World: r3wp

Unless Brian really wants to write it all himself ...

:)

Meanwhile my little fix for the ftp server behind NAT has allowed 
me to finally open up a data connection to my fax server

Need a little function

non-addressable: func [ ip-address ][ returns true or false ]

syntax perhaps some like this 


send fax://userid:[password-:-faxipaddress] [ dial: number! retries: 
integer! resolution: word! notify: email! file: file! when: time! 
]

brian: sorry... you're right (open vs load), but if a protocol/scheme 
exists for torrent, read and write should work on it, just like for 
any other scheme, its part of the point of having this whole architecture... 
no?

this could make a nice protocol  ;-)

http://suicidemachine.org/

facebook actually sent them a cease and desist court order!

Is this what we are supposed to be doing?
http://rebol.wik.is/Rebol3/Modules/Mod-network

Graham: Yes. I'd call it mod-net-util, though, in remembrance of 
R2

Ok.... everyone ... please !

I read this last night http://www.tcpipguide.com/free/t_TCPIPInternetMessageAccessProtocolIMAPIMAP4.htm

Seems that there are 3 states in IMAP4, not-authenticated, authenticated 
and selected state.

well, client states

the FSM diagram is here http://www.tcpipguide.com/free/t_IMAP4GeneralOperationClientServerCommunicationandS-2.htm

And so all you have to do is track what tags you are using with your 
commands....

and be able to parse responses

The existing IMAP protocol for R2 should have the parsers written 
already

Regarding .... mod-net-util ... I guess it only needs importing once 
...

unless value? 'net-log [
	import mod-net-log	
]

you don't need.. if the module has a name in its header, the import 
will only be performed once, even if its called several times.

the modules are cached once they are loaded (again, only if named).

New scheme ..  fax://
http://rebol.wik.is/Rebol3/Schemes/Fax

Do we need a telnet:// scheme?

that would be nice for some routers

ssh:// would be even cooler :-)

Who is going to pay for that! ??

... pay for what? Development of SSL?

yeah ..

Can't we just wrap any open-source stuff?

I would not mind it being an external module ...

Dunno ... outside my experience

yes pekr, there is possibility out there (putty sources being one), 
its just a question of some competent C coder taking some time to 
check it out and possibly wrap it as an extension and/or as a module 
to load in the host directly.

I don't have the time right now... too much work to do ...

(and I'm not sure I can be considered a competent C coder hehee)

Is puty correctly (in regards to R3) licensed? BSD or LGPL?

MIT

I don't care whether it's MIT or GPL ... as long as we can call it.

and its code is beautifull, it even has its own implementation of 
zlib... it rellies on no external lib or code.

Graham - how can't you care? If it woudl be GPL, we could not use 
it at all ...

We
 as a RT may not ... but "we" as a user can ...

No, we can't. GPL is GPL. You either fit the license, or you break 
it, no?

If I don't distibute I can do what I like ...

Better break the license than some glass.

GPL only applies to software that you distribute

Pekr, "just wrapping" other code is not easy to do right, and takes 
time and effort. Less time and effort than rewiting it from scratch 
in some cases (likely including SSL and SSH), but still not a trivial 
effort.

Graham, a scheme that you can't distribute is of extremely limited 
use, too limited to justify the effort involved.

in your personal opinion of course

If google developed such a scheme, and kept it within their organization, 
that would be in keeping with GPL .. no need to release source

what I was envisaging was someone linking the host code to eg.  a 
gpl tls library and releasing instructions on how to build it yourself.

I don't see what is wrong with that.