Just wanted to post it here as don't know where else would be better, I managed to get the kermit protocol running in Mystic (I know this isn't
a mystic channel) and really would love it if syncterm could handle the kermit protocol.

After using it for a little while with qodem, I realise that the transfer speeds in kermit are a lot, and I mean a LOT faster than zmodem for example, and think we could all benefit from having that as an option on BBSes that support kermit.

Being curious, as I am, I dialed into QW w/ qodem to see what the kermit fuss was all about - QW is across the pond from me, and I usually get fairly bad Zmodem download speeds.

I was able to get 600+ over kermit - about 4x the speeds I could get over other protocols... at any rate, I'd invite seeing kermit support, too. :P



|07p|15AULIE|1142|07o
|08.........

The ZMODEM protocol also has a lot of options that can impact
through-put (e.g. windowing or not, window size, encoding/escaping of characters).

Interesting - sometimes us newbies (me, not ml!) don't think about other variables... I'm gonna do some testing; understood about syncterm requests, thanks.



|07p|15AULIE|1142|07o
|08.........

On 16 Aug 2023, paulie420 said the following...

I was able to get 600+ over kermit - about 4x the speeds I could get
over other protocols... at any rate, I'd invite seeing kermit support, too. :P

is QW a mystic board? (specifically, using the internal zmodem) .. netrunner uses the same implementation and doesn't fare well according to the sexyz wiki page. maybe it just sucks.

reminds me of an article i read about DOS file sharing implementations from M$, IBM, etc.. after considerable effort tweaking,the results were kind of like "well, this would have been fast back then" .. even though the hardware is capable of 100x better.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A47 2021/12/25 (Windows/32)
* Origin: cold fusion - cfbbs.net - grand rapids, mi

I was able to get 600+ over kermit - about 4x the speeds I could get over other protocols... at any rate, I'd invite seeing kermit support too. :P

is QW a mystic board? (specifically, using the internal zmodem) .. netrunner uses the same implementation and doesn't fare well according
to the sexyz wiki page. maybe it just sucks.

reminds me of an article i read about DOS file sharing implementations from M$, IBM, etc.. after considerable effort tweaking,the results were kind of like "well, this would have been fast back then" .. even though the hardware is capable of 100x better.

Quantum Wormhole IS a Mystic board... but I get [around] the same Zmodem DL speeds across all BBS softwares. I normally use SyncTerm - but kermit on qodem does seem to beat all of them!



|07p|15AULIE|1142|07o
|08.........

Re: Re: kermit protocol in sy
By: paulie420 to Christian Sacks on Wed Aug 16 2023 11:14 am

I was able to get 600+ over kermit - about 4x the speeds I could get over other protocols... at any rate, I'd invite seeing kermit support, too. :P

Wow, thats so fast!

candycane

===
user is generated from /dev/urandom

...Real knowledge is to know the extent of ones ignorance.
---
þ Synchronet þ -=[ ConstructiveChaos BBS | conchaos.synchro.net ]=-

Just wanted to post it here as don't know where else would be better, I managed to get the kermit protocol running in Mystic (I know this isn't
a mystic channel) and really would love it if syncterm could handle the kermit protocol.

Any chance you can share how you got it working? And is it in Windows or linux?

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A49 2023/02/26 (Linux/64)
* Origin: m O N T E R E Y b B S . c O M (1:218/820)
þ Synchronet þ Vertrauen þ Home of Synchronet þ [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net

That's about the nuts and bolts of it.

Thanks for the writeup!

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A49 2023/02/26 (Linux/64)
* Origin: m O N T E R E Y b B S . c O M (1:218/820)
þ Synchronet þ Vertrauen þ Home of Synchronet þ [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net

On 17 Aug 2023, Ryan Fantus said the following...

Thanks for the writeup!

You're very welcome, and I hope that it will help some people.
Always happy to try and help where I can.

... There will be a rain dance Friday night, weather permitting!

