-={ 2021-03-30 16:53:11.807751972+00:00 }=-
Hey All!
That was the quietest election ever. Not sure how to take it but for
my part I plan to make some noise over the next two years, my
reasoning being that nothing survives without change.
On that note, the packed msg two digit year datetime stamp must die a horrible public death. Who is with me?
On that note, the packed msg two digit year datetime stamp
must die a horrible public death. Who is with me?
When coming out with a suggestion for a change you have to
think does it help or hinder .
In this case it does help but it will hinder a lot more.
Why as lots of software are effected and all will require
changes and for some the source is not available therefore
rendering systems running it/them non operational.
On that note, the packed msg two digit year datetime stamp must die a horrible public death. Who is with me?
In this case it does help but it will hinder a lot more.
In the year 2076 I promise to revisit this thread to check on
how things are going.
In the year 2076 I promise to revisit this thread to check on
how things are going.
76?
-={ 2021-03-30 16:53:11.807751972+00:00 }=-
Hey All!
That was the quietest election ever. Not sure how to take it but for my part I plan to make some noise over the next two years, my reasoning being that nothing survives without change.
On that note, the packed msg two digit year datetime stamp must die a horrible public death. Who is with me?
FidoNet is a legacy protocol that must (from what I've observed)
be enhanced only in backwards-compatible means.
And if you're going to introduce another date/time format, best
to use existing standards (e.g. RFC822 or ISO-8601) rather than introducing yet another date/time format.
In other words, I am calling BS on the backwards compatibilty arguement.
You got nothing in that direction.
I'll just repeat my previous reply to your inquiry on this subject:
FidoNet is a legacy protocol that must (from what I've observed) be enhanced only in backwards-compatible means. So if you want to add,
say, the full year of authorship to to messages in a backwards
compatible way, a new control paragraph (kludge line) would be the
way to go.
And if you're going to introduce another date/time format, best to
use existing standards (e.g. RFC822 or ISO-8601) rather than
introducing yet another date/time format.
@MSGID: 1:153/7001 60641510
@CHRS: UTF-8 4
-={ 2021-03-31 06:22:08.863177505+00:00 }=-
You can chose to call it whatever you like, but that's how its
done.
However with a true
fix, such as a ISO-8601 compatible datetime stamp, one of those cases becomes redundant and can be safely ignored without any detrimental effects. Mind you that is true today given that is exactly what I have been doing since about 1997-ish. Having said that I do believe a true
fix was the proper way to proceed since at least 2002 when the two digit year was officially declared obsolete in digital communications.
Are you describing here a widely used methodology which is in
need of being documented?
No? In that case it does not concern the FTSC.
FidoNet is a legacy protocol that must (from what I've observed) be enhanced only in backwards-compatible means. So if you want to add, say, the full year of authorship to to messages in a backwards compatible way, a new control paragraph (kludge line) would be the
way to go.
or a new PKT format...
What's your point? There are many other kludges being ignored as
well. Why pick on the two
obviously corrupted ones?
BTW note that this reply to you has a REPLY kludge. Can you guess
why?
BTW note that this reply to you has a REPLY kludge. Can you guess
why?
you do realize that maurice reads and writes messages to/from
raw PKTs, right?
all via shell script(s) using standard *nix command line tools
and for at least two decades... probably a little longer ;)
I believe I was the first truly working UTF-8 capable fidonet node -
with or without the CHRS kludge. :-)
Nope.
so please, let's not try to measure penises by using a flawed
nodelist archive as the measuring stick, ok? ;)
Bottomline is that four digit year DateTime stamps are the way to go and
I will continue to press on to make it so. Whether or not it is
successful remains to be seen.
You don't need to be a member of the FTSC to achieve that.
If you achieve it, the FTSC will document it.
they do when not all of the nodelists exist there...
then there's also the time when it would take months for Z2 to pick up
and apply Z1 nodelist updates... like the system i was first involved with... according to the archives of Z2 nodelists, it wasn't listed
until months and months
so please, let's not try to measure penises by using a flawed nodelist archive as the measuring stick, ok? ;)
If
it turns out there is a conflict of interest I'd be inclined to resign my membership and continue to persue the four digit year DateTime stamp despite the remote odds of success everyone has given it.
then there's also the time when it would take months for Z2 to pick up
and apply Z1 nodelist updates... like the system i was first involved with... according to the archives of Z2 nodelists, it wasn't listed until months and months (years! actually) after P4 was put in place...
