22 Mar 12 13:30, mark lewis wrote to Roy Witt:


 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 ;)

 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...

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

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

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

 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...

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


                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