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A48 2022/07/15 (Linux/64)
* Origin: thE qUAntUm wOrmhOlE, rAmsgAtE, uK. bbs.erb.pw (2:250/5)
þ Synchronet þ Vertrauen þ Home of Synchronet þ [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net

On 17 Aug 2023, MRO said the following...

I havent used kermit since 1998 or something. I'm pretty sure it had problems with error correction and the speed wasn't great.

Kermit is about 6 times faster than Zmodem for me =)
It's working flawlessly, and I just wish every BBS now had Kermit.

did you try ymodem G ilke dm suggested? you might be happier with it.

I did try Ymodem, and it's about the same speed as Zmodem.

... Do vegetarians eat animal crackers?

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A48 2022/07/15 (Linux/64)
* Origin: thE qUAntUm wOrmhOlE, rAmsgAtE, uK. bbs.erb.pw (2:250/5)
þ Synchronet þ Vertrauen þ Home of Synchronet þ [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net

I was able to get 600+ over kermit - about 4x the speeds I could get other protocols... at any rate, I'd invite seeing kermit support, too

Wow, thats so fast!

I mean - for thru a telnet terminal and all.. :P



|07p|15AULIE|1142|07o
|08.........

Kermit is about 6 times faster than Zmodem for me =)
It's working flawlessly, and I just wish every BBS now had Kermit.

Same here; I believe this has to do with current hardware, OS and softwares that we all run - neat that protocols perform differently 30 years later, but kermit flies for me over telnet/ssh in terminal.



|07p|15AULIE|1142|07o
|08.........

Re: Re: kermit protocol in syncterm
By: Christian Sacks to MRO on Fri Aug 18 2023 01:38 am

Kermit is about 6 times faster than Zmodem for me =)
It's working flawlessly, and I just wish every BBS now had Kermit.

well that's a bit older and zmodem kind of won the races on protocols in the bbs scene back in the day.

I did try Ymodem, and it's about the same speed as Zmodem.

ymodem or ymodem-g? just go with ymodem-g.
also i recommend just making a script to make your files available on the web temporarily. make a fake protocol that has the user batch download it, then copy it on the web and give them the temporarly url. i did that before and
it was pretty easy.

you could also play around with ntp, i used that back in the day. https://github.com/M-griffin/NTP
---
þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::

That's about the nuts and bolts of it.

Thanks for the writeup!

I followed the other Mystic setup, with a bash script - it w0rks perfectly... but I assume mL figured a quicker way to implement here. :P

THANKS to mL --> 2oFB users can speed their terminal DLs up, t00!



|07p|15AULIE|1142|07o
|08.........

Re: Re: kermit protocol in syncterm
By: Christian Sacks to MRO on Fri Aug 18 2023 01:38 am

On 17 Aug 2023, MRO said the following...

I havent used kermit since 1998 or something. I'm pretty sure it had problems with error correction and the speed wasn't great.

Kermit is about 6 times faster than Zmodem for me =)

And how fast is that? Is possible that the Qodem Zmodem implementation is just slower than its Kermit implementation?

It's working flawlessly, and I just wish every BBS now had Kermit.

did you try ymodem G ilke dm suggested? you might be happier with it.

I did try Ymodem, and it's about the same speed as Zmodem.

The suggestion was to try Ymodem-G. Ymodem should normally be much slower than Zmodem over any kind of decent transport due to its ack/nak nature.
--
digital man (rob)

Sling Blade quote #15:
Doyle Hargraves: What'cha doin' with that lawn mower blade Karl?
Norco, CA WX: 70.5øF, 73.0% humidity, 0 mph NW wind, 0.00 inches rain/24hrs
---
þ Synchronet þ Vertrauen þ Home of Synchronet þ [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net

I havent used kermit since 1998 or something. I'm pretty sure it had problems with error correction and the speed wasn't great.

