Hello mark,

On Friday October 03 2014 11:32, you wrote to me:

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

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

This is a situation that was not foreseen when the flags were created. It all
originates from the POTS era when there was just one mailer on-line on a
telephone number.

When I ran a dual capabilty system POTS+BINKP, I took a pragmatic approach. I
just listed the freq flag for the binkp system. I figured the POTS system would
get very few calls and nobody would attempt to freq from it. It turned out I
was right in that. I have been runing POTS along binkp for almost a decade and
I got just 2 or 3 calls on tghe POTS line. No file requests.

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

Actually I don't recall ever having any software that acted on the freq flags.
I never had software tell me "hey, you can't freq from that system, it does not
carry the right flag!". AFAIK, file requests are send out blindly, in hope the
other side will respond.

I wonder if we need bother about this "problem". How many nodes does it affect?
And what is the impact of listing an "incorrect" freq flag? I think we have
other priorities.

Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20130111