Hello Tony,

Seemed to work well this time. :)

Yes.. it *did*. But I agonized over the contruction of submission:

TAG
DESC
RUL

..etc.

Each line had a max char-limit, and each tag had a maximum line limit, and so on. And there was the teeny tiny mention to not forget to end it all with three dashes starting in col=1

I was checking and double-checking. But basically I figured it's easier to keep things short.

A free-form "form" that tracks all those requirements would have been nice. With today's web tools, it could be fairly easy to build for online use and then download the completed file. OR.. a small program hatched to the network, and used locally.

Right now, the process is kind of "if you know how to do it manually, then welcome!" BUT, maybe if the echo write-up is guided with a program, people might like to create discussion areas that *will* get activity.

When we were discussing building a tool to help with the contstruction of a NL segment for a new sysop, the ELIST "process" is not much different. That is, if the submission to ELIST fails, then that is becuase it found an error.


../|ug

--- WinPoint Beta 5 (359.1)
* Origin: Reluctantly Revisiting Fidonet (2:221/1.58)

On 03-18-19 20:08, August Abolins wrote to Tony Langdon <=-

A free-form "form" that tracks all those requirements would have been nice. With today's web tools, it could be fairly easy to build for
online use and then download the completed file. OR.. a small program hatched to the network, and used locally.

Right now, the process is kind of "if you know how to do it manually,
then welcome!" BUT, maybe if the echo write-up is guided with a
program, people might like to create discussion areas that *will* get activity.

Even better documentation would be a start, but in 2019, there's so much computing power around that a well designed form or client can help guide the applicant.

When we were discussing building a tool to help with the contstruction
of a NL segment for a new sysop, the ELIST "process" is not much different. That is, if the submission to ELIST fails, then that is becuase it found an error.

And getting an instant "Submission failed because..." would be helpful. I haven't seen the ELIST process, so can't comment any further.


... First Law of Socio-Genetics: Celibacy is not hereditary.
=== MultiMail/Win v0.51
--- SBBSecho 3.03-Linux
* Origin: Freeway BBS Bendigo,Australia freeway.apana.org.au (3:633/410)

Tony Langdon : August Abolins wrote:

Even better documentation would be a start, but in 2019, there's so much computing power around that a well designed form or client can help
guide the
applicant.

That's all I was imagining. A simple online form, that followed all the specifications outlined in the manual (chars per line, number of lines per RUL, DESC, etc.. and the 3 dashes at the end to close it off), then offer a downloadable file that can be netmailed (or emailed, actually) as required.

And getting an instant "Submission failed because..." would be helpful. I haven't seen the ELIST process, so can't comment any further.

I haven't either. Apparently my IEEE submission decades ago was perfect the 1st time. FUTURE4FIDO worked the 1st time too, after I learned that I had to actually send it to "ELIST" and not just dump it in an echo. Duh..

Try an experiment and report back!

I would hope that the ELIST parser checks for fake nodelist numbers, and doesn't just treat them as text strings. Ultimately, I used the email method for the official submission. But how would ELIST know if the point address I typed into the file was valid? Points aren't typically listed. Points can't be verified by netmail. Unless Ben's NL incorporates those? Hmmm.. Maybe there is a bug waiting to be found.


../|ug


--- WinPoint Beta 5 (359.1)
* Origin: Am I Pointing In The Right Direction? (2:221/1.58)

On 03-20-19 00:23, August Abolins wrote to Tony Langdon <=-

I haven't either. Apparently my IEEE submission decades ago was
perfect the 1st time. FUTURE4FIDO worked the 1st time too, after I learned that I had to actually send it to "ELIST" and not just dump it
in an echo. Duh..

Try an experiment and report back!

