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?

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.

Paul

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/04/20 (Windows/32)
* Origin: Agency BBS | Dunedin, New Zealand | agency.bbs.nz (3:770/100)

Hello, Paul!

Saturday May 30 2020 12:29, from Paul Hayton -> All:

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?

FTN nodelist by definition includes connection methods *between FTN nodes* and has nothing to do with BBS here.

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.

Consult your BBS list for these flags.

Best Regards, Nil
--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5
* Origin: -=NIL BBS=- (2:5015/46)

Hi Paul!

30 May 2020 12:29, from Paul Hayton -> All:

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?

Not at all.
The nodelist is a list detailing the ways your system is reachable for _automated_ mail/file transfer.

BBS users are not in the scope of the nodelist.

There are lists of BBSes on fidonews or fidogazette.
You can publish the fact that you are running a BBS there.

CU, Ricsi

... A radical is a person with both feet firmly planted in the air.
--- GoldED+/LNX
* Origin: The hand that gives, gathers. -English proverb (2:310/31)

On 30 May 20 12:29:28, Paul Hayton said the following to All:

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.

Nick

--- Renegade vY2Ka2
* Origin: Joey, do you like movies about gladiators? (1:229/426)

Hi! Paul,

On 05/30/2020 07:03 PM, Nick Andre wrote to you:

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.

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. Hope it helps.

Cheers,
Paul.

--- Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
* Origin: Hire a teenager while they still know it all. (3:640/1384.125)

On 30 May 2020 at 12:29p, Paul Hayton pondered and said...

Thanks for your thoughts.

Thanks for the feedback.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/04/20 (Windows/32)
* Origin: Agency BBS | Dunedin, New Zealand | agency.bbs.nz (3:770/100)

On 30 May 20 18:45:48, Paul Quinn said the following to Paul Hayton:

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.

Nick

--- Renegade vY2Ka2
* Origin: Joey, do you like movies about gladiators? (1:229/426)

On 30 May 2020 at 05:04a, Nick Andre pondered and said...

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.

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..

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/04/20 (Windows/32)
* Origin: Agency BBS | Dunedin, New Zealand | agency.bbs.nz (3:770/100)

Hi Paul,

On 2020-05-30 21:30:08, you wrote to Nick Andre:

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..

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.

Bye, Wilfred.

--- FMail-lnx64 2.1.0.18-B20170815
* Origin: FMail development HQ (2:280/464)

On 30 May 20 21:30:08, Paul Hayton said the following to Nick Andre:

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..

Okay, I'm very confused now as to how you appear to believe in using the Fidonet nodelist as some sort of BBS directory for end-users.

Please explain to me logically how you believe this is a good idea?

Nick

--- Renegade vY2Ka2
* Origin: Joey, do you like movies about gladiators? (1:229/426)

On 30 May 2020 at 05:49a, Nick Andre pondered and said...

Please explain to me logically how you believe this is a good idea?

im not saying it is, you are incorrectly inferring i am... i was simply asking for info about what options there were.

thanks again for the info.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/04/20 (Windows/32)
* Origin: Agency BBS | Dunedin, New Zealand | agency.bbs.nz (3:770/100)

On 30 May 2020 at 11:40a, Wilfred van Velzen pondered and said...

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.

by definition a user flag allows for anything the user wants to define.

clearly at the heart of this discussion / feedback is the function of a nodelist.. and i am understanding of the position you and others are taking on this.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/04/20 (Windows/32)
* Origin: Agency BBS | Dunedin, New Zealand | agency.bbs.nz (3:770/100)

On 30 May 2020 at 06:45p, Paul Quinn pondered and said...

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.

thanks yes it's an othernet related question not born out of anything i would seek to implement in fidonet. i just thought i would ask here.. thanks again.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/04/20 (Windows/32)
* Origin: Agency BBS | Dunedin, New Zealand | agency.bbs.nz (3:770/100)

Hi Paul!

