Subj : src/tith/standards/TSP-0001.txt
To   : deon
From : Deuce
Date : Fri Nov 28 2025 22:34:47

  Re: src/tith/standards/TSP-0001.txt
  By: deon to Deuce on Fri Nov 28 2025 01:54 pm

 > If it was the other way, then it could be delegated to the system in
 > question. IE: The nodelist for the domain (and addresses) are with the ZC,
 > but the details come from the end system.

Yeah, that seems like a really weird way to delegate. :D

 > EG: if _tith.f2.n2.z885.bbsdev.net was delegated to my BBS, then the answer
 > to _sysop._tith... _systemname._tith... could come from the BBS
 > software/system in question and be consistent with what the BBS software
 > uses (binkp) when interacting with other systems (instead of potentially
 > being different to whats in the "nodelist").
 >
 > Probably a stretch to implement - but just an idea :)

Yeah, I've switched from _tith_sysopname to _tith-sysopname to make it more clear that they're not separate components.  The sysopname specifically I expect to use as the "To" user for status messages, so I do need that, and the iflags is pretty obvious why it's needed.

I expect to come up with reasons to need a couple other fields (system flags for example for non-ICM nodes) but have no immediate plans to implement them.
---
 þ Synchronet þ The future of BBSing
 * Origin: Vertrauen - [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net (1:103/705)

.