New BinkD.TXT and Except.TXT

[BinkD Nodelist Origin]

::: When you smell an odorless gas, it is probably carbon monoxide.

Today, Saturday 10/23/10, Write by Night (1:142/928) received the
following files.

╔════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╗
║Area : I-BINKD Comment : FIPN: The weekly BINKD.TXT file ║
╟────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────╢
║BINKD.TXT 81,846 BinkD-compatible list of nodes extracted from ║
║ Z1 Nodelist 2010/295 ║
║ ║
║EXCEPT.TXT 112,150 Exceptions noted during processing of Z1 ║
║ Nodelist 2010/295 ║
║ ║
║ ║
║ 193,996 bytes in 2 file(s) ║
╚════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╝


Total of 193,996 in 2 file(s)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ File requests are welcome 23 hrs per day, excluding ZMH. │
│ │
│ Most of the files which are announced here are not kept! │
╞════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╡
│ FREQ FILES for a listing of what is available for file request. │
└────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Thanks, Jerry

[Jame Clay]

.----------------------------------------------------------------------------.
|Area : I-BINKD Comment : FIPN: The weekly BINKD.TXT file |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|EXCEPT.TXT 112,150 Exceptions noted during processing of Z1 |
| Nodelist 2010/295 |

Should that still be listing INA exceptions (INA?)? Thought you'd taken
care of that...



Jame

[Jerry Schwartz]

Hello, Jame...

.-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----. |Area : I-BINKD Comment : FIPN: The weekly BINKD.TXT file
|
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----+ |EXCEPT.TXT 112,150 Exceptions noted during processing of Z1
| | Nodelist 2010/295
|

JC> Should that still be listing INA exceptions (INA?)? Thought
JC> you'd taken
JC> care of that...

INA was deprecated back in 2003, did that status ever change?

Regards,

Jerry Schwartz

mailto:***@comfortable.com
http://www.writebynight.com

[RJ Clay]

Hi Jerry!

Jerry Schwartz wrote to Jame Clay:
JS>JC> Should that still be listing INA exceptions (INA?)? Thought
JS>JC> you'd taken care of that...
JS>
JS> INA was deprecated back in 2003,

Where was that noted?


JS> did that status ever change?

It's listed as a standard flag in FTS-5001.2 (dated 26 Jan 05, & last
reviewed 26 Jan 07), and it's listed as a standard flag in the current (309)
nodelist I have...


Jame



Greetings, RJ Clay
email: ***@ftn.rocasa.us

[Jerry Schwartz]

Hello, RJ...

Nov 08, 2010 at 15:28, RJ Clay wrote to Jerry Schwartz:

RC> Hi Jerry!

RC> Jerry Schwartz wrote to Jame Clay:
JS>>JC> Should that still be listing INA exceptions (INA?)? Thought
JS>>JC> you'd taken care of that...
JS>>
JS>> INA was deprecated back in 2003,

RC> Where was that noted?


JS>> did that status ever change?

RC> It's listed as a standard flag in FTS-5001.2 (dated 26 Jan 05, &
RC> last
RC> reviewed 26 Jan 07), and it's listed as a standard flag in the
RC> current (309)
RC> nodelist I have...

This might have been part of a spat between the ZCs. I see that it is no longer
described as deprecated in the Z1 nodelist.

This was more than a political issue, though. There is a limit to the length of
a user flag, which the INA is, and longer FQDNs might not fit.

By the way, the FTSC does not set standards: it codifies them and publishes
them.

Regards,

Jerry Schwartz

mailto:***@comfortable.com
http://www.writebynight.com

[Ross Cassell]

Hello Jerry!

08 Nov 10 20:12, you wrote to RJ Clay:

RC>> It's listed as a standard flag in FTS-5001.2 (dated 26 Jan 05,
RC>> & last reviewed 26 Jan 07), and it's listed as a standard flag in
RC>> the current (309) nodelist I have...

