• Number of BBSes?

    From Frank Vest@1:124/6308.1 to Jan Vermeulen on Fri Jan 3 15:14:59 2003
    On (03 Jan 03) Jan Vermeulen wrote to Rick Van Ruth...

    Hello Jan,

    The difference is very little, Rick. I've not said that real BBSes
    do not exist anymore, only that I did not know their _number_ and
    would like to know that.

    Me - 1

    Next? :)

    Frank

    http://pages.sbcglobal.net/flv
    http://biseonline.com/r19

    --- PPoint 3.01
    * Origin: Holy Cow! I'm A Point!! (1:124/6308.1)
  • From Janis Kracht@1:261/38 to Frank Vest on Fri Jan 3 16:50:40 2003
    On (03 Jan 03) Jan Vermeulen wrote to Rick Van Ruth...

    Hello Jan,

    The difference is very little, Rick. I've not said that real BBSes
    do not exist anymore, only that I did not know their _number_ and
    would like to know that.

    Me - 1

    Next? :)

    Me -2 :)

    --- BBBS/LiI v4.01 Flag-4
    * Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/38)
  • From Rick Van Ruth@3:640/954 to Frank Vest on Sat Jan 4 08:13:58 2003
    G'Day Frank,

    03 Jan 03 15:14, you wrote to Jan Vermeulen:

    The difference is very little, Rick. I've not said that real
    BBSes do not exist anymore, only that I did not know their _number_
    and would like to know that.

    Me - 1

    Next? :)

    Perhaps something is needed to denote BBS's in the nodelist, MO does not
    really seem to be doing the job. Yeah, I also have always run a BBS, without
    it I wouldn't bother being in any ftn.

    Cheers,
    Rick

    ... Tagline dispenser temporarily out of order.
    --- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5 - Debian/GNU
    * Origin: Vampyre's Heaven BBS (3:640/954)
  • From Jan Vermeulen@2:280/100 to Rick Van Ruth on Sat Jan 4 01:19:10 2003
    Quoting Rick Van Ruth on Sat 4 Jan 2003 8:13 to Frank Vest:

    Perhaps something is needed to denote BBS's in the nodelist, MO does
    not really seem to be doing the job. Yeah, I also have always run a
    BBS, without it I wouldn't bother being in any ftn.

    Many think that MO means that the node has no Freq facilities, even if it flies one of the X* flags.

    The founding fathers have been a tad sloppy in their documentation, here as
    elseware 8(


    -=<[ JV ]>=-


    * Origin: The Poor Man's Workstation -- Wormerveer NL (2:280/100)
  • From Frank Vest@1:124/6308.1 to Rick Van Ruth on Fri Jan 3 19:26:31 2003
    On (04 Jan 03) Rick Van Ruth wrote to Frank Vest...

    Hello Rick,

    The difference is very little, Rick. I've not said that real
    BBSes do not exist anymore, only that I did not know their
    _number_ JV>> and would like to know that.

    Me - 1

    Next? :)

    Perhaps something is needed to denote BBS's in the nodelist, MO does
    not really seem to be doing the job. Yeah, I also have always run a
    BBS, without it I wouldn't bother being in any ftn.

    <grin> As is so commonly argued.... The Fidonet Nodelist is a list of connection information, not a BBS list. <<wink>>

    Let's not go into this too deep. I don't want another thread like in FTSC_PUBLIC with David. :) Not accusing you of doing such a thing.


    Regards,

    Frank

    http://pages.sbcglobal.net/flv
    http://biseonline.com/r19

    --- PPoint 3.01
    * Origin: Holy Cow! I'm A Point!! (1:124/6308.1)
  • From Rick Van Ruth@3:640/954 to Frank Vest on Sun Jan 5 11:27:35 2003
    G'Day Frank,

    03 Jan 03 19:26, you wrote to me:

    Perhaps something is needed to denote BBS's in the nodelist, MO
    does not really seem to be doing the job. Yeah, I also have always
    run a BBS, without it I wouldn't bother being in any ftn.

    <grin> As is so commonly argued.... The Fidonet Nodelist is a list of connection information, not a BBS list. <<wink>>

    Then maybe its time to change that. You have to remember way back that having
    a BBS was taken for granted for most any node.

    Let's not go into this too deep. I don't want another thread like in FTSC_PUBLIC with David. :) Not accusing you of doing such a thing.

