On Mon, 06 Oct 2014, Michiel van der Vlist wrote to mark lewis:
MvdV>> when the INA flag came into the picture over a decade ago, I MvdV>> proposed having protocol flags inherit information from those MvdV>> preceding them as an alternative.
ml> i remember... the problem with that is how to indicate a "no ml> capability"...
MvdV> Eh? I do not understand. What do you mean by "indicating no MvdV> capability"?
like when you stacked my example in reverse of the way it was intended to be accessed... if the inheriting was done, it would indicate that the other sites also had those capabilities...
ml> in the rewrite of the example i gave, you ended up listing the final ml> backup system as the main connection and that is not how that ml> connection's entity was designed...
MvdV> You can change the order but it will not make any difference:
MvdV> The meaning of the flag is indpendent of its position.
the meaning isn't the only thing, though... the positioning is important... the first one listed is used as the prime connection point... binkd exhibits this very well...
ml> it would be like listing three MXes and having everyone send to the ml> last backup instead of to the main one...
MvdV> Wrong analogy. MXs carry a priority. There is no equivalent for MvdV> that with IP connect information in the nodelist. There is
yes there is... the position of the item within the entity's line...
MvdV> possibility to list multiple addresses by repeating a flag with a MvdV> different host name or IP address, but that's it. There is no MvdV> implied priority by order. Wether the application uses the first, MvdV> the last, tries them all or alternates in round robin fashion MvdV> between sessions, is up to the implementation.
right but it is still positional as those that do support this start with the first one and then cycle through the others if needed...
ml> yes, the example given was on the ""extreme"" end of the ml> belt but it showed how explicitly listing and ordering of the flags ml> can be used so that one can set their systems they way they want/need
MvdV> Sorry, but that is not how the system evolved. Flag meaning is MvdV> independant of flag order. It is not what I would have choosen, MvdV> had the decision be mine, but it was not. When introducing the MvdV> INA flag, always listing it before the associated protocol flags MvdV> would have been a good start. But the nodelist clerks in their MvdV> infinite wisdom decided otherwise and now there is no way back. MvdV> We just have to live with that.
this happened because the nodelist clerks don't know these things... many just list shite in any old order and don't understand why some things are listed in the first place... they don't care as long as systems can connect... one analogy here is politicians and traffic laws... another is engineers and technicians trying to describe or work on some item...
ml> them to operate instead of being forced to operate in the way that ml> others tell them to operate... many drop out because of things like ml> this that can't be resolved to suit their needs...
MvdV> Then perhaps those people had there expectations set too high.
no, they want to connect and share like others but their circumstances don't allow what could be allowed if the nodelist were handled differently...
MvdV> When interconnecting nodes in a network one has to abide by a set MvdV> of common rules to make it work. Adapting the rules when the MvdV> network evolves is fine, but one has to realise that one can not MvdV> expect the whole network to bend over backwards to instantly MvdV> accomodate every demanding nerd's need.
no one is expecting that... the nodelist contains the information needed to connect one mailer to another... it allows for multiple points of connecting with a system and it should allow for the details to be used for each point used...
MvdV> Real or perceived. MvdV> Cooperation is the key word to the smooth operation of the MvdV> network and cooperation is not a one way street. It also means MvdV> that one can not always get what one wants. If one can not accept MvdV> that one can ask too much, that what one wants, is too MvdV> outlandish, puts an unreasonable demand on the network, or even MvdV> worse conflicts with the justifiable needs of others, then they MvdV> will just have to choose between adapting or leaving...
i see no unreasonable demand being put on the network by allowing for the flags to be used for each connection point that one may use to connect with a system...
MvdV>> That was voted out/shouted down/ignored as well. Instead the MvdV>> system continued into one where flag meaning does not depend on MvdV>> order.
ml> i never saw that... what i saw was positional usage which was promoted ml> more with the multiple INA flags capabilities...
MvdV> The opportunity to introduce positional usage went out of the MvdV> window when the nodelist clerks allowed listing the INA flag in MvdV> an arbitrary position instead of only before the associated MvdV> protocol flags. You should have spoken then. Now it is too late.
should have spoken to who? i did speak to some and they adjusted things but who should have spoken to whom? when? how? hell, the nodelist still has a lot of junk and i know that numerous folks have had it pointed out to them... some several years ago...
)\/(ark
If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur.
