| |
N9SEO > PACKET 11.05.24 00:00l 76 Lines 2865 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : 18868_N9SEO
Read: GUEST
Subj: Re: Is B2 compression better than B1?
Path: IZ3LSV<IW0QNL<JH4XSY<N3HYM<KE0GB<K0WAV<N9SEO
Sent: 240510/2138Z 18868@N9SEO.#NAR.AR.USA.NOAM LinBPQ6.0.24
On Fri, 10 May 24 08:30:00 Z
UT1HZM wrote:
> R:240510/0915Z 10433@VE3CGR.#SCON.ON.CAN.NOAM LinBPQ6.0.24
> R:240510/0915Z 2389@F4BWT.#95.FRPA.FRA.EU LinBPQ6.0.24
> R:240510/0914Z @:PI8ZTM.#ZH1.NLD.EURO #:34038 [Zoetermeer]
> $:26356_UT1HZM R:240510/0913z @:I0OJJ.ITA.EU $:26356_UT1HZM
> R:240510/0913z @:I3XTY.TV.IVEN.ITA.EU $:26356_UT1HZM
> R:240510/0913z @:IZ3LSV.IVEN.ITA.EU $:26356_UT1HZM
> R:240510/0912z @:DB0ERF.#THR.DEU.EU [Erfurt DL3AMi] DP6.00
> $:26356_UT1HZM R:240510/0910z @:OK0NAG.#BOH.CZE.EU $:26356_UT1HZM
> R:240510/0905Z @:F3KT.#44.FPDL.FRA.EU #:29570 [Pont Saint Martin]
> LFBB7.07 R:240510/0900Z @:F3KT.FPDL.FRA.EU #:32950 [Pont Saint
> Martin] LFBB7.7-beta3 R: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.
>
Using B2 is probably not as interoperable as you might want it to be.
Resume has been a cause of many failures to complete a peers sending
queue. In that situation, a remote peer will send data, have
connection break, come back and retry later and repeat the broken state.
IN such cases removing B2 from the equation fixes that resume cycle.
Perhaps it would be better if b2 had the ability to disable resume.
Until then my systems will only use B1 or lesser.
Reliability is greater than speed here.
If this HAS been fixed then please someone send a bulletin from the big
3 BBS systems about this. Becuase everytime a new peer does this to me
their stuff gets broken, I have to email to disable B2 and use B1 and
the problem vanishes.
73 de n9seo
Kayne
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
