• a little too quiet

    From Maurice Kinal@1:153/7001 to All on Tuesday, March 30, 2021 16:53:11
    -={ 2021-03-30 16:53:11.807751972+00:00 }=-

    Hey All!

    That was the quietest election ever. Not sure how to take it but for my part I plan to make some noise over the next two years, my reasoning being that nothing survives without change.

    On that note, the packed msg two digit year datetime stamp must die a horrible public death. Who is with me?

    Life is good,
    Maurice

    ... God ana wat hwæt him weaxendum winter bringað.
    Only God knows what the years will bring the growing child.
    --- GNU bash, version 5.1.4(1)-release (x86_64-motorshed-linux-gnu)
    * Origin: Little Mikey's Brain - Ladysmith BC, Canada (1:153/7001)
  • From Vincent Coen@2:250/1 to Maurice Kinal on Tuesday, March 30, 2021 22:46:01
    Hello Maurice!

    Tuesday March 30 2021 16:53, you wrote to All:

    -={ 2021-03-30 16:53:11.807751972+00:00 }=-

    Hey All!

    That was the quietest election ever. Not sure how to take it but for
    my part I plan to make some noise over the next two years, my
    reasoning being that nothing survives without change.

    On that note, the packed msg two digit year datetime stamp must die a horrible public death. Who is with me?

    When coming out with a suggestion for a change you have to think does it help or hinder .

    In this case it does help but it will hinder a lot more.

    Why as lots of software are effected and all will require changes and for some the source is not available therefore rendering systems running it/them non operational.


    Vincent

    --- Mageia Linux v7.1 X64/Mbse v1.0.7.21/GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20180707
    * Origin: Air Applewood, The Linux Gateway to the UK & Eire (2:250/1)
  • From August Abolins@2:221/1.58 to Vincent Coen on Tuesday, March 30, 2021 18:21:00
    Hello Vincent Coen!

    ** On Tuesday 30.03.21 - 22:46, Vincent Coen wrote to Maurice Kinal:

    On that note, the packed msg two digit year datetime stamp
    must die a horrible public death. Who is with me?

    When coming out with a suggestion for a change you have to
    think does it help or hinder .

    In this case it does help but it will hinder a lot more.

    Why as lots of software are effected and all will require
    changes and for some the source is not available therefore
    rendering systems running it/them non operational.

    Maybe it is time (and long overdue) to recognize that some
    softwares ought to be depricated if there is hope for any future
    in ftn.

    Perhaps the new bottom line should be software that is still in
    development.

    Maybe Fidonet could branch off - one that strictly supports the
    absolute minimum, and the other that does not shy away from new
    ideas and improvements.
    --
    ../|ug

    --- OpenXP 5.0.49
    * Origin: (2:221/1.58)
  • From andrew clarke@3:633/267 to Maurice Kinal on Wednesday, March 31, 2021 09:52:34
    On 2021-03-30 16:53:10, Maurice Kinal (1:153/7001) wrote to All:

    On that note, the packed msg two digit year datetime stamp must die a horrible public death. Who is with me?

    This is the pinnacle of non-problems.

    You can safely assume 00-83 is 2000-2083.

    In the year 2076 I promise to revisit this thread to check on how things are going.

    --- GoldED+/BSD 1.1.5-b20180707
    * Origin: Blizzard of Ozz, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia (3:633/267)
  • From Maurice Kinal@1:153/7001 to Vincent Coen on Tuesday, March 30, 2021 23:17:12
    -={ 2021-03-30 23:17:12.010068556+00:00 }=-

    Hey Vincent!

    In this case it does help but it will hinder a lot more.

    I'd like to see hard evidence that the above is true. I have noticed abandonware still in use but it seems to me there is far more supported software that would benefit from some much needed fixes, the obsoleted two digit year being an excellent place to start, nevermind that it is decades overdue.

    We are a fifth of the way into the 21st century and many changes in digital communications has happened since 1995 that I believe Fidonet could benefit from. +25 years of mourning long since dead technologies/software is way too long. I say we move on and do our best to progress.

    Life is good,
    Maurice

    ... Ðeah þe earm friond lytel sylle, nim hit to miccles þances.
    Though a poor friend may give you little, take it with great thanks.
    --- GNU bash, version 5.1.4(1)-release (x86_64-motorshed-linux-gnu)
    * Origin: Little Mikey's Brain - Ladysmith BC, Canada (1:153/7001)
  • From Maurice Kinal@1:153/7001 to andrew clarke on Tuesday, March 30, 2021 23:55:07
    -={ 2021-03-30 23:55:07.992915724+00:00 }=-

    Hey andrew!