    Ahh but this is more towards future development and directions, FTSC_PUBLIC should really only have discussion about current standards, and currently submitted proposals. Not future development, the FTSC isn't responsible for development :-)

    Cheers,
    Rick

    ... BREAKFAST.COM Halted... Cereal port not responding.
    --- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5 - Debian/GNU
    * Origin: Vampyre's Heaven BBS (3:640/954)
  • From Frank Vest@1:124/6308.1 to Rick Van Ruth on Sat Jan 4 22:31:25 2003
    On (05 Jan 03) Rick Van Ruth wrote to Frank Vest...

    Hello Rick,

    Perhaps something is needed to denote BBS's in the nodelist, MO
    does not really seem to be doing the job. Yeah, I also have
    always RV>> run a BBS, without it I wouldn't bother being in any ftn.

    <grin> As is so commonly argued.... The Fidonet Nodelist is a list of connection information, not a BBS list. <<wink>>

    Then maybe its time to change that.

    I keep trying to change that. Trouble is, most seem to want to build
    the Nodelist up to "save" Fidonet and forget about the BBS.

    You have to remember way back that
    having a BBS was taken for granted for most any node.

    I remember it very well. In fact, that was the reason for the
    discussion with David D. I stated what you stated above and was told
    to keep my politics out of it. ;-)

    Let's not go into this too deep. I don't want another thread like in FTSC_PUBLIC with David. :) Not accusing you of doing such a thing.

    Ahh but this is more towards future development and directions, FTSC_PUBLIC should really only have discussion about current
    standards, and currently submitted proposals. Not future development,
    the FTSC isn't responsible for development :-)

    Ok.

    There is a thread in FTSC_PUBLIC about a type of "finger server" for
    Fidonet that would allow IP mailers to determine the protocols
    available from a remote system and then start the proper IP mailer or
    program to use in order to transfer Fidonet mail. This would have the
    ultimate affect of only requiring one IP flag and an IP address or
    domain in the Nodelist instead of several protocol flags.

    Basically, there would be no need for the IBN, IFT and so forth flags
    since the "finger server" would provide that information and use it to
    trigger the needed software.

    Is that future development? :-)

    I don't mind it being discussed here if that is better than
    FTSC_PUBLIC.


    Frank

    http://pages.sbcglobal.net/flv
    http://biseonline.com/r19

    --- PPoint 3.01
    * Origin: Holy Cow! I'm A Point!! (1:124/6308.1)
  • From Rick Van Ruth@3:640/954 to Frank Vest on Mon Jan 6 00:13:36 2003
    G'Day Frank,

    04 Jan 03 22:31, you wrote to me:

    There is a thread in FTSC_PUBLIC about a type of "finger server" for Fidonet that would allow IP mailers to determine the protocols
    available from a remote system and then start the proper IP mailer or program to use in order to transfer Fidonet mail. This would have the ultimate affect of only requiring one IP flag and an IP address or
    domain in the Nodelist instead of several protocol flags.

    Basically, there would be no need for the IBN, IFT and so forth flags since the "finger server" would provide that information and use it to trigger the needed software.

    Is that future development? :-)

    I don't mind it being discussed here if that is better than
    FTSC_PUBLIC.

    I would just think its more the scope for people who develop, so I figure
    more of those would hang out in development echos. I guess people will
    discuss stuff where ever these days :-)

    Cheers,
    Rick

    ... Since GOD spelled backwards is DOG, is my poodle Satan?
    --- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5 - Debian/GNU
    * Origin: Vampyre's Heaven BBS (3:640/954)
  • From Frank Vest@1:124/6308.1 to Rick Van Ruth on Sun Jan 5 14:24:17 2003
    On (06 Jan 03) Rick Van Ruth wrote to Frank Vest...

    Hello Rick,

    Basically, there would be no need for the IBN, IFT and so forth flags since the "finger server" would provide that information and use it to trigger the needed software.

    Is that future development? :-)

    I don't mind it being discussed here if that is better than
    FTSC_PUBLIC.

    I would just think its more the scope for people who develop, so I
    figure more of those would hang out in development echos. I guess
    people will discuss stuff where ever these days :-)

    Yup. It seems that where ever a topic is brought up, that is where it
    gets discussed.

    Thing is, the subject of a new Nodelist format was brought up in the FTSC_PUBLIC echo. As discussions went along, I thought about all the
    "problems" with the SLF Nodelist that were brought up. None made total
    sense to me. EG:

    Q. How can the format of a comma delimited file have a problem?
    A. It can't. The programs that use the file have the problems.
    Note: The SLF can have as many fields as desired. It's the programs
    that use the file that limit it. That limit is imposed by the
    legacy software that is abandoned and can't be fixed.

