Text 1748, 90 rader
Skriven 2008-03-28 11:39:48 av mark lewis (1:3634/12.0)
   Kommentar till text 1737 av Alexey Vissarionov (2:5020/545)
Ärende: Nomination
==================
 AV>> So, nothing really prevents using "-Unpublished-" for IP-only
 AV>> nodes...
 ml> WRONG!!! christ!

 AV> Please, don't use this obscene word when writing to me. Thanks in
 AV> advance. 

since when is "christ" an obscene word? are you an anti-christian?

 ml> how many times do i have to say it?? i even climb way up on top of
 ml> the bog stack of boxes and SCREAM it at the top of my lungs and
 ml> /still/ no one effin' listens :(

 AV> Try hitting the concrete wall with your head - possibly, it will
 AV> help to unlock something in your brain.

my brain is unlocked, dude... expecially since i can see this and other
problems/solutions that "you" keep ignoring and saying don't exist :?

 ml> tell me, PUHLEEZE, how a mailer like FrontDoor is supposed to contact
 ml> an ION node if field 6 contains "-Unpublished-"... FrontDoor has no
 ml> problems doing "fidonet over telnet"... so if a ION node is telnet
 ml> capable, then why exclude mailers like FrontDoor from contacting
 ml> them??? hell, binkleyterm is also operational over telnet in this
 ml> aspect... why block them from contacting these nodes??

 AV> Can you tell even a hundred such nodes?

does the nodelist tell you what mailer software each system runs?

 ml> i _know_ there are other mailers in this exact same situation so why
 ml> are the rest of "you guys" turning your noses up at them and playing
 ml> these damned games forcing them to /leave fidonet/ or change
 ml> software?????

 AV> Changing software is quite simple - I did that several times. 

that is NOT the point! some folk CANNOT change software! get that thru your
(hard? thick?) head, please!

 AV>> 2 Ward: is it too hard to allow this?
 ml> is it too hard to just use field 6 as the contact "number" field as
 ml> it has always been????? :(

 AV> Should we also allow FQDNs there?

my FrontDoor mailer has no trouble with FQDNs in field 6... in fact, it "sees"
no difference between 000-127.0.0.1 and 000-localhost entries...

now, i'll also take another minute to point out, once again but it was
obviously lost in the noise, that we do not have to use 000- as a "fake country
code"... FD, for one, is not locked into this and never has been... i've used
000- to indicate telnet and 0000- to indicate vmodem... i've also used other
strings to indicate "other than POTS"...

consider TCP-my.fully.qualified.domain.name
consider INET-my.fully.qualified.domain.name
consider TELNET-my.fully.qualified.domain.name
consider VMODEM-my.fully.qualified.domain.name

in other words, it is quite possible that field 6 can be used for the "contact
number" data as it always has been... as long as some specific string is chosen
so that 

   A) systems who can handle this type of data can differentiate 
      it from normal POTS data and 

   B) systems who cannot handle this type of data in field 6 can
      fix it up to contain "-Unpublished-" or such in there...



FWIW: FrontDoor has had this capability since at least 1995...

FWIW2: this /political/ argument about field 6 has been going on at least since
that time period... why? because no one took the time to actually stop and look
at the technical capabilities that this would achieve... no, quite the
opposite, in fact... instead we end up with the political crap of spreading
contact information into other fields never intended to carry such
information... we also end up stuffing this contact information onto the
capability flags... and then, to make matters even worse, everyone calls this
decidedly _political_solution_ of hiding contact information everywhere except
where it belongs a technical solution... BS... folk can't even tell the
difference any more...

:? :? :? :? :? :? :? :? :? :? :? :? :? :? :? :? :? :? :? :? :? :? :? :? :?

)\/(ark

 * Origin:  (1:3634/12)