Text 8501, 114 rader
Skriven 2017-04-01 18:58:56 av Carol Shenkenberger (5118.ftsc_pub)
   Kommentar till text 8456 av Fred Riccio (1:132/174)
Ärende: Proposed changes: FTS-5001.006
======================================
  Re: Proposed changes: FTS-5001.006
  By: Fred Riccio to Alexey Vissarionov on Mon Mar 27 2017 06:07 pm

 FR> 28 Mar 17 00:30, Alexey Vissarionov wrote to Fred Riccio:

 AV>> EMA should be replaced with IEM.


 FR>>> Additions/Changes are marked with ">" in column 1.

 AV>> `diff -burN` could be much better...

 FR> You could always do it yourself. I can't because I don't have DIFF.



 FR>>> 5.5. Gateway Flag

 AV>> Deprecated.



 FR>>> 5.8. ISDN Capability Flags

 AV>> Do anyone still use it?


 AV>> Wrong.

 AV> Must be <flag>[:<internet address>>] where internet address is
 AV> <email | <fqdn | ipv4 | ipv6>[:<port>>]>


 AV>> Wrong.

 AV>> Deprecated: no common method for delivering direct netmail to such 
 AV>> nodes.

 AV>> Deprecated by IFC.


 AV>> Should be changed to "INA-style" only.

 AV>> Is there some common method for delivering direct netmail to such 
 AV>> nodes?
 AV>> Hereafter "common" implies at least "free cross-platform software".


 >>>> EVY    Voyager-compatible

 AV>> Is there some common method for delivering direct netmail to such 
 AV>> nodes?



 >>>> EMA    Everything not defined by the aforementioned individual flags

 AV>> So, how should one deliver direct netmail to such nodes?



 FR>>> sender    clearly quoting all the original via-lines.

 AV>> s/clearly/safely/



 FR>>> WARNING: the sender's name (in either direction) must *NEVER* be
 FR>>> "PING".

 AV>> Wrong: if the sender's name is also "PING", the message _must_ be 
 AV>> deleted without notice.



 FR>>> 6. User flags
 FR>>> -------------

 FR>>> It is impossible to document all user flags in use.  The FTSC makes
 FR>>> no attempt at it.  This document lists those flags which got at
 FR>>> least some kind of official sanction or were deemed of technical
 FR>>> interest by FTSC.

 AV>> Here should be a clear notice that user flags _may_ contain anything
 AV>>  except "standard" flags, and all unknown flags _must_ be passed 
 AV>> through without any changes.

 AV>> That means ,U,ENC,BEER is ok.



 FR>>> SDS    Software Distribution System
 FR>>> SMH    Secure Mail Hub

 AV>> Both are deprecated.



 FR>>> CDP    This node will accept points auto-created by the CD-point
 FR>>> software.

 AV>> Is there any common implementation?



 FR> How did so many things slip by the 2016 FTSC review of this document?


Partly because his note of 'depreciated' is his own, not Fidonet wide?  CDP and
ISDN are classics there.

  xxcarol
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32
 * Origin: SHENK'S EXPRESS telnet://shenks.synchro.net (1:275/100)