Text 3858, 124 rader
Skriven 2012-09-12 13:35:27 av mark lewis (1:3634/12.0)
   Kommentar till text 3843 av Robert Bashe (2:2448/44)
Ärende: Pvt nodes vs points
===========================
ml>> in your binkd.cfg after the nodes you specifically define and let it
ml>> figure out the math? ;)  we did talk about this a few weeks back :)

RB>> Yes, but the problem was that the domain is listed differently in
RB>> various systems.

ml> how is that a problem??

 RB> As described. I simply do not believe that _all_ the various
 RB> methods of listing domains will be covered by such a "selection"
 RB> program. 

dude... there's only two or three places that the domains can be listed...

  system name field
  "phone number" field (not currently allowed in the distributed nodelist)
  attached to a nodelist I-flag (eg: INA:some.domain, IBN:another.domain)

it isn't rocket science to pull it out ;)

 RB> Whether it _could_ be or not is immaterial. If you know a way to 
 RB> make absolutely certain that systems with domains, listed in any 
 RB> way possible, are properly added to an "include" list, be my guest 
 RB> - you're the programmer, not me. All I know is that all the 
 RB> "include" lists I've ever seen have missing nodes because of some
 RB> wierd way the domain has been listed.

please give an example... it may easily be that that system's nodelist line is
incorrect...

RB>> ,290,Wueppel-BBS,Merzenich,Doris_Schmitz,49-2421-981180,9600,MO,C M,
RB>> XA,V32B,V34, X75,IBN:24555,INA:wueppel.doene.de

ml> this one is basically backwards...

 RB> May be, but it exists. That's the point of what I wrote above. 

has anyone contacted that NC and pointed out that it is backwards? it may
actually not matter, though, if there is a f.n.z DNS record for that node that
points to the proper IP address ;)

[trim]

 RB> And my comment about agreeing on a _binding_ method of including
 RB> domains in a nodelist entry stands. In my opinion, that would be
 RB> the key to preparing a really reliable "include" list for binkd.

there is a "binding" agreement... it is detailed in the FTS document describing
the nodelist...

[trim]

 RB> To be frank, after putting up with Bjorn Felten and Michiel van der
 RB> Vlist, I'm getting a little sick of this nit-picking when someone
 RB> unintentionally (or in Bjorn's case, because of the impracticality
 RB> of using high-ASCII characters in fido messages) misspells a proper
 RB> name.

i did say "please" and i didn't get mad... i wasn't even insulted but this is
the first time you've done that when writing to me... and then it was done
later in another message or two but i didn't say anything... i'm not really
saying anything now, either...

RB>> but all that seems a great effort for very little benefit to me. It
RB>> would be enough if we could all agree on how and where in the
RB>> nodelist entry a domain _must_ be listed

ml> that is not required and never has been...

 RB> OK, then we'll have to agree to disagree. I think it would be
 RB> important. 

"domain" is not required but its placement, if it is used, is described in the
nodelist FTS document... that's one FTSC document that all *Cs should be aware
of, have read and understood...

ml> it is even moreso not required with the f.n.z conversion that is
ml> default...

 RB> Assuming anyone knows what domain that's supposed to go to. 

i've been telling folks and the binkd guys have as well since they are the ones
handling that stuff... unfortunately those using other software that can't
change the base domain for f.n.z lookups have a problem... all lookups of
*.fidonet.net return the same IP number...

 RB> Now, how about you writing an article about such addressing in the
 RB> newsletter so that at least everyone reading it (unfortunately not
 RB> many by now, but better than niothing) knows the proper domain,
 RB> too?

maybe i'll go find the one(s) already written and repost them? ;)

ml> ... in fact, with so many folks using binkd and the f.n.z
ml> conversion...

 RB> Binkd yes, the f.n.z. conversion absolutely no. Maybe where you
 RB> are, certainly not here.

binkd has it built in and uses it even if you don't... to be more specific, it
uses it each and every time there's a connection and the AKAs are presented...
you cannot prevent that... it /is/ used, period! i keep telling you this but
you refuse to accept it :sigh:

RB>> OK, if I contactedd loads of people on a regular basis, I could see
RB>> the point. But I run a small system with only 8 active nodes in the
RB>> net and a few people I write otherwise. This is not a large system
RB>> like those of the people doing the main mail moving.

ml> but you do maintain the full fidonet nodelist that has each and every
ml> fidonet system listed in it, right? the binkd.txt file is no
ml> different... it just only lists all the IBN nodes and their domains...

 RB> Except it's not complete. Same comment as above with the different
 RB> methods of listing domains.

again, please provide an example listing that's not in the binkd.txt or listed
in the except.txt that accompanies binkd.txt...

[why do i try?]

)\/(ark

 * Origin:  (1:3634/12)