Text 8454, 144 rader
Skriven 2017-03-28 00:30:00 av Alexey Vissarionov (2:5020/545)
   Kommentar till text 8449 av Fred Riccio (1:132/174)
Ärende: Proposed changes: FTS-5001.006
======================================
Good ${greeting_time}, Fred!

27 Mar 2017 09:07:54, you wrote to All:

 FR> Also for discussion... IEM vs EMA flags. Are they the same?

EMA should be replaced with IEM.

 FR> Additions/Changes are marked with ">" in column 1.

`diff -burN` could be much better...

 FR> 5.5. Gateway Flag

Deprecated.

 FR>   Daylight saving time

The common solution is to work at least two hours a day, one for ZMH and other
for ZMH+DST. Proved by R50 for over 20 years, until DST was cancelled here.

 FR> 5.8. ISDN Capability Flags

Do anyone still use it?

 FR> 5.9. Internet Capabilities
 FR>     <flag>[:<internet address>][:<port>]
 FR>   Where <internet address> is:
 FR>     * a fully qualified domain name (FQDN), or
 FR>     * an IPv6 address encased in square brackets, or
 FR>     * an IPv4 address in dotted-quad format, or
 FR>     * an email address,

Wrong.

Must be <flag>[:<internet address>] where internet address is
<email | <fqdn | ipv4 | ipv6>[:<port>]>

 FR>   This method is not to be used to signal that a system is IPV4 and
 FR>   IPv6 capable. Additional IPv6 capability should be advertised by
 FR>   adding an AAAA record to an already listed host name.

Wrong.

INA:192.0.2.123,INA:[2001:db8:f1d0::1234],IBN is a legal set of flags.

 FR>    IP    (none)  Mostly used during the introduction of IP capable
 FR>                  systems to the nodelist, is similar to the INA flag
 FR>                  but may or may not specify an Internet address.
 FR>                  Both usages are deprecated in favour of INA.

Deprecated, should be removed.

 FR>    IFT       21  FTP (RFC-0959); Note there is currently no widely
 FR>                  accepted authentication scheme for FTP transfers by
 FR>                  Fidonet mailers.

Deprecated: no common method for delivering direct netmail to such nodes.

 FR>    ITN       23  Telnet connection using FTS-1 or any other protocol
 FR>                  designed for classic POTS and modem.
 FR>    IVM     3141  Vmodem connection using FTS-1 or any other protocol
 FR>                  designed for classic POTS and modem.

Deprecated by IFC.

 FR>    IEM    Indicates an unspecified mail tunnelling method (old
 FR>           usage, similar to IP), or sets the default email
 FR>           address for other flags (similar to INA)

Should be changed to "INA-style" only.

 FR>    ITX    TransX encoding for email tunnelling with receipts
 FR>           enabled.

Is there some common method for delivering direct netmail to such nodes?
Hereafter "common" implies at least "free cross-platform software".

 FR>    ISE    SEAT protocol for Email tunnelling with receipts.
 FR>           enabled; should always be accompanied by IUC and/or IMI.

Is there some common method for delivering direct netmail to such nodes?

 >>  EVY    Voyager-compatible

Is there some common method for delivering direct netmail to such nodes?

 >>  EMA    Everything not defined by the aforementioned individual flags

So, how should one deliver direct netmail to such nodes?

 FR>   PING
 FR>   ----

 FR>     Specified as exactly "PING" with no arguments.  Nodes flying this
 FR>     flag will adhere to the following functionality:

 FR>     1) PING-function:

 FR>     If a message destined to "PING" arrives at its final destination
 FR>     and this final destination flies the "PING"-flag, then the
 FR>     receiving node will bounce the message back to the original sender
 FR>     clearly quoting all the original via-lines.

s/clearly/safely/

 FR>     WARNING: the sender's name (in either direction) must *NEVER* be
 FR>     "PING".

Wrong: if the sender's name is also "PING", the message _must_ be deleted
without notice.

 FR> 6. User flags
 FR> -------------

 FR>   It is impossible to document all user flags in use.  The FTSC makes
 FR>   no attempt at it.  This document lists those flags which got at
 FR>   least some kind of official sanction or were deemed of technical
 FR>   interest by FTSC.

Here should be a clear notice that user flags _may_ contain anything except
"standard" flags, and all unknown flags _must_ be passed through without any
changes.

That means ,U,ENC,BEER is ok.

 FR>   SDS    Software Distribution System
 FR>   SMH    Secure Mail Hub

Both are deprecated.

 FR>   CDP    This node will accept points auto-created by the CD-point
 FR>          software.

Is there any common implementation?


--
Alexey V. Vissarionov aka Gremlin from Kremlin
gremlin.ru!gremlin; +vii-cmiii-cmlxxvii-mmxlviii

... :wq!
--- /bin/vi
 * Origin: http://openwall.com/Owl (2:5020/545)