Subj : a little too quiet
To   : Rob Swindell
From : mark lewis
Date : Wed Mar 31 2021 06:05 am

  Re: a little too quiet
  By: Rob Swindell to Maurice Kinal on Tue Mar 30 2021 21:32:51


 RS> I'll just repeat my previous reply to your inquiry on this subject:

 RS> FidoNet is a legacy protocol that must (from what I've observed) be
 RS> enhanced only in backwards-compatible means. So if you want to add,
 RS> say, the full year of authorship to to messages in a backwards
 RS> compatible way, a new control paragraph (kludge line) would be the
 RS> way to go.

or a new PKT format... there are several documented in the FTSC library that have not been widely implemented and actively used/tested... some have had code written and have been tested in a limited manner but no widely used
mail tossers have implemented them for testing, usage, or otherwise...

FSC-0007 Fidonet RFC822-Style Message Format
FSC-0024 Type-3 Mail Bundle
FSC-0065 Type 3 ASCII
FSC-0066 Type 3 Binary
FSC-0077 Type 10 Packet Format
FSC-0081 Type 3 Packet Proposal
FSC-0082 New Packet Type
FSC-0084 Electronic Data Exchange Standard Level 1

IF a new packet format is used, there will have to be a minimal Type 2 binary header in place so existing Type 2 tossers can properly determine if they can handle the packet or not... this mainly because of the pktver field(s)
in the original Type 2 format...

 RS> And if you're going to introduce another date/time format, best to
 RS> use existing standards (e.g. RFC822 or ISO-8601) rather than
 RS> introducing yet another date/time format.

i think i can stand behind that suggestion...

the main thing to remember, though, is that the FTSC documents existing practice... that means that someone needs to come up with the new stuff, document it, implement it, and get it into wide usage... then the FTSC standard
for it can be written or taken from its documentation...


)\/(ark
--- SBBSecho 3.11-Linux
 * Origin: SouthEast Star Mail HUB - SESTAR (1:3634/12)

.