On 30 May 2020 at 10:34a, Avon pondered and said...

Can we move this thread over to FSX_NET to discuss further and let's see if we can:

- confirm a list of things we're trying to address / enhance etc.
- develop some new standardised flags for the fsxNet nodelist
- test this all out

OK first up what are we trying to address can we all just add to this thread first up and build a list of needs etc. :)

As I understand it we have at least one mod that may/may not (I haven't used it) be pulling some info from a FTN nodelist that is used to allow mod users
to telnet (or ssh?) to another system. We're trying to assist this mod or ??

There's also a webring thread going on looking to use the nodelist as a way
to record some data for that?

I may have all of the above wrong :)

But if we can build a list of what we're trying to enhance / solve / build
etc. first then we can focus on what to add / change / etc. to the nodelist
or mods or...

That's my 2 cents for starters :)

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/04/20 (Windows/32)
* Origin: Agency BBS | Dunedin, New Zealand | agency.bbs.nz (21:1/101)

On 30 May 2020 at 01:28p, Spectre pondered and said...

1/ Incorporate Webring information into the nodelist.
- Website URL
- Telnet Port
- SSH port it required.
- System name as you'd like it formatted in the webring list.

I think to date my use of ITN flag to denote a BBS running on a non-standard telnet port has been incorrect as the flag I now think was intended from a mailer point of view (as the historical use is nodelist as a tool for
mailers) to show it a system accepting mail via Telnet was not on port 23 but port XYZ..

I'm not sure if use of ITN such I have been doing is the best way forward.

Likewise the IBN does the same for BinkP mailers not running on the default port of 24554 and I use that IBN flag quite a bit for nodes and HUBs doing
the same.

All of which leads me to think if we were to add flags to a fsxNet nodelist
to help with a webring project or a mod like gy-blam perhaps we should
probably be creating and using some fsxNet created user flags instead?

http://ftsc.org/docs/fts-5001.006 refers to the U flag and a limit of 32
chars per usage but U could be used multiple times in an entry. How I am not sure as how does anything discern one flag from another if the flag is the
same name??

I see Frank uses U to showcase SciNet nodes custom domain names but if he was to add another user flag then what?

[snip]

INA:bbs.darkrealms.ca,IBN,U,darkrealms.scinet-ftn.org INA:therockbbs.net,IBN,ITN:10023,U,therock.scinet-ftn.org

[snip]

So I'm wondering

1. is the nodelist the best place to 'fix' the things were trying to sort?

2. should we be shipping in the infopack or have online some where (or both)
a dynamic txt file that can be used by mods etc. to pull the data needed from each node in the network for the needs of the mod?

3. If we agree things like

- non standard telnet ports
- ssh port
- tor port/address info
- what else needs to be added to this list?

...should be in the nodelist should be not be creating our own standardised user flags instead and then mods would use them?

One downside with the last idea is mods are only going to be able to use the fsxNet nodelist or whatever txt file that contain the flags we're after for whatever service they deliver. That's not a deal breaker to me but something
to be aware of.

Perhaps something like fsxNet F flags in the nodelist?

FTEL - telnet port
FSSH - ssh port
FTOR - tor address


I'll stop there :)

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/04/20 (Windows/32)
* Origin: Agency BBS | Dunedin, New Zealand | agency.bbs.nz (21:1/101)

two combined as a "BBSLink" similar to the "Weblink" concept. SO ... I hope the aforementioned file names assist. If not, let me know and I'll send them to you.

correction ^^ "Webring"

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A45 2020/02/18 (Windows/32)
* Origin: The Underground [@] theunderground.us:10023 <-port (21:1/165)

On 30 May 2020 at 05:50p, alterego pondered and said...

SSH
TOR
keep using ITN for purposes it was not strictly intended for??

I'm for this scenario...

Coolio. Regardless of if a flag had a F in front of it or not I think let's start off with what flags we need and why.

Spec's webring project is one driver of this chat.

1/ Incorporate Webring information into the nodelist.
- Website URL
- Telnet Port
- SSH port it required.
- System name as you'd like it formatted in the webring list.

