Text 1261, 86 rader
Skriven 2008-03-22 15:03:07 av mark lewis (1:3634/12.0)
   Kommentar till text 1243 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
Ärende: Proper nodelist format for Internet-only nodes?
=======================================================
 LS> As far as I can tell, that applies to almost *all* of the nodes flying
 LS> the ITN flag.

 MvdV> I did not do an extensive survey, some certainly do it right.
 MvdV> Like this one: 

 > Telnet wpusa.dynip.com

:)

 > FrontDoor 2.33.mL.b2/AE000066; MultiLine

 > **EMSI_MD5001F<0B.2008032208460142-FrontDoor>7602
 > Press <Esc> twice for No. American RA Support Site

 MvdV> There is a mailer there....

there is a mailer answering the connection attempt... remember, as i just
pointed out, there are some systems where something else answers the connection
and then passes the connection to something else depending on the inbound
traffic they see...

WWIV and PCBoard are two popular older ones that i can think of right off
hand... i think that MBSE and BBBS do it kinda similar, too but it has been a
while since i was on one of those systems :?

 LS> Whereas one of the FTS documents I've read indicates that the ITN flag
 LS> implies FTS-0001-over-telnet, the documentation in the nodelist says
 LS> simply that ITN "denotes a system that does TELNET".

 MvdV> The trailer in the nodelist is a summary provided for
 MvdV> convenience. The FTSC documents are the authoritative source.
 MvdV> "FTS-0001 over Telnet" is pretty clear and leaves no room for
 MvdV> argument I'd say.

agreed...

 MvdV> Of course a node flying the ITN flag may support additional
 MvdV> protocols (like EMSI) and there may be a BBS behind it, just like
 MvdV> most of the POTS nodes do/did, but the minumum is FTS-0001 over
 MvdV> Telent. Plain and simple.

agreed...

 LS> To me, this wording indicates that ITN is not considered a mailer
 LS> flag.

 MvdV> The nodelist is a list of FTN compatible nodes. The main purpose
 MvdV> of the the nodelist is to provide the mailer software with the
 MvdV> required information to connect to a node and exchange mail. It
 MvdV> is not and never was a BBS list. The ITN flag is a mailer
 MvdV> capability flag.

agreed...

 MvdV> The closest that comes to a BBS flags in the nodelist is the MO
 MvdV> flag and that signals the absence of a BBS...

not quite... it indicates that that system accepts mail only... it doesn't say
anything about the presence or absence of a BBS... i could easily fly the MO
flag and keep my BBS operation behind it just like it is and there would be no
problems as far as fidonet mail stuffs are concerned... at the worst, my system
might be left out of some bbs list that uses software to scan the nodelist :)

 LS> So I'm not sure the current usage is really incorrect,

 MvdV> I am very sure that it is incorrect to fly an ITN flag if it does
 MvdV> not lead to an FTS-0001 compatible mailer.

minor but important correction... "if it does not eventually lead"... remember,
a bbs or even a carousel can answer the connection and then pass off to another
package or service... granted, FrontDoor set a precedent way back when it
became the first app to answer the connection and decide if the inbound
connection was a mailer or a bbs caller but that doesn't mean that this is the
only way it is or can be done ;)

 LS> technically less than optimal (i.e., how *do* you identify a node that
 LS> accepts mailer connections over telnet?).

 MvdV> With the ITN flag, that is what it is for.

agreed...

)\/(ark

 * Origin:  (1:3634/12)