Hmm, I've got nothing to list. LOL

I would hope that the ELIST parser checks for fake nodelist numbers,
and doesn't just treat them as text strings. Ultimately, I used the
email method for the official submission. But how would ELIST know if
the point address I typed into the file was valid? Points aren't typically listed. Points can't be verified by netmail. Unless Ben's
NL incorporates those? Hmmm.. Maybe there is a bug waiting to be
found.

Actually points should be straightforward. The boss node must be nodelisted, and the poster should be the sysop of the boss node (since that sysop is responsible for points under them). Problem solved, and those checks _can_ use
the nodelist as published.

Obviously, the sysop needs to make sure the name they use is the same as the one they have in the nodelist. There is an obvious security issue there, however.

Another approach is to simply reject applications from points - the sysop is always able to fo them directly from the BBS itself. That wuld close that particular hole. :)

In Fidonet, points are just glorified users, afterall. :)


... You can tune a piano, but you can`t tuna fish.
=== MultiMail/Win v0.51
--- SBBSecho 3.03-Linux
* Origin: Freeway BBS Bendigo,Australia freeway.apana.org.au (3:633/410)

That's all I was imagining. A simple online form, that followed all the

How do your thoughts differ from this:

http://www.filegate.net/zone1/bnbform.html

ÖÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ· ÖÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ· ÖÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ·
*HúUúMúOúNúGúOúUúS* BúBúS nathanael : jenandcal.familyds.org:2323
ÓÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄĽ ÓÄÄÄÄÄÄĽ ÓÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄĽ

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A43 2019/03/03 (Raspberry Pi/32)
* Origin: *HUMONGOUS* BBS (3:712/886)

Hello nathanael,

On 20.03.19, you wrote:

That's all I was imagining. A simple online form, that followed all the

How do your thoughts differ from this: http://www.filegate.net/zone1/bnbform.html

I've seen that before! (I think.) ..or did you just whip it up?

Anyway.. I played with it. I put in dummy information. A first I left the optional fields blank and the site warned me that the Submit failed. And, it did *not* indicate what fields where the problem. Then, I simply filled in the blank fields with N/A. Submit, was success. Off it went, somewhere!

But that is not how I envisioned a better application to fidonet or a NL segment builder.

A form like that needs a much better to way to exclude dummy text the way I put it in. It needs to have a verification cycle by netmail or email before it even bothers to proceed with the data.

It needs to have a Success message to indicate where it was submitted and what to expect next.

I'm looking at this 1st from a new applicant's perspective. The more feedback, the better.

The existing form is certainly better than nothing, but now someone is wasting their time looking at this garbage. And, it would be far better if that was rejected in the first place.


../|ug

--- WinPoint Beta 5 (359.1)
* Origin: Reluctantly Revisiting Fidonet (2:221/1.58)

http://www.filegate.net/zone1/bnbform.html

I've seen that before! (I think.) ..or did you just whip it up?

No. I stumbled across it yesterday while I was clicking around trying to find some useful contact info on fidonet.org.

ÖÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ· ÖÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ· ÖÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ·
*HúUúMúOúNúGúOúUúS* BúBúS nathanael : jenandcal.familyds.org:2323
ÓÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄĽ ÓÄÄÄÄÄÄĽ ÓÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄĽ

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A43 2019/03/03 (Raspberry Pi/32)
* Origin: *HUMONGOUS* BBS (3:712/886)

Hello Tony,

Try an experiment and report back!

Hmm, I've got nothing to list. LOL

The whole idea is to see what ELIST reports back if you make a mistake. Try the minimum:

TAG HELLOWORLD
DESC This is a test by Tony
RUL whatever
..etc.

Observe the char spacing "rules", then make a purposeful mistake. Maybe simply leave the closing dashes out. Submit that. Report back.

Actually points should be straightforward. The boss node must be nodelisted, and the poster should be the sysop of the boss node (since that sysop is responsible for points under them). Problem solved, and those checks _can_ use the nodelist as published.

