:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
: _ ___ _ _ _ ___ _ _ :
: |_ | | | | | |_) |_ |_|_ |_ | | \ / \ :
: | |_| | |_| | \ |_ | | _|_ |_/ \_/ :
: : :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
NEWS::: Overheard in the FIDOTEST echo,
a new FTN project is in the works :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

============================================================<

** Original area : "/FIDO/FIDOTEST"
** Original message from : John Dovey@4:920/69
** Original date/time : 21 Jun 21, 09:08 >============================================================<

..I have a concept in mind that I think could be useful. One
which encapsulates a number of different aspects. Just one of
those is auto updates to the nodelist. That's the simplest and
least important aspect, I think. Extending out from that is
auto-discovery and routing, shared (distributed) registry of
nodes and users, registry of echos and which are carried by
which nodes etc.

I wrote a server and a client that would share this info, but
realised that convincing sysops to install yet another piece of
software would be a real struggle until/unless the concept was
proven.. and even then, it would be much MUCH simpler to first
convince the BBS writers to include the functionality into the
BBS software suite. So I decided to take the tools already
available, and build something that works to make that proof of
concept tangible. I decided that writing a netmail based
"robot" that would allow sysops and users to register and/or
update their information was both in-line with current/old
Fidonet procedures/technology and required nothing more than
what everyone on FTN already has access to ie Netmail. Thus
this proof of concept I requested testing of.

The current model is hugely flawed. I suspect that a better
model will end up having the nodelist data imported into it's
own table, and any changes to it only allowed with a password.

Then as a secondary table, have user data that people can
choose to submit. This would function something like a "white
pages" for netmail addresses. One aspect of that would be the
AKA funtion as most of us have multiple addresses across the
FTN networks for example, simply registering on a new BBS gives
you a new netmail address on every FTN and QWK network that the
new BBS is a part of.

A next stage might be for sysops to opt in to register which
Echos they carry. Additional info might be to add their up/down
links. From that from the user perspective, it would be easy
enough to find a place to pick up the conferences which they
are interested in, especially those that don't have a wide
distribution. It would also allow for some auto mapping of
routes and flows of echomail that it not dependent on wading
through all the various available echos.

There are numerous aspects to this that I have only barely
speculated on, for example, cross referencing the echos with
the Elist that Vincent maintains would be really helpful as
well as maintaining cross-network links of echos and gateways.
As I said. Proof of concept. Putting my money where my mouth
is. Exploring the options. Figuring out what works for users
and what doesn't. YMMV. Caveat Emptor.

Net ter inligting, ek hou baie daarvan om met Nederlandse mense
te praat in Afrikaans.. al voel dit vir julle as of die taal
heel vreemd voorkom ;-)

All the best
John
===
* El Gato de Fuego (The Fire Cat) 4:920/69 * Pedasi, Panama
... Curiosity killed the cat, but for a while I was a suspect.
-+- SBBSecho 3.14-Win32
+ Origin: El Gato de Fuego - Pedasi, Panama (4:920/69) >============================================================<


:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
A comment from the FUTURE4FIDO Roving Reporter: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Additional info from John:

"..send a netmail to dogbone@4:920/1. Subject doesn't matter.
In the body just include /INFO on a line by itself and it will
send you a help message back. Part of the test is to see if
that is self-explanatory enough.

I have a terminal view access to the database (I will send the
login details privately to those who ask) also accessible as a
door from my BBS under (1) Main/(10) DogBone."



--- OpenXP 5.0.50
* Origin: FUTURE4FIDO = https://t.me/joinchat/SV_BQ0XcbSRoP4bt (2:221/1.58)

Hello August!

*** Monday 21.06.21 at 19:53, August Abolins wrote to All:

[snip]

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
A comment from the FUTURE4FIDO Roving Reporter: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Additional info from John:

"..send a netmail to dogbone@4:920/1. Subject doesn't matter.
In the body just include /INFO on a line by itself and it will
send you a help message back. Part of the test is to see if
that is self-explanatory enough.

I've had a leetle play with this by starting out with sending a /INFO request. Got a response back very quickly, which is very much like what
one would get back from an AreaFix %HELP request. OK, so that worked quite nicely :)

I then followed that up with a /QUERY request and, once again, I got a
very quick response back, with a list of registered Nodes/Points. In addition, the response contained a list of all Nodes in Net310, which I wasn't expecting. OK, so that worked quite nicely also :)

I realise that all this is in the very early stages of development but
given the right exposure and the willingness of SysOps to embrace it, it could turn out to be a very interesting, useful and powerful "tool".

Regards,
Martin
--- OpenXP 5.0.50
* Origin: (r696) - O(0_0)O - (2:310/31.3)

Re: NEWS::: DogBone
By: August Abolins to All on Mon Jun 21 2021 07:53 pm

The current model is hugely flawed.

