RW>> One would think that any one of the ftn.z1 'managers' could read
 RW>> a/the nodelist and add that info from it to a CNAME without
 RW>> receiving a request to do it. ;)

 ml> they cannot if the information is not there... consider the Z2 folk
 ml> who fly the IBN (for instance) flag and do not have anything
 ml> indicating their IP or domain name...

 RW> That's a product of their ZC...as big an error as one can make in
 RW> this day and age.

that is incorrect... the idea was in development years ago... i remember it
being discussed when FTN-over-Telnet was coming up and how to be able to
indicate such capability in the nodelist... this was back when the idea of
using domain host names or ip numbers in the "phone" field was
being discussed...

 ml> the fidonet.net and now binkp.net stuff is specifically used by 
 ml> them and those wanting to contact them... this format was actually 
 ml> being discussed and implemented way back when FTN over telnet was 
 ml> widely used...

 RW> I remember that and Ward's objection to listing ION nodes in the
 RW> nodelist in the first place. That he continues this practice only
 RW> serves to make people do such things as create fidonet.net and
 RW> binkp.net workarounds. It's moronic to say the least.

on the one hand, possibly... on the other, not really... when Z2 allowed
ISDN-only nodes into the nodelist, that set the precedent...

 RW>> And then browse each newly released nodediff to look for anything
 RW>> that needs an update. Certainly someone with some programming
 RW>> skills could write a utility to do that. ;)

 RW>> It would certainly be a much better project than writing a weekly
 RW>> newsletter that isn't very well received by the masses.

 ml> hhehehehehe...

 RW> BTW, on top of which she can't get the format right and it has no
 RW> comparison to the quality of the Z2 version, even if it is empty. 

seems that we are talking about two different publications... i see your
writing as relating to bj”rn... he has mad programming skillz, too ;)

)\/(ark