On (06 Jul 02) Neil Walker wrote to Frank Vest...

Hello Neil,

 FV> At any rate, to use my listing as an example (maybe a poor example,
 FV> but...)
 NW> Yes, a very poor example. :-(
 FV> ,6308,Collin_County_Station,McKinney_TX,Frank_Vest,1-972-562-8064 //
 FV> ,33600,CM,XA,V34,V42b,
 NW>  ^^^^^
 NW> That isn't a valid value. :-(

It is in Zone 1.

 FV> IBN:web-idiot.d2g.com,URVIA:1:3830/9
 NW>     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 NW> Nor is that. The IBN flag can only be followed by a port number. I
 NW> wanted such an entry but wasn't allowed it by Ward. :-(

It's allowed in Zone 1.

 FV> I could probably drop the V32,V42b, stuff. I'll admit that this isn't
 FV> a lot, but could make some difference.
 NW> 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?
 NW> Nearly all of them. ;-)

Couldn't some be combined?

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

Sadly, the time is coming when POTS will be no more. Zone 1 is seeing
this more and more now. Most Internet access is with DSL or Cable
modem. Fewer computers have dial-up modems. Some Internet providers
are now offering wireless connections. With this technology coming
into play more and more, the dial-up BBS is vanishing.


It appears that before a new format for the Fidonet Nodelist can be
made, the current flags and format needs to be decided on. With at
least two Zone having different rules for what is allowed in the
Nodelist, we have a problem that needs to be dealt with. :(

Regards,

 Frank

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

--- PPoint 3.01