MSGID: 2:221/1.58@fidonet ec02c8fb   
   REPLY: 7617.asian_li@1:275/100 24548d11   
   PID: OpenXP/5.0.48 (Win32)   
   CHRS: ASCII 1   
   TZUTC: -0500   
   Hello Carol!   
      
   ** On Friday 01.01.21 - 10:01, Carol Shenkenberger wrote to August Abolins:   
      
    >> PMFJI, but I still have fidonet messages tagged for replies that   
    >> have accumulated beyond 2 months.  :(   
      
    CS> LOL!   
      
   Often, when I revisit the older-than-2month "tagged for replies"     
   messages, I can't remember Wtf I had in mind as a reply.  :/      
   Sometimes it comes back to me in a few seconds, so then I may     
   decide to keep them on the back-burner a little while longer.   
      
   Sometimes I later realize that someone else may have delt with     
   the topic.   
      
   This is part of the reason I think sysops should never let an     
   echo to completely purge of all (old) messages.  Instead, try to     
   keep at least a modicum selection of say "the last 200" or so.   
      
      
    CS> BTW, saw some silly dust ups about the telegram bit.  Best   
    CS> to tell them it's from our standpoint much like a fancy OLR   
    CS> that works well in a world of tablets and such technology..   
      
   Thank you for that. I'd like to forward your full comment to the     
   FIDONET.TELEGRAM echo.  It may serve to educate new sysops/users.   
      
      
    CS> Technically when Dale Shipp was feeding me traffic on the   
    CS> USS McHenry then USS Essex, we dove off to an email to email   
    CS> delivery with OLR on each end.  Similar in concept.   
      
   OMG.. "our" data was being transmitted to various USS ships     
   without our prior knowledge!  What about privacy, what about our     
   rights! What unsavoury servers are utilized on those ships?  Or..     
   even what over-the-air non-FTN techonolgy was used for     
   transmissions?  The horror.   
      
   I know one sysop who implemented a mechanism to forward netmail     
   to his user's cell phones in the early 2000's.  Surely, a lot of     
   "unkown" servers and systems would be involved in-between.  Noone     
   seemed to be bothered by that.   
      
      
    CS> Explain it more simply like that and the yahoos will quiet   
    CS> down.   
      
   Too late. Less than just 2 weeks of implementation, a couple of     
   modertors changed their minds (they approved the transmissions     
   previously) about this alternate OLR after only a couple other     
   people raised questions.   
      
   The experiment lost WIFI, X-FILES, NZ_FIDONET, WHAT'S_HOT! &     
   RETAIL_HORROR ..all good candidates for the independent chat     
   style of messaging.   
      
   Maybe you can help dispell any fears?   
      
      
    CS> I'm sure all here will happily help with any formatting   
    CS> issues.  I opened the gateways for testing here some 10   
    CS> years ago and no one has ever minded!   
      
   A lot of formatting issues have already be delt with. It is still     
   a work-in-progress. Inner-message quoting like in this reply     
   would be somewhat awkard on a smartphone - but I have done it.   
      
   MSGID/REPLYID was implemented very quickly. Even netmail delivery     
   to the Telegram user was streamlined.   
      
   If the goal is to make echomail accessible to the ways that     
   people use devices now, the Telegram app is a fine OLR-type of     
   thing. The desktop app is really not much different than having     
   to use an OLR program just to read QWK packets.   
      
   It's great even just to get annoucments that echomail has     
   arrived.   
      
   BTW, are you still biding your time on USS ships?   
   --   
     ../|ug   
      
   --- OpenXP 5.0.48   
    * Origin: Mobile? ASIAN_LINK https://preview.tinyurl.com/y6rwskq (2:221/1.58)   
   SEEN-BY: 1/123 18/200 90/1 105/81 120/340 123/131 124/5016 154/10   
   SEEN-BY: 203/0 221/1 6 360 226/30 227/114 229/101 424 426 452 664   
   SEEN-BY: 229/1016 230/0 240/5832 249/110 206 317 400 280/464 5003   
   SEEN-BY: 288/100 292/8125 310/31 317/3 322/757 342/200 396/45 423/81   
   SEEN-BY: 423/120 460/58 633/280 770/1   
   PATH: 221/1 280/464 229/101 426