JS> This might have been part of a spat between the ZCs. I see that it is
JS> no longer described as deprecated in the Z1 nodelist.

JS> This was more than a political issue, though. There is a limit to the
JS> length of a user flag, which the INA is, and longer FQDNs might not
JS> fit.

It was more of a political issue, because some systems wanted to list their
FQDN after each protocol flag they flown, which broke nodelist processing due
to line length.

INA resolved this to a degree and is still in wide use.

==
Ross
Fidonet Feeds Or Fidonet In Your Newsreader: http://www.easternstar.info
E-mail: ross(at)cassell(dot)us | Other Places: http://links.cassell.us

We hoped and we got change!

... January 20th 2013 - The end of an ERROR!

[Jerry Schwartz]

Hello, Ross...

Nov 08, 2010 at 20:49, Ross Cassell wrote to Jerry Schwartz:

RC> It was more of a political issue, because some systems wanted to list
RC> their FQDN after each protocol flag they flown, which broke nodelist
RC> processing due to line length.

RC> INA resolved this to a degree and is still in wide use.

I thought that there was a 32-character limit on user flags. I distinctly
remember that no one was sure if it was 32 characters per flag, including both
the flag and the value, or just the value.

Regards,

Jerry Schwartz

mailto:***@comfortable.com
http://www.writebynight.com

[Jame Clay]

Jerry,

Post by Jerry Schwartz

Post by RJ Clay
It's listed as a standard flag in FTS-5001.2 (dated 26 Jan 05, &
last reviewed 26 Jan 07), and it's listed as a standard flag
in the current (309) nodelist I have...

This might have been part of a spat between the ZCs. I see that it is no
longer described as deprecated in the Z1 nodelist.
This was more than a political issue, though. There is a limit to the length o
a user flag, which the INA is, and longer FQDNs might not fit.

Hmm... Where is the limit noted? I don't recall seeing that...

Post by Jerry Schwartz
By the way, the FTSC does not set standards: it codifies them and publishes
them.

Well; exactly my point...<g> The reference I posted is what is current...



R.J. Clay ("Jame")

[Jerry Schwartz]

Hello, Jame...

Post by Jerry Schwartz
This was more than a political issue, though. There is a limit to the
length o a user flag, which the INA is, and longer FQDNs might not fit.

JC> Hmm... Where is the limit noted? I don't recall seeing that...

It was a very long time ago, when two things were happening:

- People were searching for a standard, backwards-compatible way of including
IP nodes.

- Various replacements for MakeNL were being birthed.

I was involved in the former, but as you can see it never came to anything.
We're stuck with a bewildering array of kludges, which encourages all kinds of
sloppiness. The most common exception is an IP flag of some sort with no
recognizable address.

Regards,

Jerry Schwartz

mailto:***@comfortable.com
http://www.writebynight.com

[Paul Quinn]

Hi! Jerry,

On 13/11/10 12:33, you wrote to Jame Clay:

JS> The most common exception is an IP flag of some sort with
JS> no recognizable address.

Is this related to the "Default to DNS" section in FTS-5001 or something else
entirely, Jerry?

Cheers,
Paul.

.... Health is the slowest possible rate at which you die.

[Jerry Schwartz]

Hello, Paul...

Nov 13, 2010 at 15:50, Paul Quinn wrote to Jerry Schwartz:

JS>> The most common exception is an IP flag of some sort with
JS>> no recognizable address.

PQ> Is this related to the "Default to DNS" section in FTS-5001 or
PQ> something else entirely, Jerry?


I'm not sure what you mean by "Default to DNS". Perhaps I haven't been paying
as much attention as I should.

I mean something like this:

2:203/0
Host,203,West_Net,Sweden,Bjorn_Felten,46-31-960447,33600,CM,XA,V34,IBN,U,NEC

Is there an FQDN lurking in there somewhere?