Yes.. at best, the ELIST program can only verify the submission from a z:n/n level (that is, the quoted z:n/n in the submission must match an existing nodelisted system) but it can't do that to the .point level (unless ELIST uses all the point segments from the all the zones in fidonet).

Obviously, the sysop needs to make sure the name they use is the same as the one they have in the nodelist. There is an obvious security issue there, however.

In fidonet, I think only the node number matters during a connection - not the text string for system name or sysop name.

Another approach is to simply reject applications from points - the sysop is always able to fo them directly from the BBS itself. That wuld close that particular hole. :)

No no no! :) I've got a point.

In Fidonet, points are just glorified users, afterall. :)

I don't see it as glorified. I see it as *efficient*. I'm primarily interested in messages. I point system is not burdened with the operation and config of a full bbs package. A point is rather a mini-bbs, exclusive to one user. I like that. It's quick, portable, mobile.

QWK offline was innovative when it first appeared. I loved it. But I started to feel burdened when I couldn't keep up with the QWKs I wasn't finished reading. I was anxious to get the latest, but you could only work with one QWK file at a time. Sometimes I wanted to hold a message as a draft and come back to it later, but that was not possible if I wanted to do another poll sooner. When I discovered SemPoint, that was amazing. It unpacked all QWK packets and retained them in a database manner. Plus, you could use other message formats concurrently: jam, squish, pkt, whatever.. depending on which systems you were polling. You could send only the replies that you finished working on and keep others as drafts. It had/has message tagging (important, later, etc). No.. pointing is the *right* choice for exclusively message-based bbsing ..and anyone interesting in starting an echo. ;)


../|ug

--- WinPoint Beta 5 (359.1)
* Origin: Reluctantly Revisiting Fidonet (2:221/1.58)

On 03-20-19 17:38, Tony Langdon <=-
spoke to August Abolins about Re: the add ECHOAREA proc <=-

I would hope that the ELIST parser checks for fake nodelist numbers,

<<SNIP>>

Another approach is to simply reject applications from points - the
sysop is always able to fo them directly from the BBS itself. That
wuld close that particular hole. :)

In Fidonet, points are just glorified users, afterall. :)

Why should the Elist reject applications from points *OR* users. One
does not have to be a nodelisted sysop to be the moderator of an echo.

Dale Shipp
fido_261_1466 (at) verizon (dot) net
(1:261/1466)


... Shipwrecked on Hesperus in Columbia, Maryland. 01:37:11, 21 Mar 2019
___ Blue Wave/DOS v2.30

--- Maximus/NT 3.01
* Origin: Owl's Anchor (1:261/1466)

On 03-21-19 01:35, Dale Shipp wrote to Tony Langdon <=-

Why should the Elist reject applications from points *OR* users. One
does not have to be a nodelisted sysop to be the moderator of an echo.

In that case, no problem.


... If you do a favor, forget it. If you receive a favor, remember it.
=== MultiMail/Win v0.51
--- SBBSecho 3.03-Linux
* Origin: Freeway BBS Bendigo,Australia freeway.apana.org.au (3:633/410)

Hello Dale,

Why should the Elist reject applications from points *OR* users. One
does not have to be a nodelisted sysop to be the moderator of an echo.

I would say that it doesn't. But I would sure hope that 1:234/567 or 1:999/99999999 for example, would trigger a fail. The echo creator or seeder whether a user or not, would be associated with *some* nodelisted system, at first. However, maybe later that system could go offline, and the original user would have to find anothe system to continue with ELIST updates if necessary. But the first submission should test for a valid NL address, IMHO.

I don't suspect ELIST submissions would ever rise to DDoS proportions, but with a simple check like that the receiver doesn't get fake submissions.


../|ug


--- WinPoint Beta 5 (359.1)
* Origin: Reluctantly Revisiting Fidonet (2:221/1.58)

Hi August,

On 20.03.19, you wrote:

That's all I was imagining. A simple online form, that followed all the

How do your thoughts differ from this:
http://www.filegate.net/zone1/bnbform.html

I've seen that before! (I think.) ..or did you just whip it up?