30 May 2020 22:23, from Paul Hayton -> Nick Andre:

Please explain to me logically how you believe this is a good
idea?

i was simply asking for info about what options there were.

None.
As the nodelist is a list that tells nodes how to _AUTOMATICALLY_ interconnect. So what you are asking for is completely out of scope of the nodelist.

CU, Ricsi

... Bed & Breakfast: two things the kids will never make for themselves.
--- GoldED+/LNX
* Origin: Is it better to know useless things than nothing? (2:310/31)

Hi! Nick,

On 30 May 20 05:04, you wrote to me:

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-)

Cheers,
Paul.

... "Pieces of nine! Pieces of nine!": Another parroty error.
--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20130515
* Origin: Quinn's Rock - Live from Paul's Xubuntu desktop! (3:640/1384)

Hi Paul,

On 2020-05-30 22:28:41, you wrote to me:

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?

Bye, Wilfred.

--- FMail-lnx64 2.1.0.18-B20170815
* Origin: FMail development HQ (2:280/464)

Re: Nodelist Flags
By: Paul Hayton to All on Sat May 30 2020 12:29:28

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?

quite simply, you don't... the nodelist is for mailers to communicate with other mailers...

granted, back in the day, the nodelist was used like a dialing directory but that was easily done since there was only one "port/line" to connect via... at that time, when these dialing directories were being used/generated, the MO (Mail Only) flag was used to filter out systems without a BBS... the CM flag was use to show systems with 24x7 access and the limited online flags were used to show time limited access systems... but since FTN has embraced the 'net, this has all gone out the window...

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 to be done, i'd expect to see a U[ser] flag used... U flags are not supposed to be regulated but some nets do do that... anyway, possibly something like this could be used...

CM,INA:blah,U,BBS:2300

where BBS is the U flag and if followed by ":xxxxx" where the 'x' are numbers, they would be the port on the already determined domain... the existance of the BBS user flag could be used to indicate several things... a BBS exists there, or a BBS exists there and accepts unsolicited BBS callers... lack of the BBS U flag could be used to indicate no BBS at all or simply a BBS that doesn't accept unsolicited callers... either way, be sure to read up on how the U flag(s) are to be listed...

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 ;)


)\/(ark
--- SBBSecho 3.11-Linux
* Origin: SouthEast Star Mail HUB - SESTAR (1:3634/12)

Re: Nodelist Flags
By: Paul Quinn to Paul Hayton on Sat May 30 2020 18:45:48

I think we should be considering your involvement in another FTN.

my thoughts, too...

In a non-Fidonet situation you might revert to the older TEL flag.
E.g. TEL:23232.

that's a possibility but i would prefer BBS:xxxx since it is a better indicator of BBS ;)

I remember having to include that with Argus many moons ago also.

that was because the ART (Argus/Radius/Taurus) family of mailers didn't recognize the new ITN flag for telnet so operators had to add the old TELnet flag for connections... that phased out pretty quickly, though, as the software was updated to use the newer flags... there was a similar situation with another flag and that family of mailers... in that case, there was a flag that was a U[ser] flag that was moved to being a normal flag... those mailers would not recognize it unless it was to the right of the U flag... i'm not sure if that was ever updated in those mailers or not but i remember looking at the code for it in at least one of those mailers...


)\/(ark
--- SBBSecho 3.11-Linux
* Origin: SouthEast Star Mail HUB - SESTAR (1:3634/12)

Re: Re: Nodelist Flags
By: Wilfred van Velzen to Paul Hayton on Sat May 30 2020 11:40:05

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.

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 in the same way that folks found/figured out they could connect anywhere for their mail and didn't have to connect to some NC/NEC's or HUB's system for anything other than possibly routed netmail...

