Subj : linked
To : Frank Vest
From : Peter Knapper
Date : Sat Dec 14 2002 04:36 pm
Hi Frank,
Ok, I read the entire message first, however there is at least one major
section that I feel needs further discussion.
FV> Put the IP or domain in the "name" field of the Nodelist.
The probem I see is this. The "System Name" field was designed for ... the
System name. If you now wish to use it for something else, you are going to
confuse a lot of people and S/W, simply because of this one apparently simple
change.
No person, and no S/W, will be able to guarantee what data they are reading
from that field. There is also, no "safe" way to determine if one should use
the field or not. As an IP node, I may prefer to have my system name distinct,
and not follow any particular Domain name, and yet you are now saying that I
can't do that any more. The net result from doingthis will make it VERY hard
for Fidonet members to accept this convention (IMHO).
FV> Standardize an IP flag ("IP" would do) that tells IP
FV> mailers to access the finger daemon on the default "Fidonet" port at
FV> the IP/domain address listed to get the information on what the Node
FV> is capable of and what port(s).
A couple of things here, I can't really see a "Finger" daemon as being
necessary, the functionality is minimal, and the similar capability can be
determined by "testing" the result of each "open". Locating the service ports
can be done in the DNS (with SRV records), again negating "finger". Years ago,
Finger was useful, but with more recent advances to the way IP has evolved, its
not really used a lot these days. These days an application can be much smarter
at handling this, similar to our PSTN S/W.
FV> With this in place, the current Nodelist would work for "legacy"
FV> mailers since there is nothing really changed in it...
Agreed, with all the new bits added elsewhere, the current Nodelist will work
purfectly for PSTN nodes.
Cheers...............pk.
--- Maximus/2 3.01
* Origin: Another Good Point About OS/2 (3:772/1.10)
