Subj : linked
To : Peter Knapper
From : Frank Vest
Date : Sat Dec 14 2002 10:50 am
On (14 Dec 02) Peter Knapper wrote to Frank Vest...
Hello Peter,
FV> No software now uses XML either. The 'trick" with any idea is to get
FV> it in use and software to surpport it. The rest is getting the idea to
FV> become a standard.
PK> Thats why I can't see it flying, people need to see value with the
PK> idea, and if the idea adds confusion, then there is lttle value...
Ok?
FV> If you don't list your IP or domain, you don't fly the IP flag.
PK> You are of course, then saying there is no other possible way to find
PK> out how to contact that node, which of course is not correct....;-)
Not at all. Each Node can set up contacts with each other without the
use of any Nodelist. Even POTS Nodes can do this. :)
FV> If you don't list a phone number in the Nodelist, you fly the
FV> PVT flag. Simple, eh?
PK> Because there was no other way to do it for PSTN nodes, however with
PK> IP nodes we have other ways. Why propagate something that is no longer
PK> valid?
See above. :)
FV> It was hard for Fidonet members to accept the Internet as a transport
FV> medium a few years ago too. Will it be easier to accept any other
FV> convention? :)
PK> The speed of acceptance of the Internet was directly related to how
PK> long it took for the benefits to be seen as worthwhile to the end
PK> node. Certain nodes had no troube using the Internet back in 1992,
PK> however most agreed the cost of doing that was quite high. As the cost
PK> droppped, more and more people moved over to that way of working, its
PK> really just a natural progression.
And as a method of listing Fidonet Nodes in the Nodelist becomes used
more, it will be moved to as well.
FV> Ok. DNS is fine. I really don't care what is used. Telepathy is ok for
FV> all I care... as long as it works. :-)
PK> I would need to see DIRECT proof that it works first........;-)
You and me both. (I'm sending you my connection info via telepathy
right now. Did you receive it??) :-))
PK> Agreed, with all the new bits added elsewhere, the current Nodelist
PK> will work purfectly for PSTN nodes.
FV> I think it will work for IP nodes as well. YMMV.
PK> Yes, it CAN work for IP, however I am still slightly concerned with
PK> some of the suggestions and the possible ramifications that might
PK> result.
Ok?
FV> I just don't see having two Nodelists... one for my pots mailer and
FV> one for my IP mailer. Or, one that is converted to another where
FV> needed. To maintain two Nodelist formats on my system seems redundant
FV> and taking up space for the sake of taking up space.
PK> Agreed, One Nodelist, but UNMANGLED and using other resources (eg DNS)
PK> where it helps.
Agreed.
FV> One Nodelist with a flag that tells the IP mailer that this is an IP
FV> capable Node with a "phone number" of <some.domain> while the pots
FV> mailer will look for a phone number in the "phone" field and use it if
FV> configured to do so seems better to me.
PK> Its this type of mangling that concerns me....;-(
How so? All that is being done is adding a flag to tell the IP mailer
to look in the DNS record for <IP or domain> or poll a finger daemon
or some such "standard" Internet listing to get the connection
information (IE: protocol-port).
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)
