| |
VE4KLM > JNOS2 25.11.19 11:43l 31 Lines 1573 Bytes #-2345 (0) @ WW
BID : 95390_AA6HF
Read: DF7EAV DJ6UX GUEST
Subj: This BID thing and DUPES and stuff
Path: DB0FHN<DB0FFL<OE5XBL<OE5XBR<OE1XAB<HG8LXL<CX2SA<GB7CIP<AA6HF<N2NOV<
N3HYM<LU3DVN<F1OYP<CT1ENI<LU4ECL<I0OJJ<VE4KLM
Sent: 191101/0638z @:VE4KLM.#WPG.MB.CAN.NOAM [Winnipeg] #:21137 $:21135_VE4KLM
>From ve4klm%ve4klm.#wpg.mb.can.noam@n2nov.ampr.org Thu Oct 31 22:42:55 2019
Received: from n2nov.ampr.org by n2nov.ampr.org ([JNOS]) with SMTP
id AA818011 ; Thu, 31 Oct 2019 22:42:55 EDT
Message-Id: <21135_ve4klm@n3hym.bbs>
>From: ve4klm@ve4klm.#wpg.mb.can.noam
X-JNOS-User-Port: Circuit (CRGWAY:GB7CIP-5 N3HYM) -> Sending message
playing the devils advocate, I suppose it was wrong of me to impose this change
on the suggestion of a minimal number of people (ie, 1), and perhaps we need to
have a civilized discussion on this. I just took a look at the W0RLI spec and
all it says is that if a BID is missing, the system receiving the message will
assign one. I'm brain dead when it comes to the symantecs of BBS mid/bid ops,
so I depend on others to guid me along. Perhaps the BID assignment is too
generic so if a BID is missing, the then chances of dupes is huge with the
simplied way NOS assigned a BID. Gus, you told me probably years ago that
the BID construct needed to be more 'complex', I forget the word.
Perhaps another solution (Dare I say it), is to get away from this over
simplified NNNNN_CALLSIGN to something that has less chance of creating
a DUPE, we could eliminate dupes and make everyone happy, perhaps by
creating a more intelligent BID value (we have 12 characters no ?)
Just my two cents worth.
This is actually quite fascinating, I need to learn what the real
issue is here, I'm quite open to ideas, I certainly don't want to shut
out my colleqaues in Europe and at the same time make my colleagues in
NA happy as well :)
Maiko / VE4KLM
Read previous mail | Read next mail
| |
