Subj : Easier solution?
To : Jan Vermeulen
From : Charles Cruden
Date : Wed Jan 01 2003 08:44 pm
> Sending direct mail in reply to a message can become cumbersome if you
> write from your email only address and and I have only PSTN. I need to look
> up your PSTN number in the nodelist before I can even start to write my
> message to you or change the address later when finding out that it never
> left my system because of incombatible access modes.
You should still be able to do routed mail though. And once you add the
routing, it stays fixed....
> That could be an advantage as far as software makes use of it (I do not
> known of software that makes use of Txy flags - FrontDoor users could set
> that up, in a rather complicated way).
Txy may not be the best example (given the number of mailers that do actually
use it). FREQ flags would probably be more applicable....
> Right. But there is a predefined length of the entire record (line, if
> you wish), originated by a bug in makenl but by now hardcoded in a lot of
> mailer software, the most of which is of the legacy kind.
True, but listing the address in the phone number field reduces the length of
additional fields (no need to list addresses in the flags area). I'd be
surprised if there were many addresses (even FQDNs) that were solely
responsible for nodelist entries exceeding the length limit of the line itself.
The longest email address I've seen was around 50 characters, and that still
leaves 100 for the rest of the info.
> cc> - With the IP# prefix, IP nodes are easily identifiable so they can be
> cc> processed by nodelist compilers, mailers, etc. Older mailers /
> cc> compilers may well reject letters in the number out of hand: so much
> cc> the better, as they won't then be able to reach the number anyway.
>
> How will this help me: I have a PSTN, ISDN and ADSL. I can use the
> phone field either for the PSTN and ISDN number as they are the same, or
> for the ADSL ip number. I want no second node number if I can avoid it, not
> because I do not like braids on my jacket, but because I think it is bad
> service for those who want to contact me.
> After all that is what a node number is for: help them contact you.
I think most people can figure out which address to use if they have your name.
For PSTN / ISDN, I can see the confusion since they're both telephone numbers:
I don't think that will exist for PSTN vs IP/FQDN. It becomes even easier with
the IP# prefix....
> There are more ways than one.
Didn't say there wasn't. :)
> a large number of systems have more than one contact address.
That's kind of the point: one entry for each type of contact address. BinkP,
telnet, FTP, etc. usually go through the same address. In those cases, you
just have the one additional entry flying the appropriate flags. Granted,
people can have different protocols at different addresses. If they need 'em,
they can have multiple entries. It's silly, but there ya go....
> cc> - May break older software.
>
> Indeed. We should tread softly, whichever way we go.
That's the one thing that really needs input from people willing to test the
setup. I *think* it should be reasonably benign, but if that's not the case
someone should present the case for those it would affect. I've tried looking
for cases myself, but haven't found any yet. Granted, the range of software
I've played with isn't very wide.
> I'm not entirely shure. Know FrontDoor?
Yup. OTOH, I've tried the method with FD here and it doesn't pose a big
problem: FDNC can be used to screen the numbers out.
> If the software knows about that. But I advocated already to stay away
> from the phone number field. Dual purpose for the same field in a record is
> never advisable.
Depends what you define the purpose to be. It got called the phone number
field 'cause when the nodelist format was setup originally, that's all there
was available for contact methods. Obviously that isn't the case anymore.
> Many of the complaints will come from unfixable software, if it is not
> hidden from them (at least in the phone field).
No argument there. Needs testing.
---
* Origin: Xanadu: an odd little spot in Edmonton, Alberta (1:342/806)