Kermit is about 6 times faster than Zmodem for me =)

I wonder if the inbuilt error correction in most file transfer protocols is more of a bug these days than a feature...tcp/ip already does all of this, so more error correction is just adding latency. If kermit has weak error correction, maybe that's why it's so fast over telnet.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A49 2023/02/26 (Linux/64)
* Origin: m O N T E R E Y b B S . c O M (1:218/820)
þ Synchronet þ Vertrauen þ Home of Synchronet þ [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net

also i recommend just making a script to make your files available on
the web temporarily. make a fake protocol that has the user batch
download it, then copy it on the web and give them the temporarly url.

Yeah I dig this idea, for downloads it feels like the cleanest solution. Uploads are a bit more of a challenge but not insurmountable by any means.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A49 2023/02/26 (Linux/64)
* Origin: m O N T E R E Y b B S . c O M (1:218/820)
þ Synchronet þ Vertrauen þ Home of Synchronet þ [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net

Re: Re: kermit protocol in syncterm
By: Christian Sacks to MRO on Fri Aug 18 2023 01:38 am

Kermit is about 6 times faster than Zmodem for me =) It's working flawlessly, and I just wish every BBS now had Kermit.

Zmdoem became a de-facto standard file transfer protocol on BBSes by the 90s due to its error handling, speed, & such. I always thought Kermit was an older protocol (one of the first file transfer protocols developed). I did a search for Kermit the other day though and read something that Kermit has been udpated to keep up with current standards in file transfer protocols, and that there is also now a Kermit telnet/SSH software program.. I didn't know that.

Nightfox

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

Re: Re: kermit protocol in sy
By: paulie420 to Christian Sacks on Thu Aug 17 2023 08:09 pm

Kermit is about 6 times faster than Zmodem for me =)
It's working flawlessly, and I just wish every BBS now had Kermit.

Same here; I believe this has to do with current hardware, OS and softwares that we all run - neat that protocols perform differently 30 years later, but kermit flies for me over telnet/ssh in terminal.

I think they're performing differently because we're using them on an internet connection rather than a serial/modem connection. File transfer protcools such as Kermit, X/Y/Zmodem etc. were designed for serial connections (with considerations for dialup modems) and as such, they were designed for raw data connections. But all the software that works with an internet connection uses network protocols such as TCP/IP & such, which already have software mechanisms for transferring data back & forth. As such, adding another file transfer protocol such as Zmodem or Kermit onto that is redundant. A file transfer protocol that has minimal overhead (which I think is true for Kermit) probably is faster over the internet than something like Zmodem.

Nightfox

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

Re: Re: kermit protocol in syncterm
By: Nightfox to Christian Sacks on Fri Aug 18 2023 10:19 am

search for Kermit the other day though and read something that Kermit has been udpated to keep up with current standards in file transfer protocols, and that there is also now a Kermit telnet/SSH software program.. I didn't know that.

yup i tried it yesterday. i couldnt get it to do cp437 but i only spent a min with it.
---
þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::

On 18 Aug 2023, Digital Man said the following...

Ymodem-G has almost 0 overhead, so (without compression or other
cheats), it's really not possible for Kermit (the protocol) to be faster than Ymodem-G. And Zmodem is only a little slower than Ymodem-G.

i can't replicate this. i get 1.12MB/s sexyz to sexyz (syncterm) with zmodem and 0.86MB/s with ymodem-g sexyz to sexyz. certainly an improvement over mystic's but something is a bottleneck.

this is on an i7-3520M .. no spring chicken for sure. both transfers used 38-50% cpu during the transfer. (for comparison a 65MB/s transfer to the same machine uses 8%)

i can totally see gkermit outperforming ymodem-g.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A47 2021/12/25 (Windows/32)
* Origin: cold fusion - cfbbs.net - grand rapids, mi

Re: Re: kermit protocol in syncterm
By: Nightfox to Christian Sacks on Fri Aug 18 2023 10:19 am

and that there is also now a Kermit telnet/SSH software program.. I didn't

Kermit was ported to the 6502 computers as Kermit65... It did software 80 columns on the Atari 8bit and I could connect to the community college systems to use Gopher which connected me to FTP sites like funet.fi where I could leech demos! The Gopher FTP gateway would pull the file from the FTP site and then send it to me with Kermit :).