It should serve a purpose to the function of the nodelist. BBS connectivity for users doesn't qualify.

yeah... so listing (IC issued?) fakenets for BBSes with points didn't qualify? there were also serial numbers of some sort listed in old nodelists... i know there were other things listed in the U flags, too... hell, i used to list U,UUCP because my system didn't meet the qualifications for listing as an official fidonet to internet gateway so i could not list the UUCP flag on the left of any U flags... listing it as a U flag was quite ok and worked as desired...


)\/(ark
--- SBBSecho 3.11-Linux
* Origin: SouthEast Star Mail HUB - SESTAR (1:3634/12)

Re: Re: Nodelist Flags
By: Wilfred van Velzen to Paul Hayton on Sat May 30 2020 13:33:22

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?

according to the spec and long standing existing practise, yes...


)\/(ark
--- SBBSecho 3.11-Linux
* Origin: SouthEast Star Mail HUB - SESTAR (1:3634/12)

On 30 May 20 20:53:40, Paul Quinn said the following to Nick Andre:

The original question was about listing BBS connectivity in the nodelist.

Nope. FTN, hypothetically.

I do not quote-rant very often as I cannot afford royalties, buuuuuuuuuuut:

"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.."

Seems to me BBS connections is different than FTN/mailer connections, no?

Or did I miss that memo on where the term "FTN" now includes "BBS software".

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-)

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.

Doesn't matter if Wilfred flies the U,TRUMP_IS_A_NICE_GUY flag, or if I fly the U,WILFRED_IS_A_CLOSETED_HOMOSEXUAL flag, the Nodelist Police will complain and issue fines.

Nick

--- Renegade vY2Ka2
* Origin: Joey, do you like movies about gladiators? (1:229/426)

Hello Paul,

On Saturday May 30 2020 22:28, you wrote to Wilfred van Velzen:

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.

There is no consensus about that. In Z2 users flags are subject to the ZC's fiat. Other zones may have other restrictions. FTS-5001 says this about user flags: "advertisement is strictly prohibited".

You want to advertise your BBS, don't you?

There is a nodelist field that has less restrictions: the system name field. AFAIK the only restrictions are that for an IP or email capable node it must not look like an fqdn or e-mail address.

So you could put this in the system name field: "Paul's_BBS:12345"


Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20170303
* Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)

Hi! Nick,

On 05/31/2020 01:11 AM,you wrote:

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.

Damned right. His other favourite FTN doesn't have an equivalent FTSC, and the guy just wanted some advice. No dramas.

Cheers,
Paul.

--- Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
* Origin: Riker to Enterprise, 'Beamdown Troi and a six pack!' (3:640/1384.125)

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.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/04/20 (Windows/32)
* Origin: Agency BBS | Dunedin, New Zealand | agency.bbs.nz (3:770/100)

On 30 May 2020 at 09:18a, mark lewis pondered and said...

quite simply, you don't... the nodelist is for mailers to communicate
with other mailers...

Hi Mark, thanks :) Yep others have made their thoughts clear on this too.

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 ;)

Thanks yep agreed and thought as much.

Thanks for the considered reply.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/04/20 (Windows/32)
* Origin: Agency BBS | Dunedin, New Zealand | agency.bbs.nz (3:770/100)

On 30 May 2020 at 10:11a, Nick Andre pondered and said...

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.

Yep for the sake of clarity none of my questioning is couched in terms of any intentions on my end to makes changes to a Fidonet nodelist, it's all fsxNet focused musings.

Appreciate your replies and info Nick.

Best, Paul

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/04/20 (Windows/32)
* Origin: Agency BBS | Dunedin, New Zealand | agency.bbs.nz (3:770/100)

On 30 May 2020 at 04:26p, Michiel van der Vlist pondered and said...

You want to advertise your BBS, don't you?

Just looking at what information is acceptable to include in a FTN nodelist
and the flags use to convey it. I've got (I think) a pretty good read on the thoughts and feelings shared by folks here. Which is what I was after :)

Thanks for your reply Michiel. Hope this finds you well.

