Text 1790, 143 rader
Skriven 2008-03-28 23:39:13 av mark lewis (1:3634/12.0)
   Kommentar till text 1787 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 So, nothing really prevents using "-Unpublished-" for IP-only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.
 ml> since when is "christ" an obscene word? are you an anti-christian?

 AV> I'm atheist - so I accept all the words "christ", "allah", "buddha"
 AV> etc as obscene. PUHLEEZE [tm], don't use them.

in that case, s/christ/fuck!/g 

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 contact an ION node if field 6 contains "-Unpublished-"...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

 AV>> Can you tell even a hundred such nodes?

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

 AV> It doesn't... 

thank you...

 AV> but even `grep ,ITN nodelist.ndl | wc -l` gives only 264 

and still doesn't tell you all the systems that may support ITN even if not
flagged as such...

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

 AV> False. They may need some external help, but they can.

bullshit! tell me any available software for Apple IIe? how about commodore?
ok, then lets go for the really old stuff, TRS-80 Level III ;)

i'm just sicj and tired of playing these st00pid games... it doesn't matter IF
software can be changed but if the OPERATOR wants to... fidonet was built on
the fact that each operator can run his system as he sees fit... this includes
running the software that he wants to as long as it complies with FTSC
standards...

folk dont give a shit that you have changed your software several times... some
of out here have been running our software for 15 years or more...

your statements give the image that you are rather young... grow up, 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 
 ml>> as it has always been????? :(

 AV>> Should we also allow FQDNs there?

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

 AV> No... FQDN is, for example, fido.gremlin.ru - but not
 AV> 000-fido.gremlin.ru Hummm... good idea: I'll set that hostname to
 AV> 127.0.0.1 :-)

there again, you've lost sight of the point... 000- is solely to differentiate
between a POTS number and a TCP/IP reference :(

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

 AV> Thats your abandonware's problem, if it can't deal with INA flag. 

and you're mullshit attitude doesn't help one bit... besides, who ever said
that FD is abandonware? joho has been on my board and written a few messages in
the last several years... perhaps you speak of your personal disillusions and
dreams?

 ml> consider TCP-my.fully.qualified.domain.name
 ml> consider INET-my.fully.qualified.domain.name
 ml> consider TELNET-my.fully.qualified.domain.name
 ml> consider VMODEM-my.fully.qualified.domain.name
 ml> in other words, it is quite possible that field 6 can be used for the

 ml> "contact number" data as it always has been... as long as some
 ml> specific string is chosen so that

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

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

 AV> So, why not simply put "-Unpublished-" there and use INA flag? 

because the INA flag is unavaliable to my software of choice... doh!

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

 AV> It also has at least three stack-smashing vulnerabilities. Shall we
 AV> declare these holes to be the standard?

it does? local or remote? care to prove/show them? othewise your words are
fecal material :?

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

 AV> AFAIR, that's called "backass combatability"... and I'm happy to be
 AV> able to abstract from old stuff.

ya know what? you are a part of the problem, too... keep on... you're going to
fuck fidonet up for everyone else if you keep on going like you are... you have
already ruined it for many... most of who have left without a word and caused
you and others to wonder why...

i'm sick and tired of arguing this stuff with you and others with the same
microscopic mentality that you are showing... matter of fact, i'm done with you
and them... are you part of the RBN? surely seems it to me :(

)\/(ark

 * Origin:  (1:3634/12)