Text 5609, 62 rader
Skriven 2012-07-21 15:15:27 av mark lewis (1:3634/12.0)
   Kommentar till text 5606 av Paul Quinn (3:640/384)
Ärende: Nodelist flags - FTS-5001
=================================
 ml> i've not tested any in a while... i do know that FD honors it in
 ml> front of any ,U, in the nodelist but i haven't specifically tested it
 ml> recently with those flying ,U,Txy... i don't have my notes on these
 ml> tests from years back, either... they have long since been recycled
 ml> :/

 PQ> In your system's case (i.e. FD), would you need a telnet-able
 PQ> (ITN/IVM) target node using the Txy flag as well?

yes... FD only does POTS and requires a virtual modem to communicate via other
methods like telnet and vmodem...

 PQ> If you need one then I can re-configure things here to provide 
 PQ> such a target node (i.e. ITN), and nodelisting. 

we can see about that...

 PQ> The bulk of nodelisted nodes flying 'Txy' seems to be in Zone 2. 
 PQ> Note that I said "bulk" without doing an actual count (which has
 PQ> been made incredibly difficult since it is no longer to be found
 PQ> behind a ',U,' pattern).  Those nodes in Zone 2 'seem' to still be
 PQ> using them following the ',U,' prefix, albeit for a lot of POTS
 PQ> systems too.

i've noted that there seems to be a large number of them in Z2 too and i've
wondered why since that flag is for non-CM (Continous Mail) systems to indicate
the times that they /are/ online for incoming calls in addition to their zone's
ZMH time... for example, i used to share my BBS line with voice and my voice
time was in the evening starting at 5/6PM and ending at 10/11PM so i flew the
TAS flag indicating that i was online from 00:00 UTC till 18:00 UTC and that
left the times between 18:00 and 00:00 for my voice time... since this period
also covered my ZMH, it was pretty easy...

 PQ> Since the Rev.2 20040904 'fix' of FTS-5001 ["Fixed Txy flag status
 PQ> (user flag -> normal flag)"], I now have a mailer that appears
 PQ> broken.  

what mailer are you using? some mailers actually ignored the ,U completely and
so it didn't really matter if a flag was a regular flag or a user flag... they
were still able to see and work with them...

 PQ> I do understand why the fix was made.  It was a _clerical_
 PQ> thing, not technical.  The underlying FSC's author never intended
 PQ> the 'Txy' usage to be a U)ser type flag. 

right...

 PQ> However, I don't relish the prospect of placing a ',U,Txy' override
 PQ> in my mailer for those nodes I wish to contact that may already
 PQ> have a 'Txy' flag!  My own systems included!  :)

understood...

 PQ> If it is (a more) common practice to prefix 'Txy' with ',U,', then
 PQ> shouldn't the FTS doco reflect this?!?

absolutely... and in that case, it may very well be yet another clerical error
;)

)\/(ark

 * Origin:  (1:3634/12)