Subj : linked To : Peter Knapper From : Frank Vest Date : Sat Dec 14 2002 10:50 am On (14 Dec 02) Peter Knapper wrote to Frank Vest... Hello Peter, 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. PK> Thats why I can't see it flying, people need to see value with the PK> idea, and if the idea adds confusion, then there is lttle value... Ok? FV> If you don't list your IP or domain, you don't fly the IP flag. PK> You are of course, then saying there is no other possible way to find PK> out how to contact that node, which of course is not correct....;-) Not at all. Each Node can set up contacts with each other without the use of any Nodelist. Even POTS Nodes can do this. :) FV> If you don't list a phone number in the Nodelist, you fly the FV> PVT flag. Simple, eh? PK> Because there was no other way to do it for PSTN nodes, however with PK> IP nodes we have other ways. Why propagate something that is no longer PK> valid? See above. :) 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? :) PK> The speed of acceptance of the Internet was directly related to how PK> long it took for the benefits to be seen as worthwhile to the end PK> node. Certain nodes had no troube using the Internet back in 1992, PK> however most agreed the cost of doing that was quite high. As the cost PK> droppped, more and more people moved over to that way of working, its PK> really just a natural progression. And as a method of listing Fidonet Nodes in the Nodelist becomes used more, it will be moved to as well. 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. :-) PK> I would need to see DIRECT proof that it works first........;-) You and me both. (I'm sending you my connection info via telepathy right now. Did you receive it??) :-)) 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. PK> Yes, it CAN work for IP, however I am still slightly concerned with PK> some of the suggestions and the possible ramifications that might PK> result. Ok? 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. PK> Agreed, One Nodelist, but UNMANGLED and using other resources (eg DNS) PK> where it helps. Agreed. FV> One Nodelist with a flag that tells the IP mailer that this is an IP FV> capable Node with a "phone number" of 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. PK> Its this type of mangling that concerns me....;-( How so? All that is being done is adding a flag to tell the IP mailer to look in the DNS record for or poll a finger daemon or some such "standard" Internet listing to get the connection information (IE: protocol-port). 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) .