Text 1468, 79 rader
Skriven 2008-03-24 20:27:26 av mark lewis (1:3634/12.0)
   Kommentar till text 1411 av Alexey Vissarionov (2:5020/545)
Ärende: Proper nodelist format for Internet-only nodes?
=======================================================
 ml>> $ >nslookup f0.n154.z1.fidonet.net
 ml>> Name:    bbs.sobbs.org
 ml>> Address:  68.254.169.60
 ml>> Aliases:  f0.n154.z1.fidonet.net

 AV>> All necessary information for contacting a node MUST be published
 AV>> in the nodelist,

 ml> if that's the case, then why are there so many who do not? most all
 ml> of them are binkp nodes, too...

 AV> Ask this question to *Cs...

seems to me that the address of the node in question is enough... with proper
conversion from FTN style addressing to internet domain addressing, it looks to
all be there... we can than the author(s) of binkd for furthering the use of
this conversion process, too... i applaud them for furthering the capabilities
of fidonet by maintaining the fidonet.net domain... especially since
fidonet.org has, historically, been for the use of known, approved, and
official fidonet<->internet email gateway systems... please take close note of
that specific phrasing... it is extremely important ;)

 AV>> FSP-1026 and fidonet.net domain provide an additional service
 AV>> (sometimes it is useful, but always is unnecessary).

 ml> FWIW: i find that this depends on what mailer is being used on the
 ml> originating system... however, even with my hybrid system running two
 ml> mailers, side by side, i can't make use of any of the nodelist
 ml> internet domain stuff (outside of field 6), at all... both require
 ml> some sort of behind the scenes assistance :(

 AV> Yes, it MAY require some additional actions - but all the necessary
 AV> and sufficient information MUST be published in the nodelist.

for the USE of ALL mailers... one package, a very popular one, doesn't even
know what the nodelist is :? another one that i use is highly restricted by the
misplaced notion that storing contact information in fields other than field 6
is a GoodThing<tm> :( that move to put that information did spark a bit of
development but it was all misplaced as well as detrimental to fidonet, as a
whole... it _forced_ everyone who wanted to participate in fidonet with the new
technologies to upgrade their systems and software... FORCED! and no one
bitched or whined about that? then why is it so had a mental leap to think that
moving in the other direction, which was MORE beneficial to fidonet as it would
not have lead to as major a loss of nodes, was a better thing? the logic
totally escapes me and the only cause i can see is another agenda to wrest
fidonet away from its tradition, policy and technical capabilities :?

 LK>>> There are about 15 entries with similiar problems in Zone 1.

 ml>> you need to spend more time in the FTSC documents and figuring out
 ml>> how everything meshes together ;) :P

 AV>> Follow your own advise - start with FTS-5001 and look for "INA"
 AV>> flag there.

 ml> uh... i _know_ how it all fits together... i've been here and doing
 ml> this for much too long to not know...

 AV> So, you know about this stupid practice and do nothing?

do nothing!?!! where have you been? :? i've been raising these same arguments
for well over 10 years, now :(

 ml> hell, i've been around fidonet since before P4 was even put out as a
 ml> proposal... i even cast a vote in the process that made P4 our
 ml> current policy document ;)

 AV> 0  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
 AV> 23 24
 AV> |__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|__|
 AV> __|__| 

 AV> You know what to do with this, don't you :-)

no... what do you suggest other than shoving it up your nether regions? :? :(

)\/(ark

 * Origin:  (1:3634/12)