Subj : nlupd and daily nodelists To : Oli From : Kai Richter Date : Sun May 16 2021 11:00:02 Hello Oli! 16 May 21, Oli wrote to Kai Richter: O> There is not really an advantage in artificial delays. If you like the O> old way, that's fine, but don't try to push your (Fidonet) world view O> on everybody else. O> And it's not only about new nodes, existing entries might also change O> at any time. O> Daily updates are already slow. Who is pushing his view to fidonet now? Fidonet is no real time world. It's concept was and is store and forward. I like the improvements due to fido over IP but speed is not the holy grail of fidonet. O> I mean we don't update DNS or dynDNS on a weekly basis only and then O> wait another 7 days to correct the error one accidentally made with O> the MX record to receive email again. What are you talking about? Which FTS is this MX stuff? If found mx in FTS-5000 and 5001 but not MX. Fidonet does not update DNS at all. This is why we use dynDNS services. The dynDNS services provide the real time path to the URIs published in the nodelist. Those dynDNS services are designed for real time and allow fidonet to operate with stable destinations. A change from weekly to daily nodelists would have severe consequences. The official sequence for offline systems is one revision cycle on hold, on the next cycle down and on the third cycle removed. This would offer a timeframe of two weeks for a broken node system to order spare parts, repair the system and recover online status. A daily revision would reduce that time to two days. This would force sysops to monitor their systems in real time and to hold a spare part stock. We are still a hobby network. Some nodes can take care of their system on weekends only. Yes, there are many things that can do it faster and better and on any place in the world. KR>> Why can't that wait for weekly revision? O> Because it's not 1990 anymore. Lol! Hey, then why are you using fidonet. ;-) Regards Kai --- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.4.7 * Origin: Monobox (2:240/77) .