    In the year 2076 I promise to revisit this thread to check on
    how things are going.

    76?

    Life is good,
    Maurice

    ... Eall þæt mon untidlice onginþ, næfþ hit no æltæþne ende.
    Anything begun at the wrong time will never have a good end.
    --- GNU bash, version 5.1.4(1)-release (x86_64-motorshed-linux-gnu)
    * Origin: Little Mikey's Brain - Ladysmith BC, Canada (1:153/7001)
  • From Bjrn Felten@2:203/2 to Maurice Kinal on Wednesday, March 31, 2021 04:57:04
    In the year 2076 I promise to revisit this thread to check on
    how things are going.

    76?

    That's within the 2000-2083 span that Andrew mentioned -- with seven years to spare for correcting possible problems not yet detected.




    ..

    --- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; sv-SE; rv:1.9.1.16) Gecko/20101125
    * Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)
  • From Rob Swindell@1:103/705 to Maurice Kinal on Tuesday, March 30, 2021 21:32:51
    Re: a little too quiet
    By: Maurice Kinal to All on Tue Mar 30 2021 04:53 pm

    -={ 2021-03-30 16:53:11.807751972+00:00 }=-

    Hey All!

    That was the quietest election ever. Not sure how to take it but for my part I plan to make some noise over the next two years, my reasoning being that nothing survives without change.

    On that note, the packed msg two digit year datetime stamp must die a horrible public death. Who is with me?

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

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

    And if you're going to introduce another date/time format, best to use existing standards (e.g. RFC822 or ISO-8601) rather than introducing yet another date/time format.
    --- SBBSecho 3.14-Linux
    * Origin: Vertrauen - [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net (1:103/705)
  • From Maurice Kinal@1:153/7001 to Rob Swindell on Wednesday, March 31, 2021 06:22:08
    -={ 2021-03-31 06:22:08.863177505+00:00 }=-

    Hey Rob!

    FidoNet is a legacy protocol that must (from what I've observed)
    be enhanced only in backwards-compatible means.

    Could you please cite any backwards-compatible enhancement to the packed msg format that has happened since 1995. Kludges don't count since they aren't part of the packed msg format, up to and including dubious MSGIDs.

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

    That could easily happen. Here is an ISO-8601 version of the RFC-3339 datetime stamp at the top of my reply; 2021-03-31T06:22:08,863177505+00:00

    I haven't read the document in a number of years now but I seem to recall that an acceptable format can use the ascii space to replace the 'T' which yields the RFC-3339 version exactly.

    If it is the nanoseconds you're objecting to (citing c89 compatibilty) then "2021-03-31 06:22:08+00:00" would work just fine and thus live up to your above posted "be enhanced only in backwards-compatible means". However that will still break abandonware, which never really had any legitimate claim to backwards compatibilty in the first place, including the 1995 packed msg format still in use today.

    In other words, I am calling BS on the backwards compatibilty arguement. You got nothing in that direction.

    Life is good,
    Maurice

    ... Bald bið se ðe onbyregeð boca cræftes.
    Bold shall he be who tastes of the skill of books.
    --- GNU bash, version 5.1.4(1)-release (x86_64-motorshed-linux-gnu)
    * Origin: Little Mikey's Brain - Ladysmith BC, Canada (1:153/7001)
  • From Rob Swindell@1:103/705 to Maurice Kinal on Wednesday, March 31, 2021 00:14:11
    Re: a little too quiet
    By: Maurice Kinal to Rob Swindell on Wed Mar 31 2021 06:22 am

    In other words, I am calling BS on the backwards compatibilty arguement.
    You got nothing in that direction.

    Kludge/control paragraphs are how FTN message headers are extended in a backward compatible manner. You can chose to call it whatever you like, but that's how its done.
    --- SBBSecho 3.14-Linux
    * Origin: Vertrauen - [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net (1:103/705)
  • From mark lewis@1:3634/12 to Rob Swindell on Wednesday, March 31, 2021 06:05:36
    Re: a little too quiet
    By: Rob Swindell to Maurice Kinal on Tue Mar 30 2021 21:32:51


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

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

    And if you're going to introduce another date/time format, best to
    use existing standards (e.g. RFC822 or ISO-8601) rather than
    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)
  • From Michiel van der Vlist@2:280/5555 to Maurice Kinal on Wednesday, March 31, 2021 12:33:02
    Hello Maurice,

    On Wednesday March 31 2021 06:22, you wrote to Rob Swindell:

    @MSGID: 1:153/7001 60641510
    @CHRS: UTF-8 4
    -={ 2021-03-31 06:22:08.863177505+00:00 }=-

    No REPLY kludge.
    No TZUTC kludge.