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

Re: Re: kermit protocol in syncterm
By: Phigan to Nightfox on Fri Aug 18 2023 01:59 pm

Re: Re: kermit protocol in syncterm
By: Nightfox to Christian Sacks on Fri Aug 18 2023 10:19 am

and that there is also now a Kermit telnet/SSH software program.. I didn't

Kermit was ported to the 6502 computers as Kermit65... It did software 80 columns on the Atari 8bit and I could connect to the community college systems to use Gopher which connected me to FTP sites like funet.fi where I could leech demos! The Gopher FTP gateway would pull the file from the FTP site and then send it to me with Kermit :).

yeah i did that on metropolous bbs in 97.
lots of services had that feature.
---
þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::

Re: Re: kermit protocol in syncterm
By: fusion to Digital Man on Fri Aug 18 2023 05:19 pm

On 18 Aug 2023, Digital Man said the following...

Ymodem-G has almost 0 overhead, so (without compression or other cheats), it's really not possible for Kermit (the protocol) to be faster than Ymodem-G. And Zmodem is only a little slower than Ymodem-G.

i can't replicate this. i get 1.12MB/s sexyz to sexyz (syncterm) with zmodem and 0.86MB/s with ymodem-g sexyz to sexyz. certainly an improvement over mystic's but something is a bottleneck.

this is on an i7-3520M .. no spring chicken for sure. both transfers used 38-50% cpu during the transfer. (for comparison a 65MB/s transfer to the same machine uses 8%)

i can totally see gkermit outperforming ymodem-g.

YMODEM-G is a protocl. gkermit is a terminal transfer protocol driver. You're comparing apples and oranges. If you want to compare X/Y/ZMODEM protocol performance, you should be comparing with the reference X/Y/ZMODEM protocol implementation (rz/sz).
--
digital man (rob)

Rush quote #30:
You can do a lot in a lifetime if you don't burn out too fast
Norco, CA WX: 88.7øF, 33.0% humidity, 10 mph E wind, 0.00 inches rain/24hrs
---
þ Synchronet þ Vertrauen þ Home of Synchronet þ [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net

On 18 Aug 2023, Digital Man said the following...

YMODEM-G is a protocl. gkermit is a terminal transfer protocol driver. You're comparing apples and oranges. If you want to compare X/Y/ZMODEM protocol performance, you should be comparing with the reference X/Y/ZMODEM protocol implementation (rz/sz).

sorry i misspoke. i can see gkermit (and by extension, kermit. just to spell it out) outperforming sexyz's ymodem-g.

you asserted ymodem-g shouldn't have any overhead and should be as fast or faster than kermit. is that in theory? because i tested ymodem-g with sexyz
and it performs extremely poorly with incredible overhead. (again, sexyz->syncterm)

if i compare to the reference implementation of rz/sz what am i trying to prove? that sexyz's ymodem-g (or zmodem) works better with the reference implementation than with itself? or am i proving both perform poorly compared to kermit?

you mentioned zmodem shouldn't be far /behind/, yet it performs better than ymodem-g with sexyz.

people are easily using it correctly and getting poor results where they shouldn't be. so they try kermit and it blows sexyz out of the water. after which you chime in and say "use ymodem-g it should be even better!" .. well i'm saying that doesn't pan out in real life.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A47 2021/12/25 (Windows/32)
* Origin: cold fusion - cfbbs.net - grand rapids, mi

Re: Re: kermit protocol in syncterm
By: fusion to Digital Man on Fri Aug 18 2023 08:23 pm

On 18 Aug 2023, Digital Man said the following...

