General ATCP question: is there a limit to telnet neg length

[xtian]

Hello everybody,

Zesstra@MG stumbled over the mudstandards.org documentation of ATCP. In
http://mudstandards.org/ATCP_Message_Format
it is stated that messages sent to the server may not exceed 2048 bytes.

This doesn't make any sense. Texts sent via the ATCP composer message will very likely exceed the 2048 byte limit, wouldn't they?

What is your experience with this? Can you send very long messages in the ATCP composer on IRE muds for example? Is the above link simply false?

Thanks,
xtian

[tsuujin]

well, ATCP is now depreciated. You're going to want to look into GMCP.

[Rakon]

Some information about the new protocol can be found here:
http://www.mudbytes.net/topic-2928
http://www.ironrealms.com/gmcp-doc

[Vadi]

Yeah you can send very long ones, but it'll cut off at some point (not sure if it's Mudlet or the IRE server that was doing it though).

[Heiko]

Hello everybody,

Zesstra@MG stumbled over the mudstandards.org documentation of ATCP. In
http://mudstandards.org/ATCP_Message_Format
it is stated that messages sent to the server may not exceed 2048 bytes.

This doesn't make any sense. Texts sent via the ATCP composer message will very likely exceed the 2048 byte limit, wouldn't they?

What is your experience with this? Can you send very long messages in the ATCP composer on IRE muds for example? Is the above link simply false?

Thanks,
xtian

You can safely ignore this limit. Mudlet uses unrestricted atcp.

[KaVir]

well, ATCP is now depreciated. You're going to want to look into GMCP.

Please remember that there are also 25 muds using MSDP as their primary out-of-band protocol. As Mudlet doesn't support MSDP, 21 of those muds offer ATCP as a fallback.

[tsuujin]

Given that it is the "Achaea Telnet Client Protocol" and IRE (the people who wrote the protocol in the first place) have depreciated it in favor of GMCP, the fact that any other mud still uses it doesn't change it's depreciation.

Also if you will bother to read towards the bottom of the original post you will see that IRE MUDs were specifically mentioned, which led me to point out the fact that they are now using GMCP as their standard and as far as I know are only supporting ATCP for backwards compatibility, if at all.

By the way, posts that offer nothing but pedantic retort will always be met with hostility.

[KaVir]

I'm not being pedantic, I'm pointing out that ATCP is still very much in use, and that questions like xtian's are of considerable interest to other muds as well. I'm glad Heiko clarified that the limit doesn't apply to Mudlet, because if it did it could have had a serious impact on many muds, including mine.

I know of 8 muds that support GMCP...and 29 that support ATCP. And it's not a case of "still using it" - more muds are actively adding support for ATCP than are adding support for GMCP.

So I'd hate to see future questions about ATCP dismissed with flippant suggestions to "use GMCP". Not everyone wants to use GMCP.

[Vadi]

Alright, calm down all, there are other muds outside IREs and they tend to flow with a completely different thing. Mudlet is fine with unlimited ATCP it seems, question resolved!

[Heiko]

I know of 8 muds that support GMCP...and 29 that support ATCP. And it's not a case of "still using it" - more muds are actively adding support for ATCP than are adding support for GMCP.

So I'd hate to see future questions about ATCP dismissed with flippant suggestions to "use GMCP". Not everyone wants to use GMCP.

ATCP has the huge advantage that it's very easy to implement on the server and offers about the same features as GMCP.

@ Tsuujin

GMCP was *NOT* developed by IRE, but it was developed by an independent group of various MUD owners and client developers on http://www.mudstandards.org/forum/ with Nick Gammon of Mush-client doing most of the work. Kavir and Xtian were both part of this group by the way.

I consider ATCP and GMCP two independent protocols that both recieve the same attention and support as far as Mudlet is concerned.