Subj : linked                                                   [1]
To   : Peter Knapper
From : Frank Vest
Date : Mon Dec 16 2002 12:50 pm

On (16 Dec 02) Peter Knapper wrote to Frank Vest...

Hello Peter,

I'm going to answer this part since I don't think we are far apart on
the other stuff. Besides... I'm tired of running with it right now.
:-)

 PK> As a small diversion here, if you can see a bit into the future, say
 PK> when nothing but IP is used for transport within Fidonet, do you think
 PK> you can see where things might end up? My own thoughts in this area
 PK> are... interesting... to say the least. I am not sure a lot of people
 PK> have given it much thought though (some of them might have a heart
 PK> attack.......;-)).

I always try to look towards the future. I can visualize a day when
the only thing PSTN (note the change from POTS) will be Nodes that run
a BBS only... no mailer on PSTN.

I believe that there is a day coming when Fidonet will be only
available via NNTP or "Web BBS" type systems. The old z:n/n.p
addressing will be gone. We already have NNTP for Fidonet. Of course,
there will still be the need for a "nodelist" of some sort. :)

Of course, this is in the future... how far?... I don't know. Maybe
it's closer than we think.

For now and the not so distant future, we still have PSTN Nodes and
need a way to keep them in the loop.

This thread started over discussion of a new Nodelist format. My
comment was to the effect that the current Nodelist is fine. I've yet
to see anyone prove that there is a problem with the current Nodelist
format... I mean the Nodelist format, not the programs and such that
use it.


Later,

Frank

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/flv
http://biseonline.com/r19

--- PPoint 3.01
 * Origin: Holy Cow! I'm A Point!! (1:124/6308.1)

.