YMODEM-G is a protocl. gkermit is a terminal transfer protocol driver. You're comparing apples and oranges. If you want to compare X/Y/ZMODEM protocol performance, you should be comparing with the reference X/Y/ZMODEM protocol implementation (rz/sz).

sorry i misspoke. i can see gkermit (and by extension, kermit. just to spell it out) outperforming sexyz's ymodem-g.

Okay. <shrug>

you asserted ymodem-g shouldn't have any overhead and should be as fast or faster than kermit. is that in theory?

Correct, I'm talking about the protocol itself. Unless you're using a compression feature with Kermit (are you?), it's really impossible for the Kermit *protocol* to outperfrom Ymodem-G protocol over the same TCP/IP link - removing any implementation details. Ymodem-G simply has near zero over head over TCP/IP and no wait for acknowlegement of any subpacket data, so the only want to get *faster* is to use a protocol with literally zero data overhead (e.g. FTP) or to use some kind of data compression.

because i tested ymodem-g with sexyz
and it performs extremely poorly with incredible overhead. (again, sexyz->syncterm)

"Overhead" refers to the amount of extra data that is sent in addition to the actual payload (file) data. It's not really relevant in that sentence. The overhead is a function of the protocol, not the impplementation. Anyway, okay, so you found gkermit outperms sexyz in your particular test environment. Cool.

if i compare to the reference implementation of rz/sz what am i trying to prove?

Your initial messages said you were comparing Kermit to Zmodem. If that's what you really want to do, use the reference implementation of Zmodem by Chuck Forsberg for your tests.

that sexyz's ymodem-g (or zmodem) works better with the reference implementation than with itself? or am i proving both perform poorly compared to kermit?

you mentioned zmodem shouldn't be far /behind/, yet it performs better than ymodem-g with sexyz.

Faster than Ymodem-G? Not under my tests. And there's no technical reason why it should.

people are easily using it correctly and getting poor results where they shouldn't be. so they try kermit and it blows sexyz out of the water. after which you chime in and say "use ymodem-g it should be even better!" .. well i'm saying that doesn't pan out in real life.

Your "real life" test is over a localhost link or a local network? Why on earth would you be using a serial/modem file transfer protocol over a local network (Ethernet, WiFi?) and call that "real life"?
--
digital man (rob)

Sling Blade quote #2:
Karl (re: killing Doyle): I hit him two good whacks in the head with it.
Norco, CA WX: 83.6øF, 41.0% humidity, 11 mph ESE wind, 0.00 inches rain/24hrs ---
þ Synchronet þ Vertrauen þ Home of Synchronet þ [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net

Same here; I believe this has to do with current hardware, OS and softwares that we all run - neat that protocols perform differently 3 years later, but kermit flies for me over telnet/ssh in terminal.

I think they're performing differently because we're using them on an internet connection rather than a serial/modem connection. File transfer protcools such as Kermit, X/Y/Zmodem etc. were designed for serial connections (with considerations for dialup modems) and as such, they
were designed for raw data connections. But all the software that works with an internet connection uses network protocols such as TCP/IP &
such, which already have software mechanisms for transferring data back
& forth. As such, adding another file transfer protocol such as Zmodem
or Kermit onto that is redundant. A file transfer protocol that has minimal overhead (which I think is true for Kermit) probably is faster over the internet than something like Zmodem.

100% - its using these tools on our new tech that causes the differences. Regardless, its way better to just use www download links; but since people like using the terminal when bbsing, it is worthwhile that mL helps us offer kermit... mystic is a different beast. :P



|07p|15AULIE|1142|07o
|08.........

On 18 Aug 2023, Digital Man said the following...

