Digital Man wrote to All <=-
Is this term ("flags") confusing for you guys in the context of
SBBSecho echolists?
When I think of a "flag", especially, in the Synchronet/BBS world, I
think of a single thing (like a letter or a symbol), yet the "flags"
for echolists in SBBSecho are these 1-4 character sequences.
1. I will be removing the 4-character limitation in SBBSecho v3
2. I'm thinking of changing the terminology used here from "flag" to something like... like "tag" or "key"?
What are your thoughts? If I'm the only one that finds the use of the
word "flag" in this context confusing, then I'll just leave it the way
it is. If I get feedback that changing the terminology would be a good thing and maybe suggestions as to what that terminology should be, then I'll be happy to change it for v3 (though the old sbbsecho.cfg "flags" would be converted to the new thing, whatever they're called).
It's been a long time since I've used any other areafix program or
tosser. I don't recall if that echolist "flags" concept was inspired by another program or not.
Digital Man wrote to All <=-
Is this term ("flags") confusing for you guys in the context of SBBSecho echolists?
When I think of a "flag", especially, in the Synchronet/BBS world, I think of a single thing (like a letter or a symbol), yet the "flags" for echolists in SBBSecho are these 1-4 character sequences.
1. I will be removing the 4-character limitation in SBBSecho v3
2. I'm thinking of changing the terminology used here from "flag" to something like... like "tag" or "key"?
What are your thoughts? If I'm the only one that finds the use of the word "flag" in this context confusing, then I'll just leave it the way it is. If I get feedback that changing the terminology would be a good thing and maybe suggestions as to what that terminology should be, then I'll be happy to change it for v3 (though the old sbbsecho.cfg "flags" would be converted to the new thing, whatever they're called).
It's been a long time since I've used any other areafix program or tosser. I don't recall if that echolist "flags" concept was inspired by another program or not.
I would have no issue in calling it "Echolists". But I would stipulate in the Additional Echo Lists area where it says Echo List Flags, use Echo List Short Name, afterall, that's what it really is.
Tags should remain for the "name" of the actual echo area within that list.
Just my thoughts... :)
When I think of a "flag", especially, in the Synchronet/BBS world, I think of a single thing (like a letter or a symbol), yet the "flags" for echolists in SBBSecho are these 1-4 character sequences.
1. I will be removing the 4-character limitation in SBBSecho v3
2. I'm thinking of changing the terminology used here from "flag" to something like... like "tag" or "key"?
What are your thoughts? If I'm the only one that finds the use of the word "flag" in this context confusing, then I'll just leave it the way it is. If I get feedback that changing the terminology would be a good thing and maybe suggestions as to what that terminology should be, then I'll be happy to change it for v3 (though the old sbbsecho.cfg "flags" would be converted to the new thing, whatever they're called).
It's been a long time since I've used any other areafix program or tosser. I don't recall if that echolist "flags" concept was inspired by another program or not.
Digital Man wrote to Bill McGarrity <=-
Re: Re: SBBSecho echolists "flags"
By: Bill McGarrity to Digital Man on Sun Jan 17 2016 07:40 pm
I would have no issue in calling it "Echolists". But I would stipulate in the Additional Echo Lists area where it says Echo List Flags, use Echo List Short Name, afterall, that's what it really is.
Tags should remain for the "name" of the actual echo area within that list.
Just my thoughts... :)
I agree that echolist tags could be confused with 'echo tags', which
are a different thing.
Now, they're not really a 'short name' for the echolist since each additional echolist can actually have multiple flags (as they're called now) assigned to it. I'm not sure if anyone actually uses that feature, but it's there.
Digital Man wrote to Bill McGarrity <=-
Re: Re: SBBSecho echolists "flags"
By: Bill McGarrity to Digital Man on Sun Jan 17 2016 07:40 pm
I would have no issue in calling it "Echolists". But I would stipulate in the Additional Echo Lists area where it says Echo List Flags, use Echo List Short Name, afterall, that's what it really is.
Tags should remain for the "name" of the actual echo area within that list.
Just my thoughts... :)
I agree that echolist tags could be confused with 'echo tags', which are a different thing.
Now, they're not really a 'short name' for the echolist since each additional echolist can actually have multiple flags (as they're called now) assigned to it. I'm not sure if anyone actually uses that feature, but it's there.
I do use that feature as I have 5 different echolists from different networks that I supply to downlinks. As I said, I list the different echolists under the Additional areas, then under each document, there is an Echo List Flags. That's what I was talking about using the "ShortName"... as to limit the use of "flag" tag for the entire list. The "tags" are the actual "echoareas" within the list. At least that's the way I see it. Again, YMMV and it's your software so I'll be happy on how you feel it should be done. I'm pretty flexable... :)
One other thing I found in the new sbbsecho.ini. We discussed the no circular issue but I get this in the file...
fwd_circular = true
nocircularfwd = true
Double entry??