Looking at the above the nodelist already shows system name, lets say we keep ITN for telnet port, then we need two new flags for web url and ssh

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/04/20 (Windows/32)
* Origin: Agency BBS | Dunedin, New Zealand | agency.bbs.nz (21:1/101)

On 30 May 2020 at 09:07p, Avon pondered and said...

No, I dont think network specific is a good idea. There is no reason othernets couldnt adopt the same flags. (And I think we can lead the

For TOR, I would suggest TOA - since the TOR address is a hostname

Just reflecting on a post from Vorlon in Mystic echo.

I'm thinking if flags were added to the fsxNet nodelist they would need ot be useful for cross FTN purposes not just for one specific mod or project.

I guess the question becomes what is really useful to know in a nodelist that is not already there now?

Is it a case that showing SSH and TOR info is enough with flags created for each?

Could it be better to build some separate reference file that ships in an infopack and can have all the tags and data per BBS node added to / removed from it..and that file becomes a sort of new master nodelist style file that mods can use to pick up information required for the mod to work?

I dunno... it's late as I type this and I know my thinking is now confused
and muddled. I'd best get some zzz..

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/04/20 (Windows/32)
* Origin: Agency BBS | Dunedin, New Zealand | agency.bbs.nz (21:1/101)

Just reflecting on a post from Vorlon in Mystic echo.

I'm thinking if flags were added to the fsxNet nodelist they would
need ot be useful for cross FTN purposes not just for one specific
mod or project.

Perhaps look at it another way.. create a new document with all this information and derive a nodelist from it rather than deriving a bbs
list from the nodelist.

Andrew

--- MagickaBBS v0.15alpha (Linux/x86_64)
* Origin: HappyLand - telnet://magickabbs.com:2023/ (21:1/126)

On 30 May 2020 at 10:08p, apam pondered and said...

Perhaps look at it another way.. create a new document with all this information and derive a nodelist from it rather than deriving a bbs
list from the nodelist.

Yep thanks :)

At the heart of this discussion should be what need(s) are we trying to meet and then knowing that it becomes what mechanisms are currently present to
meet that and what are their strengths and limitations, then what else could
be created to meet the need(s) and the pros and cons for doing so. This is
what I have been mulling...

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/04/20 (Windows/32)
* Origin: Agency BBS | Dunedin, New Zealand | agency.bbs.nz (21:1/101)

On 30 May 2020 at 08:04a, Gamgee pondered and said...

Could it be better to build some separate reference file that
ships in an infopack and can have all the tags and data per BBS
node added to / removed from it..and that file becomes a sort of
new master nodelist style file that mods can use to pick up information required for the mod to work?

Yes, I think so.

IMHO the actual nodelist should remain compliant with Fido/FTN
defined standards.

Thanks for this, noted.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/04/20 (Windows/32)
* Origin: Agency BBS | Dunedin, New Zealand | agency.bbs.nz (21:1/101)

On 30 May 2020 at 08:06a, Gamgee pondered and said...

Perhaps look at it another way.. create a new document with all
this information and derive a nodelist from it rather than
deriving a bbs list from the nodelist.

+1,000,000

Noted.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/04/20 (Windows/32)
* Origin: Agency BBS | Dunedin, New Zealand | agency.bbs.nz (21:1/101)

On 30 May 2020 at 09:20a, stizzed pondered and said...

IMHO the actual nodelist should remain compliant with Fido/FTN defined standards.

Completely agree! I think that what we are discussing is using the nodelist (for our purposes) within the standards. For the most part
these standards have not changed in years. We should be able to use it and still remain within the guidelines. Otherwise, we will need to develop an entirely new system. Doable but 'worth the time'?

What I'm pondering are things like

- is the nodelist the best thing to use for our purposes.
- clarity around what those purposes are
- pro/cons of nodelist vs something new that does not need to conform to anything already in existence
- possibility of leveraging the nodelist as a starter for something new

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/04/20 (Windows/32)
* Origin: Agency BBS | Dunedin, New Zealand | agency.bbs.nz (21:1/101)

On 31 May 2020 at 12:01a, alterego pondered and said...

So, this might be the wine talking - and I've been out - but being compliant with Fido is not the priority (IMHO). "Not breaking" anything *IS*. Some folks might think that is the same thing, but I probably have this tanted view that changing the Fido standard is not done because
there are a few resistant to change.

