Subj : proposed new nodelist [2] To : Jasen Betts From : mark lewis Date : Tue Jul 23 2002 01:35 am MM>> Requiring a host node to have a phone line that can MM>> receive calls at ZMH is not an onerous requirement. MM>> If all nodes in a net are IP-capable then the net can MM>> be quite large so fewer hosts in a region/zone would MM>> be required than today JB> yeah, that requires reorganisation and loss of political JB> power and the Z1 people take the politics seriously - JB> what else can explain their two echomail distribution JB> systems. two?!!? i can count no less than 5... only two "at the top" though... then again, those "top two" are linked by a "bridge node"... seems to me that they may unknowingly be part of yetanother distribution system <> [trim] MM>> It is not the mailer's responsibility to determine MM>> which node a message should be sent to. It is the MM>> mailer's responsibility to select the most appropriate MM>> transport mechanism to use to send a message to a MM>> particular node JB> yeah, what's a node if the same system is in the JB> nodelist three times with three different phone JB> numbers (maybe with different brands of modem) but JB> all attached to the same messagebase is it one node JB> or three? a messagebase does NOT a node make... remember, fidonet does not require a bbs, message bases or files areas for one to be a node... contrary to popular belief or what P4 may happen to state WRT bbs'... it only takes two (three for active participation) things to be a full node in fidonet... 1. a mailer 2. a message tosser 3. an editor/reader for local use (optional) PKTs used to be read/treated like QWK mail... in fact, other than the format and access method, there is little difference between them... )\/(ark * Origin: (1:3634/12) --- SBBSecho/Win32 v2.00 * Origin: Baddog BBS (1:218/903) .