Digital Man wrote to Bill McGarrity <=-
One other thing I found in the new sbbsecho.ini. We discussed the no circular issue but I get this in the file...
fwd_circular = true
nocircularfwd = true
Double entry??
Try again with the latest. That should be fixed now.
Digital Man wrote to Bill McGarrity <=-
Re: Re: SBBSecho echolists "flags"
By: Bill McGarrity to Digital Man on Sun Jan 17 2016 11:39 pm
Digital Man wrote to Bill McGarrity <=-
Re: Re: SBBSecho echolists "flags"
By: Bill McGarrity to Digital Man on Sun Jan 17 2016 07:40 pm
I would have no issue in calling it "Echolists". But I would stipulate in the Additional Echo Lists area where it says Echo List Flags, use Echo List Short Name, afterall, that's what it really is.
Tags should remain for the "name" of the actual echo area within that list.
Just my thoughts... :)
I agree that echolist tags could be confused with 'echo tags', which are a different thing.
Now, they're not really a 'short name' for the echolist since each additional echolist can actually have multiple flags (as they're called now) assigned to it. I'm not sure if anyone actually uses that feature, but it's there.
I do use that feature as I have 5 different echolists from different networks that I supply to downlinks. As I said, I list the different echolists under the Additional areas, then under each document, there is an Echo List Flags. That's what I was talking about using the "ShortName"... as to limit the use of "flag" tag for the entire list. The "tags" are the actual "echoareas" within the list. At least that's the way I see it. Again, YMMV and it's your software so I'll be happy on how you feel it should be done. I'm pretty flexable... :)
The feature I was referring to was the ability to have multiple flags specified for a single echolist. I think typically sysops assign one
flag per echolist (if any at all).
One other thing I found in the new sbbsecho.ini. We discussed the
no circular issue but I get this in the file...
fwd_circular = true
nocircularfwd = true
Double entry??
Try again with the latest. That should be fixed now.
Digital Man wrote to Bill McGarrity <=-
One other thing I found in the new sbbsecho.ini. We discussed the no circular issue but I get this in the file...
fwd_circular = true
nocircularfwd = true
Double entry??
Try again with the latest. That should be fixed now.
Nope.... still there...
check_path = true
fwd_circular = true
kill_empty_netmail = false
nocircularfwd = true
Hello Digital,
On 17 Jan 16 21:15, Digital Man wrote to Bill McGarrity:
One other thing I found in the new sbbsecho.ini. We discussed the
no circular issue but I get this in the file...
fwd_circular = true
nocircularfwd = true
Double entry??
Try again with the latest. That should be fixed now.
Looks like it's still happening.
Just as well, it looks like I have two entries now:
kill_empty_netmail = false
kill_empty = true
..when sbbsecho.cfg doesn't have two of those.
Looks like it's still happening.
Just as well, it looks like I have two entries now:
kill_empty_netmail = false
kill_empty = true
..when sbbsecho.cfg doesn't have two of those.
These should be fixed now.
Digital Man wrote to Bill McGarrity <=-
Re: Re: SBBSecho echolists "flags"
By: Bill McGarrity to Digital Man on Mon Jan 18 2016 01:44 am
Digital Man wrote to Bill McGarrity <=-
One other thing I found in the new sbbsecho.ini. We discussed the no circular issue but I get this in the file...
fwd_circular = true
nocircularfwd = true
Double entry??
Try again with the latest. That should be fixed now.
Nope.... still there...
check_path = true
fwd_circular = true
kill_empty_netmail = false
nocircularfwd = true
K, thanks. Fixed now.
Hello Digital,
On 18 Jan 16 00:19, Digital Man wrote to Accession:
Looks like it's still happening.
Just as well, it looks like I have two entries now:
kill_empty_netmail = false
kill_empty = true
..when sbbsecho.cfg doesn't have two of those.
These should be fixed now.
Here are the first lines of my output from sbbsecho.cfg to sbbsecho.ini:
[ begin sbsecho.cfg ]
NOCIRCULARFWD
ZONE_BLIND 4
NOTIFY 1
SECURE_ECHOMAIL
KILL_EMPTY
STORE_SEENBY
STORE_PATH
STORE_KLUDGE
FLO_MAILER
ELIST_ONLY
SYSOP_ALIAS Coordinator
LOG 0FFFFFFF
LOG_LEVEL 7
[ end sbbsecho.cfg ]
[ begin sbbsecho.ini ]
check_path = true
fwd_circular = false
kill_empty_netmail = true
add_from_echolists_only = true
secure_echomail = true
flo_mailer = true
notify_user = 1
zone_blind = true
zone_blind_threshold = 4
log = 0x0FFFFFFF
sysop_alias = Coordinator
log_level = 7
[ end sbbsecho.ini ]
So with that I have a couple questions..