Yep I'm in general agreement with you in that we're not Fido and can run
things as we see fit.

Where I'm coming from is that there is no reason why we cant change the way we use the nodelist, if (and that is the priority), it does change
the way things work. Or said another way it does break anything that
does work.
(I'm really keen that the old stuff continues to work, but anything new works better :)

That's the ideal and yet also the rub in that if you embrace a known you also have to account for all it's limitations if you're also aiming for backwards compatibility with software that may use it for the reasons it was originally created.

So, the new things that didnt exist (when the nodelist was invented), is email, TCP/IP and web links, etc. My theory is a BBS is always at an address (aka the INA field). If it provides a service, eg: binkp, that
is described by the IBN flag. If it provides a telnet service, that is described by the ITN flag. So why cant web be described by a "WEB" flag (for example), SSH be described by an "SSH" flag, etc. I think you get
the idea.

Yep I do and it comes down (to me) as to what could/should be conveyed in a nodelist vs another document?

One of the goals of enhancing the nodelist is to not increase the
workload of the person managing it AND getting more value out of it. So I'm keen to see the "single source of truth" (aka a nodelist) be used
for multiple purposes.

For me it comes down to what are the goals trying to be met and does the nodelist serve them best or perhaps it would be better that it contribute to something else?

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/04/20 (Windows/32)
* Origin: Agency BBS | Dunedin, New Zealand | agency.bbs.nz (21:1/101)

On 30 May 2020 at 08:52p, The Godfather pondered and said...

GY-Blam 7/21/16
Node2BBI 8/11/16

I know michael is working on one of the two and getting them to work. I

ta.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/04/20 (Windows/32)
* Origin: Agency BBS | Dunedin, New Zealand | agency.bbs.nz (21:1/101)

On 31 May 2020 at 12:01a, alterego pondered and said...

So, this might be the wine talking - and I've been out - but
being compliant with Fido is not the priority (IMHO). "Not
breaking" anything *IS*. Some folks might think that is the
same thing, but I probably have this tanted view that changing
the Fido standard is not done because there are a few
resistant to change.

Yep I'm in general agreement with you in that we're not Fido and
can run things as we see fit.

That is true that fsxnet isn't fido, but fsxnet is built using the same technology. So the limitations in the nodelist are here to stay.

It would be better to build a new list, or even contact the telnetbbs
guide guys and see if there is a way to export the data that they already
have and then use that in a mlp/phy script.




\/orlon
VK3HEG


--- MagickaBBS v0.15alpha (Linux/armv6l)
* Origin: \/orlon Empire: Sector 550 (21:1/195.1)

165
Hello alterego,

Infact.. the original nodelist *was* a bbs list.

Bzzzt! Wrong.
The nodelist has always contained info for mailer sessions. Most
entries

So the only point that breaks down for me, is why was the "MO" flag created, if the nodelist was never intended for human consumption as
well?

I could come up with a couple of reasons for you but off the top of my head I don't know.

Your the FTSC guy.. not me, aren't we supposed to be asking you such questions!

Sure, as technology as evolved, mailers no longer use POTS to
communicate, but IP - so port definitions were created to faciliate
that. I think its reasonable for the human element to evolve to
include the port info as well.

I'm going to ramble on a bit now. Feel free to move on at this point if you'd rather skip Al's musings.

Let me start by saying I think it's a good idea to include BBS connect info in the nodelist. If there was a way to include it in the nodelist I would be first










































































































































































































































to update my own BBS info (if I had any) and those in my net. But I think that is problematical, let me explain why.

The nodelist has been a problem since day one. A good number of people have worked like dogs to bring it to where it is today. BBS connection info was never a consideration and that is largely why it is not included today.

In the heyday of BBSing the size of the nodelist was an issue. It took a long time to apply a diff and recompile the nodelist. The time it took to scrape the










































































































































































































































nodelist for the desired info was also an issue.

The above is not an issue today but those issues have a lot to do with where we










































































































































































































































are today.

The nodelist has evolved, the most recent evolution was the inclusion of protocol:port numbers. There have been other evolutions too but that will suffice for this example.

I think the nodelist does a pretty good job of doing what it was intended to do.

