Hello Frank!

Saturday July 06 2002 14:40, you wrote to mark lewis:

 FV> At any rate, to use my listing as an example (maybe a poor example,
 FV> but...)

Yes, a very poor example. :-(

 FV> ,6308,Collin_County_Station,McKinney_TX,Frank_Vest,1-972-562-8064 //
 FV> ,33600,CM,XA,V34,V42b,

      ^^^^^
That isn't a valid value. :-(

 FV> IBN:web-idiot.d2g.com,URVIA:1:3830/9

         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Nor is that. The IBN flag can only be followed by a port number. I wanted
such an entry but wasn't allowed it by Ward. :-(

 FV> I could probably drop the V32,V42b, stuff. I'll admit that this isn't
 FV> a lot, but could make some difference.

Errr....possibly.

 FV> As is now, the allowed flags are, in part:

 FV> ;S          V21       CCITT V.21     300 bps   full duplex
 FV> ;S          V22       CCITT V.22     1200 bps  full duplex
 FV> ;S          V29       CCITT V.29     9600 bps  half duplex
 FV> ;S          V32       CCITT V.32     9600 bps  full duplex
 FV> ;S          V32b      ITU-T V.32 bis 14400 bps full duplex
 FV> ;S          V32T      V.32 Terbo
 FV> ;S          V33       CCITT V.33
 FV> ;S          V34       CCITT V.34
 FV> ;S          HST       USR Courier HST
 FV> ;S          H14       USR Courier HST 14.4
 FV> ;S          H16       USR Courier HST 16.8
 FV> ;S          H96       Hayes V9600
 FV> ;S          MAX       Microcom AX/96xx series
 FV> ;S          PEP       Packet Ensemble Protocol
 FV> ;S          CSP       Compucom Speedmodem
 FV> ;S          ZYX       Zyxel series
 FV> ;S          VFC       V.Fast Class
 FV> ;S          Z19       Zyxel 19,200 modem protocol
 FV> ;S          V90C      ITU-T V.90 modem Client
 FV> ;S          V90S      ITU-T V.90 Server.
 FV> ;S          X2C       US Robotics x2 client.
 FV> ;S          X2S       US Robotics x2 server.

 FV> How many of these are really needed?

Nearly all of them. ;-)

 FV> Anyway, just some thoughts. Since in the, not so distant, future,
 FV> there will probably be few, if any, POTS systems left, the current
 FV> format of the Nodelist could be used with software designed to
 FV> accommodate the new information. IE: the former phone field could be
 FV> the IP address. Of course, as I said, the software would need be
 FV> changed, but without POTS to worry about, it would work.

POTS should always be accomodated - that's the basis of Fidonet. We should,
however, give due regard to how new technology can be incorporated. It's
time for a new nodelist structure.


Be lucky,

Neil

... You have the capacity to learn from mistakes. You'll learn a lot today.
--- GoldED/2 3.0.1