Correct, I'm talking about the protocol itself. Unless you're using a compression feature with Kermit (are you?), it's really impossible for
the Kermit *protocol* to outperfrom Ymodem-G protocol over the same

no compression. i poked around on another machine for more testing.. built sexyz from http://synchro.net/Synchronet/sbbs_src.tgz and used it on my linux 'router' (i5-3550) to transfer a 700meg movie to my main machine with syncterm and then with ZOC via kermit and it turned out maybe closer to what you'd expect:

sexyz zmodem: ~6+MB/s (~95% cpu)
sexyz ymodem-g: <4.5MB/s (~95% cpu)
gkermit kermit: ~3.7MB/s ( 11% cpu)

so that's a wash. zmodem still won though, so that's two of my machines that behaved that way.

this though:

lrzsz zmodem: ~55MB/s to ZOC and ~36MB/s to syncterm. (50% cpu)

is crazy.. syncterm did manage to receive from lrzsz at ~66MB/s with ymodem-g, but i had no successful transfers with it.

so yeah, ymodem-g is better, but which machines are you getting this performance from using sexyz? does anyone else? and what's it doing with all those cpu cycles?

Your "real life" test is over a localhost link or a local network? Why
on earth would you be using a serial/modem file transfer protocol over a local network (Ethernet, WiFi?) and call that "real life"?

there isn't a significant difference between over the local network and the internet anymore. why shouldn't i be able to fetch a movie off a bbs via zmodem @ 55MB/s? many people with VPSes or that have fiber at home have that capability.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A47 2021/12/25 (Windows/32)
* Origin: cold fusion - cfbbs.net - grand rapids, mi

Re: Re: kermit protocol in syncterm
By: fusion to Digital Man on Sat Aug 19 2023 02:28 am

On 18 Aug 2023, Digital Man said the following...

Correct, I'm talking about the protocol itself. Unless you're using a compression feature with Kermit (are you?), it's really impossible for the Kermit *protocol* to outperfrom Ymodem-G protocol over the same

no compression. i poked around on another machine for more testing.. built sexyz from http://synchro.net/Synchronet/sbbs_src.tgz and used it on my linux 'router' (i5-3550) to transfer a 700meg movie to my main machine with syncterm and then with ZOC via kermit and it turned out maybe closer to what you'd expect:

sexyz zmodem: ~6+MB/s (~95% cpu)
sexyz ymodem-g: <4.5MB/s (~95% cpu)
gkermit kermit: ~3.7MB/s ( 11% cpu)

so that's a wash. zmodem still won though, so that's two of my machines that behaved that way.

You only listed one side of the transfer in that table. There are at least 3 variables here:
- the sending program
- the receiving program
- the protocol used (and many of the protocols have options that different protocol drivers/implementations may make use of or allow the user/sysop to tweak)

Changing anything about those 3 variables (versions, options, etc.) will likely give you different numbers.

I'm guessing from the paragraph before the table that the sexyz transfers were to SyncTERM and the gkermit transfer was to ZOC. Did you try measuring what through-put you might get via ZMODEM or YMODEM-G when the receiving program is ZOC? Or any of another assortment of terminal programs that support X/Y/ZMODEM?
SexyZ and SyncTERM actually use the same x/y/zmodem code, so I'd expect reversing the sender or receiver role between those 2 programs wouldn't likely have much effect. Now, it's possible that the BBS program (Mystic?) is passing a socket descriptor to sexyz that it then has to read and retransmit to the connected-client socket (that's how Synchronet does it anyway), and the efficiency of that passthrough socket implementation can have a big impact on the through-put and CPU utilization on the BBS side.

this though:

lrzsz zmodem: ~55MB/s to ZOC and ~36MB/s to syncterm. (50% cpu)

is crazy.. syncterm did manage to receive from lrzsz at ~66MB/s with ymodem-g, but i had no successful transfers with it.

Which version of SyncTERM were you using? If it was built from a recent download of sbbs_src.tgz, then I certainly would expect YMODEM-G transfers to work, but maybe the sending version of lrzsz doesn't support the 'G' variant of YMODEM?

so yeah, ymodem-g is better, but which machines are you getting this performance from using sexyz?

Me? I don't really make any peformance claims.

does anyone else? and what's it doing with all those cpu cycles?

It's trying to keep the TCP socket transmit buffer full but likely not quite as efficiently as lszrz does (which is a bit baffling since lszrz uses stdio and not socket I/O). You could try using sexyz in stdio mode (if Mystic supports that) and see what impact that has.

