1. Forum
  2. FidoNet
  3. MYSTIC

  • binkp 1.1?

    From Robert Wolfe@1:261/20.1 to All on Tue May 12 07:00:18 2026
    so i run the current prealpha version of Mystic to test withy the latest test version of PXW v10.0 and it looks like mystic only negotiates binkp 1.0 instead of 1.1. Is there a reason for this, esp since most sites use v1.1 of the protocol?

    ... Computers all wait at the same speed!

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A49 2024/05/29 (Windows/64)
    * Origin: Listen To: http://radio.klyntar.net (1:261/20.1)
  • From IB Joe@1:342/201 to Robert Wolfe on Fri May 15 12:29:14 2026
    On 12 May 2026, Robert Wolfe said the following...


    so i run the current prealpha version of Mystic to test withy the latest test version of PXW v10.0 and it looks like mystic only negotiates binkp 1.0 instead of 1.1. Is there a reason for this, esp since most sites
    use v1.1 of the protocol?


    Unless the author does something about it I don't think so.

    I pass mail all the time "NOW" with wcBinkP and Mystic no problem. Mystic is not quite "Abandon-ware"... The Author does poke his head in every few years to kick the code on an issue or 2.

    There is a computability file in your \pxw\sysytem\ folder called binkp-compat.cfg <---- I think its a CFG file... Edit it with a text editor.

    BTW, I saw your question on not being able to poll a NODE... Check ypur poll que as you might have to delete an exhausted poll there.

    I found things out the hard way... PXW will not let you adjust the font from Large to small. PXW will have it LARGE whereas Mystic might be small.

    If this is the case, Mystic can call PXW but not you calling Mystic.

    Though I could have changed the font size in Mystic I just went with the use of NUMBERS only for passwords.

    Problem solved!!!!

    IB Joe, Pronouns (FJB/LGB)
    AKA Joe Schweier
    SysOp of 4A 6F 65 73 42 42 53
    -=JoesBBS.com=-

    ... Youth is glorious, but it isn't a career

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A49 2023/04/30 (Windows/64)
    * Origin: JoesBBS.Com, Telnet:23 SSH:22 HTTP:80 (1:342/201)
  • From Alexander Grotewohl@1:120/616 to Robert Wolfe on Fri May 15 16:19:30 2026
    On 12 May 2026, Robert Wolfe said the following...

    so i run the current prealpha version of Mystic to test withy the latest test version of PXW v10.0 and it looks like mystic only negotiates binkp 1.0 instead of 1.1. Is there a reason for this, esp since most sites
    use v1.1 of the protocol?

    afaik mystic is all standard kit so you could possibly just use the husky stuff, binkd, etc. if you wanted to give it a try i'm curious how well it goes..

    --- Mystic BBS v1.12 A47 2021/12/25 (Windows/32)
    * Origin: cold fusion - cfbbs.net - grand rapids, mi (1:120/616)
  • From Nick Boel@1:154/700 to Alexander Grotewohl on Fri May 15 17:33:44 2026
    Hey Alexander!

    On Fri, May 15 2026 15:19:30 -0500, you wrote:

    afaik mystic is all standard kit so you could possibly just use the
    husky stuff, binkd, etc. if you wanted to give it a try i'm curious
    how well it goes..

    You definitely don't have to use Mystic's built in mailer or tosser. Any tosser that supports JAM message bases would probably work fine, and there's quite a few people that already use binkp with it. Whether they had issues initially setting up the built in mailer, or used to use a different mailer before they switched to Mystic, and kept using their old stuff, or there were features in a different mailer they wanted, etc.

    Regards,
    Nick

    ... Sarcasm, because beating people up is illegal.
    --- SBBSecho 3.37-Linux
    * Origin: _thePharcyde telnet://bbs.pharcyde.org (Wisconsin) (1:154/700)