P4 was put in place June 9th, 1989 ...
then there's also the time when it would take months for Z2 to
pick up and apply Z1 nodelist updates... like the system i was
first involved with... according to the archives of Z2 nodelists,
it wasn't listed until months and months (years! actually) after
P4 was put in place...
That's a claim, not a proven statement, about something which may or
may not have occured some 33 years ago.
Please don't break-open my mouth about multiple historic ZC1s unable
of producing ZONE1-segments in a timely and reliable manner ... Or Bob Seaborn RIP delaying ZONE1-segments in the limited ZSEGS-distribution
... anything to paint a bleak picture of Z2 and its ZC was acceptable.
I would say that your whole story of not being listed and it taken
years for that to happen (your words, not mine) is a gross misrepresentation of the truth. If you can't back-up your claim, you shouldn't make it in the first place ... so here's your chance...
P4 was put in place June 9th, 1989 ...
Actually, you have no clue when it was put in place as you only
copied that date from the current version 4.07. If there is a version 4.07, then there were versions 4.01->6 before that date.
You seem to be living a fidonet of times gone by, "who" did "what" in 1987-1988-1989 in Fidonet is fairly irrelevant these days and if you
want to stop talking about measuring penises, then I suggest you put
yours where it belongs and do something which improves Fidonet other
than lecturing people about stuff which no-one cares about.
Life is good, as Maurice would say, and he is right on thatone.
Take it to NetMail or another echo, please.
Conflict of interest in Fidonet? ??
I think it is perfectly OK for any developer to be a part of the
FTSC and to cooperate in documenting what still needs to be
documented.
and I sense development is on its way again.
FidoNet is a legacy protocol that must (from what I've observed) be enhanced only in backwards-compatible means. So if you want to add, say, the full year of authorship to to messages in a backwards compatible way, a new control paragraph (kludge line) would be the way to go.
And if you're going to introduce another date/time format, best to use existing
standards (e.g. RFC822 or ISO-8601) rather than introducing yet another date/time format.
standards (e.g. RFC822 or ISO-8601) rather than introducing yet another date/time format.
I second this!
mark,
then there's also the time when it would take months for Z2 to pick up and apply Z1 nodelist updates... like the system i was first involved with... according to the archives of Z2 nodelists, it wasn't listed unti months and months (years! actually) after P4 was put in place...
That's a claim, not a proven statement, about something which may or may not have occured some 33 years ago.
Please don't break-open my mouth about multiple historic ZC1s unable of producing ZONE1-segments in a timely and reliable manner ... Or Bob Seaborn delaying ZONE1-segments in the limited ZSEGS-distribution ... anything to pa a bleak picture of Z2 and its ZC was acceptable.
I would say that your whole story of not being listed and it taken years for that to happen (your words, not mine) is a gross misrepresentation of the truth. If you can't back-up your claim, you shouldn't make it in the first place ... so here's your chance...
P4 was put in place June 9th, 1989 ...
Actually, you have no clue when it was put in place as you only copied that date from the current version 4.07. If there is a version 4.07, then there w versions 4.01->6 before that date.
You seem to be living a fidonet of times gone by, "who" did "what" in 1987-1988-1989 in Fidonet is fairly irrelevant these days and if you want to stop talking about measuring penises, then I suggest you put yours where it belongs and do something which improves Fidonet other than lecturing people about stuff which no-one cares about.
Life is good, as Maurice would say, and he is right on thatone.
\%/@rd
| Sysop: | digital man |
|---|---|
| Location: | Riverside County, California |
| Users: | 1,041 |
| Nodes: | 15 (0 / 15) |
| Uptime: | 213:53:44 |
| Calls: | 500,252 |
| Calls today: | 21 |
| Files: | 95,199 |
| D/L today: |
6,035 files (991M bytes) |
| Messages: | 464,245 |
| Posted today: | 2 |