Regards,

Jerry Schwartz

mailto:***@comfortable.com
http://www.writebynight.com

[mark lewis]

JS> I'm not sure what you mean by "Default to DNS". Perhaps I haven't
JS> been paying as much attention as I should.

JS> I mean something like this:

JS> 2:203/0
JS> Host,203,West_Net,Sweden,Bjorn_Felten,46-31-960447,33600,CM,XA,V34,
JS> IBN,U,NEC

JS> Is there an FQDN lurking in there somewhere?

*IN* there, no... but the default method is to convert the FTN address to the
f.n.z.fidonet.net format... so f0.n203.z2.fidonet.net should return a node
number IF there's an entry for it...

)\/(ark

[Jame Clay]

Post by mark lewis

Post by Jerry Schwartz
I'm not sure what you mean by "Default to DNS". Perhaps I haven't
been paying as much attention as I should.
2:203/0
Host,203,West_Net,Sweden,Bjorn_Felten,46-31-960447,33600,CM,XA,V34,
IBN,U,NEC
Is there an FQDN lurking in there somewhere?

*IN* there, no... but the default method is to convert the FTN address to the
f.n.z.fidonet.net format... so f0.n203.z2.fidonet.net should return a node
number IF there's an entry for it...

True, but that's the thing; the information for that DNS entry itself needs
to come from somewhere, & IMHO the best place for it is the nodelist entry...



Jame

[Paul Quinn]

Hi! Jerry,

On 14/11/10 06:29, you wrote to me:

JS> Nov 13, 2010 at 15:50, Paul Quinn wrote to Jerry Schwartz:
JS>>> The most common exception is an IP flag of some sort with
JS>>> no recognizable address.
PQ>> Is this related to the "Default to DNS" section in FTS-5001 or
PQ>> something else entirely, Jerry?

JS> I'm not sure what you mean by "Default to DNS". Perhaps I haven't been
JS> paying as much attention as I should.

JS> I mean something like this:

JS> 2:203/0
JS> Host,203,West_Net,Sweden,Bjorn_Felten,46-31-960447,33600,CM,XA,V34,IBN,U,NEC

JS> Is there an FQDN lurking in there somewhere?

Nope, there's none there alright... not even in the entire zone 2 segment
listings for him, neither in the zone 1 nodelist version nor in zone 3's for
day #316. Not even f0.n203.z2.fidonet.net or f2.n203.z2.fidonet.net resolved
to a ping, which is what the "Default to DNS" section talks about.

Good example, mate. Thank you.

Cheers,
Paul.

.... Emergency repair procedure #1: Kick it.

[Jame Clay]

Paul,

Post by Paul Quinn

Post by Jerry Schwartz
The most common exception is an IP flag of some sort with
no recognizable address.

Is this related to the "Default to DNS" section in FTS-5001 or something else
entirely, Jerry?

The ones I notice are where there is, for instance, an IBN flag listed for
a particular node, but there is no actual IP adddress or domain name listed
anywhere in the entry. That shouldn't default to the fidonet.net domain (I
don't think) because although it could be provided via a different channel, it
should really be provided in the nodelist entry.



Jame

[mark lewis]

Post by Paul Quinn

Post by Jerry Schwartz
The most common exception is an IP flag of some sort with
no recognizable address.

Is this related to the "Default to DNS" section in FTS-5001 or
something else
entirely, Jerry?

JC> The ones I notice are where there is, for instance, an IBN flag
JC> listed for a particular node, but there is no actual IP adddress or
JC> domain name listed anywhere in the entry. That shouldn't default
JC> to the fidonet.net domain (I don't think)

yes, that is what the default domain is all about... why should all those
entries have blahblahblah.fidonet.net in them and wasting that space? ;)

JC> because although it could be provided via a different channel, it
JC> should really be provided in the nodelist entry.

the idea is/was that fidonet.net systems didn't have to list anything other
than IP indicating flags... IF they want to also provide access via another
domain entity, then that would be listed in the nodelist alongside the IP
flag(s)... yes, if they only have an IP number, that would have to be listed
there or otherwise made known to the DNS zone keeper for that DNS zone so that
the default fidonet.net DNS lookup for that FNZ.fidonet.net address would work
properly...

if the IP is carried in the nodelist, there is no need for the DNS zone at
all... only in the case of domain names is the DNS zone necessary... something
else to consider ;)

)\/(ark

[RJ Clay]

mark lewis wrote to Jame Clay:
ml> if the IP is carried in the nodelist, there is no need for the DNS zone
ml> at all...

