= Сообщение: 2379 из 7124 ====================================== FTSC_PUBLIC = От : Carol Shenkenberger 1:275/100 01 Apr 17 18:58:56 Кому : Fred Riccio 01 Apr 17 18:58:56 Тема : Proposed changes: FTS-5001.006 FGHI : area://FTSC_PUBLIC?msgid=5118.ftsc_pub@1:275/100+1d457aae На : area://FTSC_PUBLIC?msgid=1:132/174+58d95666 = Кодировка сообщения определена как: ASCII ================================== ============================================================================== Re: Proposed changes: FTS-5001.006 By: Fred Riccio to Alexey Vissarionov on Mon Mar 27 2017 06:07 pm
FR> 28 Mar 17 00:30, Alexey Vissarionov wrote to Fred Riccio:
AV>> EMA should be replaced with IEM.
FR>>> Additions/Changes are marked with ">" in column 1.
AV>> `diff -burN` could be much better...
FR> You could always do it yourself. I can't because I don't have DIFF.
FR>>> 5.5. Gateway Flag
AV>> Deprecated.
FR>>> 5.8. ISDN Capability Flags
AV>> Do anyone still use it?
AV>> Wrong.
AV> Must be <flag>[:<internet address>>] where internet address is AV> <email | <fqdn | ipv4 | ipv6>[:<port>>]>
AV>> Wrong.
AV>> Deprecated: no common method for delivering direct netmail to such AV>> nodes.
AV>> Deprecated by IFC.
AV>> Should be changed to "INA-style" only.
AV>> Is there some common method for delivering direct netmail to such AV>> nodes? AV>> Hereafter "common" implies at least "free cross-platform software".
>>>> EVY Voyager-compatible
AV>> Is there some common method for delivering direct netmail to such AV>> nodes?
>>>> EMA Everything not defined by the aforementioned individual flags
AV>> So, how should one deliver direct netmail to such nodes?
FR>>> sender clearly quoting all the original via-lines.
AV>> s/clearly/safely/
FR>>> WARNING: the sender's name (in either direction) must *NEVER* be FR>>> "PING".
AV>> Wrong: if the sender's name is also "PING", the message _must_ be AV>> deleted without notice.
FR>>> 6. User flags FR>>> -------------
FR>>> It is impossible to document all user flags in use. The FTSC makes FR>>> no attempt at it. This document lists those flags which got at FR>>> least some kind of official sanction or were deemed of technical FR>>> interest by FTSC.
AV>> Here should be a clear notice that user flags _may_ contain anything AV>> except "standard" flags, and all unknown flags _must_ be passed AV>> through without any changes.
AV>> That means ,U,ENC,BEER is ok.
FR>>> SDS Software Distribution System FR>>> SMH Secure Mail Hub
AV>> Both are deprecated.
FR>>> CDP This node will accept points auto-created by the CD-point FR>>> software.
AV>> Is there any common implementation?
FR> How did so many things slip by the 2016 FTSC review of this document?
Partly because his note of 'depreciated' is his own, not Fidonet wide? CDP and ISDN are classics there.
