Text 1786, 70 rader
Skriven 2008-03-28 20:55:31 av Carol Shenkenberger (726.ftsc_pub)
   Kommentar till text 1777 av mark lewis (1:3634/12.0)
Ärende: Proper nodelist format for Internet-only nodes?
=======================================================
    
 >  CS> Well, they are used to that and see no harm in it.  Just a
 >  CS> different view point on some aspects.  Harmless actually as long as
 >  CS> the point is accepted that not every zone 'grew up' the same.
 > 
 > right... but many of "them" _don't_ see that not every zone 'grew up' the
 > same... in fact, many of "them" use that very fact to beat others into
 > submission over some point or another... witness the beatings you've taken f


 >  CS> Z1 *did* diverge widely to ION's and cant really backtrack now as
 >  CS> it's too embedded, so working with the others to minimize the
 >  CS> impact is a good thing.
 > 
 > i don't think that diverge is the proper word... more like Z1 went the way t
 > should have been followed in the first place ;)

Grin, sorry but look above at your own words.  I know you didnt intend that, b 
ut it's hard to miss.  Not everyone lives and breathes 'ION is good'.  Only 2
zones went intensly ION, and one of them is now gone.

 > yes... but i've also pointed out, all these years, that 000- isn't the only
 > indicator that can be used... the whole thing is to simply use a fake "count
 > code" to indicate the difference between a POTS/ISDN number and (currently) 
 > TCP/IP number or domain name... i don't care if it is 666-, 123- or even FUB
 > as long as it is a string that is easily recognizable...

No one has found a suitable one though.

 >  CS> AFAIK, only FD (possibly IM) in telnet mode is impacted by putting
 >  CS> in -UnPublished- and thats only for those who use it to dial out to
 >  CS> others with the ITN flag.  I dont know how many of them there are,
 >  CS> but it's my impression it's a lot smaller of a number than those
 >  CS> impacted by tripping over 000- entries.  IMHO it really would be an
 >  CS> overall improvement to get rid of them then come up with a simpler
 >  CS> solution for the very few who actually need them.
 > 
 > that's politics :?

No, more a law of averages now.  Fidonet has changed.  You might now be
talking some 10 or so systems only and a workaround for them they can
automate.
 
 >  CS> It would boil down to the number of systems using FD (possibly IM)
 >  CS> and using telnet to dial out to another telnet site direct from
 >  CS> their mailer.
 > 
 > and more politics... even worse, politics seemingly espousing the removal or
 > hobbling of a package that was very prevelant in advancing fidonet :?

No, more like something to put the full FQDN it is capable of using, in there
for them.  You can do it now with dial translation tables.

 >  CS> In SBBS BTW, it's built in.  Also has a QWK mailer type networking
 >  CS> with FTP so I will one day mess with that to get it working inbound
 >  CS> and add the IFT flag (I think that's the right one, dont worry, I
 >  CS> can look it up).
 > 
 > the IFT flag has nothing to do with QWK stuff... it is solely for indicating
 > the transfer of FTN PKTs and bundled mail... and QWK stuff is not a valid FT
 > transfer protocol... _users_ can use QWK stuff all they want but it is not a
 > FTN protocol or capability...

Sorry to confuse you, I was talking FTP.  The fact that the software uses it
to FTP a form of packet isnt relevant.  It's got an inbuilt FTP server.  If I
tweaked it to accept anonymous inbounds to a secure directory, I'd have the
full IFT flag set.
              xxcarol
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32
 * Origin: SHENK'S EXPRESS telnet://shenks.synchro.net (1:275/100)