Subj : linked To : Peter Knapper From : Frank Vest Date : Sat Dec 14 2002 12:30 am On (14 Dec 02) Peter Knapper wrote to Frank Vest... Hello Peter, PK> Ok, I read the entire message first, however there is at least one PK> major section that I feel needs further discussion. Ok. Thank you. :) FV> Put the IP or domain in the "name" field of the Nodelist. PK> The probem I see is this. The "System Name" field was designed for ... PK> the System name. If you now wish to use it for something else, you are PK> going to confuse a lot of people and S/W, simply because of this one PK> apparently simple change. It seems that people and software are already confused on many things. :) PK> No person, and no S/W, will be able to guarantee what data they are PK> reading from that field. There is also, no "safe" way to determine if PK> one should use the field or not. As an IP node, I may prefer to have PK> my system name distinct, and not follow any particular Domain name, PK> and yet you are now saying that I can't do that any more. The net PK> result from doingthis will make it VERY hard for Fidonet members to PK> accept this convention (IMHO). No software now uses XML either. The 'trick" with any idea is to get it in use and software to surpport it. The rest is getting the idea to become a standard. You don't have to use the name field if you don't want to. No one is going to force you to list your contact phone number, IP address or domain. If you don't list your IP or domain, you don't fly the IP flag. If you don't list a phone number in the Nodelist, you fly the PVT flag. Simple, eh? It was hard for Fidonet members to accept the Internet as a transport medium a few years ago too. Will it be easier to accept any other convention? :) FV> Standardize an IP flag ("IP" would do) that tells IP FV> mailers to access the finger daemon on the default "Fidonet" port at FV> the IP/domain address listed to get the information on what the Node FV> is capable of and what port(s). PK> A couple of things here, I can't really see a "Finger" daemon as being PK> necessary, the functionality is minimal, and the similar capability PK> can be determined by "testing" the result of each "open". Locating the PK> service ports can be done in the DNS (with SRV records), again Ok. DNS is fine. I really don't care what is used. Telepathy is ok for all I care... as long as it works. :-) FV> With this in place, the current Nodelist would work for "legacy" FV> mailers since there is nothing really changed in it... PK> Agreed, with all the new bits added elsewhere, the current Nodelist PK> will work purfectly for PSTN nodes. I think it will work for IP nodes as well. YMMV. I just don't see having two Nodelists... one for my pots mailer and one for my IP mailer. Or, one that is converted to another where needed. To maintain two Nodelist formats on my system seems redundant and taking up space for the sake of taking up space. One Nodelist with a flag that tells the IP mailer that this is an IP capable Node with a "phone number" of while the pots mailer will look for a phone number in the "phone" field and use it if configured to do so seems better to me. Both legacy and IP are covered by the respected technologies of POTS and/or Internet. 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) .