On 08-29-22 19:58, Irish_Monk wrote to All <=-
So whats the pros and cons of QWK vs. FTN. Hopefully I said that right.
So right now I have Mystic BBS setup. Basically right now just use it
for myself mostly. (few friends wanted to check it out that seem interested in BBSing). I have had FSXNET setup with FTN (BinkP) and now
I have DoveNET setup thru QWK. Is there any problems with that I guess
Im asking and whats the Pros and Cons of each? And either way would it have any affect on someone like me who set it all up just so I can basically use it for myself at this point? I actually have a 3rd NET
setup but have not recieved a message yet on it, and I sent out a test message. So that will probably be my next little challenge. Thanks for everything!!
Originally, QWK was more primitive, FTN was the full featured solution, but modern software, especially Synchronet, with its QWK networking extension has changed the game. Today, the feature set is closer.
QWK: Easy setup, particularly between Synchronet BBSs. QWK also requires a lot less intervention from the hub node - it's possible for downlinks to "self serve". Other shortcomings of QWK, like short subkect lines and lack of netmail have also been addressed by modern software. QWK now supports wouted netmail, using an addressing scheme reminiscent of the old UUCP "bang paths", except that the network can work out the routing, if it's not specified.
The biggest downside of QWK these days is that a lot of older software requires add on software that can do QWK networking, and extensions may not be supported. But between compatible software, QWK lives up to its name (as well as easy). :)
FTN requires more setup, has more moving parts that can go wrong (mailer, tosser, BBS, possibly other components, depending on software stack). FTN has always supported netmail, and supports both routed and direct netmail. Like QWK, FTN has evolved on some newer software. Some mailer software (e.g. BinkD, BinkIT) supports nodelist lookup via DNS, which can be handy in a modern environment for crash/direct mail.
And of course, FTN has a more comprehensive addressing scheme (love it or hate it ;) ). Finally, FTN is supported by almost all BBS software these days, old and new. FTN might be the system of choice for those running legacy software.
As for mixing FTN and QWK, you can do that on a given system. I have a mix of FTN and QWK feeds. Some of these feeds are also gated to the other network type on my Synchronet system. So mixing and matching is no issue.
One final comment is that FTN can get tricky when you have more than about 15 AKAs (at that point you have to tell your system which ones to present to the other end). In today's environment of multiple small nets, using QWK where available can help keep FTN from getting out of hand.
Final comment - Use which you prefer and what suits the situation, if you're running Mystic, Synchronet or other software of similar capabilities, it really doesn't matter from a technical perspective which you use. If you're using something else, check compatibility.
... Error reading REALITY.SYS - Solar System halted.
=== MultiMail/Win v0.52
--- SBBSecho 3.10-Linux
* Origin: Freeway BBS Bendigo,Australia freeway.apana.org.au (21:1/109)