Subj : linked
To : Bob Short
From : Frank Vest
Date : Sun Dec 15 2002 08:06 pm
On (15 Dec 02) Bob Short wrote to Frank Vest...
Hello Bob,
FV> That is a limit of the software, not the Nodelist format.
BS> That's the whole point, Frank. But because the software now in use
BS> is limited, it make the file they read limited. We need to make it
BS> de-limited, period. ;-)
That's part of my point as well. Many of the POTS mailers are no
longer under development. Many of the IP mailers are still
under development. It seems better to have the IP mailers make some
changes than to try to get POTS mailers that are "dead" to be
upgraded.
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.**
BS> What I'm tring to point out is the differences between protocol types,
BS> and their relevance. Until such time that all mailers are able to
BS> auto-detect a transport protocol, some indicator will be needed as
BS> a stop-gap measure. However, in the proper format, one can have as
BS> many as one wants in the NL without taking up too much room.
And it would be just as easy to have the IP mailers look in a DNS
entry or poll a finger daemon or some other IP technology to get the
protocol information.
FV> Well... at least we agree on XML. ;-) Not that I totally disagree on
FV> DNS and/or ESLNL either.
BS> You will eventually "see the light", meaning the need for change,
BS> since that need goes beyond our current situation(s). :)
I see more light than some. :-)
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)