    Q. Can a new format fix the problems?
    A. Yes and No.
    Yes: Some limits might be relieved.
    Note: These limits are in the current programs, not the format of
    the list. Each list is simply a file. The programs are the
    key to making any of them workable.
    No: There will be the need of distributing two Nodelists files.
    Note: This will be a place for failure in distribution.
    No: The limits are in the programs using the list. Provisions will
    still need to be made for legacy software.

    At any rate, That's just my conviction and belief. :)


    Frank

    http://pages.sbcglobal.net/flv
    http://biseonline.com/r19

    --- PPoint 3.01
    * Origin: Holy Cow! I'm A Point!! (1:124/6308.1)
  • From mark lewis@1:3634/12 to Frank Vest on Tue Jan 7 13:46:46 2003
    Q. How can the format of a comma delimited file have a
    problem?
    A. It can't. The programs that use the file have the
    problems.
    Note: The SLF can have as many fields as desired. It's the
    programs that use the file that limit it. That limit is imposed
    by the legacy software that is abandoned and can't be fixed.

    nit <?> the SLF is defined to have 8 (eight) and only 8 (eight) fields... field 8 (eight) on the other hand, is defined to have subfields that are comma seperated just like fields 1 (one) thru 8 (eight)... this gives the /impression/ of something that is not...

    [trim]

    At any rate, That's just my conviction and belief. :)

    and it is accurate, too...

    )\/(ark


    * Origin: (1:3634/12)
  • From Frank Vest@1:124/6308.1 to mark lewis on Wed Jan 8 00:57:34 2003
    On (07 Jan 03) mark lewis wrote to Frank Vest...

    Hello mark,


    Q. How can the format of a comma delimited file have a
    problem?
    A. It can't. The programs that use the file have the
    problems.
    Note: The SLF can have as many fields as desired. It's the
    programs that use the file that limit it. That limit is imposed
    by the legacy software that is abandoned and can't be fixed.

    nit <?> the SLF is defined to have 8 (eight) and only 8 (eight)
    fields... field 8 (eight) on the other hand, is defined to have
    subfields that are comma seperated just like fields 1 (one) thru 8 (eight)... this gives the /impression/ of something that is not...

    How many subfields?

    Thanks,

    Frank

    http://pages.sbcglobal.net/flv
    http://biseonline.com/r19

    --- PPoint 3.01
    * Origin: Holy Cow! I'm A Point!! (1:124/6308.1)
  • From mark lewis@1:3634/12 to Frank Vest on Wed Jan 8 11:11:36 2003
    Q. How can the format of a comma delimited file have a
    problem?
    A. It can't. The programs that use the file have the
    problems.
    Note: The SLF can have as many fields as desired. It's the
    programs that use the file that limit it. That limit is imposed
    by the legacy software that is abandoned and can't be fixed.

    nit <?> the SLF is defined to have 8 (eight) and only 8 (eight)
    fields... field 8 (eight) on the other hand, is defined to have
    subfields that are comma seperated just like fields 1 (one) thru 8
    (eight)... this gives the /impression/ of something that is not...

    How many subfields?

    there is no count given... the only restrictions placed on the content of field
    8 have to do with the length of the Uflags (that they cannot be more than 32 characters in total) and that the UFlags are last in the line...

    )\/(ark


    * Origin: (1:3634/12)
  • From Frank Vest@1:124/6308.1 to mark lewis on Wed Jan 8 13:22:26 2003
    On (08 Jan 03) mark lewis wrote to Frank Vest...

    Hello mark,

    nit <?> the SLF is defined to have 8 (eight) and only 8 (eight)
    fields... field 8 (eight) on the other hand, is defined to have
    subfields that are comma seperated just like fields 1 (one) thru
    8 ml>> (eight)... this gives the /impression/ of something that is
    not...

    How many subfields?

    there is no count given... the only restrictions placed on the content
    of field 8 have to do with the length of the Uflags (that they cannot
    be more than 32 characters in total) and that the UFlags are last in
    the line...

    <hint: Read carefully>

    So, you're telling me that a nodelisting of:

    ,6308,Collin_County_Station,McKinney_TX,Frank_Vest,1-972-562-8064,33600 ,CM,XI,V34,V42b,I:web-idiot.d2g.com

    Would be ok??


