Jan 012018
 
Another new file protocol engine. This protocol is similiar to Zmodem, although not as robust. Includes C source code.
File ZMAX.ZIP from The Programmer’s Corner in
Category Communications
Another new file protocol engine. This protocol is similiar to Zmodem, although not as robust. Includes C source code.
File Name File Size Zip Size Zip Type
FSC-0006.TXT 46239 7000 deflated
MAILER.DOC 7238 2941 deflated
OSIRIS.NWS 12922 4912 deflated
READ.ME 8241 4038 deflated
USER.DOC 1411 681 deflated
WARNING.DOC 496 296 deflated
ZMAX.C 60272 13567 deflated
ZMAX.DOC 11500 4176 deflated
ZMAX.EXE 35515 20245 deflated

Download File ZMAX.ZIP Here

Contents of the READ.ME file


Date: 2 Jul 90 01:39:26 GMT
Sender: [email protected]
Followup-To: alt.bbs
Organization: University of Virginia
Lines: 210

A few weeks ago, I posted an article to alt.bbs outlining some of the
problems I've had in getting my SYSOP copy of DSZ, Omen Technologies'
Zmodem/Ymodem-g protocol driver. At that time, I asked for emailed
replies, and said I'd summarize. Here's the summary, as promised, and
I'm sending a cc to Chuck Forsberg himself. Thanks to all who helped.

[email protected] (Homeless hacker) writes:

>My sysop registration took almost 4 months to come through.

> Chuck's package is basically useless unless "registered", since
>registration is the only way to legally enable most of the useful
>features of the program. Registration costs the normal user $20.00.
>I got so sick of waiting, and of being forced to adhere to the
>registration requirements (software cop, etc.) that when I finally got my
>number, I didn't bother to intall it. My BBS (WWIV 4.10) has been using
>DSZ, unregistered, for 2 years without a hitch.

[email protected] writes:

>Stick it to him. I have been offended by forsberg's attitude for years.
>He thinks the world revolves around him and that all users are guilty of
>stealing his software. His manuals and licensing documents are shining
>examples of poor customer relations, at best. Somebody outght to write
>a better `dsz' and put him out of business.

"Tiny Bubbles..." writes:

>Your observations are not surprising. Forsberg is not what you call a
>"people person," or such is the indication I get from the tone of his
>documentation files and reactions, similar to yours, from other places
>on the national net.

>Also, anyone with a BBS registration mysteriously saw
>big chunks of their filesystems disappear one fateful night early last
>year. Forsberg has officially blamed it on a virus, but our board is
>virus-free and we obtained our copy of DSZ right from Omen's BBS.


>My personal view is that he embedded a self-destruct mechanism for BBS
>registrations which was supposed to delete only a few files (itself, I
>would imagine), and that it went haywire and cleared the whole directory.
>Thus, the "omigod, a VIRUS" story. Also, this oddity happened ONLY to
>BBS registrations... and one series of actual paid registrations, ours
>included, which again looks like plain ol' sloppy programming.

[*shiver*...this is probably the scariest reply I received, anyone know
if there's any truth to it? --Scott]

[email protected] (Bob Mosley III) writes:

> 1) Chuck Forsberg takes WAY too long to send out sysop registered
> copies. 4-6 weeks for delivery is not unacceptable, but I've heard
> horror stories of 4-5 MONTHS. When queried about this, Forsberg has
> in all cases responded along the lines of those reported previously.
> He has been apathetical, laxidasical, and even downright rude to those
> inquiring about the status of their PUTSNP key.