Your "real life" test is over a localhost link or a local network? Why on earth would you be using a serial/modem file transfer protocol over a local network (Ethernet, WiFi?) and call that "real life"?

there isn't a significant difference between over the local network and the internet anymore.

I suppose that depends on both factor. While Gigabit Ethernet and WiFi are pretty prevalant (and multi-gig Ethernet making in-roads), Gigabit Internet access to the home is still only available to the vast minority of users.

why shouldn't i be able to fetch a movie off a bbs via
zmodem @ 55MB/s? many people with VPSes or that have fiber at home have that capability.

You should. But I don't think Kermit is the magic bullet to providing the optimal through-put. If anything, that protocol would be FTP or (to a bit lesser degree) HTTP, but I do agree: sexyz and SyncTERM could probably do for some optimizations and possibly more robustness with X/Y/ZMODEM file transfers still. And there are a lot of options for ZMODEM operation too (at least in SexyZ), you might want to play with those and see what you find.
--
digital man (rob)

This Is Spinal Tap quote #45:
I don't really think the end can be assessed as of itself as being the end Norco, CA WX: 68.0øF, 75.0% humidity, 0 mph WNW wind, 0.00 inches rain/24hrs ---
þ Synchronet þ Vertrauen þ Home of Synchronet þ [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net

Re: Re: kermit protocol in sy
By: paulie420 to Nightfox on Fri Aug 18 2023 08:59 pm

Regardless, its way better to just use www download links; but since people like using the terminal when bbsing, it is worthwhile that mL helps us offer

I demand jmodem support, damnit!!

*cough*

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

Re: Re: kermit protocol in syncterm
By: fusion to Digital Man on Sat Aug 19 2023 02:28 am

internet anymore. why shouldn't i be able to fetch a movie off a bbs via

While that's a fair question, I pose to you a different one... Why are you fetching entire movie files rather than pointing a media player (Kodi or VLC or whatever) at them and streaming them? :D

Soz, off-topic.

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

Re: Re: kermit protocol in sy
By: Phigan to paulie420 on Sat Aug 19 2023 05:57 am

Don't forget LModem...

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

Re: Re: kermit protocol in sy
By: Bf2k+ to Phigan on Sat Aug 19 2023 09:19 am

Re: Re: kermit protocol in sy
By: Phigan to paulie420 on Sat Aug 19 2023 05:57 am

Don't forget LModem...

whats lmodem?
---
þ Synchronet þ ::: BBSES.info - free BBS services :::

Re: Re: kermit protocol in sy
By: MRO to Bf2k+ on Sat Aug 19 2023 09:30 pm

whats lmodem?

In the Atari BBS world back in the 80's, Keith Ledbetter wrote BBS:Express Pro and BBS:Express ST. LModem was a protocol he designed for his BBSes.

I was just mentioning it to Phigan as a joke...

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

Re: Re: kermit protocol in sy
By: Phigan to paulie420 on Sat Aug 19 2023 05:57 am

I demand jmodem support, damnit!!

*cough*

I'm protesting SyncTerm and Syncronet until I see Punter starting today. Who's with me!

---TLM

---
þ Synchronet þ Nite Eyes BBS - To make people happy about my tagline everywhere...

Re: Re: kermit protocol in sy
By: The Lizard Master to Phigan on Mon Aug 21 2023 08:17 am

I'm protesting SyncTerm and Syncronet until I see Punter starting today. Who's with me!

Hah! They might actually take up this one :). Surprised there isn't such support already!

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

Re: Re: kermit protocol in sy
By: Phigan to The Lizard Master on Mon Aug 21 2023 09:46 am

I'm protesting SyncTerm and Syncronet until I see Punter starting today. Who's with me!