Best, Paul

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/04/20 (Windows/32)
* Origin: Agency BBS | Dunedin, New Zealand | agency.bbs.nz (3:770/100)

On 31 May 2020 at 09:18a, Paul Quinn pondered and said...

Damned right. His other favourite FTN doesn't have an equivalent FTSC, and the guy just wanted some advice. No dramas.

Cheers ears...

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/04/20 (Windows/32)
* Origin: Agency BBS | Dunedin, New Zealand | agency.bbs.nz (3:770/100)

Paul wrote (2020-05-31):

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

Now we're being haunted by the don't "politicize" nonsense in Fidonet too?

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.

Let's reframe it:

if
"a user flag allows for anything the user wants to define"
then
a user flag could carry a politicized message

if
a user flag could carry a politicized message
then
put whatever you want in the user flag
else
what does "a user flag allows for anything the user wants to define" actually mean?

---
* Origin: (2:280/464.47)

Hello Paul,

On Sunday May 31 2020 15:11, you wrote to me:

Thanks for your reply Michiel. Hope this finds you well.

You'r welcome.


Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20170303
* Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)

Hello mark,

On Saturday May 30 2020 09:36, you wrote to Wilfred van Velzen:

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...

Long standing existing practise.... hmmm...

In Z2, the largest zone BTW, existing practise for over two decades has been that all nodelist flags, including user flags, are subject to ZC approval. Like it or not that has been long standing existing practise for the larger part of Fidonet.

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

Maybe. Or maybe the other way around. Maybe one day folks now in favour of allowing any nonsense that anyone can come up with in the user flags will wake up and see that having some restrictions on user flags isn't such a bad idea after all...


Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20170303
* Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)

Hi Paul,

On 2020-05-31 15:04:11, you wrote to me:

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.

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...

Bye, Wilfred.

--- FMail-lnx64 2.1.0.18-B20170815
* Origin: FMail development HQ (2:280/464)

Hello Wilfred,

On Sunday May 31 2020 12:33, you wrote to Paul Hayton:

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...

You succesfully made pour point.


Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20170303
* Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)

Good ${greeting_time}, Paul!

30 May 2020 12:29:28, you wrote to All:

If I wanted to signal a BBS accepts users on a non standard port
for Telnet

Forget of it. Immediately and forever.

or SSH or... what is the best way to show this in a FTN nodelist?

The only place in the nodelist where you can put the BBS info is the system name, so the URL may be a proper content for that.

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 nodelist is for Fidonet nodes, not for BBSes.


--
Alexey V. Vissarionov aka Gremlin from Kremlin
gremlin.ru!gremlin; +vii-cmiii-ccxxix-lxxix-xlii

... that's why I really dislike fools.
--- /bin/vi
* Origin: http://openwall.com/Owl (2:5020/545)

Good ${greeting_time}, Paul!

30 May 2020 21:30:08, you wrote to Nick Andre:

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.

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..

,U,BBS:ssh://bbs@some.host.name:22


--
Alexey V. Vissarionov aka Gremlin from Kremlin
gremlin.ru!gremlin; +vii-cmiii-ccxxix-lxxix-xlii

... god@universe:~ # cvs up && make world
--- /bin/vi
* Origin: http://openwall.com/Owl (2:5020/545)

On 5/30/2020 5:40 AM, between "Wilfred van Velzen : Paul Hayton":

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.

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."

--- Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Windows/20100228)
* Origin: nntp://rbb.fidonet.fi - Lake Ylo - Finland (2:221/360.0)

Hello August,

On Monday June 01 2020 18:56, you wrote to Wilfred van Velzen:

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."

IMNSHO, those ,MOB nodes should never have made it into the nodelist. Since they can not accept incoming connections they have the connectivity of a point. Systems that have the connectivity of a point should BE points.

This may change with the coming of IPv6 for mobile networks...


Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20170303
* Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)

Hi August,

On 2020-06-01 18:56:19, you wrote to me:

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."

Your absolutely right. And that is why this flag is controversial...

