Text 210, 58 rader
Skriven 2006-04-17 10:11:47 av Roy Witt (1:1/22)
    Kommentar till text 131 av Carol Shenkenberger (6:757/1)
Ärende: none
============
16 Apr 06 20:08, Carol Shenkenberger wrote to Roy Witt:

 RW>>> Well, I had to enter that manually in Irex here, since it wasn't in
 RW>>> th proper place in the nodelist.
 CS>> Yes, now would INA suit you best or would one of the others suit
 CS>> best?
 RW>> At this point, it doesn't really matter anymore. However, if it were
 RW>> i the phone field, it would automatically be read by Irex...

 CS> Cant do that with current makenl until the other folks free up to use
 CS> the newest features.  I had his static there though which should have
 CS> done the trick?

No, it won't.

I meant to say, name field. Irex will read the phone field, but it can't
read a static address for configuration purposes, it's only good for
telephone numbers (dialing with Irex seems like a hundred years ago). It
will configure itself to Binkp on a DNS if it's located after the IBN flag
or the phone field.

Example, I just added MvdV to my Irex config (your deleted again, Vlist)
and it put vlist.org in the Binkp configs; vlist.org is in the name field
in his listing.

I also added 1:1/3 (Ross Cassell's Oceania listing) and Irex couldn't find
the DNS after the INA flag. It did find the DNS after the IBN flag though.
In the INA flag case, it entered f3.n1.z1.fidonet.net, which will work
with Irex. There was one instance where it added the fidonet.net address
and a DNS too - (f150.n226.z1.fidonet.net:bbs.glorb.com)

So, in conclusion, you could put a DNS in the name field or after the IBN
flag and Irex would work with either. It will also work with  -
f150.n226.z1.fidonet.net, but it obviously won't work with -
f150.n226.z1.fidonet.net:bbs.glorb.com, since the : tells Irex that
bbs.glorb.com is a port on that system.

 CS>> Ah but cant force them to move and they voted it down themselves.
 CS>>                                        xxcarol

 RW>> That's not what I got out of what was reported here. A majority of
 RW>> tho who returned, errr replied to the question voted to move.

 CS> Naw, that was Vladimir's version of it.  His stance is that the ones
 CS> who didnt reply are inactive nodes.  Raises it to a whopping 33% I
 CS> think who want to move?

Which is the proper way to look at it. Vladimir is correct in my
estimation: if people aren't interested enough to respond to the inquiry
and make a stand one way or the other, those who did respond speak for the
entire zone. If you recall the elections in FN_SYSOP, some would have us
wait for every sysop in the nodelist to vote before there would have been
a moderator there. That's ludicrous.


Roy
--- Twit(t) Filter v2.1 (C) 2000
 * Origin: Hacienda de Rio de Guadalupe * South * Texas, USA * (1:1/22)