Hello Mike.

01 Jul 04 05:56, you wrote to me:

 MM>  In a way, it is. however Hosts do use that field for other things,
 MM> (such as their net name, etc... granted most people can figure this
 MM> out by looking at the node number ;)

I suggested that the field determined to be least important and to serve no
technical purpose be moved to a flag definition.  Let the system name be
limited versus the name, location or hostname / ip, which are all more
important but that is just my opinion!  :-)

 MM> Adding IPs to flags, using the new version of makenl that they're
 MM> playing with won't be too much of an issue, as Robert has already
 MM> 'fixed' the program so there's no limit on characters. Should this
 MM> program be adopted by some RCs and all ZCs, I think we're in business.

Currently no mailer software supports looking in flags for this info. 
However, some software will look in the system name for this information. 
It is easier to modify one routine than it is to modify half a dozen, or
more.

 MM> The only problem I see with it, is redundant listings.
 MM> BND:bbs.war-ensemble.com,IFT:bbs.war-ensemble.com,IFC:bbs.war-ensemble
 MM> .com

People have suggested that if a sysop wanted to run a different service on
a different host that the above method to be favorable.  Well, in Fidonet,
sysops who wanted to run multiple anything could get additional node
entries. Besides, I suspect if you survey the nodelist you won't see to
much of that anyway.  It is all about supply and demand!

 MM> and the like. This could be avoided, but some hosts, who operate
 MM> different mailers on different machines might have issues.

.. and some concessions will have to be made.

 MM> *2* ways of listing IPs is not a good solution IMHO. and unfortunately
 MM> listing 2 IPs in the BBS Name Field really isn't an option, since we
 MM> wouldn't know what to pick.

Indecisiveness is cannot be a factor.  Make a decision and stick with it. 
I have made my vote - system name field.  It is the most logical, IMO.

 MM> one flag listing a redundant IP would work, but how would we list a
 MM> node that has one address for FTP, one for BinkP, one for Telnet, and
 MM> one for transx?

FTP is not a Fidonet protocol.  You probaly were not here for this
discussion I had but my contention was that the IFT flag serves no purpose.
 The only thing it tells me is that you run a FTP server that I might be
able to browse.  :-) I cannot anonymously connect to that FTP server to
drop of mail.  You cannot place mail on hold for me on a one-time basis.  I
do not know if the e-mail protocols work like this but if they do then they
have no business having a flag.  What you fly on your node entry is not to
tell people who routinely connect to you that you are capable of FTP or
e-mail.  They obviously already know because they use that method.  If you
stop flying IFT and a node is pulling his mail from you with FTP, will his
FTP client stop pulling mail? 
Only technically relevant data should be included in a nodelist entry.  For
those seeking FTP feeds (if there are any), do you go around looking for
FTP feeds based on who flies an IFT flag? :-)  I suspect you won't find a
single person who will find it useful.  Sysops of the past have been
natorious for listing flags like thropies.  :-)







 MM> Mike

 MM> --- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5
 MM> (1:229/4000)
 MM> SEEN-BY: 10/3 105/360 106/1 2000 123/500 124/5025 140/1 201/505 396/45
 MM> {at}PATH: 229/4000 261/38 140/1 106/2000

Matt

e-mail: matt [at] thunderdome.ws | icq: 16568532 | yahoo: mbedynek

---