Sorry, the two previous messages look like shit. Here are the actual documents:
http://eljaco.se/FILES/FTSC/FTS-0001.017%20--%20RFC.txt
If FTS-1 were to be replaced with one or more new documents, I don't see why
the "Stored Message" (what you just call "the Message" in your revision) should
be defined. Stored Messages are not sent between nodes and really don't belong
in the same document that defines "the" packet format (imho).
If FTS-1 were to be replaced with one or more new documents, I don't see why
the "Stored Message" (what you just call "the Message" in your revision) should
be defined. Stored Messages are not sent between nodes and really don't belong
in the same document that defines "the" packet format (imho).
You are correct about the "stored message", but that's not what's defined. It's the individual messages within a pkt-file, not how messages are stored in various BBS-specific databases.
You probably need to program for FTN in order to fully understand the definitions in FTS-1.
In your document (http://eljaco.se/FILES/FTSC/FTS-0001.017%20--%20RFC.txt), you
have defined "The message format" (section 2a) which corresponds with the "Stored Message" defined in FTS-1.
Packed Messages are sent between FTN nodes, Stored Messages are not.
I agree. I've been doing that for about over 25 years now. You?
In your document (http://eljaco.se/FILES/FTSC/FTS-0001.017%20--%20RFC.txt), you
have defined "The message format" (section 2a) which corresponds with the "Stored Message" defined in FTS-1.
If I missed anything from the original FTS-1, that was really just the README file for the ConfMail tosser/scanner, I'd say it's a good catch by you and I stand corrected. ConfMail stored the messages in MSG-format, one message per *.MSG file.
As stated, it was an RFC.
Packed Messages are sent between FTN nodes, Stored Messages are not.
Yeah, that's what I was saying.
you have defined "The message format" (section 2a) which corresponds withthe
"Stored Message" defined in FTS-1.
but it's certainly not a requirement for FTN communication.
you have defined "The message format" (section 2a) which corresponds withthe
"Stored Message" defined in FTS-1.
Taking a second look at it -- four years later -- I can only agree with you.
The entire section 2a should be moved down to make it clear that it's actually the proprietary *.MSG storage format definition.
Albeit it's pretty much standard as a kinda fall-back it's not as obvious as
it ought to be.
FTS-1 could be split up into probably 3 or 4 documents, at least, andit
some of
those resulting documents would not really be relevant to the network as
operates today.
FTS-1 could be split up into probably 3 or 4 documents, at least, and some ofit
those resulting documents would not really be relevant to the network as
operates today.
Yes indeed. We really have to let go of all the old shit and think ahead, with new programmers in mind. Having a gazillion documents doesn't really encourage new programmers, it should be easy to get the basics first and then find the elaborate stuff needed later on.
I hope you'll be up for election? 8-)
You probably need to program for FTN in order to fully understand the definitions in FTS-1.
If I missed anything from the original FTS-1, that was really just the README file for the ConfMail tosser/scanner,
I'd say it's a good catch by you and I stand corrected. ConfMail
stored the messages in MSG-format, one message per *.MSG file.
Right. And what I originally said was that the definition of "Stored Messages" really doesn't belong in any new FTS-1 replacement
document(s) - if that were to happen.
The "Stored Message" (so-called .msg file) format is good to be
defined in a public document for software inter-operability on the
systems that use it (still), but it's certainly not a requirement for
FTN communication.
On 2018 Nov 06 21:05:10, you wrote to Rob Swindell:
You probably need to program for FTN in order to fully understand the definitions in FTS-1.
ummm... Rob does program for FTN... he is the (new) maintainer of sbbsecho which has recently undergone a rewrite to fix numerous items and make some things easier to handle... sbbsecho used to be a 3rd party addon but that maintainer left some time ago...
Bj÷rn Felten wrote to Rob Swindell <=-
You probably need to program for FTN in order to fully understand
the definitions in FTS-1.
Bj÷rn Felten wrote to Rob Swindell <=-
You probably need to program for FTN in order to fully understand the definitions in FTS-1.
Oh, this is going to be good.
<reaches for his popcorn>
I hope you'll be up for election? 8-)
FTSC chair?
I would like to see more innovation in FTNs, but the battle against old standards/software/people just takes the fun out of it for me.
Just some clarification on the history of SBBSecho:
I hope you'll be up for election? 8-)
FTSC chair?
Nah, the chair is appointed by the committee, so first you have to
be elected to the committee.
I would like to see more innovation in FTNs, but the battle
against old standards/software/people just takes the fun out of
it for me.
