12 Sep 17, Ward Dossche wrote to Michael Dukelsky:
MD>> Maybe one MOB flag is enough for it?
WD> That is a correct observation and it may be considered overkill.
What use does have that MOB flag?
How do i send a direct netmail to such a MOB node?
How do i route a netmail to such a MOB node?
The MOB flag is completely useless, because i don't have any clue how to communicate.
All other flags tell me how and what, all but one, which is exactly matching the MOB situation: PVT.
Private nodes don't have any contact information, i have to get in contact somehow first and have to co-ordinate the connection with the sysop.
The PVT flag is already known by many systems, they would not try to call them. That is all what i need to know if i couldn't connect them. I don't care if it's mobile, PC, paper, slate, stone tablet or whatever, so the MOB flag is completely useless for me.
If i'm able to get valid connect information i have to override the official nodelist entry within my private nodelist. There i'll have control over the userflags and can set them to my needs.
Systems running on software without actual developer support wouldn't learn the MOB flag, but maybe the software knows the PVT already.
With the PVT flag mobile nodes can start to improve their software to achive the node requirements. Be compatible to common protocols, be callable by dynamic DNS addresses.
After that, i'd like to welcome them as fully-fledged nodes.
But at the moment, a "Fidonet of MOB Nodes only" would not be able to connect each other. That is not a network.
