Re: Re: Writing a php-based mail tosser
By: Sam Alexander to Tracker1 on Wed Feb 18 2009 11:03 am

Usenet is NNTP based, but other BBS networks can be transported via
NNTP, which is a far better option imho than FTN, and already supported. I have a little technical knowledge on this, though admittedly not as much as some. I just, personally, feel than FTN should shrivel up and die... let the nets stay, but use an internet transport for an internet distributed network.

My two beefs with QWK and NNTP are the inability to create a good
hierarchie and also the single point of failure. I like the way FTN
handles the node list and how boards can be seperated into Zones, Regions, Nets, and Nodes. If say one NC decided to call it quits, only those under him/her would be segmented from the network... but everythign else would still work fine. QWK and NNTP are more central so for example if DM ever decided to quit BBSing and shut down vert.synchro.net, 100% of the nodes would be disconnected. LIkewise with NNTP. Granted Usenet in general is
not centralized, but it's chaos with the way Usenet has evolved.

You don't understand QWK or NNTP. Both technologies support "de-centralization" just fine. Before the Internet, DOVE-Net was very much a star-type topology with QWKnet hubs feeding other hubs feeding nodes, but without the "fixed" 4D/5D topology enforced w/FTN.

Pretty much every DOVE-Net node connects directly to Vertrauen today just for convenience. There's no additional cost involved with the extra distances and the setup is simpler this way. But it's in no way required. Any DOVE-Net node can in turn be a hub and feed other nodes... and so on and so on. Same with NNTP.

DdIiGgIiTtAaLl MmAaNn

Snapple "Real Fact" #120:
The only continent without native reptiles or snakes is Antarctica.

---
þ Synchronet þ Vertrauen þ Home of Synchronet þ telnet://vert.synchro.net