On Fri, 03 Oct 2014, Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Markus Reschke:

 MvdV> Other than that, in the orignal proposal, the INA flag had to be 
 MvdV> listed before the protocol flags. That is easier on the parsers. 
 MvdV> Too many nodelist clerk's ignoed that, so it was not copied into 
 MvdV> the standard.

speaking of nodelist flags, how whould a system list other capabilities when
they support multiple implementations of them?

more specifically, in a situation of supported FREQ capabilities... one case in
point is a node which supports XA (Bark and WaZOO) with one mailer and XW
(WaZOO) with another mailer both running on the same IP connection... how would
one indicate XW for only the second mailer while still indicating XA for the
first mailer?

  +--------------------------------------------------+
  |      |         Bark        |        WaZOO        |
  |      |---------------------|---------------------|
  |      |   File   |  Update  |   File   |  Update  |
  | Flag | Requests | Requests | Requests | Requests |
  |------|----------|----------|----------|----------|
  | XA   |    Yes   |    Yes   |    Yes   |    Yes   |
[...]
  | XW   |    No    |    No    |    Yes   |    No    |


  +-----------------------------------+
  | Flag      Software Package        |
  |-----------------------------------|
  |  XA  Frontdoor   1.99b and lower  |
  |      Frontdoor   2.01  and higher |
[...]
  |  XW  Fido        12N   and higher |
  |      Tabby                        |
  |      TrapDoor  No update processor|
  |      binkd w/SRIF FREQ processor  |


i had thought that keeping the XA flag in the standard position in the entry
and placing the XW flag after the INA and/or IBN flags might work but rereading
the documents involved doesn't seem to indicate that this would be recognized
and acted on in the desired manner...


)\/(ark