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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)