Text 1276, 84 rader
Skriven 2008-03-22 19:24:27 av mark lewis (1:3634/12.0)
   Kommentar till text 1269 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
Ärende: Proper nodelist format for Internet-only nodes?
=======================================================
 ml> WWIV and PCBoard are two popular older ones that i can think of right
 ml> off hand... i think that MBSE and BBBS do it kinda similar, too but it
 ml> has been a while since i was on one of those systems :?

 MvdV> Not MBSE. It has a different approach. It has a telnettable
 MvdV> mailer and a telnettable BBS, but it does not use one as a front
 MvdV> for the other. It simply runs them as two different tasks on a
 MvdV> separete port. The equivalent of having a different POTS line for
 MvdV> the mailer and the BBS.

yeah... like i said, i couldn't remember... however, i do remember there being
more than one that operates like this just not which ones :?

 MvdV> Makes sense in the IP age.

to a point, i agree with that... on the other hand, depending on the overall
service offering, it could be a "problem" in some circumstances...

 MvdV> Telnet to fido.mbse.eu and you get a BBS. Telnet to the same 
 MvdV> hostname at port 60177 (As advertised in the nodelist) and you 
 MvdV> get the well known: **EMSI_REQA77E.

right... that denotes a EMSI capable mailer... if they turn off EMSI
capabilities, what do you get?

 MvdV>> The closest that comes to a BBS flags in the nodelist is the MO
 MvdV>> flag and that signals the absence of a BBS...

 ml> not quite... it indicates that that system accepts mail only...

 MvdV> So if it only accept mail, it does not accpet human callers. I'd
 MvdV> say.. 

remember, the nodelist is for /mailer/ information ;) i don't recall, off hand,
who brought this fact up but the precedent was set way back in the very early
days of fidonet... i suspect that it may have even been set with the original
fido software where someone wanted to be a member but not not have any human
callers... at least, not accepting them as indicated by the nodelist ;)

 ml> it doesn't say anything about the presence or absence of a BBS...

 MvdV> Hmm...

yeah, that was another of my thoughts on the flag many years back...

 ml> i could easily fly the MO flag and keep my BBS operation behind it
 ml> just like it is and there would be no problems as far as fidonet mail
 ml> stuffs are concerned...

 MvdV> Indeed, it would cause no problems as far as fidonet mail stuff
 MvdV> is concerned. But it would make a difference to a a human caller
 MvdV> that attempts to connect. If there is no BBS he/she would not be
 MvdV> able to do anything. If there is a BBS behind it, he/she would
 MvdV> get the BBS. Isn't  that what the MO flag was meant for? 

AFAIK, the flag was only meant to indicate "Mailer Only" status... thus its MO
characters ;)

 MvdV>> I am very sure that it is incorrect to fly an ITN flag if it
 MvdV>> does not lead to an FTS-0001 compatible mailer.

 ml> minor but important correction... "if it does not eventually lead"...

 MvdV> That is what I meant to convey. I see no diference in meaning
 MvdV> other than a slight difference in emphasis.

i'm thinking the word "eventually" is a key and relevant aspect... especially
considering the context of the discussion being about something else answering
the connection and then passing the connection on to something else...

 LS>> (i.e., how *do* you identify a node that accepts mailer connections
 LS>> over telnet?).

 MvdV>> With the ITN flag, that is what it is for.

 ml> agreed...

 MvdV> Careful1, this may become a habit. ;-)

ROTFL!

)\/(ark

 * Origin:  (1:3634/12)