Subj : linked
To : Peter Knapper
From : Frank Vest
Date : Sat Dec 14 2002 12:30 am
On (14 Dec 02) Peter Knapper wrote to Frank Vest...
Hello Peter,
PK> Ok, I read the entire message first, however there is at least one
PK> major section that I feel needs further discussion.
Ok. Thank you. :)
FV> Put the IP or domain in the "name" field of the Nodelist.
PK> The probem I see is this. The "System Name" field was designed for ...
PK> the System name. If you now wish to use it for something else, you are
PK> going to confuse a lot of people and S/W, simply because of this one
PK> apparently simple change.
It seems that people and software are already confused on many things.
:)
PK> No person, and no S/W, will be able to guarantee what data they are
PK> reading from that field. There is also, no "safe" way to determine if
PK> one should use the field or not. As an IP node, I may prefer to have
PK> my system name distinct, and not follow any particular Domain name,
PK> and yet you are now saying that I can't do that any more. The net
PK> result from doingthis will make it VERY hard for Fidonet members to
PK> accept this convention (IMHO).
No software now uses XML either. The 'trick" with any idea is to get
it in use and software to surpport it. The rest is getting the idea to
become a standard.
You don't have to use the name field if you don't want to. No one is
going to force you to list your contact phone number, IP address or
domain. If you don't list your IP or domain, you don't fly the IP
flag. If you don't list a phone number in the Nodelist, you fly the
PVT flag. Simple, eh?
It was hard for Fidonet members to accept the Internet as a transport
medium a few years ago too. Will it be easier to accept any other
convention? :)
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).
PK> A couple of things here, I can't really see a "Finger" daemon as being
PK> necessary, the functionality is minimal, and the similar capability
PK> can be determined by "testing" the result of each "open". Locating the
PK> service ports can be done in the DNS (with SRV records), again
Ok. DNS is fine. I really don't care what is used. Telepathy is ok for
all I care... as long as it works. :-)
FV> With this in place, the current Nodelist would work for "legacy"
FV> mailers since there is nothing really changed in it...
PK> Agreed, with all the new bits added elsewhere, the current Nodelist
PK> will work purfectly for PSTN nodes.
I think it will work for IP nodes as well. YMMV.
I just don't see having two Nodelists... one for my pots mailer and
one for my IP mailer. Or, one that is converted to another where
needed. To maintain two Nodelist formats on my system seems redundant
and taking up space for the sake of taking up space.
One Nodelist with a flag that tells the IP mailer that this is an IP
capable Node with a "phone number" of <some.domain> while the pots
mailer will look for a phone number in the "phone" field and use it if
configured to do so seems better to me. Both legacy and IP are covered
by the respected technologies of POTS and/or Internet.
Regards,
Frank
http://pages.sbcglobal.net/flv
http://biseonline.com/r19
--- PPoint 3.01
* Origin: Holy Cow! I'm A Point!! (1:124/6308.1)
