🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3045@m2-net.UUCP> elixir@m-net.UUCP (Rodney Fulk) writes:
>
>On the issue about limits on the persons time.. If it doesnt give you time
>limits on the files then someone could spend forever downloading and tie the 
>system up for quite a while. If a person is given enough time they should be 
>able to get through all the messages and  still have time left unless your 
>talkling about large message bases..

   Yes, but why lump it together into one time limit?  The way that STadel
does it just puts a limit on downloading - you won't be penalised if you
download some files first and then decide to read the messages.  A general
time limit is, well, icky - I only know of 2-3 cases where a time-limit
would save the system from being hogged.

>And about the linear user limits.. I used the invitation onlly rooms for a
>while except that it did not allow me to easily add someone to a bunch of
>message bases.

  Floors.  Dump all the rooms into a floor and do a floor invite. About as
quick as bringing up a user-configuration menu and diddling access level
(though I can see that diddling access levels is marginally more intuitive
for most sysops - maybe 3.4...)

>I switched to FoReM cause it had all the power I needed although I miss some
>of the features of citadel...

  Hmmm.  But what about the users?  Both of the major TC variants of citadel
haven't spent much effort on the sysop interface because both Hue (Citadel-86)
and I prefer to hack the user interface.  Having a clean sysop interface at
the expense of a messy/awkward user interface is, umm, odd thinking for a
BBS system.

>I want to make it run from within forem...

  What does forem want door programs to look like?


   -david parsons
   -orc@pell.uucp