> 2) Forsberg is requiring sysops to register with strings attatched. While
> pushing the latest Zmodem/DSZ package is satisfactory with me, pushing
> that piece of shit he calls Zcomm would be an insult not only to my users,
> but to my own self esteem. And then there's the "Secret Society of DSZ
> Pirate Watchers" that Forsberg forces you to join. On one of the local
> Fido echos, we had a sysop who for weeks went on and on about how patches
> and deprotects were tools of pirates and devil-worshippers and
whathaveyous,
> and every post he would sign off with Forsberg's little "Pledge of
> Allegiance", promising to turn in anyone he caught pirating DSZ, or
> any sysop running an unregistered version of DSZ. Of course, you can
> guess where everyone told him to go, eh? To sum it up, there's too many
> strings attached for any normal independent sysop to even consider
> registering DSZ. Remember, there's a big difference between kneeling down
> and bending over.

> ...by turning DSZ into crippleware with the directory pathing exclusion,
> Forsberg has quickly moved from innovative genius to greedy snot. NO OTHER
> PROTOCOL requires registration before being allowed to tell it where
> you want files placed. Could you imagine where file transfers would be
> today if Ward Christiansen had decided to release his original version
> of what became XMODEM with such restrictions?

> In short, ol' Chuckie should have taken a lesson
> from SEA - if you act like an asshole in the shareware industry, the
> users will drop you for the underdog in a split second.

[email protected] (Irving Wolfe) writes:

> As you said, in a weak moment you accepted the devil's pact. Why should
> anyone else think you were treated unfairly if the devil gives you a few
rude

> surprises? Why should you expect a man who asked you to agree in writing
tha
t
> you'd lie to your friends to be telling you the truth?

[email protected] (Jeff Wolfe) writes:

> As a BBS sysop, I sent in my BBS registration about a month after I
> started using DSZ. I waited for about 2 months, and never got the BBS reg.
> After a Year, I started to feel guilty, so I sent my $20 in to Omen. It
took
> them 3 weeks to cash the check, but I got the DSZ disks about a week after
th
e
> check was cashed. A week *AFTER* I got the Paid for disks, another mailer
> appeared with my BBS registration (almost 1 year later!)..

[email protected] (Joe College) writes:

> The solution to this problem is not to use DSZ. Telix is one very good comm
> program that I know of that supports Zmodem. However, while the solution
may
be
> easy for BBS _users_ , it may be different for people who _run_ them. I
don't

> know if there are any other Zmodem protocols. I may have seen one or two...

"Jonathan R. Herr" writes:

> Thanks for the warning! I was going to call his BBS but now I won't.

tim bowden writes:

> I have registered as a sysop with Omen, and I had the predictably long
> wait for the disks to arrive in the mail. They did. I determined not
> to go through the trouble to keep up with new releases in the same
> manner, because it was too ponderous a procedure when I could just
> use a copy a user uploaded of the new edition without waiting six
> months. I have the satisfaction of knowing I attempted to play the
> game right, and the assumption Omen is quite content with how it goes.

> I found the documentation forbidding, by the way, and had to access Omen
> for clarification on flow control. They apparently publish a long list
> of answers you can download, and then look for your question in there.
> At least it solved the problem, but it makes one reluctant to consult
> with them more than is absolutely necessary, which is I suppose the
> intent.

"Mark J. Bailey" writes:

>I had some difficulty with "the
>secretary" (whom I suspect may have been his wife (hmmmmm ???!) back in
>February. I am not a SYSOP, but had a client interested in the Unix YAM.

[LONG story about how he tried to get some documentation
from Chuck and got the typical brushoff - deleted in the
interest of brevity, avail. on request]

> I don't see postings from him much lately. Also, from what you described
> about his rude comment to you on the phone (I have been in similar
situations

> (in person) myself and am quite familiar with the "Huh?" response of
> disbelief to what I was just party to!), I was a bit shocked that that was
> his attitude. Also a bit angerred. It really bothers me when people
> [parenthetical comment withheld by request] produce things like DSZ, and
> (as you say) wave it in front of our faces and make great claims and then
> don't deliver "people" service for shit. The case with FSUUCP is that
> after a year, he has yet to document it. He also made several pre-release
> announcements since last fall, and only delivered at the end of May (and it
> still doesn't work when talking to a HDB uucp node). I agree with 101%



 January 1, 2018  Add comments

Leave a Reply