20 Mar 12 13:04, mark lewis wrote to Roy Witt:


 RW>>> Nope...this is why I'd rather see you use a dynamic IP rather than
 RW>>> a static one.

 ml>> small terminology correction... what you are actually wanting to say
 ml>> is "static domain name for an IP"... static or
dynamic IPs can both
 ml>> make use of static domain names pointing to them...

 RW>> Ok, good point.

 ml>  ;)

 RW>>> The dynamic DNS look-up never changes, while the

 ml>> that should be "the static domain name lookup for an IP never
 ml>> changes"...

 RW>> I meant that it doesn't change as long as the dynamic name is
 RW>> printed in the nodelist.

 ml> right... right... and that's why one really should get a domain name
 ml> somehow, someway, from somewhere... then they can also ask the
 ml> z1.fidonet.net manager(s) to add a CNAME record for their
 ml> ftn.z1.fidonet.net host(s) that points to their static domain name
 ml> for their IP ;)

One would think that any one of the ftn.z1 'managers' could read a/the
nodelist and add that info from it to a CNAME without receiving a request
to do it. ;) And then browse each newly released nodediff to look for
anything that needs an update.  Certainly someone with some programming
skills could write a utility to do that. ;)

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

 RW>>> static gets lost in the shuffle until you notify every link that
 RW>>> you have.

 ml>> agreed... and it is so easy to do, too...

 RW>> I may have to make more changes with Roger's link here as well.

 ml> it is what fidonet was built on... working out problems and
 ml> cooperating on their solution :)

8^)


                R\%/itt


  ... Only those who will risk going too far can possibly
  ... find out how far one can go ~ TS Eliot


--- Twit(t) Filter v2.1 (C) 2000-10