Well, you've now seen my attempts. I'm sure that with you onboard
the FTSC could really start making a difference, cleaning out all the dusty old stuff and paving way for some novelties.
I can't remember the last time I saw a dialup FTS-1 session, incoming or outgoing.
I got rid of my dial-up modem in 2006.
Lately I've been considering getting one again, the problem being I
can't find one anymore, not even in shops with recycled stuff.
Well, you've now seen my attempts. I'm sure that with you
onboard the FTSC could really start making a difference, cleaning
out all the dusty old stuff and paving way for some novelties.
FTS-1 really could be split into several documents. The stored message definition section is useful information, but not absolutely required
for a FTS-1 compatible implementation. The packet header and packed message definitions are the key components to how things work in
FidoNet. The FTS-1 session protocol is largely obsolete, although in theory any dialup node is required to support inbound FTS-1 sessions during their Zone's Mail Hour.
4. We prioritise documenting the required (non-optional) parts of a compatible node, especially Internet nodes, as they are the obvious majority of FidoNet in 2018.
From old nodelists it should be possible to pinpoint when it happened.
I only have nodelists going back to 2011. I'll try to hunt down some
older ones. Suggestions welcome.
I can't remember the last time I saw a dialup FTS-1 session,
incoming or outgoing.
I got rid of my dial-up modem in 2006.
Lately I've been considering getting one again, the problem being I
can't find one anymore, not even in shops with recycled stuff.
From old nodelists it should be possible to pinpoint when it
happened.
Unfortunately, the nodelist has never been presenting reality very well.
I hope you'll be up for election? 8-)
FTSC chair?
Nah, the chair is appointed by the committee, so first you have to be elected to the committee.
FTS-1 really could be split into several documents. The stored
message definition section is useful information, but not absolutely required for a FTS-1 compatible implementation.
this is incorrect... the FTSC chair does not have to come from the ranks of current or former FTSC members...
Incidentally it occurs to me that conceivably a version control web
site like GitHub or similar could be used to host every FidoNet
nodelist ever issued, where diffs could easily be displayed between nodelists.
FTS-1 really could be split into several documents. The stored
message definition section is useful information, but not absolutely
required for a FTS-1 compatible implementation.
this is why other proposals like the Hudson Message Base format and others were discussed to be placed as reference documents in the
library and specifically not set as FTSC standards... putting them in
the library was to aid others as to the workings of them but not to exhibit them as a FTSC standard... i remember discussion about it but
do not recall if the documents were actually written and archived...
FTS-1 really could be split into several documents. The stored message definition section is useful information, but not absolutely required
for a FTS-1 compatible implementation. The packet header and packed message definitions are the key components to how things work in
FidoNet.
The FTS-1 session protocol is largely obsolete, although in theory
any dialup node is required to support inbound FTS-1 sessions during
their Zone's Mail Hour.
I can't remember the last time I saw a dialup FTS-1 session, incoming
or outgoing. FTS-6 and EMSI sessions have largely taken over the
dialup arena. There are even nodes supporting these protocols over
Telnet or VModem connections (ITN and/or IVM flags.) FTS-1 was
originally designed back when 300 bps modems were state of the art.
Yes. And now it's time to actualize it.
Yes. And now it's time to actualize it.
So how do we get about it?
FTS-00?? -- data structures
FTS-01?? -- comm protocols
Since there was no real numbering pattern before, I think it would
awkward to try to introduce one now after all these years.
comm protocols include data structures, so I'm not sure about your delineation there
On 11-10-18 01:03, Andrew Clarke <=-
spoke to All about FTS-1 and FTS-4 <=-
As an aside, I'm curious when exactly Internet nodes took
over as the majority of FidoNet.
I only have nodelists going back to 2011. I'll try to hunt
down some older ones. Suggestions welcome.
Don't know it if will do you much good, but a good site for nodelist archives is:
As an aside, I'm curious when exactly Internet nodes took over as the majority of FidoNet.
Nodes with both POTS and internet are more difficult to count, so I leave that to someone else. 8-)
Don't know it if will do you much good, but a good site for nodelist archives is:
http://ambrosia60.dd-dns.de/fidonet/nodelist.php
Another is (but only up to 2004): http://www.textfiles.com/fidonet-on-the-internet/nodediff.htm
Maybe we need an FTS-0000 where we define how it's supposed to work?
nodehist.fidonet.org.ua currently has 4,226 nodelists dating from 1986-10-03
to today (2018-11-10) in its library.
Yes. And now it's time to actualize it.
Policy4 refers only to FTS-1 with regards to ZMH.
