Text 1794, 107 rader
Skriven 2008-03-29 00:15:05 av mark lewis (1:3634/12.0)
   Kommentar till text 1786 av Carol Shenkenberger (726.ftsc_pub)
Ärende: Proper nodelist format for Internet-only nodes?
=======================================================
 >  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 t
 > should have been followed in the first place ;)

 CS> Grin, sorry but look above at your own words.  I know you didnt
 CS> intend that, b  ut it's hard to miss.  Not everyone lives and
 CS> breathes 'ION is good'.  Only 2 zones went intensly ION, and one of
 CS> them is now gone.

i don't care any more... it is all political bullshit and has been for 10+
years... fuck it... i'm sick and totally done with it... there's nothing here
left for any one who really cares and i'm extremely tired of fighting about
something i USED to care very deeply about... so deeply, in fact, that it meant
more to me than several relationships and jobs :(

assholes want to question me about my convictions and feelings about fidonet
and what i write but they don't know the half of it... in fact, they don't know
a fuckin' thing about me and how i feel about it... none of them have ever
taken the time to even get to know me or even ask why i've been part of this
cesspoll for as long as i have... if it wasn't for fidonet, i'd have been gone
from this world a long time ago... it was fidonet that kept me here and gave me
something to work for and folk to help but it is obvious that that's all piss
in the wind...

 > 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) 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...

 CS> No one has found a suitable one though.

duh! no one has even looked! they've all been to damned busy fighting the
concept to even try to find another way of indicating the capability... playing
their shitassed political bullshit games... more to the point is that they have
been trying to run out every one and every thing that they don't agree with and
that doesn't suck their ass just the way they want it sucked... so screw'em...
they can keep their STDs and everything that goes with them... i'm done...
enjoy yourself...

 >  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> No, more a law of averages now.  Fidonet has changed.  You might
 CS> now be talking some 10 or so systems only and a workaround for them
 CS> they can automate.

yeah, the same bullshit argument that was thrown out 10+ years ago... "if we
keep it wrapped up in the bullshit, it won't matter before too long"... [sigh]
you're not helping at all... in fact, you are failing those who were looking up
to you for assistance in this "battle"... whatever... it is done and over with
:(

 >  CS> It would boil down to the number of systems using FD (possibly 
 >  CS> IM) and using telnet to dial out to another telnet site direct 
 >  CS> from 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> No, more like something to put the full FQDN it is capable of
 CS> using, in there for them.  You can do it now with dial translation
 CS> tables.

WHICH ARE OUTSIDE THE NODELIST AND REQUIRE MANUAL INTERVENTION! JUST THE THING
THAT WE'RE SUPPOSEDLY TRYING TO PREVENT! ARRRRGGGGHHHH!!!!!!!

 >  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...

 CS> Sorry to confuse you, I was talking FTP.  

yes, i know this... :roll:

 CS> The fact that the software uses it to FTP a form of packet isnt 
 CS> relevant.  It's got an inbuilt FTP server.  If I tweaked it to 
 CS> accept anonymous inbounds to a secure directory, I'd have the full 
 CS> IFT flag set.

you made the statement to the effect that QWK and FTP were tied together... i
was "merely" pointing out that QWK is not fidonet but that's ok... there are
many out there who don't know the difference anyway... whatever... it doesn't
make a damn any more :(

)\/(ark

 * Origin:  (1:3634/12)