another question, has zmodem LFS support?
Hi, any advance to get long file names into the library?
another question, has zmodem LFS support?
Hi, any advance to get long file names into the library?
another question, has zmodem LFS support?
Re: LFS support on file library
By: Ragnarok to DOVE-Net.Synchronet_Discussion on Sun Dec 02 2018 03:27 pm
Hi, any advance to get long file names into the library?
Yes.
thanks for clarify!another question, has zmodem LFS support?
The ZMODEM protocol doesn't have any file name limitations (though it does have a 4GB file *size* limitation). SEXYZ doens't have any file name limitations either.
Hi, any advance to get long file names into the library?
another question, has zmodem LFS support?
The more I campaigned for it, the more I realize it's a bad idea.
The reason being, there's a lot of legacy systems out there that can only handle 8.3. If we start sending out files which LFN then older systems are going to choke on those files.
While it's a nice to have, I would rather see multi level file transfer menus so I can better categorieze my downloads.
I'm sure I'm in the minority, especially after being vocal about LFN to start with.
Hi, any advance to get long file names into the library?
another question, has zmodem LFS support?
The more I campaigned for it, the more I realize it's a bad idea.
The reason being, there's a lot of legacy systems out there that can only handle 8.3. If we start sending out files which LFN then older systems are going to choke on those files.
etc.. Synchronet already does have partial long filename support, and I don't see why it couldn't include that for file transfers too.
I'm
wondering if there's a way to detect if the client terminal is an old/legacy terminal so that it could still send an 8.3 filename if it had to.
Re: Re: LFS support on file libraryto
By: Nightfox to Nelgin on Mon Dec 03 2018 05:25 pm
etc.. Synchronet already does have partial long filename support, and I don't see why it couldn't include that for file transfers too.
It already does, but the support relies on Windows auto-magic long filename
Micros~1 short filenames (and vice versa) conversions, so it doesn't work on *nix.old/legacy
I'm
wondering if there's a way to detect if the client terminal is an
terminal so that it could still send an 8.3 filename if it had to.
Not really, but old/legacy terminals likely just truncate the filename to 11 chars. Y/ZMODEM has been available on *nix systems for decades, so it's not a new issue and likely already handled gracefully in old client software.
I think what Nelgin was referring to was file distribution networks (FDNs).
digital man
i made a 'transfer protocol' that uses rar to archive the file(s) retaining their lfn. it creates a temporary file and sends it to the user.
i also did it with renegade bbs.
if the user downloads a lot of files, they get them catergorized based onfile
areas. i think it's better this way.
---
þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::
On 12-03-18 17:25, Nightfox wrote to Nelgin <=-
How many older/legacy clients are still being used to call BBSes these days? I'm sure that question probably sounds odd, being that BBSes like this is an old-school hobby, but I'd think at some point it's nice to
move things forward. Synchronet has moved things forward with its
ability to run on modern operating systems and its built-in servers for telnet, web, FTP, etc.. Synchronet already does have partial long filename support, and I don't see why it couldn't include that for file transfers too. I'm wondering if there's a way to detect if the client terminal is an old/legacy terminal so that it could still send an 8.3 filename if it had to.
Also, I'm wondering if 8.3 filenames were common on other systems back
in the day too? Besides DOS (which had the 8.3 filename limit), there
was also Commodore 64, Amiga, Apple II, Macintosh, etc., and I'm not
sure they all had the same 8.3 filename limitation in the first place.
On 12-03-18 22:16, Digital Man wrote to Nightfox <=-
I think what Nelgin was referring to was file distribution networks (FDNs).
i made a 'transfer protocol' that uses rar to archive the file(s) retaining their lfn. it creates a temporary file and sends it to the user.
i also did it with renegade bbs.
I'm interested, can you share it?
supported LFNs. My first ISP ran BSDi and offered shell access fairly cheaply.
Re: Re: LFS support on file library
By: Nelgin to Ragnarok on Mon Dec 03 2018 02:19 pm
Hi, any advance to get long file names into the library?
another question, has zmodem LFS support?
The more I campaigned for it, the more I realize it's a bad idea.
The reason being, there's a lot of legacy systems out there that can only
handle 8.3. If we start sending out files which LFN then older systems are
going to choke on those files.
How many older/legacy clients are still being used to call BBSes these days?
On 12-04-18 17:08, Nightfox wrote to Tony Langdon <=-
Shell accounts and FTP access seemed fairly common with ISPs until
around 2010 or so. It's a bummer, since I liked being able to put up a simple web site or some files to share online that way. Also, one
thing I used to do a long time ago to shorten my download times was to
log into my ISP shell account and download files there via wget or FTP
and then download it from my ISP via ISP. For some reason, files were
able to download to my ISP very fast, and naturally, my connection to
my ISP was fast so I'd be able to download it from there fairly fast, compared to directly downloading the file from its FTP/web site.
Anyway, once the ISP has the download, then it's a simple matter of using "sz" to start the download of the file locally - at full speed using a protocol designed for modem connections. Much more efficient at modem speeds.
On 12-05-18 09:54, Nightfox wrote to Tony Langdon <=-
Re: Re: LFS support on file library
By: Tony Langdon to Nightfox on Wed Dec 05 2018 05:35 pm
Anyway, once the ISP has the download, then it's a simple matter of using "sz" to start the download of the file locally - at full speed using a protocol designed for modem connections. Much more efficient at modem speeds.
Isn't "sz" a zmodem command? I'd be downloading files from my storage
on my ISP using FTP while connected to their ISP service with the full Winsock/PPP stack going, rather than with a terminal client using
zmodem.
| Sysop: | sneaky |
|---|---|
| Location: | Ashburton,NZ |
| Users: | 28 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 125:29:05 |
| Calls: | 1,998 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 11,111 |
| Messages: | 943,011 |