On (06 Jul 02) mark lewis wrote to Jasen Betts...

Hello mark,

>> CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS MESSAGE <<

 ml> then again, i dunno... whatever we come up with must be extensible...
 ml> the above will run into a linelength problem, i'm sure... we could do
 ml> a multiline format... off the top of my head, maybe something like
 ml> this... again with the //wrapping

 ml> POTS,Host,3634,Fayetteville_Net_(039),Sanford_NC,Mark_Lewis,//
 ml> 1-919-774-5930,33600,CM,XA,V32b,V42b,H16,V32t,V34
 ml> IP,,,,,,000-012-146-166-242,,CM,XA,ITN,IVM,
 ml> IP,,,,,,,,MO,CM,XX,IBN

 ml> POTS,Node,12,Waldo's_Place_USA,central_north_carolina_usa,//
 ml> mark_lewis,1-919-774-5930,33600,CM,XA,V32b,V42b,H16,V32t,V34
 ml> IP,,,bbs.wpusa.dynip.com,,,000-012-146-242,,CM,XA,ITN,IVM,IBN
 ml> IP,,,,,,,,LO,MO,CM,XX,IBN


All this is good and fine. I'd put it forth that the first thing to do
is look at our current Nodelist format to see what can be done to make
it more workable with regards to POTS and IP.

As a thought, What flags do we actually need in the Nodelist??  As an
example, do we need the v.32, v.34, HST and other flags? In the past,
we did need these because modems didn't all handle certain settings
and such. Today, I'd think that many of these flags are outdated and
obsolete. Couldn't we get by with simply;

CM - Continuous Mail
MO - No BBS, Mail Only
X* - Type of Mailer

This would remove some length from the listings.

U(ser) flags could be looked at as well. What do we actually need? Is
"U,Joe_Bob's_Big_Service_Center_At_the_end_of_the_road" really needed?
:-)

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

,6308,Collin_County_Station,McKinney_TX,Frank_Vest,1-972-562-8064 //
,33600,CM,XA,V34,V42b,IBN:web-idiot.d2g.com,URVIA:1:3830/9

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

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

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

How many of these are really needed?

Maybe this wouldn't make much, or enough, difference, but that would
depend on the line limits for the Nodelist.

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

Regards,

 Frank
http://pages.sbcglobal.net/flv
http://biseonline.com/r19

--- PPoint 3.01