In what way?

The "model" you're referring to appears to be the FidoNet nodelist. I haven't used a FidoNet nodelist on my BBS in over 20 years and echomail and netmail are working fine. Or am I missing some fundamental here?
--
digital man

Synchronet/BBS Terminology Definition #2:
ARS = Access Requirement Strings
Norco, CA WX: 88.6øF, 45.0% humidity, 9 mph ENE wind, 0.00 inches rain/24hrs --- SBBSecho 3.14-Linux
* Origin: Vertrauen - [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net (1:103/705)

Re: NEWS::: DogBone
By: Martin Foster to August Abolins on Fri Jun 25 2021 09:15:00

I realise that all this is in the very early stages of development but given the right exposure and the willingness of SysOps to embrace it, it could turn out to be a very interesting, useful and powerful "tool".

Thanks Martin. Appreciate the comments.
JD
===
* El Gato de Fuego (The Fire Cat) 4:920/69 * Pedasi, Panama

"... Progress isn't made by early risers. It's made by lazy men trying to find easier ways to do something. -RAH"
--- SBBSecho 3.14-Win32
* Origin: El Gato de Fuego - Pedasi, Panama (4:920/69)

Re: NEWS::: DogBone
By: Rob Swindell to August Abolins on Sun Jun 27 2021 15:06:03

The "model" you're referring to appears to be the FidoNet nodelist. I haven't used a FidoNet nodelist on my BBS in over 20 years and echomail and netmail are working fine. Or am I missing some fundamental here?

Rob,
You make my point for me. Not just in this post, but in the way you've built a "better mousetrap". You literally demonstrate by what you said here, and by the software you've written, that the FTN model is simply a choice. The QWK Networking model you've built into SBBS with it's auto-routing and other features proves this point probably more eloquently than anything I could say!


All the best
JD
===
* El Gato de Fuego (The Fire Cat) 4:920/69 * Pedasi, Panama

"... A dying culture invariably exhibits personal rudeness. Bad manners. Lack of consideration for others in minor matters. A loss of politeness, of gentle manners, is more significant than is a riot. -- RAH, Friday"
--- SBBSecho 3.14-Win32
* Origin: El Gato de Fuego - Pedasi, Panama (4:920/69)

Re: NEWS::: DogBone
By: John Dovey to Rob Swindell on Sun Jun 27 2021 05:41 pm

Re: NEWS::: DogBone
By: Rob Swindell to August Abolins on Sun Jun 27 2021 15:06:03

The "model" you're referring to appears to be the FidoNet nodelist. I haven't used a FidoNet nodelist on my BBS in over 20 years and echomail and netmail are working fine. Or am I missing some fundamental here?

Rob,
You make my point for me. Not just in this post, but in the way you've built a "better mousetrap". You literally demonstrate by what you said here, and by the software you've written, that the FTN model is simply a choice. The QWK Networking model you've built into SBBS with it's auto-routing and other features proves this point probably more eloquently than anything I could say!

Nice of you to say, but I really was just looking for more clarity on your point (about the nodelist "model"?). QWKnet routing (introduced in Synchronet probably back around 1992) was more of a useful thing back when phone-modems were used to transfer mail and long-distance charges were a concern. As I think you've seen with DOVE-Net, QWK networks are not nearly as "distributed" these days and so the routing of QWK netmail is a much-less used feature. With Internet email so prevelant, QWK (and Fido) netmail is generally just not used so much these days anyway.

With DOVE-Net, I just wanted a sort of auto-pilot network: pretty much any BBS can join immediately (no manual "approval" or "address assignment" process involved) and if/when that node drops (stops logging in), it just eventually disappears from the network and its "address" is automatically available for reuse. It's worked pretty well for my intentions, but I don't think that's what FidoNet is all about: Traditionally, FidoNet is a more "controlled" network.
--
digital man

Synchronet/BBS Terminology Definition #1:
ANSI = American National Standards Institute
Norco, CA WX: 91.0øF, 45.0% humidity, 11 mph ENE wind, 0.00 inches rain/24hrs --- SBBSecho 3.14-Linux
* Origin: Vertrauen - [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net (1:103/705)

Re: NEWS::: DogBone
By: Rob Swindell to John Dovey on Mon Jun 28 2021 13:31:13

Nice of you to say, but I really was just looking for more clarity on your point (about the nodelist "model"?). QWKnet routing (introduced in

