TID: Mystic BBS 1.12 A48   
   MSGID: 1:129/215 72277c7d   
   REPLY: 2:280/464.47 61e7188a   
   TZUTC: -0500   
    Ol>  JC> FTS-1026 recommends it to be a per-connection configurable option as   
    Ol>  JC> have shown here, which is implemented in Mystic.  It is not an    
   Ol>   Ol>  JC>  Ol>  JC>  Ol>  JC>  Ol>  JC>  Ol>  JC>  Ol>  JC> JC> option   
   BINKD  Ol>  JC>  Ol>  JC> and if it  Ol>  JC>  Ol>  JC> were, this  Ol>  JC>    
   Ol>   Ol>  JC>  Ol>  JC> JC> would not  Ol>  JC>  Ol>   Ol>  JC>  Ol>  JC> JC>   
   be a  Ol>  JC>  Ol>  JC>  Ol>  JC>  Ol>  JC>  Ol>  JC>  Ol>  JC> problem  Ol>    
   JC>   Ol>  JC>  Ol>  JC> Ol>  JC> for  Ol>  JC> JC> Paul.   Ol>  JC>  Ol>  JC>   
   Ol>   Ol>  JC>  Ol>  JC>  Ol>   Ol>  JC>  Ol>  JC> JC>  Ol>  JC> JC> Those are   
   the   Ol>  JC>  Ol>  JC> Ol>  JC>  Ol>  JC> facts.   
    Ol>    
    Ol> Do you really believe everyone is too stupid to recognize your discussion   
    Ol> strategy?   
      
   I have a two part answer to this:   
      
   1) There is no strategy. I quoted the FTS and I linked it, you can't get more   
   clear than that. There is no animosity between BINKP developers. We're not   
   trying to make incompatible software. There is no competition. We all want our   
   software to work together; its literally the point of integrating BINKP in our   
   products.   
      
   This idea you've dreamed up that we have a "strategy" is not a conclusion any   
   rational person would come to.  I've done all I can do on the Mystic side for   
   Paul, its up to BINKD to do more if they choose to.  I'll even do it myself   
   and submit a pull request if they will accept it.   
      
   When it was brought to my attention by Frank (Netsurge), I looked into it and   
   admitted I should have implemented the per-session escaping option and then I   
   did within a day or so.  I could have done it better, and when I realized I   
   should have, I changed it.  This is where BINKD is now (or not, up to them).   
      
   2) I have received multiple netmails TODAY ALONE from prominent FidoNet   
   authors and hubs within the community, all of which cite you as being a   
   problem in the way you behave.  I think that confirms your question.  You are   
   an unreasonable person to deal with regardless of the situation.   
      
   And its sad that you convinced non-FTN-techincal people like Paul and Deon   
   that you are some sort of subject matter expert (when everyone who actually   
   does this stuff knows you're a subject matter idiot).  They seem like good   
   guys who fell into your web of bullshit, and you used it to get away with   
   hurting a community that needs all the help it can get.   
      
    Ol> It always was and still is \x##.   
      
   The FTS (that you accuse me of ignoring) disagrees with you as it specfically   
   says some mailers implement the \## and that it should be an option.  My own   
   communities' testing confirms it.  Just stop making shit up man.   
      
   I have to be honest, the rest of your response is so unhinged even compared to   
   your usual unhinged responses.  It seriously makes me worried for you, like   
   you're under the influence of some serious drugs or something.  I hope you're   
   alright.  Just move on dude!  FidoNet and this perceived notion that I am some   
   sort of villian isn't worth your mental sanity...   
      
    Ol> That is not the point. Why would anyone who is using a standard compliant   
    Ol> mailer care, that Mystic can be configured to send incorrect escape   
    Ol> codes? (or has to be explicitly configured for sending the correct   
    Ol> escape code)   
      
   I covered this in every response to you, but you don't seem to care.  So   
   instead I'll tell a story because I know he was reading this thread:   
      
   The best lesson I got when I started implementing FidoNet into Mystic was from   
   Marc Lewis.  He is a great source of FTN knowledge and was a great guy to have   
   around during those times.  We started strong and ended up bickering about a   
   lot of things... Two specific examples come to mind:   
      
   The first is that Marc warned me about BINKP.  He said that the FTS was in   
   proposal before most popular software at the time went out of development   
   (this was before recent MBSE updates, before Synchronet ever had a mailer, and   
   obviously before Mystic which came before all of those).   
      
   He specifically spoke in context of IREX which was at the time the most   
   popular mailer.  He was spot on and it was what ended up teaching me that I   
   implement what works across all software, not what someone thinks might work   
   (even if that someone is the "FTS").   
      
   The second is that he gave me a good rundown of Bink 5D, and it made a lot of   
   sense.  And I read the documentation, which also seemed to agree with what he   
   told me.  When it was done, after all that effort, nothing worked.  If I   
   swapped out Mystic's tosser for FastEcho, it would fail...   
      
   We bickered a lot about this stuff.  At some level I was annoyed I spent all   
   this time implementing and Marc was confident he knew how it was supposed to   
   work.  As it turns out we were both right, but in reality things weren't as   
   they should have been, and documentation didn't match how software actually   
   worked.   
      
   To this day, Mystic might be the only software I've seen working across the   
   board (net/echo) with same-zone different-domain networks in 5D. It came at   
   the cost of Marc and bickering and maybe ruining our own collaboration, but at   
   least the software works. :(   
      
   --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A48 2022/01/14 (Windows/64)   
    * Origin: Sector 7 * Mystic WHQ (1:129/215)   
   SEEN-BY: 1/123 14/0 15/0 90/1 103/705 105/81 106/201 114/705 709 120/340   
   SEEN-BY: 120/616 123/10 120 131 124/5016 129/215 305 153/250 757 7715   
   SEEN-BY: 154/10 30 40 50 700 203/0 218/840 220/70 80 90 221/0 6 226/17   
   SEEN-BY: 226/18 30 227/114 201 229/110 200 307 310 317 424 426 550   
   SEEN-BY: 229/664 700 240/5832 249/206 250/5 8 266/512 267/800 280/464   
   SEEN-BY: 280/5003 5555 282/1038 292/854 8125 298/25 301/1 305/3 310/31   
   SEEN-BY: 317/3 320/219 322/757 341/234 342/200 396/45 423/120 460/58   
   SEEN-BY: 633/280 712/848 770/1 100 340 772/210 220 230 2320/105 2452/250   
   SEEN-BY: 3634/12   
   PATH: 129/215 154/10 280/464 770/1 317/3 229/426