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,

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: 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 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)

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)

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)

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 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)