Text 1777, 85 rader
Skriven 2008-03-28 16:11:30 av mark lewis (1:3634/12.0)
   Kommentar till text 1771 av Carol Shenkenberger (710.ftsc_pub)
Ärende: Proper nodelist format for Internet-only nodes?
=======================================================
 >  CS> I'll skip the rest but here, you have one of the many 
 >  CS> differences in interpretation between zones.  I do not 
 >  CS> recall 'MO' as being very much used in Z2
 > 
 > likely it was not because they took (take?) a (too?) strict view on the
 > phrasing that fidonet is a network of BBS' :|

 CS> Well, they are used to that and see no harm in it.  Just a
 CS> different view point on some aspects.  Harmless actually as long as
 CS> the point is accepted that not every zone 'grew up' the same.

right... but many of "them" _don't_ see that not every zone 'grew up' the
same... in fact, many of "them" use that very fact to beat others into
submission over some point or another... witness the beatings you've taken for
your choice of message reader/editor... there was a time when ALL of them did
this "chopping" because the code was much simpler for the maintainer to
write... quote the line, stuff in the leading quote character(s) and chop it to
length... i'm actually digging, right now, trying to find verification of when
actual word-wrapping first appeared in fidonet and what package(s) it was that
introduced it to the masses... i fully remember when it happened and using the
software but i just can't place a hand on my notes for anything more exact :(

 CS> It' one of the reasons why it's really important to have FTSC
 CS> memebers from all zones when possible.  When not possible, as many
 CS> as you can.  This isnt to format the 'us vs them' issue, but to
 CS> allow a sanity check if one gets too far off the beaten path then
 CS> tries to force it on others.

on the one hand, yeah... but as has been seen, in many cases, there are
"followers" who don't really say much of anything... if they do, it is a
reworded regurgitation of the "leader's" words...

 CS> Z1 *did* diverge widely to ION's and cant really backtrack now as
 CS> it's too embedded, so working with the others to minimize the
 CS> impact is a good thing. 

i don't think that diverge is the proper word... more like Z1 went the way that
should have been followed in the first place ;)

 CS> Wether the 000- problem really impacts Z3 nodes or not isnt
 CS> relevant really.  They percieve it as so and have asked nicely for
 CS> us to tidy it up.  The first step of that was when you guys (I say
 CS> you guys as i was overseas at the time) came out with a flat
 CS> standard so they could work around us easier if they wanted to.  

yes... but i've also pointed out, all these years, that 000- isn't the only
indicator that can be used... the whole thing is to simply use a fake "country
code" to indicate the difference between a POTS/ISDN number and (currently) a
TCP/IP number or domain name... i don't care if it is 666-, 123- or even FUBAR-
as long as it is a string that is easily recognizable...

ya know? actually? i'm really starting to think that 666- would be the way to
go because it is all too easy to see how evil this entire mess has been and
everyone knows how evil the internet is...

 CS> AFAIK, only FD (possibly IM) in telnet mode is impacted by putting
 CS> in -UnPublished- and thats only for those who use it to dial out to
 CS> others with the ITN flag.  I dont know how many of them there are,
 CS> but it's my impression it's a lot smaller of a number than those
 CS> impacted by tripping over 000- entries.  IMHO it really would be an
 CS> overall improvement to get rid of them then come up with a simpler
 CS> solution for the very few who actually need them. 

that's politics :?

 CS> It would boil down to the number of systems using FD (possibly IM)
 CS> and using telnet to dial out to another telnet site direct from
 CS> their mailer.   

and more politics... even worse, politics seemingly espousing the removal or
hobbling of a package that was very prevelant in advancing fidonet :?

 CS> In SBBS BTW, it's built in.  Also has a QWK mailer type networking
 CS> with FTP so I will one day mess with that to get it working inbound
 CS> and add the IFT flag (I think that's the right one, dont worry, I
 CS> can look it up). 

the IFT flag has nothing to do with QWK stuff... it is solely for indicating
the transfer of FTN PKTs and bundled mail... and QWK stuff is not a valid FTN
transfer protocol... _users_ can use QWK stuff all they want but it is not a
FTN protocol or capability...

)\/(ark

 * Origin:  (1:3634/12)