimes you cannot always be connected. What QWK program you use? We had starlink here for about a year at 120.00 a month. It was ok. The spectrum cable ran a line out to the sticks here 5 years ago and 1gb service for 99.99 a month. I am very happy with it so far. We are in the mountains and whenever weather tanked so did the starlink and we had to use mobiles mobile hotspot for back up and at best it was 10mbsp down and 1.8 up best. Maybe it was mbps :) better than nothing. I think T-mobile was the wor one we used ever. The cable RARELY gives us issue and we just added a hotspo plan to our verizon phone account now for just in cases. I can see the QWK coming in handy for quick message grabs and sends during bad weather events travel.
Rixter

Yes, but zmodem is a bit flaky over TCP sometimes.

One protocol which is good for asynchronous transfer and "sometimes on" connecctions is NNCP. It is based on UUCP, Unix-Unix copy, but incorporates encryption and can be mixed with over-the-wire transfers and physical transfer f media.

---
þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org

Re: Re: New offline QWK mail
By: Boraxman to Rixter on Tue Apr 07 2026 10:42 pm

Yes, but zmodem is a bit flaky over TCP sometimes.

It certainly shouldn't be and if/when it is, I'd blame the implementation, not the protocol.
--
digital man (rob)

Steven Wright quote #35:
If your car could travel at the speed of light, would your headlights work Norco, CA WX: 78.9øF, 42.0% humidity, 5 mph W wind, 0.00 inches rain/24hrs
---
þ Synchronet þ Vertrauen þ Home of Synchronet þ [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net

Hi Boraxman,
In a message to Rixter you wrote:

Yes, but zmodem is a bit flaky over TCP sometimes.

I've never had a problem with zmodem over TCP. Over the years I've
run some pretty out there config's with virtual pc's, emulation,
various hacks to run x86 on arm etc etc. Also use a really old and
broken phone as my internet connection when in the woods and in umpteen
years of doing this I've only ever lost a QWK packet due to user error
never due to zmodem. (Sure sometimes, there are so many errors in the
download that it keeps restarting, but it does eventually complete!)

One protocol which is good for asynchronous transfer and "sometimes
on" connecctions is NNCP. It is based on UUCP, Unix-Unix copy, but incorporates encryption and can be mixed with over-the-wire transfers
and physical transfer

I will check NNCP out though as it sounds interesting.

... Photographers do it with a shutter.


* SeM. 2.26 * If Trump slaps a tariff on Canadian maple syrup... It's gonna ---
þ Synchronet þ _thePharcyde telnet://bbs.pharcyde.org (Wisconsin)

Re: Re: New offline QWK mail
By: Tiny to Boraxman on Wed Apr 08 2026 05:28 am

Hi Boraxman,
In a message to Rixter you wrote:

Yes, but zmodem is a bit flaky over TCP sometimes.

I've never had a problem with zmodem over TCP. Over the years I've
run some pretty out there config's with virtual pc's, emulation,
various hacks to run x86 on arm etc etc. Also use a really old and
broken phone as my internet connection when in the woods and in
umpteen years of doing this I've only ever lost a QWK packet due to
user error never due to zmodem. (Sure sometimes, there are so many
errors in the download that it keeps restarting, but it does
eventually complete!)

One protocol which is good for asynchronous transfer and "sometimes
on" connecctions is NNCP. It is based on UUCP, Unix-Unix copy, but incorporates encryption and can be mixed with over-the-wire
transfers and physical transfer

I will check NNCP out though as it sounds interesting.

... Photographers do it with a shutter.

my experience over the past 27+ years of bbsing on the internet is some
people have problems with zmodem over tcp, and some dont. I have seen with my own eyes when people have problems. myself, i've never had a program. I probably have done more uploads and downloads than most people.


--
"Before using Wildcat....This Company did not have a convenient way of
looking after some of the richest clients in the world...Now we do!"


President of BBS Sysop's Union +++ https://bbses.info/union
---
þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::

Re: Re: New offline QWK mail
By: Digital Man to Boraxman on Tue Apr 07 2026 02:09 pm

Re: Re: New offline QWK mail
By: Boraxman to Rixter on Tue Apr 07 2026 10:42 pm

Yes, but zmodem is a bit flaky over TCP sometimes.

It certainly shouldn't be and if/when it is, I'd blame the implementation, n the protocol.
--
digital man (rob)

Steven Wright quote #35:
If your car could travel at the speed of light, would your headlights work Norco, CA WX: 78.9øF, 42.0% humidity, 5 mph W wind, 0.00 inches rain/24hrs

I've found it that way, more specifically, when using syncterm. Not sure of it is the syncterm implementation, but I think lrszrz has also had issues at times. It seems some BBS's causes issues, some dont.

zmodem wasn't designed for TCP, it was designed for a raw serial connection

---
þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org

Re: Re: New offline QWK mail
By: Boraxman to Rixter on Tue Apr 07 2026 10:42 pm

Yes, but zmodem is a bit flaky over TCP sometimes.

I've never had any problems with Zmodem.
When I call BBS's and download a file, or upload a file, I use Zmodem.