Hah! They might actually take up this one :). Surprised there isn't such support already!

https://gitlab.synchro.net/main/sbbs/-/issues/300
--
digital man (rob)

Sling Blade quote #19:
Doyle: I can't so much as drink a damn glass of water around a midget
Norco, CA WX: 67.6øF, 93.0% humidity, 0 mph ENE wind, 1.94 inches rain/24hrs ---
þ Synchronet þ Vertrauen þ Home of Synchronet þ [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net

El 21/8/23 a las 09:17, The Lizard Master escribi¢:

Re: Re: kermit protocol in sy
By: Phigan to paulie420 on Sat Aug 19 2023 05:57 am

> I demand jmodem support, damnit!!
>
> *cough*

I'm protesting SyncTerm and Syncronet until I see Punter starting today. Who's with me!

SBBS support for external protocols, maybe a good implementation of
punker could be work

syncterm have not this way.

---
þ Synchronet þ Dock Sud BBS TLD 24 HS - bbs.docksud.com.ar

Re: Re: kermit protocol in sy
By: Digital Man to Phigan on Mon Aug 21 2023 10:20 am

Hah! They might actually take up this one :). Surprised there isn't such support already!

https://gitlab.synchro.net/main/sbbs/-/issues/300

Ahhh, that's more like it :).

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

Re: Re: kermit protocol in sy
By: Digital Man to Phigan on Mon Aug 21 2023 10:20 am

I'm protesting SyncTerm and Syncronet until I see Punter starting today. Who's with me!

Hah! They might actually take up this one :). Surprised there isn't such support already!

https://gitlab.synchro.net/main/sbbs/-/issues/300

Protest withdrawn.

---TLM

---
þ Synchronet þ Nite Eyes BBS - To make people happy about my tagline everywhere...

Re: Re: kermit protocol in sy
By: Bf2k+ to MRO on Sun Aug 20 2023 09:08 pm

whats lmodem?

In the Atari BBS world back in the 80's, Keith Ledbetter wrote BBS:Express Pro and BBS:Express ST. LModem was a protocol he designed for his BBSes.

I was just mentioning it to Phigan as a joke...

You forgot the old C= standard, Punter!

Dred

---
þ Synchronet þ The Caverns BBS - No matter where you go, there you are...

Re: Re: kermit protocol in sy
By: The Lizard Master to Phigan on Mon Aug 21 2023 08:17 am

I'm protesting SyncTerm and Syncronet until I see Punter starting today. Who's with me!

---TLM

And as soon as I mention Punter, the very NEXT message mentions Punter :)

Dred

---
þ Synchronet þ The Caverns BBS - No matter where you go, there you are...

From Newsgroup: alt.bbs.synchronet

On Saturday, August 19, 2023 at 9:18:14¨AM UTC+12, MRO wrote:

To: Nightfox
Re: Re: kermit protocol in syncterm
By: Nightfox to Christian Sacks on Fri Aug 18 2023 10:19 am

search for Kermit the other day though and read something that Kermit has been udpated to keep up with current standards in file transfer protocols, and that there is also now a Kermit telnet/SSH software program.. I didn't know that.

yup i tried it yesterday. i couldnt get it to do cp437 but i only spent a min with it.

The command you want is: "set term remote cp437" or, in the version of C-Kermit that doesn't run in the windows console, the rightmost drop-down on the toolbar is where you can pick the charset to use.
For connecting to a BBS you'd probably want to switch the terminal emulator from linux (the default) to ansi-bbs anyway. When you do that, C-Kermit for Windows
will automatically switch the remote character set to cp437. You can either use the
left-most drop-down on the toolbar or do a "set term type ansi-bbs".
(I'm the maintainer of the Windows version of C-Kermit and when I need to test it on vintage windows I tend to point it at a synchronet BBS though the fonts on vintage windows don't do nearly as good a job as on modern windows - screenshots here: https://www.kermitproject.org/ckwscreenshots/ )
--- Synchronet 3.20a-Linux NewsLink 1.114
þ Synchronet þ Vertrauen þ Home of Synchronet þ [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net