Depends on the mailer being used and how one can set IP related node info
in it...

I certainly like it being there, since it makes it easy to define the DNS
entry for a node... (the one for 1:120/544, for instance...)


ml> only in the case of domain names is the DNS zone necessary...

Either way, the info form the DNS Zone entry needs to come from
somewhere...

Jame


Greetings, RJ Clay
email: ***@ftn.rocasa.us

[Paul Quinn]

Hi! Jame,

Post by Paul Quinn

Post by Jerry Schwartz
The most common exception is an IP flag of some sort with
no recognizable address.

Is this related to the "Default to DNS" section in FTS-5001 or
something else entirely, Jerry?

JC> The ones I notice are where there is, for instance, an IBN flag listed for
JC> a particular node, but there is no actual IP adddress or domain name
JC> listed anywhere in the entry. That shouldn't default to the fidonet.net
JC> domain (I don't think) because although it could be provided via a
JC> different channel, it should really be provided in the nodelist entry.

Please refer to mark lewis's reply. He stole the keystrokes from my words. :)

I've often thought, though, of a need for a further NL flag denoting that the
system listed adheres to the "Default to DNS" method. Other people disagree...

Cheers,
Paul.

... Knock firmly but softly. I like soft firm knockers.

[RJ Clay]

Paul,

Paul Quinn wrote to Jame Clay:
PQ> Please refer to mark lewis's reply. He stole the keystrokes from
PQ> my words. :)

In what way? As I've mentioned; the info for the DNS Zone entry itself
needs to come from somewhere...

Jame


Greetings, RJ Clay
email: ***@ftn.rocasa.us

[Paul Quinn]

Hi! Jame,

On Sun, 12 Dec 10, you wrote to me:

RC> Paul Quinn wrote to Jame Clay:
PQ>> Please refer to mark lewis's reply. He stole the keystrokes from
PQ>> my words. :)

RC> In what way?

The crux of the matter was referencing the "Default to DNS" section in
FTS-5001. The form of my reply to you was expressed by marc lewis. I didn't
want to belabour the point by saying the same -duh- the same thing. In effect,
marc "got it right", for me.

RC> As I've mentioned; the info for the DNS Zone entry
RC> itself needs to come from somewhere...

It is there, by default, in relation to the "Default to DNS" methodology; not
every node can be contacted using this method: we know that. What isn't there,
and in this point I am in agreeance with you, is that there is no indication
that -a- particular node adheres to the "Default to DNS" methodology and that
its IP-able contact information can be concocted by using that methodology. In
practice, an additional NL flag could be employed for reference by both
software (beit a mailer [three or more already do it by default] or nodelist
compiler [including that which Jerry has in operation]) and system operators
alike, in order to avoid much gnashing of teeth when there is no apparent
contact information for a node.

OTOH, if you're talking on a point outside the scope of Fidonet operation
itself then all bets are off. I have no interest in the workin's & jerkin's of
DNS.

Did that help. :)

Cheers,
Paul.

[Ross Cassell]

Hello Jerry!

07 Nov 10 16:03, you wrote to Jame Clay:

JS> INA was deprecated back in 2003, did that status ever change?

I dont think so..

==
Ross
Fidonet Feeds Or Fidonet In Your Newsreader: http://www.easternstar.info
E-mail: ross(at)cassell(dot)us | Other Places: http://links.cassell.us

We hoped and we got change!

... January 20th 2013 - The end of an ERROR!