    Cheers, Michiel

    --- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20170303
    * Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)
  • From Maurice Kinal@1:153/7001 to Rob Swindell on Wednesday, March 31, 2021 14:17:26
    -={ 2021-03-31 14:17:26.067641746+00:00 }=-

    Hey Rob!

    You can chose to call it whatever you like, but that's how its
    done.

    More BS? The only ones I see following the control line strategy have done absolutely nothing for the backwards compatibilty cause, and in at least two cases make a bad situation even worse. However with a true fix, such as a ISO-8601 compatible datetime stamp, one of those cases becomes redundant and can be safely ignored without any detrimental effects. Mind you that is true today given that is exactly what I have been doing since about 1997-ish. Having said that I do believe a true fix was the proper way to proceed since at least 2002 when the two digit year was officially declared obsolete in digital communications.

    Life is good,
    Maurice

    ... Wiþ swiþe mænige biternesse is gemenged seo swetnes þisse worulde.
    With much bitterness is mingled the sweetness of this world.
    --- GNU bash, version 5.1.4(1)-release (x86_64-motorshed-linux-gnu)
    * Origin: Little Mikey's Brain - Ladysmith BC, Canada (1:153/7001)
  • From Maurice Kinal@1:153/7001 to Michiel van der Vlist on Wednesday, March 31, 2021 14:32:03
    -={ 2021-03-31 14:32:03.691893106+00:00 }=-

    Hey Michiel!

    MvdV> No REPLY kludge.
    MvdV> No TZUTC kludge.

    What's your point? There are many other kludges being ignored as well. Why pick on the two obviously corrupted ones?

    BTW note that this reply to you has a REPLY kludge. Can you guess why?

    Life is good,
    Maurice

    ... Leorna hwæthwugu æt ðam wisran, þæt þu mæge læran þone unwisran.
    Learn something from the wise, so you can teach the ignorant.
    --- GNU bash, version 5.1.4(1)-release (x86_64-motorshed-linux-gnu)
    * Origin: Little Mikey's Brain - Ladysmith BC, Canada (1:153/7001)
  • From Ward Dossche@2:292/854 to Maurice Kinal on Wednesday, March 31, 2021 17:30:49
    Maurice,

    However with a true
    fix, such as a ISO-8601 compatible datetime stamp, one of those cases becomes redundant and can be safely ignored without any detrimental effects. Mind you that is true today given that is exactly what I have been doing since about 1997-ish. Having said that I do believe a true
    fix was the proper way to proceed since at least 2002 when the two digit year was officially declared obsolete in digital communications.

    Are you describing here a widely used methodology which is in need of being documented? No? In that case it does not concern the FTSC.

    \%/@rd

    --- DB4 - Mar.13 2021
    * Origin: Hou het veilig, hou vol. Het komt allemaal weer goed (2:292/854)
  • From Maurice Kinal@1:153/7001 to Ward Dossche on Wednesday, March 31, 2021 18:01:43
    -={ 2021-03-31 18:01:43.645711710+00:00 }=-

    Hey Ward!

    Are you describing here a widely used methodology which is in
    need of being documented?

    Yes I am.

    No? In that case it does not concern the FTSC.

    I beg to differ but will cede if and when this particular subject is officially deemed to be of no concern to the FTSC.

    Life is good,
    Maurice

    ... Wyrd bið ful aræd.
    Fate is greatly fixed.
    --- GNU bash, version 5.1.4(1)-release (x86_64-motorshed-linux-gnu)
    * Origin: Little Mikey's Brain - Ladysmith BC, Canada (1:153/7001)
  • From Rob Swindell@1:103/705 to mark lewis on Wednesday, March 31, 2021 17:55:15
    Re: a little too quiet
    By: mark lewis to Rob Swindell on Wed Mar 31 2021 06:05 am

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

    or a new PKT format...

    Yup, or that. But the easier/quicker solution to the one pet-problem of the OP would be to add a new kludge/control line:

    @YEAR: 2021

    Problem solved. Move on to more interesting things.
    --- SBBSecho 3.14-Linux
    * Origin: Vertrauen - [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net (1:103/705)
  • From Michiel van der Vlist@2:280/5555 to Maurice Kinal on Friday, April 02, 2021 12:30:42
    Hello Maurice,

    On Wednesday March 31 2021 14:32, you wrote to me:

    MvdV>> No REPLY kludge.
    MvdV>> No TZUTC kludge.