Oh come on Lol...

Anyway.. I played with it. I put in dummy information. A first I left the optional fields blank and the site warned me that the Submit failed. And,

it

did *not* indicate what fields where the problem.

True, I assume you can read the information you yourself typed. Mea culpa.

And yes, I got your dummy app and deleted it.. In case you are wondering... As far as indicating what fields failed, I suggest you write an e-mail app and send it to me at janis@filegate.net, then everything will work just as you would like it (maybe).

Then, I simply filled in the
blank fields with N/A. Submit, was success. Off it went, somewhere!

But that is not how I envisioned a better application to fidonet or a NL segment builder.

A form like that needs a much better to way to exclude dummy text the way I pu
it in. It needs to have a verification cycle by netmail or email before it even bothers to proceed with the data.

I'll watch for the app you send me.

It needs to have a Success message to indicate where it was submitted and what
to expect next.

That is where the human comes in.... I have the apps emailed to me direct as soon as someone fills one out. Then I (horrors...) manually email the person to explain where they can find helpful files (nodelist, file echos, backbone.na, etc. etc.).

I'm looking at this 1st from a new applicant's perspective. The more feedback
the better.

I expect your app shortly.

The existing form is certainly better than nothing, but now someone is wasting
their time looking at this garbage. And, it would be far better if that was rejected in the first place.

bleh...

Take care,
Janis

--- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Toy-4
* Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/38)

Hello Janis,

On 3/22/2019, you wrote to August Abolins:

http://www.filegate.net/zone1/bnbform.html

I've seen that before! (I think.) ..or did you just whip it up?

Oh come on Lol...

Well, I'm really glad you are laughing, because I did not mean to upset you. What year did you build that form? I stepped away from most things fidonet after 2006.

..the site warned me that the Submit failed.
And, it did *not* indicate what fields where the problem.

True, I assume you can read the information you yourself typed. Mea culpa.

But if the optional fields are optional, most people would most certainly leave those blank. Your form required all fields to be filled - even if they are optional. That just sounds confusing. Vestrum flagitium. lol

And yes, I got your dummy app and deleted it.. In case you are wondering... As far as indicating what fields failed, I suggest you write an e-mail app and send it to me at janis@filegate.net, then everything will work just as you would like it (maybe).

I will get right on it! ;)

My concern was that I was allowed to fill in weird info and you have to waste time.

Here's an idea: Since it is an online form, the applicant would most certainly have an email address.
Process the form to produce a hash that is emailed to the applicant and cc'd to you. The cc'd copy will be your head's up that someone made a submission. But do nothing until you get a confirmation (with the hash) from the applicant. The email to the applicant should instruct them to include the hash in the Subject field (to be spotted easier by you). Then when you get THAT, then you know it's a legit thing that needs your attention.

You could even give the applicant a maximum number of hours to produce the validation, and if that is not met, ignore it. It would probably be another dummy like me anyway. ;)

I'll watch for the app you send me.

See above for a start. You have all the tools available for that.

..Then I (horrors...) manually email the
person to explain where they can find helpful files (nodelist, file
echos, backbone.na, etc. etc.).

Just send them instructions for all that in a standard pre-written email.

The existing form is certainly better than nothing, but now someone is
wasting their time looking at this garbage. And, it would be far
better if that was rejected in the first place.

bleh...

Glad I could help! ;) Love ya.


../|ug

--- WinPoint Beta 5 (359.1)
* Origin: Reluctantly Revisiting Fidonet (2:221/1.58)

Hi August,

On 3/22/2019, you wrote to August Abolins:

http://www.filegate.net/zone1/bnbform.html

I've seen that before! (I think.) ..or did you just whip it up?

Oh come on Lol...

Well, I'm really glad you are laughing, because I did not mean to upset you.

