| |
I0OJJ > PACKET 25.12.20 14:57l 115 Lines 3943 Bytes #999 (0) @ WW
BID : PCUI0OJJ_00L
Read: GUEST
Subj: Re: I0OJJ > Re: about the JNOS2 and ...
Path: IW8PGT<I3XTY<I0OJJ
Sent: 201225/1355z @:I0OJJ.ITA.EU [Rome] obcm1.08-5-g2f4a
From: I0OJJ @ I0OJJ.ITA.EU (Gustavo)
To: PACKET @ WW
X-Info: Sent with login password
X-Info: Received by SMTP-gateway
Merry Christmas!
I hope to stop my messages since now, I don't want to get pissed off
about the packet... :(
> Looking at all of the above dates, the latest is 1994. That's over 25 years
> ago! Many things have changed since then which justifies revisiting all of
> the PBBS standards. The documentation I have is newer which is dated 2012.
I have the following, perhaps downloaded directly from W0RLI site:
168129 Jun 12 2018 W0RLI-BBS_spec_12oct1998.pdf
> This goes back to what I said in my last message. How do we elmer others when
> the rule is to do "whatever"? Is properly elmering potential new sysops of
> no concern? If we don't act all together in unity and govern ourselves with
> our own gentleman's agreements then our privs risk being taken away including
> the rights to operate a BBS.
That is a mission impossible,
> In previous mails you also mention that "europe" did not agree on this
> document drafted by W0RLI, accepted by TAPR. I am very sorry Gus but
> Europe *did* indeed not only accept this document but with G1NNA and F6FBB
> contributing to it shows that europeans did accept this document. Even
> Victor Poor who was an earlier member of the Winlink team contributed and
> accepted this document.
I don't know about their (secret) involvement since G1NNA was the
author of a MSDOS NNABBS, like a sorta PMS stored inside most TNCs
to be clear on what we are speaking; its last release was on 1994.
Then F6FBB abandoned his development on March 2003 (fbb-7.04j) and
never reappeared since now.
>> Hope that Maiko could do the same in the next JNOS2 :)
>
> Did you see Maiko's H-address?
> VE4KLM.#WPG.MB.CAN.NOAM <---
> I wouldn't count on this happening anytime soon. :)
> Not only that, it's not our place to tell Maiko what to do or what not to do
> with his code and/or his BBS. With globally accepted standards however we
> could give him a nudge.
I am simply externalizing my ideas and forcing the end to no one;
Maiko is a great friend for me and the same are you for me :)
The reason is very simple:
1. there are only 5 (five) Continents in our planet or if you want
6 (six), since the ONU is making the Americas explicit as North
America and South America.
The names of continents are only the following and not any other:
Africa, Asia, Europe, North America, South America, Oceania.
Their abbreviations can simply be: AF, AS, EU, NA, SA, OC.
2. And now speak about that stupid assertion as NA is Namibia, and
so on, repeated since now an let's take as an example the Maiko
H-Address:
VE4KLM.#WPG.MB.CAN.NOAM
it will become:
VE4KLM.#WPG.MB.CAN.NA
Remember that the introduction of H-Addressing is strictly
tied/bound to the according PBBS software implementation
for its proper management.
The project/criterion of the software analysis is to
parse/scan the processed r-line/H-Address, starting from
the right to the left, so the NA field may be ONLY North
America and not Namibia, being this last one H-Address
completely different; i.e.:
.NAM.AF
Also, remember that the Country code MUST be made explicit
by a 3 (three letter) length, so Namibia is NAM, Italy is
ITA, United States are USA, Canada is CAN, and so on...
If the PBBS software fails to do the above process on the
H-Addresses it is simply broken.
>> Impossible to cure the ignorance but at least let's try.
>
> Without standards, you will never be able to cure anything. Not being willing
> to discuss things only adds to the ignorance it doesn't help problem solve.
The (possible) standard may be that described above :)
Stop here for me, no other messages.
--
73 and ciao, gustavo i0ojj/ir0aab/ir0eq
non multa, sed multum
--
73 and ciao, gustavo i0ojj/ir0aab/ir0eq
non multa, sed multum
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
