Subj : linked
To   : Frank Vest
From : Peter Knapper
Date : Sat Dec 14 2002 10:45 pm

Hi Frank,

 PK> The net
 PK> result from doing this will make it VERY hard for Fidonet members to
 PK> accept this convention (IMHO).

 FV> No software now uses XML either. The 'trick" with any idea is to get
 FV> it in use and software to surpport it. The rest is getting the idea to
 FV> become a standard.

Thats why I can't see it flying, people need to see value with the idea, and if 
the idea adds confusion, then there is lttle value...

 FV> If you don't list your IP or domain, you don't fly the IP flag. 

You are of course, then saying there is no other possible way to find out how 
to contact that node, which of course is not correct....;-)

 FV> If you don't list a phone number in the Nodelist, you fly the
 FV> PVT flag. Simple, eh?

Because there was no other way to do it for PSTN nodes, however with IP nodes 
we have other ways. Why propagate something that is no longer valid?

 FV> It was hard for Fidonet members to accept the Internet as a transport
 FV> medium a few years ago too. Will it be easier to accept any other
 FV> convention? :)

The speed of acceptance of the Internet was directly related to how long it 
took for the benefits to be seen as worthwhile to the end node. Certain nodes 
had no troube using the Internet back in 1992, however most agreed the cost of 
doing that was quite high. As the cost droppped, more and more people moved 
over to that way of working, its really just a natural progression.


 FV> Ok. DNS is fine. I really don't care what is used. Telepathy is ok for
 FV> all I care... as long as it works. :-)

I would need to see DIRECT proof that it works first........;-)

 PK> Agreed, with all the new bits added elsewhere, the current Nodelist
 PK> will work purfectly for PSTN nodes.

 FV> I think it will work for IP nodes as well. YMMV.

Yes, it CAN work for IP, however I am still slightly concerned with some of the 
suggestions and the possible ramifications that might result.


 FV> I just don't see having two Nodelists... one for my pots mailer and
 FV> one for my IP mailer. Or, one that is converted to another where
 FV> needed. To maintain two Nodelist formats on my system seems redundant
 FV> and taking up space for the sake of taking up space.

Agreed, One Nodelist, but UNMANGLED and using other resources (eg DNS) where it 
helps.


 FV> One Nodelist with a flag that tells the IP mailer that this is an IP
 FV> capable Node with a "phone number" of <some.domain> while the pots
 FV> mailer will look for a phone number in the "phone" field and use it if
 FV> configured to do so seems better to me. 

Its this type of mangling that concerns me....;-(

Cheers..................pk.


--- Maximus/2 3.01
 * Origin: Another Good Point About OS/2 (3:772/1.10)

.