You didn't upset me August :) I just figured you would know who created that form.

What year did you build that form? I stepped away from most things fidonet after 2006.

I'm not sure, but I think it was done in 2010.

..the site warned me that the Submit failed.
And, it did *not* indicate what fields where the problem.

True, I assume you can read the information you yourself typed. Mea
culpa.

But if the optional fields are optional, most people would most certainly leav
those blank. Your form required all fields to be filled - even if they are optional. That just sounds confusing. Vestrum flagitium. lol

Well, you are the first to say that it is confusing. I think most people just fill it in and don't wonder so much ? When their RCs get a copy, they aren't confused either. :)

And yes, I got your dummy app and deleted it.. In case you are
wondering... As far as indicating what fields failed, I suggest you write
an e-mail app and send it to me at janis@filegate.net, then everything
will work just as you would like it (maybe).

I will get right on it! ;)
My concern was that I was allowed to fill in weird info and you have to

waste

time.

Doesn't happen.

Here's an idea: Since it is an online form, the applicant would most certainly
have an email address.
Process the form to produce a hash that is emailed to the applicant and cc'd >you. The cc'd copy will be your head's up that someone made a submission. Bu
do nothing until you get a confirmation (with the hash) from the applicant. The email to the applicant should instruct them to include the hash in the
Subject field (to be spotted easier by you). Then when you get THAT, then you
know it's a legit thing that needs your attention.

Not necessary :)

You could even give the applicant a maximum number of hours to produce the validation, and if that is not met, ignore it. It would probably be another dummy like me anyway. ;)

I'll watch for the app you send me.

See above for a start. You have all the tools available for that.

So do you :)

..Then I (horrors...) manually email the
person to explain where they can find helpful files (nodelist, file
echos, backbone.na, etc. etc.).

Just send them instructions for all that in a standard pre-written email.

As I just said above your text, that is what happens.. Did you read that paragraph? :)

The existing form is certainly better than nothing, but now someone is
wasting their time looking at this garbage. And, it would be far
better if that was rejected in the first place.

bleh...

Glad I could help! ;) Love ya.

Much ado about nothing ? :)

Take care,
Janis

--- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Toy-4
* Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/38)

Hello Janis,

You didn't upset me August :) I just figured you would know who created that form.

*After* I posted the original message, the "filegate" part looked familiar. Then, I realized the form was indeed a subpage of your site. The page/form was a good idea.

Well, you are the first to say that it is confusing. I think most people just fill it in and don't wonder so much ? When their RCs get a copy, they aren't confused either. :)

A legit submission by a consciencious applicant would mostly likely be "complete" and all the fields would mostly likely have *something* so that the confusing "N/A" wouldn't even be a thought. But I was the rogue, the tyrant, the nefarious nuiscance demonstrating that I can send crap and fake information - and waste your time. ;)

If was scoping out the status of Fidonet around 2010 and stumbled on your form, I would have probably sent you a few suggestions then. <g>

My concern was that I was allowed to fill in
weird info and you have to waste time.

Doesn't happen.

Huh? Ok. Whatever. I think there is something lost in this exchange.

..You have all the tools available for that.

So do you :)

Yes. I get that. I can send in proper and honest info according to the instructions. But the form allows garbage too.

Just send them instructions for all that in a standard pre-written email.

As I just said above your text, that is what happens.. Did you read that paragraph? :)

Of course I did. I thought that you meant constomized email for each applicant each and every time. If it's just a pre-written form-letter reply, very good!

Much ado about nothing ? :)

Be careful when quoting Shakespear: https://www.zmescience.com/science/why-shakespeares-much-ado-about-nothing-is-a -brilliant-sneaky-innuendo/


Anyway, I thought you would be excited about improving "the form". Nevermind.
Stay in the past. lol


../|ug

--- WinPoint Beta 5 (359.1)
* Origin: Reluctantly Revisiting Fidonet (2:221/1.58)