The "NOCIRCULARFWD" option has been changed to "fwd_circular" which was basically changed from a negative with a true result, to a positive with false result? Just making sure I understand that one.
Unless it was done on purpose, there's that odd space above. I'm wondering if that was where the "kill_empty" option was, but the CR or LF never got cleared?
Here are the first lines of my output from sbbsecho.cfg to
sbbsecho.ini:
[ begin sbsecho.cfg ]
NOCIRCULARFWD
ZONE_BLIND 4
NOTIFY 1
SECURE_ECHOMAIL
KILL_EMPTY
STORE_SEENBY
STORE_PATH
STORE_KLUDGE
FLO_MAILER
ELIST_ONLY
SYSOP_ALIAS Coordinator
LOG 0FFFFFFF
LOG_LEVEL 7
[ end sbbsecho.cfg ]
[ begin sbbsecho.ini ]
check_path = true
fwd_circular = false
kill_empty_netmail = true
add_from_echolists_only = true
secure_echomail = true
flo_mailer = true
notify_user = 1
zone_blind = true
zone_blind_threshold = 4
log = 0x0FFFFFFF
sysop_alias = Coordinator
log_level = 7
[ end sbbsecho.ini ]
So with that I have a couple questions..
The "NOCIRCULARFWD" option has been changed to "fwd_circular" which
was basically changed from a negative with a true result, to a
positive with false result? Just making sure I understand that
one.
Correct. Same with "NOCHECKPATH".
Unless it was done on purpose, there's that odd space above. I'm
wondering if that was where the "kill_empty" option was, but the
CR or LF never got cleared?
No, I intentionally separated the bool-type global options from the value-type global options with a blank line. It helped me in debugging
the conversion script. It serves no other purpose and could be easily removed.
NOCIRCULARFWD
ZONE_BLIND 4
NOTIFY 1
SECURE_ECHOMAIL
KILL_EMPTY
STORE_SEENBY
STORE_PATH
STORE_KLUDGE
FLO_MAILER
ELIST_ONLY
SYSOP_ALIAS Coordinator
LOG 0FFFFFFF
LOG_LEVEL 7
The "NOCIRCULARFWD" option has been changed to "fwd_circular" which
was basically changed from a negative with a true result, to a
positive with false result? Just making sure I understand that
one.
Correct. Same with "NOCHECKPATH".
I don't remember seeing a NOCHECKPATH in my sbbsecho.cfg, was this something that wasn't (or is not currently) needed?
Here is what I got.
log = 0xALL
Here is what I got.
log = 0xALL
Okay, great, I see another bug there ("0xALL"). Thanks,
Joe Delahaye wrote to Digital Man <=-
Re: Re: SBBSecho echolists "flags"
By: Digital Man to Joe Delahaye on Mon Jan 18 2016 23:48:42
Here is what I got.
log = 0xALL
Okay, great, I see another bug there ("0xALL"). Thanks,
Glad I could help :)
Just for informations sake, can you add the version # of the sbbsecho_upgrade.js to the final ini file so we know where we're at on our end?
Re: Re: SBBSecho echolists "flags"
By: Bill McGarrity to Digital Man on Tue Jan 19 2016 11:09:00
Just for informations sake, can you add the version # of the sbbsecho_upgrade.js to the final ini file so we know where we're at on our end?
You mean in the name? As in sbbsecho_upgrade-15.js, or just in the title, which I think already contains it
Joe Delahaye wrote to Bill McGarrity <=-
Re: Re: SBBSecho echolists "flags"
By: Bill McGarrity to Digital Man on Tue Jan 19 2016 11:09:00
Just for informations sake, can you add the version # of the sbbsecho_upgrade.js to the final ini file so we know where we're at on our end?
You mean in the name? As in sbbsecho_upgrade-15.js, or just in the
title, which I think already contains it
You mean in the name? As in sbbsecho_upgrade-15.js, or just in the
title, which I think already contains it
No, have the version at the top in the file it creates...
| Sysop: | Ragnarok |
|---|---|
| Location: | Dock Sud, Bs As, Argentina |
| Users: | 136 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 08:32:29 |
| Calls: | 15,171 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 19,857 |
| D/L today: |
18 files (854K bytes) |
| Messages: | 1,691,507 |