    What's your point? There are many other kludges being ignored as
    well. Why pick on the two

    Because it is these two that I miss in your message.

    obviously corrupted ones?

    The REPLY and TZUTC kludges have been in wide spread use for decades and have been documented as a standard by the FTSC. Followig FTSC standards is not corrupt. If you can not live with that, you should not be an FTSC member.

    BTW note that this reply to you has a REPLY kludge. Can you guess
    why?

    I can always guess, but guessing right is not my strong point. There seems to be a lot of arbitrariness in your use of kludges. So I decline. If you think it is important that I know, you can just tell me.


    Cheers, Michiel

    --- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20170303
    * Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)
  • From mark lewis@1:3634/12 to Michiel van der Vlist on Friday, April 02, 2021 07:37:59
    Re: a little too quiet
    By: Michiel van der Vlist to Maurice Kinal on Fri Apr 02 2021 12:30:42


    BTW note that this reply to you has a REPLY kludge. Can you guess
    why?

    MvdV> I can always guess, but guessing right is not my strong point.
    MvdV> There seems to be a lot of arbitrariness in your use of kludges.
    MvdV> So I decline. If you think it is important that I know, you can
    MvdV> just tell me.

    you do realize that maurice reads and writes messages to/from raw PKTs, right? all via shell script(s) using standard *nix command line tools and for at least two decades... probably a little longer ;)


    )\/(ark
    --- SBBSecho 3.11-Linux
    * Origin: SouthEast Star Mail HUB - SESTAR (1:3634/12)
  • From Maurice Kinal@1:153/7001 to Michiel van der Vlist on Friday, April 02, 2021 14:22:04
    -={ 2021-04-02 14:22:04.751220489+00:00 }=-

    Hey Michiel!

    MvdV> Because it is these two that I miss in your message.

    How about my previous reply as well as this reply?

    MvdV> The REPLY and TZUTC kludges have been in wide spread use for
    MvdV> decades and have been documented as a standard by the FTSC.

    I am well aware of that and am on record in this echoarea as to why the TZUTZ should not be used and if it is then it should be ignored. In fact you as moderator of this echoarea have exchanged MSGs in the past regarding the usuage of the TZUTZ kludge. Nothing has changed since then.

    MvdV> There seems to be a lot of arbitrariness in your use of
    MvdV> kludges.

    Just checking things out if and when they need checking.

    Life is good,
    Maurice

    ... Ne mæg werig mod wyrde wiðstondan, ne se hreo hyge helpe gefremman.
    A weary mind cannot withstand fate, nor a sad heart offer help.
    --- GNU bash, version 5.1.4(1)-release (x86_64-motorshed-linux-gnu)
    * Origin: Little Mikey's Brain - Ladysmith BC, Canada (1:153/7001)
  • From Maurice Kinal@1:153/7001 to mark lewis on Friday, April 02, 2021 14:33:38
    -={ 2021-04-02 14:33:38.849951817+00:00 }=-

    Hey mark!

    you do realize that maurice reads and writes messages to/from
    raw PKTs, right?

    Not quite but not far off from the truth. I have temporary files in between incoming and outgoing but the starting and final results are the raw PKTs without any alteration from their recieved or sent state. However there are no squish or jam or ????? other archives to be concerned with whci makes it extremely easy for my to adapt to any changes that might be required or desirable.

    all via shell script(s) using standard *nix command line tools
    and for at least two decades... probably a little longer ;)

    For the fidonet specific stuff it started when the co-called standard PKT header was altered and certain nodes decided they didn't need to support the old school PKT headers anymore despite saying they did. I decided then that I could do better so I did and here we are today.

    I believe I was the first truly working UTF-8 capable fidonet node - with or without the CHRS kludge. :-)

    Life is good,
    Maurice

    ... þyrs sceal on fenne gewunian ana innan lande.
    A giant must dwell in the fen, alone in the land.
    --- GNU bash, version 5.1.4(1)-release (x86_64-motorshed-linux-gnu)
    * Origin: Little Mikey's Brain - Ladysmith BC, Canada (1:153/7001)
  • From Michiel van der Vlist@2:280/5555 to Maurice Kinal on Saturday, April 03, 2021 16:20:21
    Hello Maurice,

    On Friday April 02 2021 14:33, you wrote to mark lewis:

    I believe I was the first truly working UTF-8 capable fidonet node -
    with or without the CHRS kludge. :-)

    Believe what you want, but your belief is not consistent with the known facts. You are not the first, I was before you. But I was not the first either.

