Subj : proposed new nodelist [2]
To : Jasen Betts
From : mark lewis
Date : Tue Jul 23 2002 01:35 am
MM>> Requiring a host node to have a phone line that can
MM>> receive calls at ZMH is not an onerous requirement.
MM>> If all nodes in a net are IP-capable then the net can
MM>> be quite large so fewer hosts in a region/zone would
MM>> be required than today
JB> yeah, that requires reorganisation and loss of political
JB> power and the Z1 people take the politics seriously -
JB> what else can explain their two echomail distribution
JB> systems.
two?!!? i can count no less than 5... only two "at the top" though... then
again, those "top two" are linked by a "bridge node"... seems to me that they
may unknowingly be part of yetanother distribution system <<GG>>
[trim]
MM>> It is not the mailer's responsibility to determine
MM>> which node a message should be sent to. It is the
MM>> mailer's responsibility to select the most appropriate
MM>> transport mechanism to use to send a message to a
MM>> particular node
JB> yeah, what's a node if the same system is in the
JB> nodelist three times with three different phone
JB> numbers (maybe with different brands of modem) but
JB> all attached to the same messagebase is it one node
JB> or three?
a messagebase does NOT a node make... remember, fidonet does not require a bbs,
message bases or files areas for one to be a node... contrary to popular belief
or what P4 may happen to state WRT bbs'... it only takes two (three for active
participation) things to be a full node in fidonet...
1. a mailer
2. a message tosser
3. an editor/reader for local use (optional)
PKTs used to be read/treated like QWK mail... in fact, other than the format
and access method, there is little difference between them...