I understand. The model I was talking about, was the one that was developed under the pressure of the costs of POTS. Whether that's the nodelist or Mail hour or many of the other things, it was based on the expense of long distance calls. I wrote a piece on here basically saying that I thought that the model was outdated for two main reasons: 1. That it was based on POTS thinking and 2. It ignores the changes in message exchange and consumption that have happened in the last few decades.
I *know* that I was misunderstood. That those who have continued to run the various FTN networks are vested in the mechanisms that have grown to prominence. What I was suggesting was that any discussion on a Future 4 Fido should consider taking the changes into account. In no way did I suggest that the baby should be thrown out with the bathwater!
In fact, I prefaced my remarks with my admiration for the store-and-forward nature of the technology an it's built in resiliency. What I felt was a vunerability that had crept in was the heirarchical nature imposed in service to the nodelist, which struck me as completely counter to the nature of the anarchic design of FidoNet.
I suggested that a range of more resilient routing options would be of use and would, in fact, return FidoNet more closely resemble the original vision of Tom Jennings. If you have researched him at all, you will know he was an out of work anarchist when he conceptualised the network, specifically opposed to the concepts of structure and control. Reading between the lines, in later years he was suborned by the success of his concept.
My memory and reading on the origins suggested that the original design was in line with the basis on which the ARPANet/InterNet were designed, that is to survice the disruption of service caused by disasters; specifically a nuclear war. Static routing completely removes this flexibility. I know it is simple enough for two sysops to agree to share links, and set that up, but it requires agreement and planning. The QWK Network concept is closer, I think, even though it still requires some intervention.

QWKnet routing (introduced in
Synchronet probably back around 1992) was more of a useful thing back when phone-modems were used to transfer mail and long-distance charges were a

Acknowledged. Still works now though and without the intervention of a central authority...

With DOVE-Net, I just wanted a sort of auto-pilot network: pretty much any BBS can join immediately (no manual "approval" or "address assignment" process involved) and if/when that node drops (stops logging in), it just eventually disappears from the network and its "address" is automatically available for reuse. It's worked pretty well for my intentions, but I

Exactly. That's my point. It's essentially self maintaining... so much so it appears as if most sysops aren't even aware of it.

I don't think that's what FidoNet is all about: Traditionally, FidoNet
is a more "controlled" network.

True, that IS what FidoNet has become. The question was whether that was the best FUTURE for FidoNet or not.


I am afraid I made the assumption when joining this conference that it was about "blue-sky" planning and speculation about possible futures for the network. Instead I have run into serious opposition to even having the discussion.

JD
===
* El Gato de Fuego (The Fire Cat) 4:920/69 * Pedasi, Panama

"... I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do. -- RAH"
--- SBBSecho 3.14-Win32
* Origin: El Gato de Fuego - Pedasi, Panama (4:920/69)

Rob Swindell wrote to John Dovey <=-

[snip]

Traditionally, FidoNet is a more "controlled" network. --

Sometimes such "control" is a good thing. For example recently on the amateur radio packet network, a station in Italy thought it'd be cool to import a
flood of usenet mail into the packet bbs network. These messages contained profanity, detailed beastiality, crystal meth sales and manufacturing... to name a few issues with what this station did. The offender refuses to this day to apologize because he is Roman and he can do as he pleases (his words!). Better control could have prevented this flood from infesting amateur radio world wide as it did.

There's pros and cons to almost every story.

... Your suggestion(s) have been received and saved for future reference.
--- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
* Origin: SBBS - Carnage! (1:142/103)

Re: NEWS::: DogBone
By: John Dovey to Rob Swindell on Mon Jun 28 2021 04:02 pm

Re: NEWS::: DogBone
By: Rob Swindell to John Dovey on Mon Jun 28 2021 13:31:13

Nice of you to say, but I really was just looking for more clarity on your point (about the nodelist "model"?). QWKnet routing (introduced in

I understand. The model I was talking about, was the one that was developed under the pressure of the costs of POTS. Whether that's the nodelist or Mail hour or many of the other things, it was based on the expense of long distance calls.

Those seeem like quote differnet things and not really what I would call "the model". Perhaps being just more specific in your claims about what's broken will prevent future requests for clarity.

I wrote a piece on here basically saying that I thought that
the model was outdated for two main reasons: 1. That it was based on POTS thinking and 2. It ignores the changes in message exchange and consumption that have happened in the last few decades.
I *know* that I was misunderstood. That those who have continued to run the various FTN networks are vested in the mechanisms that have grown to prominence. What I was suggesting was that any discussion on a Future 4 Fido should consider taking the changes into account. In no way did I suggest that the baby should be thrown out with the bathwater!
In fact, I prefaced my remarks with my admiration for the store-and-forward nature of the technology an it's built in resiliency. What I felt was a vunerability that had crept in was the heirarchical nature imposed in service to the nodelist, which struck me as completely counter to the nature of the anarchic design of FidoNet.
I suggested that a range of more resilient routing options would be of use and would, in fact, return FidoNet more closely resemble the original vision of Tom Jennings. If you have researched him at all, you will know he was an out of work anarchist when he conceptualised the network, specifically opposed to the concepts of structure and control. Reading between the lines, in later years he was suborned by the success of his concept.
My memory and reading on the origins suggested that the original design was in line with the basis on which the ARPANet/InterNet were designed, that is to survice the disruption of service caused by disasters; specifically a nuclear war. Static routing completely removes this flexibility. I know it is simple enough for two sysops to agree to share links, and set that up, but it requires agreement and planning. The QWK Network concept is closer, I think, even though it still requires some intervention.

