| |
UT1HZM > PACKET 10.05.24 11:13l 40 Lines 1286 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 26356_UT1HZM
Read: GUEST
Subj: Re: Is B2 compression better than B1?
Path: IZ3LSV<DB0ERF<OK0NAG<F3KT<F3KT<UT1HZM
Sent: 240510/0830Z 26356@UT1HZM.KREM.POL.UKR.EU BPQ6.0.24
Hi all!
I0OJJ:
> The other two main differences of the B2 are:
>
> - supports multiple address(ed) messages;
> - supports messages with embedded attachments.
>
> The 'original' B2F protocol was written always
> by Jean-Paul F6FBB, but never applied on his
> (x)FBB PBBS software.
As far as I'm remember F6FBB develop only B0 and B1 protocols,
as stated on his page: https://www.f6fbb.org/protocole.html
And B2F is extension created by Winlink-team:
https://winlink.org/B2F
And yes they implemented it many years ago in Winlink-classic MBO s/w - it was
mixture of radio E-mail system and original PR BBS-system.
Later WL-team decided to stop B1-protocol support (BBS part) and continue only as
"dump" e-mails system, so abandoning by that compatibility with all only B1-protocol
systems that was dominated on most packet BBS systems on that time.
Its was unreasonable decision and on my IMHO it can't be cleared from the history page, hi.
Fortunate, after 10-15 years later there are out new B2-protocol supported
BBS systems like JNOS2 and BPQ!
And about original question by WG3K:
B1 and B2 uses same LZH-based compression algorithm, so there is no big difference
in messages compression, mostly by difference of headers and transport control elements
size.
73, Sergej.
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
