Text 67, 76 rader
Skriven 2006-04-12 17:21:00 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
     Kommentar till text 57 av Philip Lozier (1:267/169)
Ärende: FD & -Unpublished-
==========================
Hello Philip.

11 Apr 06 10:26, you wrote to me:

 MvdV>> 1) Irex does not need a nodelist.

 PL> But as a FidoNet mailer it is supposed to use one.  The nodelist
 PL> defines FidoNet.

The nodelist defines Fidonet, but that does not mean it is a requirement for
every mailer to use it. Of course if it does, that is a nice feature and a
mailer doing that certainly gets Brownie points for it, but it is *not* an
absolute  requirement.

 MvdV>> In that it does better than most IP mailers that do not use
 MvdV>> the nodelist at all, but not as good as most POTS mailers that
 MvdV>> fully use the nodelist.

 MvdV>> I suppose one could call that an issue, but if one does, then
 MvdV>> almost all IP malers have issues with the nodelist.

 PL> Uh-huh... and one could also argue that with a nodelist set up the way
 PL> it was intended to be used, with dial info in field 6, by use of a
 PL> virtual modem then almost ALL POTS mailers can handle IP transfers
 PL> based on the nodelist itself in a superior manner whereas almost ALL
 PL> IP mailers have issues with it ;>

That argument is flawed as field six was never intended the way you imply. It
is intended for the *telephone number* and noting else. IP connect info is not
a "telephone number".

 MvdV>> I think one should make a difference between items on the wish
 MvdV>> list and bugs.

 MvdV>> The above is not a bug.

 PL> Nope... but a definate PITA. Something that I have to deal with as far
 PL> as BinkP connections here at the moment in the config file for BinkD
 PL> if such a change occurs as well, or even to add someone I desire a
 PL> direct connection to via BinkP. Rather sux actually.

So why keep whining about the deficiencies of the software you are using
instead of sending it to the museum and move on to better software such as
Taurus that does what you want?

BTW, it is my understanding there for Binkd there is a "nodelist" distrinuted
that it can use....

 RC>>> My personal opinion is that we need to move to a *standard* for
 RC>>> all Internet nodes.  My personal choice is BinkP as it is the
 RC>>> most "mailer-like."

 MvdV>> I am all with you there. This multitude of connection protocols
 MvdV>> is a liability rather than an asset.

 MvdV>> But... of course the best way to promote Binkp as the universal
 MvdV>> standard for IP is to stop supporting all the other IP
 MvdV>> protocols....

 PL> But that just wouldn't be fair at all to those who have been around
 PL> for years and years that the FidoNet experince for them is directly
 PL> related to the softwares they use.

There *is* no fair way to do this. Adopting a standard means that those who do
not already support it, have to do something to get their stuff up to standard.

It is either that or no standard. You can't have the cake and eat it too. You
will either have to accept the unfairness or accept the fact that there will
never be a standard.

Cheers,

Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20060315
 * Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)