= Сообщение: 4097 из 7124 ====================================== FTSC_PUBLIC = От : Carol Shenkenberger 1:275/100 09 Dec 18 13:41:11 Кому : mark lewis 09 Dec 18 13:41:11 Тема : Candidates vision request FGHI : area://FTSC_PUBLIC?msgid=6910.ftsc_pub@1:275/100+2072b2c5 На : area://FTSC_PUBLIC?msgid=1:3634/12.73+5c0d34a7 = Кодировка сообщения определена как: ASCII ================================== Ответ: area://FTSC_PUBLIC?msgid=2:240/1661+5bfd8f80 ============================================================================== Re: Candidates vision request By: mark lewis to Carol Shenkenberger on Sun Dec 09 2018 10:20 am
MV>>> ,100,Shenks_Express,Virginia_Beach_VA,Carol_Shenkenberger,-Unpublis MV>>> he d-,300,XX,CM,INA:shenks.synchro.net,IBN:shenks.dyndns.org
MV>>> Can you tell us according to what part(s) of which FTSC standard(s) MV>>> this nodelist entry contains information that is never used by a MV>>> properly configured mailer?
CS>> What standards do you show to represent when a site has 2 resolving CS>> addresses, one preferred for IBN but the other for everything? Z1 CS>> practical resolution, yet another thing not documented.
ML> this multiple domain resolution thing is built into some mailers... it is ML> not available for others... those mailers that can see and use multiple ML> domains will cycle through them trying each one in succession until a ML> connection is made or a number-of-tries counter has been reached... this ML> works also with a domain name in the "system name" field if one were to ML> use that field for a domain name instead of a system name... one could ML> also use additional IBN flags to indicate more than the possible three ML> domains when using the available fields where a domain name is able to be ML> listed...
Yup, old school to use the BBS name field. One of the earlierst methods and even allows a static IP.
I think the issue is software differences. In a purist stance, if they all resolve to the same place and that one *critically* is always up with no outages, then listing or even having others becomes moot.
That however is the perfect world scenario.
ML> the following would be a valid entry for a system with five domains ML> available for connection...
And would cycle though them (if having a mailer who did that). I assume domain2 first then 3-5 and *may* catch domain 1 with other mailers? Older ones may only see 3-5 unless using a parsed list like I-Argus or one of the I-BINK types.
CS>> The world is not black and white.
ML> very true...
Occasonally helpful for those with a mailer that can take advantage of it. Others may have to manually look up a site to see if there is a alternate path if something seems offline. It's all about communication and anything that helps that in the nodelist, works for me.
