If I wanted to signal a BBS accepts users on a non standard port for Telnet or SSH or... what is the best way to show this in a FTN
nodelist?
Just looking for your thoughts on how current flags could be used or
best way to introduce new ones without breaking anything for legacy systems using a nodelist.
If I wanted to signal a BBS accepts users on a non standard port for Telnet or SSH or... what is the best way to show this in a FTN
nodelist?
If I wanted to signal a BBS accepts users on a non standard port for Telnet or SSH or... what is the best way to show this in a FTN nodelist?
If I wanted to signal a BBS accepts users on a non standard port
for Telnet or SSH or... what is the best way to show this in a
FTN nodelist?
You don't.
Thanks for your thoughts.
You don't.
I think we should be considering your involvement in another FTN. In a non-Fidonet situation you might revert to the older TEL flag. E.g. TEL:232
The original question was about listing BBS connectivity in the nodelist.
The nodelist is for mailers to call other mailers. Not for mailers to
call a BBS to slay the Red Dragon or mooch someone's warez collection.
The nodelist is for mailers to call other mailers. Not for mailers to
call a BBS to slay the Red Dragon or mooch someone's warez
collection.
I'm looking for ways to show a non standard telnet port or a ssh port or...
and yes it's for BBS connections.. a U flag could do this I guess.. it's open for use in the FTSC specs..
I'm looking for ways to show a non standard telnet port or a ssh port or... and yes it's for BBS connections.. a U flag could do this I guess.. it's op for use in the FTSC specs..
Please explain to me logically how you believe this is a good idea?
and yes it's for BBS connections.. a U flag could do this I guess.. i open for use in the FTSC specs..
But that doesn't mean you can put whatever you like in there. It should serve a purpose to the function of the nodelist. BBS connectivity for users doesn't qualify.
I think we should be considering your involvement in another FTN. In a non-Fidonet situation you might revert to the older TEL flag. E.g.
Please explain to me logically how you believe this is a goodi was simply asking for info about what options there were.
idea?
The original question was about listing BBS connectivity in the
nodelist.
The nodelist is for mailers to call other mailers. Not for mailers to
call a BBS to slay the Red Dragon or mooch someone's warez collection.
But that doesn't mean you can put whatever you like in there. It
should serve a purpose to the function of the nodelist. BBS
connectivity for users doesn't qualify.
by definition a user flag allows for anything the user wants to define.
If I wanted to signal a BBS accepts users on a non standard port for Telnet or SSH or... what is the best way to show this in a FTN
nodelist?
I think we should be considering your involvement in another FTN.
In a non-Fidonet situation you might revert to the older TEL flag.
E.g. TEL:23232.
I remember having to include that with Argus many moons ago also.
I'm looking for ways to show a non standard telnet port or a ssh port or... and yes it's for BBS connections.. a U flag could do this I
guess.. it's open for use in the FTSC specs..
But that doesn't mean you can put whatever you like in there.
It should serve a purpose to the function of the nodelist. BBS connectivity for users doesn't qualify.
by definition a user flag allows for anything the user wants to define.
So, userflags like: U,TRUMP_IS_SUCH_A_NICE_MAN would be ok for you?
The original question was about listing BBS connectivity in the nodelist.
Nope. FTN, hypothetically.
The nodelist is for mailers to call other mailers. Not for mailers to call a BBS to slay the Red Dragon or mooch someone's warez collection.
The Fidonet nodelist, damned right. 8-)
But that doesn't mean you can put whatever you like in there. It
should serve a purpose to the function of the nodelist. BBS
connectivity for users doesn't qualify.
by definition a user flag allows for anything the user wants to
define.
Paul H. is more than welcome to do whatever he wants with his own net, but when listing non-mailer-related stuff in a nodelist entry, it should be expected that many people will question and take him to task over this.
by definition a user flag allows for anything the user wants to defin
So, userflags like: U,TRUMP_IS_SUCH_A_NICE_MAN would be ok for you?
quite simply, you don't... the nodelist is for mailers to communicate
with other mailers...
othernets can, though, make their own flags for things like this... it isn't really proper for what the nodelist is designed for but it is able to be done... i wouldn't expect fidonet to do this, though... if it were
CM,INA:blah,U,BBS:2300
in any case, other FTNs can do what they like for the most part...
that's one of the reasons they came into existance in the first place ;)
Paul H. is more than welcome to do whatever he wants with his own net,
but when listing non-mailer-related stuff in a nodelist entry, it should be expected that many people will question and take him to task over
this.
You want to advertise your BBS, don't you?
Damned right. His other favourite FTN doesn't have an equivalent FTSC, and the guy just wanted some advice. No dramas.
On 30 May 2020 at 01:33p, Wilfred van Velzen pondered and said...
by definition a user flag allows for anything the user wants
to defin
So, userflags like: U,TRUMP_IS_SUCH_A_NICE_MAN would be ok for you?