QWKnet routing (introduced in
Synchronet probably back around 1992) was more of a useful thing back when phone-modems were used to transfer mail and long-distance charges were a

Acknowledged. Still works now though and without the intervention of a central authority...

With DOVE-Net, I just wanted a sort of auto-pilot network: pretty much any BBS can join immediately (no manual "approval" or "address assignment" process involved) and if/when that node drops (stops logging in), it just eventually disappears from the network and its "address" is automatically available for reuse. It's worked pretty well for my intentions, but I

Exactly. That's my point. It's essentially self maintaining... so much so it appears as if most sysops aren't even aware of it.

I don't think that's what FidoNet is all about: Traditionally, FidoNet is a more "controlled" network.

True, that IS what FidoNet has become. The question was whether that was the best FUTURE for FidoNet or not.

I am afraid I made the assumption when joining this conference that it was about "blue-sky" planning and speculation about possible futures for the network. Instead I have run into serious opposition to even having the discussion.

I'm not opposed to discussing whatever. I just found the claim about "the model" being broken too vague to have merit. Thanks for the clarification.
--
digital man

Rush quote #23:
Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose
Norco, CA WX: 78.8øF, 62.0% humidity, 4 mph E wind, 0.00 inches rain/24hrs
--- SBBSecho 3.14-Linux
* Origin: Vertrauen - [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net (1:103/705)

Re: NEWS::: DogBone
By: Rob Swindell to John Dovey on Mon Jun 28 2021 18:31:42

Those seeem like quote differnet things and not really what I would call "the model". Perhaps being just more specific in your claims about what's broken will prevent future requests for clarity.

Good point.

I'm not opposed to discussing whatever. I just found the claim about "the model" being broken too vague to have merit. Thanks for the clarification.

That was a more general comment. Not pointed at you.

Thanks for the clarification.

It's a pleasure.

JD
===
* El Gato de Fuego (The Fire Cat) 4:920/69 * Pedasi, Panama

... I used to get high on life but lately I've built up a resistance.
--- SBBSecho 3.14-Win32
* Origin: The Cat of Fire aka El Gato de Fuego II (4:920/69)

Re: NEWS::: DogBone
By: BoonDock to Rob Swindell on Mon Jun 28 2021 09:07 pm

I'm not opposed to discussing whatever. I just found the claim about "the model" being broken too vague to have merit. Thanks for the clarification.

That was a more general comment. Not pointed at you.

Yeah, I didn't take it that way. I certainly have had very little (or nothing) to do with the creation of the FidoNet "model", so I take no offense.

One thing I do think: if there's a new network model to be created (and certainly if its not backwards compatible with existing FidoNet software), call it something else - not FidoNet.
--
digital man

Sling Blade quote #18:
Karl Childers: Some folks call it Hell, I call it Hades.
Norco, CA WX: 71.5øF, 73.0% humidity, 0 mph E wind, 0.00 inches rain/24hrs
--- SBBSecho 3.14-Linux
* Origin: Vertrauen - [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net (1:103/705)

Glad to see you, Rob!

Re: NEWS::: DogBone
By: BoonDock to Rob Swindell on Mon Jun 28 2021 09:07 pm

I'm not opposed to discussing whatever. I just found the claim about
"the model" being broken too vague to have merit. Thanks for the clarification.

That was a more general comment. Not pointed at you.

Yeah, I didn't take it that way. I certainly have had very little (or nothing) to do with the creation of the FidoNet "model", so I take no offense.

One thing I do think: if there's a new network model to be created (and certainly if its not backwards compatible with existing FidoNet software), call it something else - not FidoNet.
--
digital man

Sling Blade quote #18:
Karl Childers: Some folks call it Hell, I call it Hades.
Norco, CA WX: 71.5øF, 73.0% humidity, 0 mph E wind, 0.00 inches rain/24hrs

No Problem
Just FYI, I will say this again. I have no intention of throwing out the baby with the bathwater!
All the best
John
https://brorabbit.g0x.ru/pic/60daa78f.jpg


*** [Netmail-to-Telegram address: 474405162@2:460/256]

... Tag, you are IT!
--- tg BBS v0.7.1
* Origin: Fido by Telegram BBS from Stas Mishchenkov (2:460/256)