Denn

...T h i s t a g l i n e h a s b e e n u n z i p p e d .

---
þ Synchronet þ the Outwest BBS - outwest.synchro.net - Home of BBSBASE 6.0

Re: Re: New offline QWK mail
By: Boraxman to Digital Man on Wed Apr 08 2026 11:46 pm

Re: Re: New offline QWK mail
By: Digital Man to Boraxman on Tue Apr 07 2026 02:09 pm

Re: Re: New offline QWK mail
By: Boraxman to Rixter on Tue Apr 07 2026 10:42 pm

Yes, but zmodem is a bit flaky over TCP sometimes.

It certainly shouldn't be and if/when it is, I'd blame the implementation, n the protocol.

I've found it that way, more specifically, when using syncterm. Not sure of it is the syncterm implementation, but I think lrszrz has also had issues at times. It seems some BBS's causes issues, some dont.

zmodem wasn't designed for TCP, it was designed for a raw serial connection

ZMODEM was designed for pretty much any streaming transmission medium, not explicitly "Raw serial connection". There's definitely nothing about TCP that gives ZMODEM any particular heartache. The issues, when I have seen them, have been more about asymmetry in buffer sizes and bandwidths between sender and receiver, but that can be addressed with the different modes (e.g. streaming versus not) that ZMODEM supports. ZMODEM can be run in a per-packet ACK mode similar to X/YMODEM if that's needed, but that's not usually the case (yes, even over TCP).
--
digital man (rob)

Rush quote #56:
His world is under anesthetic, subdivided and synthetic .. Digital Man
Norco, CA WX: 66.2øF, 72.0% humidity, 6 mph WSW wind, 0.00 inches rain/24hrs ---
þ Synchronet þ Vertrauen þ Home of Synchronet þ [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net

Re: Re: New offline QWK mail
By: MRO to Tiny on Wed Apr 08 2026 07:21 am

Re: Re: New offline QWK mail
By: Tiny to Boraxman on Wed Apr 08 2026 05:28 am

Hi Boraxman,
In a message to Rixter you wrote:

Yes, but zmodem is a bit flaky over TCP sometimes.

I've never had a problem with zmodem over TCP. Over the years I've
run some pretty out there config's with virtual pc's, emulation,
various hacks to run x86 on arm etc etc. Also use a really old and broken phone as my internet connection when in the woods and in
umpteen years of doing this I've only ever lost a QWK packet due to
user error never due to zmodem. (Sure sometimes, there are so many
errors in the download that it keeps restarting, but it does
eventually complete!)

One protocol which is good for asynchronous transfer and "sometimes on" connecctions is NNCP. It is based on UUCP, Unix-Unix copy, but incorporates encryption and can be mixed with over-the-wire
transfers and physical transfer

I will check NNCP out though as it sounds interesting.

... Photographers do it with a shutter.

my experience over the past 27+ years of bbsing on the internet is some people have problems with zmodem over tcp, and some dont. I have seen with own eyes when people have problems. myself, i've never had a program. I probably have done more uploads and downloads than most people.

--
"Before using Wildcat....This Company did not have a convenient way of looking after some of the richest clients in the world...Now we do!"

President of BBS Sysop's Union +++ https://bbses.info/union

PErhaps latency is an issue? I'm in Australia, so some American BBS's have a bit of a ping time. Perhaps that is an issue, timing...

---
þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org

Re: Re: New offline QWK mail
By: Boraxman to Rixter on Tue Apr 07 2026 22:42:10

Re: Re: New offline QWK mail
By: Rixter to poindexter FORTRAN on Mon Apr 06 2026 06:57 am

I can imagine an offline mail reader would be good for travel. If you HAV > > see the messages. Sometimes you cannot always be connected. What QWK prog > > you use? We had starlink here for about a year at 120.00 a month. It was > > The spectrum cable ran a line out to the sticks here 5 years ago and 1gb
service for 99.99 a month. I am very happy with it so far. We are in the > > mountains and whenever weather tanked so did the starlink and we had to > > mobiles mobile hotspot for back up and at best it was 10mbsp down and 1.8 > > best. Maybe it was mbps :) better than nothing. I think T-mobile was the > > one we used ever. The cable RARELY gives us issue and we just added a hot > > plan to our verizon phone account now for just in cases. I can see the QW > > coming in handy for quick message grabs and sends during bad weather even > > travel.
Rixter

Yes, but zmodem is a bit flaky over TCP sometimes.

One protocol which is good for asynchronous transfer and "sometimes on" connecctions is NNCP. It is based on UUCP, Unix-Unix copy, but incorporates > encryption and can be mixed with over-the-wire transfers and physical transf > f media.

---
þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org

Thank you Boraxman. I will consider this information. Have a great day.

---
þ Synchronet þ Enigma BBS -=- enigma-bbs.com

Re: Re: New offline QWK mail
By: Boraxman to MRO on Thu Apr 09 2026 11:03 pm

President of BBS Sysop's Union +++ https://bbses.info/union

PErhaps latency is an issue? I'm in Australia, so some American
BBS's have a bit of a ping time. Perhaps that is an issue,
timing...

yep that could be a problem. i've also known a few people with really low end computers and they ran tons of stuff in the background. those bbses had issues during file transfers when they were processing mail or whatever.


