RS> I'll just repeat my previous reply to your inquiry on this subject:
RS> FidoNet is a legacy protocol that must (from what I've observed) be RS> enhanced only in backwards-compatible means. So if you want to add, RS> say, the full year of authorship to to messages in a backwards RS> compatible way, a new control paragraph (kludge line) would be the RS> way to go.
or a new PKT format... there are several documented in the FTSC library that have not been widely implemented and actively used/tested... some have had code written and have been tested in a limited manner but no widely used mail tossers have implemented them for testing, usage, or otherwise...
FSC-0007 Fidonet RFC822-Style Message Format FSC-0024 Type-3 Mail Bundle FSC-0065 Type 3 ASCII FSC-0066 Type 3 Binary FSC-0077 Type 10 Packet Format FSC-0081 Type 3 Packet Proposal FSC-0082 New Packet Type FSC-0084 Electronic Data Exchange Standard Level 1
IF a new packet format is used, there will have to be a minimal Type 2 binary header in place so existing Type 2 tossers can properly determine if they can handle the packet or not... this mainly because of the pktver field(s) in the original Type 2 format...
RS> And if you're going to introduce another date/time format, best to RS> use existing standards (e.g. RFC822 or ISO-8601) rather than RS> introducing yet another date/time format.
i think i can stand behind that suggestion...
the main thing to remember, though, is that the FTSC documents existing practice... that means that someone needs to come up with the new stuff, document it, implement it, and get it into wide usage... then the FTSC standard for it can be written or taken from its documentation...
)\/(ark --- SBBSecho 3.11-Linux * Origin: SouthEast Star Mail HUB - SESTAR (1:3634/12)