    Frank

    http://pages.sbcglobal.net/flv
    http://biseonline.com/r19

    ... Think you're confused? Wait till I explain it.

    --- PPoint 3.01
    * Origin: Holy Cow! I'm A Point!! (1:124/6308.1)
  • From mark lewis@1:3634/12 to Frank Vest on Wed Jan 8 16:11:56 2003
    How many subfields?

    there is no count given... the only restrictions placed
    on the content of field 8 have to do with the length of
    the Uflags (that they cannot be more than 32 characters
    in total) and that the UFlags are last in the line...

    <hint: Read carefully>

    So, you're telling me that a nodelisting of:

    ,6308,Collin_County_Station,Mc
    Kinney_TX,Frank_Vest,1-972-562-8064,33600 ,CM,XI,V34,V42b,I:web-idiot.d2g.com

    Would be ok??

    on the surface, yes... the format is correct... only two items i see a "problem" with...

    1. there is no XI flag
    2. there is no I flag

    it may be possible that you could "hide" them behind a U flag indicator like so...

    ,6308,Collin_County_Station,Mc
    Kinney_TX,Frank_Vest,1-972-562-8064,33600
    ,CM,V34,V42b,U,XI,I:web-idiot.d2g.com
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    getting these past your upstream is one thing... having them indicate and perform the job you desire is another... having other systems recognise them is
    a third...


    where are you going with this?

    )\/(ark


    * Origin: (1:3634/12)
  • From Frank Vest@1:124/6308.1 to mark lewis on Wed Jan 8 19:30:15 2003
    On (08 Jan 03) mark lewis wrote to Frank Vest...

    Hello mark,


    How many subfields?
    there is no count given... the only restrictions placed
    on the content of field 8 have to do with the length of
    the Uflags (that they cannot be more than 32 characters
    in total) and that the UFlags are last in the line...
    <hint: Read carefully>
    So, you're telling me that a nodelisting of: ,6308,Collin_County_Station,Mc
    Kinney_TX,Frank_Vest,1-972-562-8064,33600 ,CM,XI,V34,V42b,I:web-idiot.d2g.com
    Would be ok??

    on the surface, yes... the format is correct... only two items i see a "problem" with...

    1. there is no XI flag
    2. there is no I flag

    Yet. :-)

    where are you going with this?

    Simple:

    1. Mailer flags for IP mailers. Let's say:

    XI - Irex
    XR - Radius/Argus (running IP only. For one that does both, I have no
    idea.)

    And so on for other IP mailers.

    Now, IP mailers would need to be upgraded to do this, but.....

    An Ip mailer looks for my node and finds the listing I gave above. The
    first thing is to look at the mailer flag. If it is "XI", the mailer
    knows that the remote is using Irex and can do binkp, If that's
    compatible, then make the connection using binkp.

    If the mailer flag is "XR" the mailer knows that telnet, binkp and
    "raw" is supported at the remote and can choose, depending on what the
    mailer can do, which one is desired.

    EG: If my mailer can only do telnet and it sees a "XI" flag, my mailer
    would know not to try that node because there is nothing compatible.

    Yes, this is just a thought and has problems, I'm sure. It is,
    however, a possible way to make things work with the SLF Nodelist, I
    think.


    Frank

    http://pages.sbcglobal.net/flv
    http://biseonline.com/r19

    --- PPoint 3.01
    * Origin: Holy Cow! I'm A Point!! (1:124/6308.1)
  • From Jasen Betts@3:640/1042 to Frank Vest on Fri Jan 10 06:09:59 2003
    Hi Frank.

    08-Jan-03 19:30:15, Frank Vest wrote to mark lewis


    On (08 Jan 03) mark lewis wrote to Frank Vest...

    Hello mark,

    How many subfields? ml>> there is no count given... the only
    restrictions placed ml>> on the content of field 8 have to do
    with the length of ml>> the Uflags (that they cannot be more than
    32 characters ml>> in total) and that the UFlags are last in the
    line...
    <hint: Read carefully> So, you're telling me that a nodelisting
    of: ,6308,Collin_County_Station,Mc
    Kinney_TX,Frank_Vest,1-972-562-8064,33600
    ,CM,XI,V34,V42b,I:web-idiot.d2g.com Would be ok??

    on the surface, yes... the format is correct... only two items i
    see a "problem" with...