    A fidonet NODE is what transfers files between the outbound of one system and the inbound of the other system. This process is fully 8 bit transparent and encoding agnostic. ALL Fidonet NODES are "working UTF-8 capable".

    So Tom Jennings was the first.

    Cheers, Michiel

    --- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20170303
    * Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)
  • From Maurice Kinal@2:280/464.113 to Michiel van der Vlist on Saturday, April 03, 2021 17:32:49
    -={ 2021-04-03 17:32:49.396031839+00:00 }=-

    Hey Michiel!

    MvdV> You are not the first, I was before you.

    Nope. We went through this before and you were given the chance to prove it back then and you fumbled the ball.

    As far as I am aware there were only two Russian sysops at the time who were capable but both of them were still posting either straight ascii or cp866. As for me most of my MSGs are not only capable but most actually contain utf-8 characters, while some are straight ascii and a few are cp866 lately. I am able to find credible witnesses to back my statement up. I have seen nothing from you other than extremely dubious claims.

    MvdV> So Tom Jennings was the first.

    Nope. utf-8 didn't even exist then or at least not officially. Also your posted history falsely credits MS as a (the?) source which further raises doubts about the validity of any claim on this particular subject.

    Life is good,
    Maurice

    ... Ne do ðu nauðer: ne ðe sylfne ne here, ne ðe sylfne ne leah.
    Don't do either of these things: praise yourself or criticise yourself.
    --- GNU bash, version 5.1.4(1)-release (x86_64-motorshed-linux-gnu)
    * Origin: Little Mikey's EuroPoint - Ladysmith BC, Canada (2:280/464.113)
  • From Michiel van der Vlist@2:280/5555 to Maurice Kinal on Sunday, April 04, 2021 11:08:41
    Hello Maurice,

    On Saturday April 03 2021 17:32, you wrote to me:

    MvdV>> You are not the first, I was before you.

    Nope.

    The nodelist archives do not lie. I was first listed as 2:500/555 on 1997-06-27. You were first listed as 1:135/255 on 1997-10-17. I was before you.

    https://nodehist.fidonet.org.ua/

    As for the rest of your writings, I do not see how this is an issue that needs further interaction bewteen the FTSC and the Fidonet community. So as far as I am concerned: EOT.

    Cheers, Michiel

    --- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20170303
    * Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)
  • From mark lewis@1:3634/12 to Michiel van der Vlist on Sunday, April 04, 2021 10:51:45
    Re: a little too quiet
    By: Michiel van der Vlist to Maurice Kinal on Sun Apr 04 2021 11:08:41


    MvdV> The nodelist archives do not lie.

    they do when not all of the nodelists exist there...

    then there's also the time when it would take months for Z2 to pick up and apply Z1 nodelist updates... like the system i was first involved with... according to the archives of Z2 nodelists, it wasn't listed until months and
    months (years! actually) after P4 was put in place but in reality, that system participated in the whole P4 thing as well as being involved in discussions about P4 when it was first presented to the network via the fidonet
    newsletter before undergoing modifications into what it finally ended up becoming...

    P4 was put in place June 9th, 1989 but the nodelist archive shows our system first appearing in the nodelist Oct 29th, 1993... in fact, the nodelist archive shows 1:275/0 as not appearing until July 6th, 1990 which is
    definitely wrong... in fact, net 275 and whatever net was just to the north had a bit of a recruitment battle before the '90s... yeah, one of those geographic and phone LATA battles... hell, i remember when Warren King was
    first selected as NC of 275... the nodelist archive is not accurate... it is a valient attempt, though...

    so please, let's not try to measure penises by using a flawed nodelist archive as the measuring stick, ok? ;)


    )\/(ark
    --- SBBSecho 3.11-Linux
    * Origin: SouthEast Star Mail HUB - SESTAR (1:3634/12)
  • From Maurice Kinal@1:153/7001 to mark lewis on Sunday, April 04, 2021 18:47:30
    -={ 2021-04-04 18:47:30.143631506+00:00 }=-

    Hey mark!

    so please, let's not try to measure penises by using a flawed
    nodelist archive as the measuring stick, ok? ;)

    Also my original was about packed MSGs which has nothing to do with any nodelist, flawed or otherwise, so my statement about me being the first truly working utf-8 fidonet node is still valid. Not that any of this really matters as far as the two digit year DateTime stamp in packed MSGs are concerned.

    Also I am willing to cede that Michiel is the bigger prick if indeed that turns out to matter any. :::evil grin:::

    Bottomline is that four digit year DateTime stamps are the way to go and I will continue to press on to make it so. Whether or not it is successful remains to be seen.

