mark lewis : Tony Langdon wrote:

>  TL> The interface would validate all fields, so that the nodelist data at
>  TL> least conformed to standards (of course, there's still a degree of
>  TL> "GIGO", but that goes for any human entered content ;) ).
>
> already done and handled since eons... just no web interface where you
> have to employ more security than necessary to prevent bots and humans
> from attacking, changing others' entries, submitting invalid/false data,
> etc...

Hello Mark!

A good captcha at the front door would foil the bots.

No one would be able to change another entry.  A valid change could be approved
after a valid netmail to prove proper FTN setup.


> a NC/HUB should know who is in their segment and not just rubber
> stamp what is sent to them for processing...

Yes, the NC/HUB would review the NL application - in person, and approve the
merge into their segment if all looks good.


> the RCs/ZCs have to have
> some trust in their NCs but they should also still check the segments
> they generate to send upstream...

Absolutely.  Humans would certainly need to monitor the new segments until all
the bugs are ironed out.  That would be akin to having a PAUSE command to give
you a chance to CTRL'C out if necessary.  Otherwise.. let it go up the ladder.

> how do you know if/when invalid data gets in? i'm speaking of data that
> passes the tests but is still invalid/incorrect...

It won't be valid if the netmail exchange fails?  I'm just thinking out loud
here.  Do you mean the various descriptive FLAGS (to avoid lying about a
system's true capabilities)?  The sysop could engage in a human-to-human at
that time, but only after a successful netmail  exchange.

I'm watching FUTURE4FIDO to continue this, if you're game.  ;)

.../|ug

--- Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Windows/20100228)