Subj : Re: linked
To : Frank Vest
From : Bob Short
Date : Sun Dec 15 2002 11:15 am
On 15 Dec 02 00:37:17, Frank Vest said the following to Bob Short:
FV> BS> Again... currently... and quite relevant. AAMOF, we find ourselves
FV> BS> in a worse position than back then. Up until now, there was room to
FV> BS> add provisions for additional modem protocols (which were the only
FV> BS> type of changes). We are now at a crossroad, where the NL can no
FV> BS> longer be kludged to accomodate all the desired info, and still fall
FV> BS> within the limitations of SW that reads/processes it.
FV> That is a limit of the software, not the Nodelist format.
That's the whole point, Frank. But because the software now in use
is limited, it make the file they read limited. We need to make it
de-limited, period. ;-)
FV> BS> I don't undersatnd why you keep bringing session negotiation methods
FV> Because protocols are being listed in the current Fidonet Nodelist.
FV> They shouldn't be listed there.**
What I'm tring to point out is the differences between protocol types,
and their relevance. Until such time that all mailers are able to
auto-detect a transport protocol, some indicator will be needed as
a stop-gap measure. However, in the proper format, one can have as
many as one wants in the NL without taking up too much room.
FV> Well... at least we agree on XML. ;-) Not that I totally disagree on
FV> DNS and/or ESLNL either.
You will eventually "see the light", meaning the need for change, since
that need goes beyond our current situation(s). :)