    Life is good,
    Maurice

    ... Styran sceal mon strongum mode; storm oft holm gebringeþ.
    A strong mind must be steered; the sea often brings a storm.
    --- GNU bash, version 5.1.4(1)-release (x86_64-motorshed-linux-gnu)
    * Origin: Little Mikey's Brain - Ladysmith BC, Canada (1:153/7001)
  • From Ward Dossche@2:292/854 to Maurice Kinal on Sunday, April 04, 2021 21:17:28
    Maurice,

    Bottomline is that four digit year DateTime stamps are the way to go and
    I will continue to press on to make it so. Whether or not it is
    successful remains to be seen.

    You don't need to be a member of the FTSC to achieve that.

    If you achieve it, the FTSC will document it.

    \%/@rd

    --- DB4 - Mar.13 2021
    * Origin: Hou het veilig, hou vol. Het komt allemaal weer goed (2:292/854)
  • From Maurice Kinal@1:153/7001 to Ward Dossche on Sunday, April 04, 2021 19:40:03
    -={ 2021-04-04 19:40:03.098965170+00:00 }=-

    Hey Ward!

    You don't need to be a member of the FTSC to achieve that.

    Understood. My membership came after this attempt towards that goal and as far as I am concerned the two have little to do with each other. If it turns out there is a conflict of interest I'd be inclined to resign my membership and continue to persue the four digit year DateTime stamp despite the remote odds of success everyone has given it.

    If you achieve it, the FTSC will document it.

    One would assume that to be true. However we're not there yet.

    Life is good,
    Maurice

    ... Wat se þe cunnað hu sliþen bið sorg to geferan.
    He who has experienced it knows how cruel a companion sorrow is.
    --- GNU bash, version 5.1.4(1)-release (x86_64-motorshed-linux-gnu)
    * Origin: Little Mikey's Brain - Ladysmith BC, Canada (1:153/7001)
  • From Michiel van der Vlist@2:280/5555 to mark lewis on Monday, April 05, 2021 13:13:42
    Hello mark,

    On Sunday April 04 2021 10:51, you wrote to me:

    MvdV>> The nodelist archives do not lie.

    they do when not all of the nodelists exist there...

    "Lie" is too strong a word. The information may be incomplete, but what is given out is considered correct.

    then there's also the time when it would take months for Z2 to pick up
    and apply Z1 nodelist updates... like the system i was first involved with... according to the archives of Z2 nodelists, it wasn't listed
    until months and months

    In the early days of Fidonet such extremes may have been common. By 1997 these problems were mostly ironed out and delays between zones were limited to two weeks at most.

    The nodelist archives show that I was listed as a node on 1997-06-27. One could interpret that as "not later than 1997-06-27". If Maurice has evidence to show he was listed as a Fidonet node before that, he is welcome to produce that evidence.

    so please, let's not try to measure penises by using a flawed nodelist archive as the measuring stick, ok? ;)

    The nodelist archive is not flawed, it may be incomplete, but what is there is considered correct.

    On second thougts, instead of first producing evidence myself, I should simply have asked Maurice to provide his evidence to support his claim that he was the first to operate an utf-8 capable Fdionet /NODE/. After all, the burden of proof rests on the one making the claim.

    Or maybe even better, I should just have ignored him...


    Cheers, Michiel

    --- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20170303
    * Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)
  • From Ward Dossche@2:292/854 to Maurice Kinal on Monday, April 05, 2021 13:40:10
    Maurice,

    If
    it turns out there is a conflict of interest I'd be inclined to resign my membership and continue to persue the four digit year DateTime stamp despite the remote odds of success everyone has given it.

    Conflict of interest in Fidonet? ??

    I think it is perfectly OK for any developer to be a part of the FTSC and to cooperate in documenting what still needs to be documented.

    There was a time when we might have thought different about this but in times of scarecity every talent is welcome ... and I sense development is on its way again.

    \%/@rd

    --- DB4 - Mar.13 2021
    * Origin: Hou het veilig, hou vol. Het komt allemaal weer goed (2:292/854)
  • From Ward Dossche@2:292/854 to mark lewis on Monday, April 05, 2021 14:38:23
    mark,

    then there's also the time when it would take months for Z2 to pick up
    and apply Z1 nodelist updates... like the system i was first involved with... according to the archives of Z2 nodelists, it wasn't listed until months and months (years! actually) after P4 was put in place...

    That's a claim, not a proven statement, about something which may or may not have occured some 33 years ago.

    Please don't break-open my mouth about multiple historic ZC1s unable of producing ZONE1-segments in a timely and reliable manner ... Or Bob Seaborn RIP delaying ZONE1-segments in the limited ZSEGS-distribution ... anything to paint a bleak picture of Z2 and its ZC was acceptable.

