Text 2464, 100 rader
Skriven 2008-03-29 12:47:04 av Carol Shenkenberger (785.ftsc_pub)
   Kommentar till text 1794 av mark lewis (1:3634/12.0)
Ärende: Proper nodelist format for Internet-only nodes?
=======================================================
    
 > from this world a long time ago... it was fidonet that kept me here and gave
 > something to work for and folk to help but it is obvious that that's all pis
 > in the wind...

Sorry you feel that way Mark.  I also care deeply but am looking at many
issues from many angles.  One of those angles is hard to describe but I'll
give it a shot.

I've been a non-Z1 member for a long time.  Even before then, I was watching
and learning, questioning, on how others operated and why.  Thats why I'm not
often thrown when I see a zonal difference.  I can look at Z1's methodology
with a different eye.  Yet, I'm Z1 enough (and old Z6 enough) to not care if
the various methds of connection are all compatible with each other.  If it
works, it's good.  Now other zones grew with a different pattern.  They
believe strongly (very strongly) in complete end to end connectivity between
each node.  Some of those areas actually do a pretty good job of maintaining
it.  There's nothing wrong with this, but it;s not mutually compatible with
'the other style'.

Is it political to smoothe this to make the best reasonable adaptions without
causing any actual damage to anyone?  If so, then I am political on this. 
Just like I'm, rethinking the ITN flag.  I may be doing it 'Z1 style' but if
it's causing a Z2 node with the full method problems, I may pull it off and
look it over.  Maybe I can hook the right stuff to it (in fact, I can with
Argus but had conflicts so had to detach that part).

 
 >  > 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 "country 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 FUBAR as long as it is a
 >  > string that is easily recognizable...
 > 
 >  CS> No one has found a suitable one though.
 > 
 > duh! no one has even looked! they've all been to damned busy fighting the

Then look and propose one!  I've seen it tried many times and all other roads
lead to dead ends or a non-global where the one in one zone, caused problems
for another zone.  Like using 911- in Z3, 000- in Z1, etc.  Now all you have
is several things to block instead of one.

Got a better idea?  Put it on the table!  I'm all ears.

 >  CS> No, more a law of averages now.  Fidonet has changed.  You might
 >  CS> now be talking some 10 or so systems only and a workaround for them
 >  CS> they can automate.
 > 
 > yeah, the same bullshit argument that was thrown out 10+ years ago... "if we
 > keep it wrapped up in the bullshit, it won't matter before too long"... [sig
 > you're not helping at all... in fact, you are failing those who were looking
 > to you for assistance in this "battle"... whatever... it is done and over wi
 > :(

Mark, I'm sorry if you thought I was a total 'hang with the Z1 bunch'.  I'm
not, never really have been.  If Z2 has a good idea, I adopt it.  When Z2 had
a great one on the modem redundancy codes, I got Michiel to send it to me and
got it in the FTSC series.  (We watered it down slightly to allow 1 that they
didnt but we had some reasons to keep, I forget which one).

 >  CS> No, more like something to put the full FQDN it is capable of
 >  CS> using, in there for them.  You can do it now with dial translation
 >  CS> tables.
 > 
 > WHICH ARE OUTSIDE THE NODELIST AND REQUIRE MANUAL INTERVENTION! JUST THE THI
 > THAT WE'RE SUPPOSEDLY TRYING TO PREVENT! ARRRRGGGGHHHH!!!!!!!

Well, I dont see FQDN's getting in there any time soon in the raw list, but
nothing stops anyone from editing them in now if their software can handle
it.

 >  > 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 FTN transfer protocol... _users_ can use QWK
 >  > stuff all they want but it is not a FTN protocol or capability...
 > 
 >  CS> Sorry to confuse you, I was talking FTP.
 > 
 > yes, i know this... :roll:
 > 
 >  CS> The fact that the software uses it to FTP a form of packet isnt
 >  CS> relevant.  It's got an inbuilt FTP server.  If I tweaked it to
 >  CS> accept anonymous inbounds to a secure directory, I'd have the full
 >  CS> IFT flag set.
 > 
 > you made the statement to the effect that QWK and FTP were tied together... 
 > was "merely" pointing out that QWK is not fidonet but that's ok... there are
 > many out there who don't know the difference anyway... whatever... it doesn'
 > make a damn any more :(

Ok, caused confusion still.  To clarify, forget that the packet transited is
a qwk mailer packet.  It could just as well be a normal Fidonet style one or
a nodelist or anything else.  Some SBBS systems have mentioned doing that
with their normal fidonet packets to their uplinks.  No 'qwk' involved at
all.
            xxcarol
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32
 * Origin: SHENK'S EXPRESS telnet://shenks.synchro.net (1:275/100)