Subj : linked
To : Bob Short
From : Jasen Betts
Date : Thu Dec 12 2002 09:19 pm
Hi Bob.
BS> It was suggested to me that this echo would be a great place to
BS> start discussing possible nodelist format changes, and the
BS> software which would utilize them.
we were kicking that ball around a bit a few months back,
we came up with a few different proposals for a new (IE non-slf)
nodelist formats and little else
BS> I just did a 30 day rescan of the echo, and was returned one
BS> message. If this is due to a pass-thru on my uplink's system,
BS> please let me know what has beed going on the last month or so (in
BS> nutshells please).
very little. I thought that possibly the echo had fallen of the backbone(s)
BS> Some of you are aware that elections are ongoing for new standing
BS> members of the FTSC. Once elected, it is my hope that the new
BS> panel will take a different approach to reaching and applying
BS> standards that can incorporate IP listings, without compromising
BS> current PSTN methods.
uunfortunately FTSC doesn't make the rules, the ZCC does AFAICT.
BS> A lot has been debated regarding flags and fields in the current
BS> NL format, but recent tests have (so far) shown promise for an
BS> extended NL format that make use of ;E(rror) lines, which could be
BS> used by modifying currently developing mailers, and a seg editor
BS> to compile it.
BS> I would ask all IP programmers to chime in here on this, and
BS> express their collective thoughts of feasibility. :)
it'll require programmers to think a bit more when reading the nodelist and
code their software to look-ahead a bit, but that shouldn't be a problem
for experienced programmers.
-=> Bye <=-
---
* Origin: Ban the bomb. Save the world for conventional warfare (3:640/1042)