Expanding on Andrew's suggestion, I propose that:
1. FTS-0001.017 should be issued, superceding FTS-0001.016.
2. The newly issued FTS-0001.017 is used solely as a reference
document that only points to other documents, for ease of
maintenance.
3. FTS-0001.016 should be renamed FSC-0001.016
to be used as an historical reference, and is otherwise left
completely untouched. This completely bypasses potential issues with
the document's copyright.
4. We prioritise documenting the required (non-optional) parts of a compatible node, especially Internet nodes, as they are the obvious majority of FidoNet in 2018.
5. Ensure these parts are documented separately, again for ease of maintenance, and refer to them in the new FTS-1.
6. (optional, but probably sensible) Have FTS-0001.017 refer to (and
apply to) FSC-0001.016 in the case of remaining dialup nodes.
Effectively this would mean the new FTS-1 would apply only to
Internet nodes.
This could obviously change in future as the need arises, with
further issues of FTS-1.
7. Re-document the optional parts (eg. stored message format) as time
and interest permits. In the interim simply refer to the appropriate section in FSC-0001.016.
As an aside, I'm curious when exactly Internet nodes took over as the majority of FidoNet.
From old nodelists it should be possible to pinpoint when it happened.
I suppose to be thorough, you'd want separate results of the number of dialup nodes versus both Internet-only and hybrid Internet/dialup
nodes.
Someone might have done all of this already?
I only have nodelists going back to 2011. I'll try to hunt down some
older ones. Suggestions welcome.
I only have nodelists going back to 2011. I'll try to hunt down someIncidentally it occurs to me that conceivably a version control web
older ones. Suggestions welcome.
site like GitHub or similar could be used to host every FidoNet
nodelist ever issued, where diffs could easily be displayed between nodelists.
Incidentally it occurs to me that conceivably a version control webYou could easily replace the whole distribution and update mechanism
site like GitHub or similar could be used to host every FidoNet
nodelist ever issued, where diffs could easily be displayed between
nodelists.
that way and have lists available near real-time almost everywhere.
I proposed that a couple of times over the last months (if not
years)... response was zilch so far.
Yes. And now it's time to actualize it.Interesting. Both Randy Bush and Tom Jennings have just threatened
to sue me if I endorse updating FTS-1.
Let's do it ... :-)
Let's do it ... :-)
... and do that so that they would die in agony of envy :-)
On 11-10-18 03:47, Andrew Leary <=-
spoke to Dale Shipp about Nodelists <=-
09 Nov 18 23:42, you wrote to Andrew Clarke:
Don't know it if will do you much good, but a good site for nodelist archives is:
http://ambrosia60.dd-dns.de/fidonet/nodelist.php
Another is (but only up to 2004): http://www.textfiles.com/fidonet-on-the-internet/nodediff.htm
nodehist.fidonet.org.ua currently has 4,226 nodelists dating from 1986-10-03 to today (2018-11-10) in its library.
6. (optional, but probably sensible) Have FTS-0001.017 refer to (and apply to) FSC-0001.016 in the case of remaining dialup nodes.
Only if we'd find enough FTS-0001.016 dialup nodes not supporting EMSI. And seriously doubt there is even a single such node left alive.
Remember that when the late Helmut Hullen sued me, I had to pay my
own attorney but German sysops set-up a Kraut-funding ... 8-) ...
{with others chipping in} to defray the costs. That is not necessary anymore. That's one thing.
The second thing is that this country has beautiful language laws (we
have 3 national languages) and in order to sue me, the plaintiff now
will need to have every relevant document translated into dutch by a court-appointed professional translator ... meaning translating P4,
FTS-1 and whatever else at horrendously high costs. The case would
need to be tried in Belgium, not in California, based on
dutch-language documents, not english-language. That would be their
first expensive mistake. Should the court accept english documents
anyway, the Supreme Court will throw it out as a language violation
... it takes about 8 years. Unlike the US, the Supreme Court here
has to hear every case presented to it (hence the long period). That
would be their second mistake.
But, I think you have pointed-out there are sufficient ways to deal
with the matter and upset no-one.
Only if we'd find enough FTS-0001.016 dialup nodes not supportingIf I decide to shut off EMSI here and force connections to use
EMSI. And seriously doubt there is even a single such node left
alive.
FTS-0001 or Wazoo, will the nodelist-police revolk my listing and
give me a huge fine?
You could easily replace the whole distribution and update mechanism
that way and have lists available near real-time almost everywhere.
I proposed that a couple of times over the last months (if not
years)... response was zilch so far.
Possibly `man git-format-patch` is what really may be used for this purpose.
Do you care of those faggots?
