Subj : Re: Nodelist Parser...
To : Ozz Nixon
From : Wilfred van Velzen
Date : Thu Jun 28 2018 09:58 am
Hi Ozz,
On 2018-06-27 17:16:37, you wrote to All:
ON> Okay, a more serious nodelist question...
ON> What is a nodelist parser supposed to do with a line that has two INA
ON> addresses?
A node can have multiple domains. binkd.config can handle that too. So it
depends on what your nodelist parser is producing, what you do with it...
ON> Right now, I am taking the second, mainly because one line just
ON> has INA:9600, which totally tripped up my address validation code.
ON> [fixed].
That's a bug in the nodelist. An INA: is not supposed to specify a port number!
ON> There are a couple lines that have for example ITN:domain.address, no
ON> IBN, no INA, and phone is -Unpublished-, however, it is not marked as
ON> Pvt or Down. What rule of thumb should be applied?
So they are connectable by telnet. So the lack of Pvt or Down is correct.
ON> I have Rhenium polling every node right now in the background - just so I
ON> can validate my nodelist parser. Finding a lot of systems that are IP
based
ON> are not available - I know someone is going to defend this with ZMH...
ON> however, I haven't gotten to implement XM,CM,etc. logic. Rhenium is doing
ON> this so I can collect VER information (what systems are running what,
along
ON> with collecting M_ADR list for what networks others are in around the
ON> world).
ON> * This is running in single thread poll - so I would not mess up anyone,
ON> including my ISP if I spawned off a few thousand threads. Regards, Ozz
It would be interesting to see the statistics of the result, when you are done!
;)
Bye, Wilfred.
--- FMail-lnx64 2.1.0.18-B20170815
* Origin: FMail development HQ (2:280/464)
