This can become a problem when the same messages from Fido will appear in the same Telegram group, gated on different nodes with different msgid.

Yes.. I can see a problem if different bots pull and feed with the same original Telegram group. Maybe there should be some kind of other-bot-aware mechanism that can be added as a kludge. Do Telegram messages have something like a msgid?


--- tg2fido.pl
* Origin: Telegram to fido gate by Stas Mishchenkov (2:460/58)

Hi, August!

12 ᥭ 20 17:52, August Abolins -> Brother Rabbit:

Yes.. I can see a problem if different bots pull and feed with the
same original Telegram group. Maybe there should be some kind of other-bot-aware mechanism that can be added as a kludge. Do Telegram messages have something like a msgid?

If you remember, bots do not see messages from each other and this should not be a problem, but the possibility of flooding in the Telegram channel remains.

Have nice nights.
Stas Mishchenkov.

--- ��� ��ᯮ����� ��-���� �������, � � ⠪ �� ᮡ����� ��祣� ������.
* Origin: Lame Users Breeding. Simferopol, Crimea. (2:460/5858)

Hello, August Abolins.
On 9/12/20 7:30 PM you wrote:

I don't see a problem if there would be only one bot assigned to
a group, just as it is now.

This case isn't a problem, no. Except perhaps in the case of either the bot or the system attached to it going offline. Then it's just a matter of the backlog of messages from both sides coming through when the down section comes back online.

If another bbs wants to gate that echo's traffic to Telegram,
they would have their own bot and their own group (with similar
name) to manage.

That's not a scenario I thought too much about.

A post at StasFUTURE4FIDO-group, then to StasTelebot, then to
StasBBS, then to Fidonet, then to CharlesBBS, then to
CharlesTelebot, and then to CharlesFUTURE4FIDO-group wouldn't be
a problem. CharlesFUTUR4FIDO-group and StasFUTURE4FIDO-group are
separate groups. It is no different than each BBS having its
own copy of a distributed echo. Is there a scenario that I am
missing?

I didn't consider separate groups for separate bots, as it looks somewhat overcomplicated.
I was only considering a second bot as a backup in the cases where the original bot or system dropped out for a time.

I go through ideas in my head much faster than I can explain them. And often things get missed when I explain.

--
Best regards!
Posted using Hotdoged on Android
--- Hotdoged/2.13.5/Android
* Origin: The Oasis, Houston, Texas, USA (2:240/1120.976)

Hi, Charles!

12 ᥭ 20 18:46, Charles Pierson -> August Abolins:

This case isn't a problem, no. Except perhaps in the case of either
the bot or the system attached to it going offline. Then it's just a matter of the backlog of messages from both sides coming through when
the down section comes back online.

Of course, I would like to have the reliability of work comparable to Telegram services, but we must not forget that Fido is an amateur network and most of the nodes are located on home computers, the reliability of which is not comparable to the reliability of data centers. The same goes for software.
Of course, we must strive for high reliability and uninterrupted operation, but it is not always possible to provide this with amateur means.

Have nice nights.
Stas Mishchenkov.

--- ���᫠ ���窠 �窮 ��ਪ� � ��ࠧ�⥫쭮 ��ᬮ�५� �� �������.
* Origin: Lame Users Breeding. Simferopol, Crimea. (2:460/5858)

Hi, August!

12 ᥭ 20 20:44, August Abolins -> Charles Pierson:

Maybe until all the unique identifier stuff (^TG_PID, or
^TG_MSGID) can be sorted out, then just have it so that there
is only one gate-bot per group, and each BBS is responsible
for their own group.

A standard PID is enough to eliminate flooding and duplication.

As it sits right now, we appear to be members of Stas' BBS
only.

From Fido's point of view, this is exactly the case. However, I must remind you that there were not so many Internet gates, even during the heyday of the network, in contrast to the BBS.

I didn't consider separate groups for separate bots, as
it looks somewhat overcomplicated. I was only considering
a second bot as a backup in the cases where the original
bot or system dropped out for a time.

The gating is probably far from being a shared process with
multiple bots at this time.

By the way, I have a strong desire to bring the code to the state of free software, but to make it such that it would be impossible to use it without sufficient knowledge.

But Stas is in a fine position to be the founder of establishing the standard ground-rules and the checks and balances for managing dupes, avoiding loops, coming up with the new terminologies for this thing,
etc.

From Fido's point of view, this is just another kind of BBS.

Have nice nights.
Stas Mishchenkov.

--- ����� ���譮� �� �, �� �� ⥯��� �����. � �, �� ����� ⥯��� ��
* Origin: Lame Users Breeding. Simferopol, Crimea. (2:460/5858)