Text 50, 100 rader
Skriven 2006-04-11 08:59:48 av Robert Couture (1:229/2000)
     Kommentar till text 44 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
Ärende: FD & -Unpublished-
==========================
Hello Michiel.

11 Apr 06 12:32, you wrote to me:

RC>> Sorry, I cannot conform any issues with the nodelist.

Conform?  Sheesh!  I meant confirm of course ... :)

MV|> There are no "issues with the nodelist". Unless of course one wants to
MV|> create One out of thin air. The facts are:

MV|> 1) Irex does not need a nodelist.

Yes.

MV|> 2) Irex can use the nodelist to help create an entry in the node
MV|> manager.
MV|>    If it finds connect information in the nodelist when creating a new
MV|>    entry in the nodemager, it will ask if you wish to use that
MV|> information instaed of having to enter it manually.

Yes I remember that.

MV|>    In that it does better than most IP mailers that do not use the
MV|> nodelist at all, but not as good as most POTS mailers that fully use
MV|> the nodelist.

Well yes.  It certainy does not do as well as POTS mailers.  However, it does
require a compiled nodelist, but does not actually do it, itself.  You need to
locate a third party util for it to work with the nodelist.  Not a big deal.

MV|> I suppose one could call that an issue, but if one does, then almost
MV|> all IP malers have issues with the nodelist.

But of course. :)

MV|> On my personal wish list is that it optionally automatically updates
MV|> the connect information in the node manager when the information in
MV|> the nodelist changes. F.e. You decide to change dns provider and your
MV|> connect information in the nodelist chanGes from hub2000.darktech.org
MV|> to hub2000.no-ip.org. Presently I would have to manually update the
MV|> information in the node manager.

To me.  This is an issue for Irex.  It uses the nodelist, but does not actually
*use* it.  That does seem kind of stupid.  Why bother with using the nodelist
at all if it doesn't actually take advantage of the dynamic nature of the
nodelist.

MV|> I think one should make a difference between items on the wish list
MV|> and bugs.

MV|> The above is not a bug.

Perhaps not a bug, but certainly not a good implementation.

RC>> The only thing I do remember about it was that it required a
RC>> compiled nodelist before it would use it.

MV|> And that you remember wrong. Irex can use the nodelist, but does not
MV|> *need* it.

No.  My experience was that it would do nothing if the nodelist was not
compiled.  But, I may be wrong.  I have since dug out my old archive of Irex
and I am playing with it on my laptop.  I'll have to pop in a nodelist and
refresh my memory on how it works with the nodelist.

RC>>   The other bit was about the hardcoded fidonet.???  I just can't
RC>> remember .net or .org.

MV|> .net. It uses fidonet.net as a last resort if it can not fins any
MV|> other connect info. It is indeed hard coded. Not a big deal as far as
MV|> I am concerned as I don't use that method anyway. I think it is one of
MV|> those things that looked like a good idea at the time but that showed
MV|> some serious drawbacks on closer inspection.


Yes.  It was not well thought out.  Having it configurable would have been
better in case the fidonet.net domain was changed for whatever reason.

RC>> My personal opinion is that we need to move to a *standard* for
RC>> all Internet nodes.  My personal choice is BinkP as it is the
RC>> most "mailer-like."

MV|> I am all with you there. This multitude of connection protocols is a
MV|> liability rather than an asset.

Here we go agreeing again.  What is this hobby coming to?  ;)

MV|> But... of course the best way to promote Binkp as the universal
MV|> standard for IP is to stop supporting all the other IP protocols....

I stopped supporting other protocols the moment I stopped using Irex.  It seems
stupid to use so many different protocols.  It would have been unheard of
during the POTS days of FidoNet.  Imagine having to support 15 different
negotiation protocols back then.  Preposterous. :)

Robert

--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5
 * Origin: RuneKeep * Linux Hub 2000 (1:229/2000)