    I would say that your whole story of not being listed and it taken years for that to happen (your words, not mine) is a gross misrepresentation of the truth. If you can't back-up your claim, you shouldn't make it in the first place ... so here's your chance...

    P4 was put in place June 9th, 1989 ...

    Actually, you have no clue when it was put in place as you only copied that date from the current version 4.07. If there is a version 4.07, then there were versions 4.01->6 before that date.

    You seem to be living a fidonet of times gone by, "who" did "what" in 1987-1988-1989 in Fidonet is fairly irrelevant these days and if you want to stop talking about measuring penises, then I suggest you put yours where it belongs and do something which improves Fidonet other than lecturing people about stuff which no-one cares about.

    Life is good, as Maurice would say, and he is right on thatone.

    \%/@rd

    --- DB4 - Mar.13 2021
    * Origin: Hou het veilig, hou vol. Het komt allemaal weer goed (2:292/854)
  • From Andrew Leary@1:320/219 to Ward Dossche on Monday, April 05, 2021 08:47:47
    Ward & Mark:

    then there's also the time when it would take months for Z2 to
    pick up and apply Z1 nodelist updates... like the system i was
    first involved with... according to the archives of Z2 nodelists,
    it wasn't listed until months and months (years! actually) after
    P4 was put in place...

    That's a claim, not a proven statement, about something which may or
    may not have occured some 33 years ago.

    Please don't break-open my mouth about multiple historic ZC1s unable
    of producing ZONE1-segments in a timely and reliable manner ... Or Bob Seaborn RIP delaying ZONE1-segments in the limited ZSEGS-distribution
    ... anything to paint a bleak picture of Z2 and its ZC was acceptable.

    I would say that your whole story of not being listed and it taken
    years for that to happen (your words, not mine) is a gross misrepresentation of the truth. If you can't back-up your claim, you shouldn't make it in the first place ... so here's your chance...

    P4 was put in place June 9th, 1989 ...

    Actually, you have no clue when it was put in place as you only
    copied that date from the current version 4.07. If there is a version 4.07, then there were versions 4.01->6 before that date.

    You seem to be living a fidonet of times gone by, "who" did "what" in 1987-1988-1989 in Fidonet is fairly irrelevant these days and if you
    want to stop talking about measuring penises, then I suggest you put
    yours where it belongs and do something which improves Fidonet other
    than lecturing people about stuff which no-one cares about.

    Life is good, as Maurice would say, and he is right on thatone.

    This thread is not an issue which needs to be discussed between the FTSC and the FidoNet community. These events took place over 30 years ago and no amount of discussion will change them at this point. Take it to NetMail or another echo, please.

    Andrew
    FTSC_PUBLIC Moderator

    --- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20180707
    * Origin: Phoenix BBS * phoenix.bnbbbs.net (1:320/219)
  • From Ward Dossche@2:292/854 to Andrew Leary on Monday, April 05, 2021 15:30:46
    Moderator,

    Take it to NetMail or another echo, please.

    I am tired of you getting on my back all the time. If there was a moment to intervene, you should've done so before ... not just wait until "I" say something.

    Freedom of speech is enshrined in the Constitution of your country. I propose you read it, learn from it and practice it.

    Take care,

    \%/@rd

    --- DB4 - Mar.13 2021
    * Origin: Hou het veilig, hou vol. Het komt allemaal weer goed (2:292/854)
  • From Maurice Kinal@1:153/7001 to Michiel van der Vlist on Monday, April 05, 2021 14:33:56
    -={ 2021-04-05 14:33:56.832464532+00:00 }=-

    Hey Michiel!

    MvdV> Or maybe even better, I should just have ignored him...

    That works for me.

    I do not wish to be part of your rewritten history such as your false claim of MS developing UTF-8. Do you still have that document available?

    Life is good,
    Maurice

    ... Earh mæg þæt an þæt he him ondræde.
    A coward can only do one thing: what he fears.
    --- GNU bash, version 5.1.4(1)-release (x86_64-motorshed-linux-gnu)
    * Origin: Little Mikey's Brain - Ladysmith BC, Canada (1:153/7001)
  • From Maurice Kinal@1:153/7001 to Ward Dossche on Monday, April 05, 2021 14:40:32
    -={ 2021-04-05 14:40:32.937482736+00:00 }=-

    Hey Ward!

    Conflict of interest in Fidonet? ??

    Heh, heh. What was I thinking ...

