[1160] in Coldmud discussion meeting

root meeting help first first in chain previous in chain previous next next in chain last in chain last

Re: Intermud3 (was Re: [COLD] Is there ...)

daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mon Dec 2 18:30:55 1996 )

Date: Mon, 02 Dec 1996 15:23:58 -0800
To: Frank Crowell <frankc@maddog.com>
From: Jeff Kesselman <jeffk@ten.net>
Cc: coldstuff@cold.org

I think maybe Brandon's point here was missed, or maybe I missed something...

The issue I see in terms of ftp/telnet(server side)/finger/who  etc is

Good standard protocols already exist for these. there is nothing wrong
with letting a MUD serve these BUT it should serve them via the standard
Inventing new protocols for the mud world is silly and counter productive
as it just cuts our world off fro mwhat is fast becoming a standards based

In re port conflicts, there are two answers.  I run my mud on a seperate
system so it can naturally take over the default ports for all of these.
just assign the services to new ports.

If you want MUDs to be able to auto roundeyvous, the ONE new protocol you
MIGHT need is a standard port on which lives a MUD port-directory service....

All IMO.

Jeff Kesselman