Not only references, but the requirements like "dialup nodes must
support EMSI protocol as defined in FSC-0056", "IP nodes must support binkp protocol as defined in FTS-1026", "email-based nodes must reply
to the PING requests as defined in section 5.10 of FTS-5001 in at most
3 days (72 hours)", "the message editor should support multi-level
quoting as defined in FSC-0032" etc.
Not only references, but the requirements like "dialup nodes mustThe FTSC does not have the power to enact or enforce such
support EMSI protocol as defined in FSC-0056", "IP nodes must
support binkp protocol as defined in FTS-1026", "email-based nodes
must reply to the PING requests as defined in section 5.10 of
FTS-5001 in at most 3 days (72 hours)", "the message editor should
support multi-level quoting as defined in FSC-0032" etc.
restrictions. The *Cs would have to act to do so, probably by
proposing an updated FidoNet Policy document and getting it
ratified.
"IP nodes must support binkp protocol as defined in FTS-1026"
"the message editor should support multi-level quoting as defined in FSC-0032" etc.
The FTSC does not have the power to enact or enforce such restrictions. The *Cs would have to act to do so, probably by proposing an updated FidoNet Policy document and getting it ratified.
nodehist.fidonet.org.ua currently has 4,226 nodelists dating from
1986-10-03 to today (2018-11-10) in its library.
Interesting ... from 1986-10-03 till today only 1578 nodelists hqve been generated.
nodehist.fidonet.org.ua currently has 4,226 nodelists dating from
1986-10-03 to today (2018-11-10) in its library.
Interesting ... from 1986-10-03 till today only 1578 nodelists hqve been
generated.
one might be willing to bet that you are not counting those from each zone and possibly also not counting the ""rogue"" nodelist generated when Z2 underwent renumbering ;)
Good ${greeting_time}, Ward!
11 Nov 2018 00:01:18, you wrote to me:
Yes. And now it's time to actualize it.Interesting. Both Randy Bush and Tom Jennings have just threatened
to sue me if I endorse updating FTS-1.
Do you care of those faggots?
Interesting ... from 1986-10-03 till today only 1578 nodelists hqve
been generated.
one might be willing to bet that you are not counting those from each
zone and possibly also not counting the ""rogue"" nodelist generated
when Z2 underwent renumbering ;)
Ehrrrrr ... renumbering? ??
Here in America, that's a pretty derogatory description to assign to someone. I don't care whether they are homosexual or not, but I don't think that disparagement is justified. :-(Do you care of those faggots?Yes. And now it's time to actualize it.Interesting. Both Randy Bush and Tom Jennings have just threatened
to sue me if I endorse updating FTS-1.
when Z2 underwent renumbering ;)
Ehrrrrr ... renumbering? ??
back in the '90s i think... there was a big net renumbering and folks got worked up about it... some created and distributed an alternate nodelist with the old numbering for quite a while... eventually it all settled
down and the new numbering was accepted...
And, once again, I'm happy I don't live in USA.
And, once again, I'm happy I don't live in USA.It's a nice country to visit ... really ...
when Z2 underwent renumbering ;)
Ehrrrrr ... renumbering? ??
back in the '90s i think... there was a big net renumbering and folks
got worked up about it... some created and distributed an alternate
nodelist with the old numbering for quite a while... eventually it all
settled down and the new numbering was accepted...
Oh dear ... that is really old stuff,
I nearly thought you were implicating me.
I'm guessing that must have been during the 2nd term of the late Ron Dwight like 25 years ago.
There were issues in R24 Germany and R28 The Netherlands. Indeed there
was an alternate regional segment for R24 for a while but that matter
got settled after Oct.4th 1994 ...
And, once again, I'm happy I don't live in USA.
It's a nice country to visit ... really ...
Visit != live in.
And, once again, I'm happy I don't live in USA.
It's a nice country to visit ... really ...
Ward Dossche wrote to Alexey Vissarionov <=-
Interesting. Both Randy Bush and Tom Jennings have just threatened to
sue me if I endorse updating FTS-1.
Alexey Vissarionov wrote to Ward Dossche <=-
Do you care of those faggots?
Do you care of those faggots?
Interesting. Both Randy Bush and Tom Jennings have just threatened toGoing to post this threat online so we can see it?
sue me if I endorse updating FTS-1.
Do you care of those faggots?Not sure what someone's sexual orientation has to do with Fidonet
mailers and architecture, do you know something we don't?
And, once again, I'm happy I don't live in USA.
It's a nice country to visit ... really ...
I feel the same way about the idea of visiting other countries.
Interesting. Both Randy Bush and Tom Jennings have just threatened to
sue me if I endorse updating FTS-1.