I think there is a good argument for adding BBS connect info to the nodelist but nodelist tools would need updating. I would not add my own BBS connect info










































































































































































































































today for fear of breaking my friends nodelist compiler.

I just scrapped this out of the current (Fidonet) nodelist..

=== Cut ===
o The FidoNet NodeList is compiled so that computer systems within FidoNet
may communicate with each other. Use and intra-FidoNet distribution
rights are granted to all FidoNet system operators for the purposes of
communication within FidoNet or applying for a FidoNet node number. SEEN-BY: 1/100 2/100 101 106 107 108 111 114 115 116 118 1202 128 130 132 137 SEEN-BY: 2/138 140 141 145 147 150 151 159 160 161 162 163 167 3/100 4/100

On 30 May 2020 at 11:44a, poindexter FORTRAN pondered and said...

A flat file database, or whatever format you choose (json? xml?) with a parser that could generate a nodelist would be interesting.

I'd also like to be able to pull a telnet client dialing directory out
of it, too - since you'd be gathering user context info like hostname
and non- standard port info.

Even better: make DNS the source of record and derive
a textual nodelist for legacy software from that. So
many thorny problems come out in the wash.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/04/20 (Windows/32)
* Origin: Agency BBS | Dunedin, New Zealand | agency.bbs.nz (21:1/101)

I appreciate the work you're doing on this. Doesn't sound like you're going
to please everyone, nor are you required to even try. I had someone suggest
I learn to script and change it myself. Obviosly, I'm working toward being able to do so within many areas I'm excited to learn, but not there yet.
It's your time, your decision. I think the horse is beaten and its really up to a network owner and or someone that knows how to script, to
partnet up and test it out. I'm happy to be someone who tests, as
thats a way I can contribute NOW. If that task doesn't want to be
taken on by either, then it's a dead horse, in which case it would be worthwhile for SysOps removing the popular mod from their own BBS's so it's not negatively impacting others by defaulting to port
23 -- and there are many who use it; some of which are debating the validity
of the nodelist being used (smh). I have one more apology after this one, which I'm sure I'll discover later .. however I do sincerly apologize for bringing this topic up. I don't know how I framed up the question, however,
my intent was to ask if anyone who had the mod had discovered the "fix," and
to delectaly point out to those BBS's using it that the dang thing wasn't working. I shall be more careful with my questions moving forward.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A45 2020/02/18 (Windows/32)
* Origin: The Underground [@] theunderground.us:10023 <-port (21:1/165)

On 02 Jun 2020 at 04:56p, alterego pondered and said...

Re: Re: Nodelist Development
By: The Godfather to stizzed on Tue Jun 02 2020 02:10 am

validity of the nodelist being used (smh). I have one more apology a this one, which I'm sure I'll discover later .. however I do sincerly apologize for bringing this topic up. I don't know how I framed up t

I dont think you need to apologise.

I actually think what we talked about is good. Sure I have a view and others have a different one, but then, that's life.

At the end of the day, I dont mind which way we go - and even if its not the way "I would do it"... but I think the requirement is a worthy one.

I agree with Deon on this, no need to apologise. I'm late to this party after
a few days of work have kept me away from the community. Reading through the thread I'm delighted to see so much discussion and points of view coming
forth and all done in a civil way... so yeah it's all good :)

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/04/20 (Windows/32)
* Origin: Agency BBS | Dunedin, New Zealand | agency.bbs.nz (21:1/101)

I'm confident that you will get there. I also think we will make a great team!

Thanks, and we already are! Love the collaboration ...

Yeah, I am coming to the conclusion that the new BBSINFO format is where we are going. I have been exactly in the middle since this started and

If BBSINFO, you mean from the Telnet BBS website? You don't need approval. You write a script and if people want to use it, thatzzz up to them. If you mean the nodelist, well ... until it's tested and rolled out for others to
see it doesn't mess anything up ... this conversation could go on for years. Just do what your gut tells ya and go for it! I'll gladly test and provide input as you like. If you work on the GY-BLAM portion, I'd like to dinker
with a set of menus that can be added to highlight the mods full capability. It's really a cool mod that I'm working on to use on other areas of the BBS
in my spare time -- to learn coding.

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A45 2020/02/18 (Windows/32)
* Origin: The Underground [@] theunderground.us:10023 <-port (21:1/165)