Ken Ganshirt @ Yahoo
ken_ganshirt at yahoo.ca
Tue May 18 11:58:48 PDT 2010
--- On Tue, 5/18/10, Sean Conner <sean at conman.org> wrote:
> > Lots of cool tools. I think the mail readers were even ahead of what was
> > available for usenet at the time. And it was way cool to be able to
> > actually attach files rather than having to uuencode them.
> Attaching files in email? Isn't that what FTP is for? 
> -spc (Who misses having a public /27 routed to his
> house ... )
>  I'm being half-serious here. ...
I'm glad you are only half serious. ;)
In the day I did it both ways, depending upon whether the other person was on FidoNet or the less advanced network. Simply attaching the file was/is far superior. It required neither the sender nor the recipient to have ftp servers/accounts or any of the knowledge and paraphernalia necessary to use same.
It's why today everyone attaches files to email messages. And even fewer know anything about ftp today than they did back then. 8=)
I apologize for sounding like I'm doing a my penis is bigger than your'n thing here. It's all in good fun. For me, the really compelling thing about FidoNet is that it was almost universally accessable. usenet was not. It was efficient enough to operate over POTS. Still is, in a pinch. usenet/internet isn't and really never was, beyond email/newsgroups. (In addition to email and the equivalent of newsgroups, FidoNet did file sharing way before peer-to-peer. ... sorry, didn't mean to do it again.)
More information about the FoRK