    I think it is perfectly OK for any developer to be a part of the
    FTSC and to cooperate in documenting what still needs to be
    documented.

    Sure. I think I have two years in me.

    and I sense development is on its way again.

    I've thought that before and was wrong but I am still willing to give it a go. I definetly picked a tough nut to crack but I am sure it is worth the effort regardless of the final outcome.

    Life is good,
    Maurice

    ... Lot sceal mid lyswe, list mid gedefum.
    Cunning goes with corruption, craft with what is right.
    --- GNU bash, version 5.1.4(1)-release (x86_64-motorshed-linux-gnu)
    * Origin: Little Mikey's Brain - Ladysmith BC, Canada (1:153/7001)
  • From Fernando Toledo@4:902/26 to Rob Swindell on Wednesday, March 31, 2021 15:34:06
    El 31/3/21 a las 01:32, Rob Swindell escribió:

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

    And if you're going to introduce another date/time format, best to use existing


    standards (e.g. RFC822 or ISO-8601) rather than introducing yet another date/time format.

    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

    I second this!
    --- SBBSecho 3.14-Linux
    * Origin: Dock Sud BBS - http://bbs.docksud.com.ar (4:902/26)
  • From Maurice Kinal@1:153/7001 to Fernando Toledo on Monday, April 05, 2021 20:16:07
    -={ 2021-04-05 20:16:07.639076074+00:00 }=-

    Hey Fernando!

    standards (e.g. RFC822 or ISO-8601) rather than introducing yet another date/time format.

    I second this!

    RFC-3339 is the winner although ISO-8601 works well too. Too many alpha characters in RFC822 from what I understand about RFC822 which will cause problems given the incompatibilty between codepages. We're already dealing with misinformed apps regarding alpha characters in the obsoleted FTN two digit year DateTime stamp. However after reading the latest ISO-8601 documents utf-8 minus and plus characters could easliy leak in, not to mention the utf-8 space, and cause much grief given that a single minus or plus character is 3 bytes which will definetly throw off offsets in headers.

    As far as the idea of making it a kludge, I will opt out thank you very much. A pure ASCII RFC-3339 packed MSG DateTime stamp is the way to go. Anything else will lead to more corruption given what I've witnessed over the decades.

    Life is good,
    Maurice

    ... Eadig bið se þe in his eðle geþihð.
    Fortunate is he who prospers in his homeland.
    --- GNU bash, version 5.1.4(1)-release (x86_64-motorshed-linux-gnu)
    * Origin: Little Mikey's Brain - Ladysmith BC, Canada (1:153/7001)
  • From Carol Shenkenberger@1:275/100 to Ward Dossche on Saturday, April 17, 2021 14:07:02
    Re: Re: a little too quiet
    By: Ward Dossche to mark lewis on Mon Apr 05 2021 02:38 pm

    mark,

    then there's also the time when it would take months for Z2 to pick up and apply Z1 nodelist updates... like the system i was first involved with... according to the archives of Z2 nodelists, it wasn't listed unti months and months (years! actually) after P4 was put in place...

    That's a claim, not a proven statement, about something which may or may not have occured some 33 years ago.

    Please don't break-open my mouth about multiple historic ZC1s unable of producing ZONE1-segments in a timely and reliable manner ... Or Bob Seaborn delaying ZONE1-segments in the limited ZSEGS-distribution ... anything to pa a bleak picture of Z2 and its ZC was acceptable.

    I would say that your whole story of not being listed and it taken years for that to happen (your words, not mine) is a gross misrepresentation of the truth. If you can't back-up your claim, you shouldn't make it in the first place ... so here's your chance...

    P4 was put in place June 9th, 1989 ...

    Actually, you have no clue when it was put in place as you only copied that date from the current version 4.07. If there is a version 4.07, then there w versions 4.01->6 before that date.

    You seem to be living a fidonet of times gone by, "who" did "what" in 1987-1988-1989 in Fidonet is fairly irrelevant these days and if you want to stop talking about measuring penises, then I suggest you put yours where it belongs and do something which improves Fidonet other than lecturing people about stuff which no-one cares about.

    Life is good, as Maurice would say, and he is right on thatone.

    \%/@rd


    Good copy. I know my own entry was delayed in the nodelist but it was completely a local issue well below the Z1C. I think it was 1992 or 1993 before I showed to the world. Very strange. I entered in late 1989 in Net202. I don't show until my NET202 Treasurer address was added after a local vote (obviously well known as a local sysop already and had been a Telegard beta since 1989).

    xxcarol
    --- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
    * Origin: SHENK'S EXPRESS telnet://shenks.synchro.net (1:275/100)