--
"Before using Wildcat....This Company did not have a convenient way of
looking after some of the richest clients in the world...Now we do!"


President of BBS Sysop's Union +++ https://bbses.info/union
---
þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::

Re: Re: New offline QWK mail
By: Boraxman to Digital Man on Wed Apr 08 2026 11:46 pm

Re: Re: New offline QWK mail
By: Digital Man to Boraxman on Tue Apr 07 2026 02:09 pm

Yes, but zmodem is a bit flaky over TCP sometimes.

I've found it that way, more specifically, when using syncterm. Not sure of it is the syncterm implementation, but I think lrszrz has also had

The latest 1.8RC2 of SyncTerm fixed an issue with ZModem.

Lonewolf
---
þ Synchronet þ Fireside BBS, Home of Lone Wolf Software, AI-WX

Re: Re: New offline QWK mail
By: Lonewolf to Boraxman on Fri Apr 10 2026 02:11 pm

The latest 1.8RC2 of SyncTerm fixed an issue with ZModem.

And that particular issue was really just an extra delay at the end of a successful ZMODEM file upload (*from* SyncTERM to a server/BBS), while the receiver waited for the file "OO" (over and out) transmission from the sender (SyncTERM), and would timeout usually after just a few seconds, but not affecting the file transfer.
--
digital man (rob)

Sling Blade quote #4:
Doyle: wimpy-ass kids or mental retards.. she got one of each livin' with her. Norco, CA WX: 74.4øF, 55.0% humidity, 7 mph SSW wind, 0.00 inches rain/24hrs ---
þ Synchronet þ Vertrauen þ Home of Synchronet þ [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net

Yes, but zmodem is a bit flaky over TCP sometimes.

I thought it wasn't so much TCP, but the fact it's quite often ZModem over Telnet over TCP.

In which case, there is overlap between ZModem control sequences and Telnet control sequences, and they interfere causing transfers to go whacky.

If the terminal client and board are Telnet-aware, it usually works really well.

The issues grow with "Wifi-232" modems, and Telnet-Fossil bridges, where the sides need to agree on how Telnet control sequences are to be escaped.

Cheers,
RetroSwim

--- Ezycom V2.15g1 01FD0295
* Origin: >> Pool's Open - The RetroSwim BBS (12:1/12)
þ Synchronet þ AnsiTEX bringing back videotex but with ANSI

Re: Re: New offline QWK mail
By: Retroswim to Boraxman on Sat Apr 11 2026 04:53 pm

Howdy,

I thought it wasn't so much TCP, but the fact it's quite often ZModem over Telnet over TCP.

There are two issues with zmodem over networks (that I'm aware of), so it takes some thought to use them:

* Over telent - due to IAC control codes
* TCP window sizes, and one side being slower than the other.

IE: I've sometimes used telnet over a TCPser line, that is serial one side and TCP the other. When the sender (TCP) sends their last byte to a receive (slow link), they start a timer and explode when it hits a timeout (if they havent received a response from the remote).

The receiver however is slowly draining the TCP buffer and when they receive the last byte, they send their ACK, however the other end has long gone. Naturally this isnt always a problem the other way around (slow sending to fast).

As DM said, zmodem can be configured to ACK or wait to send the next block, and use block sizes can be limited to small, so that the ACK timer doesnt explode before the TCP buffer is drained.


...ëîåï

---
þ Synchronet þ AnsiTEX bringing back videotex but with ANSI

Re: Re: New offline QWK mail
By: Lonewolf to Boraxman on Fri Apr 10 2026 02:11 pm

Re: Re: New offline QWK mail
By: Boraxman to Digital Man on Wed Apr 08 2026 11:46 pm

Re: Re: New offline QWK mail
By: Digital Man to Boraxman on Tue Apr 07 2026 02:09 pm

Yes, but zmodem is a bit flaky over TCP sometimes.

I've found it that way, more specifically, when using syncterm. Not su of it is the syncterm implementation, but I think lrszrz has also had

The latest 1.8RC2 of SyncTerm fixed an issue with ZModem.

Lonewolf

Nice. I just upgraded to that version a few days ago.

---
þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org

Re: Re: New offline QWK mail
By: Retroswim to Boraxman on Sat Apr 11 2026 04:53 pm

Yes, but zmodem is a bit flaky over TCP sometimes.

I thought it wasn't so much TCP, but the fact it's quite often ZModem over Telnet over TCP.

In which case, there is overlap between ZModem control sequences and Telnet control sequences, and they interfere causing transfers to go whacky.

If the terminal client and board are Telnet-aware, it usually works really well.

The issues grow with "Wifi-232" modems, and Telnet-Fossil bridges, where the sides need to agree on how Telnet control sequences are to be escaped.

Cheers,
RetroSwim

I have had issues with ZModem over SSH over TCP when transferring within my home network, and it was escape sequences. The -e option to escape control characters fixes it.

That should be Zmodem over Screen over SSH over TCP!

---
þ Synchronet þ MS & RD BBs - bbs.mozysswamp.org