    1. there is no XI flag 2. there is no I flag

    Yet. :-)

    where are you going with this?

    Simple:

    1. Mailer flags for IP mailers. Let's say:

    XI - Irex XR - Radius/Argus (running IP only. For one that does
    both, I have no idea.)

    X-flags are for the file request mechanism, not for identifying mailers.

    An Ip mailer looks for my node and finds the listing I gave above.
    The first thing is to look at the mailer flag. If it is "XI", the
    mailer knows that the remote is using Irex and can do binkp,

    it doesn't need to know the brand name of the mailer,
    just the porotocols. naming the mailer couild cause confusion if a new
    version is released that does different protocols...

    Yes, this is just a thought and has problems, I'm sure. It is,
    however, a possible way to make things work with the SLF Nodelist,
    I think.

    all it seems to do is save a few characters. and there's easier ways to
    save charcters...

    Bye <=-

    ---
    * Origin: I'm pink, therefore I'm SPAM. (3:640/1042)
  • From Frank Vest@1:124/6308.1 to Jasen Betts on Sat Jan 11 15:20:11 2003
    On (10 Jan 03) Jasen Betts wrote to Frank Vest...

    Hello Jasen,

    where are you going with this?

    Simple:
    1. Mailer flags for IP mailers. Let's say:
    XI - Irex XR - Radius/Argus (running IP only. For one that does
    both, I have no idea.)

    X-flags are for the file request mechanism, not for identifying
    mailers.

    True, for PSTN mailers. Are the flags still needed in that capacity?
    If not, redefine them. If so, redefine them anyway. :-) Seriously. I
    realize that these are FREQ flags. Still, it's a way to show
    information that won't break PSTN mailers... or the SLF.

    An Ip mailer looks for my node and finds the listing I gave above.
    The first thing is to look at the mailer flag. If it is "XI", the
    mailer knows that the remote is using Irex and can do binkp,
    it doesn't need to know the brand name of the mailer,
    just the porotocols. naming the mailer couild cause confusion if a new version is released that does different protocols...

    Good point. I was looking at the SLF Nodelist and the list of mailers
    as related to the "X" flags.

    Yes, this is just a thought and has problems, I'm sure. It is,
    however, a possible way to make things work with the SLF Nodelist,
    I think.
    all it seems to do is save a few characters. and there's easier ways
    to save charcters...

    How, in particular, without an alternate Nodelist format?


    Frank

    http://pages.sbcglobal.net/flv
    http://biseonline.com/r19

    --- PPoint 3.01
    * Origin: Holy Cow! I'm A Point!! (1:124/6308.1)
  • From Jasen Betts@3:640/1042 to Frank Vest on Sun Jan 12 20:56:22 2003
    Hi Frank.

    11-Jan-03 15:20:11, Frank Vest wrote to Jasen Betts



    all it seems to do is save a few characters. and there's easier
    ways to save charcters...

    How, in particular, without an alternate Nodelist format?

    shorten your location, or sysop-name field


    Bye <=-

    ---
    * Origin: Black Holes were created when God divided by zero! (3:640/1042)
  • From Frank Vest@1:124/6308.1 to Jasen Betts on Tue Jan 14 03:52:45 2003
    On (12 Jan 03) Jasen Betts wrote to Frank Vest...

    Hello Jasen,

    all it seems to do is save a few characters. and there's easier
    ways to save charcters...

    How, in particular, without an alternate Nodelist format?

    shorten your location, or sysop-name field

    Not meaning to be offensive, but if I change my location to MT and
    Sysop name to FV, why not just remove them and use the fields for IP
    mailer info? Do the same with the system name field and we have a
    place for IBN info, IFT info and ITN info. <<wink>>


    Frank

    http://pages.sbcglobal.net/flv
    http://biseonline.com/r19

    --- PPoint 3.01
    * Origin: Holy Cow! I'm A Point!! (1:124/6308.1)
  • From mark lewis@1:3634/12 to Jasen Betts on Tue Jan 14 17:30:56 2003
    all it seems to do is save a few characters. and
    there's easier ways to save charcters...

    How, in particular, without an alternate Nodelist format?

    shorten your location, or sysop-name field

    wanna hear something real funny?


























    when a *C uses errflags to check a nodelist segment, it will
    also repair the entries... it starts by chopping from here and
    removing from there... it can actually take the system name,
    sysop name and location fields down to one character each <<GG>>

    )\/(ark


    * Origin: (1:3634/12)