Bye, Wilfred.

--- FMail-lnx64 2.1.0.18-B20170815
* Origin: FMail development HQ (2:280/464)

Hello Wilfred!

01 Jun 20 18:39, you wrote to August Abolins:

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...

There shouldn't be any controversy about it. It's a waste of bytes that contributes nothing to FidoNet. It certainly doesn't provide the information needed to connect to the node, which is the primary purpose of the nodelist.

Granted, these days with most nodes connecting over the internet, the wasted bytes aren't as much of an issue as they would have been back in the days of dialup POTS connections, where calls could cost significant amounts of money.

Andrew

--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20180707
* Origin: Phoenix BBS * phoenix.bnbbbs.net (1:320/219)

Hi August!

01 Jun 2020 18:56, from August Abolins -> Wilfred van Velzen:

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 I agree that those "nodes" should be points.
Nodes need to be reachable at least in the ZMH.
Those "nodes" are not, hence they should simply use point addresses.
I am sure that there are enough nodes that are happy to give those people a point address.

CU, Ricsi

... We have sex for a purpose. Last night she used me to time an egg.
--- GoldED+/LNX
* Origin: These guys live on the edge. -Butthead (2:310/31)

Re: Nodelist Flags
By: Richard Menedetter to August Abolins on Tue Jun 02 2020 11:19:14

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.

ask your ZC... he's the one that introduced it and made it an "approved" flag...


)\/(ark
--- SBBSecho 3.11-Linux
* Origin: SouthEast Star Mail HUB - SESTAR (1:3634/12)

Michiel wrote (2020-06-01):

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."

MvdV> IMNSHO, those ,MOB nodes should never have made it into the nodelist.

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.

---
* Origin: (2:280/464.47)

Hello Oli,

On Tuesday June 02 2020 17:49, you wrote to me:

MvdV>> IMNSHO, those ,MOB nodes should never have made it into the
MvdV>> nodelist.

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 expressed my views on that in my Fidonews article titled "Why I resigned as FTSC administrator" in Fidonews 36:43 of 28 Oct 2019. ATM, I have nothing to add to that.

Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20170303
* Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)

On 31 May 2020 at 12:33p, Wilfred van Velzen pondered and said...

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...

Gotcha... all noted. Thanks Wilfred.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/04/20 (Windows/32)
* Origin: Agency BBS | Dunedin, New Zealand | agency.bbs.nz (3:770/100)

On 31 May 2020 at 10:20p, Alexey Vissarionov pondered and said...

Forget of it. Immediately and forever.
The nodelist is for Fidonet nodes, not for BBSes.

Hi Alexey, thanks for your feedback.

Best, Paul

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/04/20 (Windows/32)
* Origin: Agency BBS | Dunedin, New Zealand | agency.bbs.nz (3:770/100)

On 31 May 2020 at 11:30p, Alexey Vissarionov pondered and said...

,U,BBS:ssh://bbs@some.host.name:22

Thanks for your suggestions.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/04/20 (Windows/32)
* Origin: Agency BBS | Dunedin, New Zealand | agency.bbs.nz (3:770/100)

Hello Paul!

30 May 20 12:29, you wrote to all:

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?

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.


Jeff


--- Mystic v1.12 A46 (2020/06/10) GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20170303
* Origin: The OuijaBoard BBS - bbs.ouijabrd.net (1:282/1031)

Hello Paul!

15 Jun 20 13:38, I wrote to you:

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.

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.


Jeff


--- Mystic v1.12 A46 (2020/06/10) GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20170303
* Origin: The OuijaBoard BBS - bbs.ouijabrd.net (1:282/1031)

On 15 Jun 2020 at 01:46p, Jeff Smith pondered and said...

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.

Yep thanks Jeff.. all good thoughts. I agree.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/05/28 (Windows/32)
* Origin: Agency BBS | Dunedin, New Zealand | agency.bbs.nz (3:770/100)