= Сообщение: 4070 из 7124 ====================================== FTSC_PUBLIC = От : Carol Shenkenberger 1:275/100 08 Dec 18 18:07:38 Кому : Fred Riccio 08 Dec 18 18:07:38 Тема : What would YOU do? FGHI : area://FTSC_PUBLIC?msgid=6887.ftsc_pub@1:275/100+20719fa1 На : area://FTSC_PUBLIC?msgid=1:132/174+5c0a4a17 = Кодировка сообщения определена как: ASCII ================================== Ответ: area://FTSC_PUBLIC?msgid=2:240/1661+5bfd8f79 ============================================================================== Re: What would YOU do? By: Fred Riccio to The Candidates on Fri Dec 07 2018 10:05 am
FR>>> Node 1:275/100@fidonet shenks.dyndns.org;shenks.synchro.net - MR>> This is what I've meant with the confusion about which "standard" MR>> applies. Apparently Jerry's converter follows the undocumented MR>> feature Carol mentioned. So it would extract additional addresses MR>> which aren't intended for binkp for a node entry following the FTSC MR>> docs (if listed take just the address in the IBN flag). How do we MR>> resolve this dilemma?
FR> It seems that we have at least two methods that are used to deal with FR> multi-homed systems, both methods are currently used and very popular.
FR> Jerry's script processes one INA and one IBN record (both with addresses) FR> as multi-homed. Binkp.net seems to ignore the fact that multi-homed FR> systems even exist, it returns only one address for all combinations of FR> INA/IBN. We haven't been told what Markus' and Uli's tools do, so there FR> may be two other methods. FTS-5001 does not document either one of these FR> methods.
FR> How will you clean this up? Be specific. "Change FTS-5001" isn't a good FR> answer. Tell us WHAT you will change and what you will change it to. Keep FR> in mind that FTSC standards document "current practice".
This may be a case of a proposal to standardize it. If we have at least one functional tool that uses the dual listing, that can be a base for an actual FTS instead of a FSP.
