BBS:      TELESC.NET.BR
Assunto:  Re: C Origins
De:       Nightfox
Data:     Tue, 26 May 2026 22:45:16 -0700
-----------------------------------------------------------
  hbRenb: hcRe: C Origins
  bBynb: hcShitty bto cNightfox bon cWed May 27 2026 12:46 amn

 Ni>> I think an inactivity timeout is still very important these days.  These
 Ni>> days, it's fairly common for bots to connect to a BBS via telnet, and
 Ni>> without an inactivity timeout, they could just sit there and tie up the
 Ni>> node.  It would be likely that bots could connect to all nodes on your
 Ni>> BBS and tie them up so that users would be unable to log in.  The
 Ni>> inactivity timeout helps prevent that.

 Sh> That makes sense, but it sounds like a BBS software shortfall. They
 Sh> shouldn't tie up a node until the user is authenticated. Wouldn't that fix
 Sh> it?

Why would you want users to tie up a node sitting idle?  I'd think an inactivity timeout would/should apply either way.  A node is a limited resource; if someone isn't using it, ideally it should be freed up so other people could use it.  With authenticated users, you could still potentially run into the same problem of users logging in and tying up all the nodes - though that becomes a lot less likely when you add more nodes to your BBS.

Nightfox
n
---
  gSynchronetn  Digital Distortion: digitaldistortionbbs.com

-----------------------------------------------------------
[Voltar]