On (08 Jan 03) mark lewis wrote to Frank Vest...

Hello mark,


 ml>  FV>> How many subfields?
 ml>  ml>> there is no count given... the only restrictions placed
 ml>  ml>> on the content of field 8 have to do with the length of
 ml>  ml>> the Uflags (that they cannot be more than 32 characters
 ml>  ml>> in total) and that the UFlags are last in the line...
 FV> 
 FV> So, you're telling me that a nodelisting of:
 FV> ,6308,Collin_County_Station,Mc
 FV> Kinney_TX,Frank_Vest,1-972-562-8064,33600
 FV> ,CM,XI,V34,V42b,I:web-idiot.d2g.com
 FV> Would be ok??

 ml> on the surface, yes... the format is correct... only two items i see a
 ml> "problem" with...

 ml>  1. there is no XI flag
 ml>  2. there is no I flag

Yet. :-)

 ml> where are you going with this?

Simple:

1. Mailer flags for IP mailers. Let's say:

XI - Irex
XR - Radius/Argus (running IP only. For one that does both, I have no
idea.)

And so on for other IP mailers.

Now, IP mailers would need to be upgraded to do this, but.....

An Ip mailer looks for my node and finds the listing I gave above. The
first thing is to look at the mailer flag. If it is "XI", the mailer
knows that the remote is using Irex and can do binkp, If that's
compatible, then make the connection using binkp.

If the mailer flag is "XR" the mailer knows that telnet, binkp and
"raw" is supported at the remote and can choose, depending on what the
mailer can do, which one is desired.

EG: If my mailer can only do telnet and it sees a "XI" flag, my mailer
would know not to try that node because there is nothing compatible.

Yes, this is just a thought and has problems, I'm sure. It is,
however, a possible way to make things work with the SLF Nodelist, I
think.


Frank

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

--- PPoint 3.01