Hello Bj”rn.

01 Apr 06 09:39, you wrote to Dale Shipp:

 BF>>> Hold,2,West_Net_IP,Sweden,Bjorn_Felten,felten.yi.org,300,CM,IBN


 BF>    It's fortunate then, that I have a CNAME entry in the fidonet.net
 BF> DNS for that node,

If you would be consequent you would have that for *every* one of your
nodes that is IP contactable. But there is none for 2:2/2 and 2:203/208.

 BF>  which should make it contactable to anyone using
 BF> that addressing mode as default/fall-back. Right, Michiel?

I don't use that method as I find it unreliable. As with so many things, it
seemed like a good idea at the time but on some serious drawbacks emerged
when it was used on a greater scale.

1) There is no simple automatable method to find out if a node without
connect info in the nodelist is contactable via this method or if it is a
true Pvt node or an erroneoUs listing with missing contact info.

2) It depends on a record keeper who may or may not be a member of FidoNet
and who in no way can be forced to keep up the job. If the owner of the
fidonet.net domain simply decides to call it quits while refusing to
transfer the domain to Someone else, there is nothing we can do.

3) Many of these fidonet.net entries are just CNAME aliasEs of a regular
host name. Like yours are an alias of felten.yi.org. If the underlying host
name goes belly up, as happened to your felten.dyndns.org and my
vlist.fidosoft.de, so goes the entry in fidonet.net. It all depends on 
asingle person -- the keeper of the subdomain - how quickly the situation
can be remedied. There is no way for the user to directly interface with
the DNS records.

4) It provides yet another item to fight over as has been shown not too
long ago. Some people actually *object* to having an alias in fidonet.net.
Don't ask me why, but that seems to be the way it is.


Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32 1.1.5-0613