Going to post this threat online so we can see it?
Do you care of those faggots?
Not sure what someone's sexual orientation has to do with Fidonet
mailers and architecture, do you know something we don't?
And, once again, I'm happy I don't live in USA.
It's a nice country to visit ... really ...
I feel the same way about the idea of visiting other countries.
Anybody visiting my neck of the woods, please let it be known to meet up for some food, beer or coffee.
Also bring expendable hard drive, the bigger the better.
On 11 Nov 18 03:14:16, Alexey Vissarionov said the following to Ward Dossche:
Do you care of those faggots?
What the fuck does that have to do with technical matters?
AFAIK, there aren't any of the messagebase formats in the FTSC library, besides classic *.MSG.
Good ${greeting_time}, Rob!
11 Nov 2018 14:36:58, you wrote to me:
Here in America, that's a pretty derogatory description to assign to someone. I don't care whether they are homosexual or not, but I don't think that disparagement is justified. :-(Do you care of those faggots?Yes. And now it's time to actualize it.Interesting. Both Randy Bush and Tom Jennings have just threatened
to sue me if I endorse updating FTS-1.
People who threaten to sue others for "copyright infringement" (whatever that could mean) deserve even more derogatory words. Alas, my English is not that good, and I don't know these words.
And, once again, I'm happy I don't live in USA.
AFAIK, there aren't any of the messagebase formats in the FTSC
library, besides classic *.MSG.
SBBS set removed too? All my old stuff was removed too. Seems like
a 'replace' may have been done as can't find it elsewhere either. Not
sure when it happened.
Maybe "jerk" would be a better word choice.People who threaten to sue others for "copyright infringement"Here in America, that's a pretty derogatory description tosue me if I endorse updating FTS-1.Do you care of those faggots?
assign to someone. I don't care whether they are homosexual or
not, but I don't think that disparagement is justified. :-(
(whatever that could mean) deserve even more derogatory words.
Alas, my English is not that good, and I don't know these words.
And, once again, I'm happy I don't live in USA.Okay. Not sure what that has to do with the subject matter.
You don't have jerks
or homosexuals where you live?
Nov 12 19:57 2018, Carol Shenkenberger wrote to Markus Reschke:
AFAIK, there aren't any of the messagebase formats in the FTSC
library, besides classic *.MSG.
SBBS set removed too? All my old stuff was removed too. Seems like
a 'replace' may have been done as can't find it elsewhere either.
Not sure when it happened.
Were those additional documents or official FTSC ones?
Re: FTS-1 and FTS-4
By: Markus Reschke to Carol Shenkenberger on Tue Nov 13 2018 06:06 pm
Nov 12 19:57 2018, Carol Shenkenberger wrote to Markus Reschke:
AFAIK, there aren't any of the messagebase formats in the FTSC
library, besides classic *.MSG.
SBBS set removed too? All my old stuff was removed too. Seems like
a 'replace' may have been done as can't find it elsewhere either.
Not sure when it happened.
Were those additional documents or official FTSC ones?
Released to the FTSC is my understamding but not aware of the final designation. Rob Swindel will know best.
nodehist.fidonet.org.ua currently has 4,226 nodelists dating from
1986-10-03
to today (2018-11-10) in its library.
Interesting ... from 1986-10-03 till today only 1578 nodelists hqve
been generated.
AFAIK, there aren't any of the messagebase formats in the FTSC
library, besides classic *.MSG.
SBBS set removed too? All my old stuff was removed too. Seems like
a 'replace' may have been done as can't find it elsewhere either. Not
sure when it happened.
Were those additional documents or official FTSC ones?
SBBS set removed too? All my old stuff was removed too. Seems like
a 'replace' may have been done as can't find it elsewhere either.
Not sure when it happened.
Were those additional documents or official FTSC ones?
they were not "official FTSC documents"... they were added only to facilitate a central location of storage to make them easier to
find...
Hi Carol!
Nov 12 19:57 2018, Carol Shenkenberger wrote to Markus Reschke:
AFAIK, there aren't any of the messagebase formats in the FTSC
library, besides classic *.MSG.
SBBS set removed too? All my old stuff was removed too. Seems like
a 'replace' may have been done as can't find it elsewhere either.
Not sure when it happened.
Were those additional documents or official FTSC ones?
| Sysop: | digital man |
|---|---|
| Location: | Riverside County, California |
| Users: | 1,065 |
| Nodes: | 17 (1 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 23:39:18 |
| Calls: | 501,330 |
| Calls today: | 9 |
| Files: | 109,413 |
| D/L today: |
6,317 files (665M bytes) |
| Messages: | 302,057 |