Disappointed to read this because it attempts to politicize a thread
where
the intent was to seek understanding about nodelist flags by asking questions. Beyond this reply I am not going to respond to your line of questioning if they are going to be framed like this.
Thanks for your reply Michiel. Hope this finds you well.
So, userflags like: U,TRUMP_IS_SUCH_A_NICE_MAN would be ok for
you?
according to the spec and long standing existing practise, yes...
sure it does... to a point... fidonet, however, has been having their
eyes covered, though, by some who insist that all nodelist flags, U or not, are so-called approved or they will strip them... one day, folks
will wake up and smell the roses and this so-called "approved U flags" nonsense will go out the window
by definition a user flag allows for anything the user wants todefin
So, userflags like: U,TRUMP_IS_SUCH_A_NICE_MAN would be ok for you?
Disappointed to read this because it attempts to politicize a thread where the intent was to seek understanding about nodelist flags by asking questions. Beyond this reply I am not going to respond to your line of questioning if they are going to be framed like this.
I wanted to give a controverial example (without making it personal),
why you don't want to allow anything in the userflags. Apparently my example was controverial enough to make my point...
If I wanted to signal a BBS accepts users on a non standard port
for Telnet
or SSH or... what is the best way to show this in a FTN nodelist?
Just looking for your thoughts on how current flags could be used or
best way to introduce new ones without breaking anything for legacy systems using a nodelist. Thanks for your thoughts.
The original question was about listing BBS connectivityI'm looking for ways to show a non standard telnet port or
in the nodelist. The nodelist is for mailers to call other
mailers. Not for mailers to call a BBS to slay the Red
Dragon or mooch someone's warez collection.
a ssh port or... and yes it's for BBS connections.. a U flag
could do this I guess.. it's open for use in the FTSC specs..
The nodelist is for mailers to call other mailers..
I'm looking for ways to show a non standard telnet port or
a ssh port or... and yes it's for BBS connections..
But that doesn't mean you can put whatever you like in
there. It should serve a purpose to the function of the
nodelist. BBS connectivity for users doesn't qualify.
But that doesn't mean you can put whatever you like in
there. It should serve a purpose to the function of the
nodelist. BBS connectivity for users doesn't qualify.
What purpose does U,MOB serve if not to advertise "hey folks.. i own a cell phone.. but you won't find any useful technical info for your mailer."
But that doesn't mean you can put whatever you like in
there. It should serve a purpose to the function of the
nodelist. BBS connectivity for users doesn't qualify.
What purpose does U,MOB serve if not to advertise "hey folks.. i own a cell
phone.. but you won't find any useful technical info for your mailer."
What purpose does U,MOB serve if not to advertise "hey folks.. i
own a cell phone.. but you won't find any useful technical info
for your mailer."
Your absolutely right. And that is why this flag is controversial...
What purpose does U,MOB serve if not to advertise "hey folks.. i own a cell phone.. but you won't find any useful technical info for your mailer."
What purpose does U,MOB serve if not to advertise "hey folks.. i own
a cell phone.. but you won't find any useful technical info for your
mailer."
I do not know why they are there.
But that doesn't mean you can put whatever you like in
there. It should serve a purpose to the function of the
nodelist. BBS connectivity for users doesn't qualify.
What purpose does U,MOB serve if not to advertise "hey folks.. i
own a cell phone.. but you won't find any useful technical info for
your mailer."
On one hand the ZC2 seems to be completely unqualified to make sane decisions about user flags, one the other hand user flags should be restricted and approved. Fidonet at its best.
I wanted to give a controverial example (without making it personal),
why you don't want to allow anything in the userflags. Apparently my example was controverial enough to make my point...
Forget of it. Immediately and forever.
The nodelist is for Fidonet nodes, not for BBSes.
,U,BBS:ssh://bbs@some.host.name:22
Guys some info / thoughts please
If I wanted to signal a BBS accepts users on a non standard port for Telnet or SSH or... what is the best way to show this in a FTN
nodelist?
If I wanted to signal a BBS accepts users on a non standard port
for Telnet or SSH or... what is the best way to show this in a
FTN nodelist?
Since a FTN nodelist is used to facilitate the interconnecting of
mailers and not BBS's. I am thinking that a BBS list might be a better place to use such a flag. Just my thought on the subject.
Since a FTN nodelist is used to facilitate the interconnecting of mailers and not BBS's. I am thinking that a BBS list might be a bette place to use such a flag. Just my thought on the subject.
Sorry, second thought. I can see where a nodelist might be a convenient place to use such a flag. But... I don't see it as the proper place since the flag's use isn't FTN mailer related but BBS related.
Sysop: | digital man |
---|---|
Location: | Riverside County, California |
Users: | 1,034 |
Nodes: | 15 (0 / 15) |
Uptime: | 30:46:31 |
Calls: | 782 |
Calls today: | 7 |
Files: | 95,174 |
D/L today: |
2,094 files (145M bytes) |
Messages: | 299,508 |