Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555) wrote to Steven Horn at 18:16 on 27 Dec 2002:

 MvdV> Of course it is. Just not by you. It is compiled by the ZC form
 MvdV> the various segments from the lower *C's.

It's been awhile since I submitted my stub but my recollectyion was that it was raw.

 MvdV> Anyway, it should be clear that when you read the nodelist as a
 MvdV> human you are making a use of it for which it was not intended.

That is what I would call a debatable conclusion.  It is clear from the
discussions in FTSC_Public that I'm far from the only person who does and I
also note that when something is in the public domain, it may be used for
any purpose to which it lends itself.

 MvdV> Yes, it does. Properly listed IP nodes show relevant contact
 MvdV> information and therefore they are not private.

In which case they should not have to use a flag which has a particular
limited meaning for POTS nodes.

 MvdV> That is because you fail to understand or acknowledge that PVT is
 MvdV> not the same as private.

As one might say, a BMW is not a Honda. You and others have decided that a
flag with a clear meaning should use "Pvt" as a flag for a
purpose for which it was not intended.  That is not my problem or my
concern.

 MvdV> Documenting Pvt as "not dialable by POTS" is fully consistent.

Only to POTS nodes who may no longer be the majority of nodes in Fidonet. 

 MvdV> Indeed it does. But then maybe your definition of "serving
 MvdV> FidoNet" differs from mine.

That it might.:-)

 MvdV> Yes, it is needed because that is the only way to keep things
 MvdV> downward compatible.

Have you ever thought that it might be advisable for you to upgrade?  

 MvdV> I don't see why in a hobby environmemt there should ever be a
 MvdV> need to force people to give that up. If someone or someones want
 MvdV> to change the network beyond the point that it is no longer
 MvdV> compatible with the existing one, he or she should start their
 MvdV> own network rather than force the existing members to change
 MvdV> against their will.

You might have tried that argument when the first ION appeared.  However,
there are now a fair number of us out there.

 MvdV> "The general good". Yes, I have heard that one before. Why ddoes
 MvdV> it always work against me?

No more than your "general good" works against me.  And you may
have forgotten that I was a member of Fidonet before you joined.

 MvdV> You are the one that wants to change the specs. The onus of proof
 MvdV> that it will do no harm is on you.

I think others who have more technical skills may wind up doing it for the
rest of us.

 MvdV> How?

In Binkley, I have the choice of using modem types, cost values and .BSY
flags.  I gather you have been told how to achieve the needed rfesult with
Intermail.

 MvdV> Yes, and that was an error as some mailers can not be prevented
 MvdV> from dialling at least /something/ when there is a number in
 MvdV> field number six.

Even if it dialled 000, what would it connect to? 

 MvdV> Allowing -Unpublished- without  Pvt is revolution, not evolution.

Apart from what the FTSC will come up with, why is it revolution?  Mailers
won't call it and IONs don't need a telephone number.

 MvdV> Yes and as I pointed out, that was in the early days when there
 MvdV> were only a handful of nodes. Doing such a thing now will make
 MvdV> many leave.

Which would only be a problem if POTS nodes can't be accommodated.  But
many can so who would be left? 

 MvdV> That is not how I see it. The message form Randy Bush yiou dug up
 MvdV> was interesting but apparently I read something completely
 MvdV> different is it than you. What I read in Randy's message was
 MvdV> precisely what I suggested: he got fed up with the politicians
 MvdV> telling the technicians how to run the network.

But if the technicians become innovators (or already are) and are freed
from political controls, you might get the changes which appear to scare
you so much.  And Randy was very much the innovator.  

 MvdV> Sorry, I don't see it that way.

I would not have thought you would.:-)

 MvdV> I am not affraid of the future but I like things the way they
 MvdV> are. If I get tired of it, I will simply start something else. I
 MvdV> don't want a horse with wheels. When I get tired of horses and
 MvdV> want wheel instead of legs, I will change the horse for a car.

I thought you had acquired your car some years ago.:-)

 MvdV> In all the time that I have witnessed Fidonet in R28 I have seen
 MvdV> many leave but NEVER have I seen anyone come back.

I can think of some who drop in and out but I can't think of many.

 MvdV> And that is what I object to. Change the standards so that people
 MvdV> will be forced to replace their software.

How many times have you changed your operating system.  If so, why?

 MvdV> Too often I have seen people change their software to find out
 MvdV> the replacement is not what they wanted or not to work at all
 MvdV> under their conditions. So they went back to what they had
 MvdV> before. if that is not possible they will be lost.
 
At this moment, I run Fidonet software which was created between 1992 and
1995.  The only changes to them for the most part were Y2K patches.  And if
I see anything changing, it is my nodelist compiler which I would not
anticipate being a major concern. 

 MvdV> Or not...

Perhaps not.  But what I used on my Samsung S300 in 1988 likely would not
work at all.

 MvdV> Lately I have been testing editors because the one I have lacks
 MvdV> certain features. Mostky in the quoting depertment. And you know
 MvdV> what? I couldn't found one that I liked. They all had some
 MvdV> drawback that made me decide to go back on what I got. The king
 MvdV> of kings, Golded I could never get to run on my system at all. I
 MvdV> tried several versions over the years and they all crashed hard
 MvdV> the minute I tried to write a message. So hard that it fucked up
 MvdV> the Cmos memory of my system and that it crashed the message
 MvdV> base. I suspect it doesn't go well with Novell Dos because it uses
 MvdV> some undocumented system calls. In other words dirty programming.
 MvdV> Later I found out I am not the only one having those problems.

Some years ago I played with DR DOS and notwithstanding claims of total
compatibility, it just wasn't.  But I changed the operating system instead
of the application. 

 MvdV> Someone less persistent than I would have trown the towel long
 MvdV> before and we'd have another piece of dead wood in the nodelist.

They do remove the dead wood after a while.:-)

 MvdV> If you want people to leave, forcing them to replace their
 MvdV> software is the surest way to go.

Only if they are traditionalists wedded to what they have.

 MvdV> D'bridge.

That may be something I'll look up.  D'bridge has never been my favorite
mailer but I can certainly read docs.

 MvdV> That shows you the error of assuming that every mailer can do it
 MvdV> if yours can do it.

It may point to possibilities, though.

 MvdV> I don't want another clock. I like the one I've got.

And what would you do if it quit working?

 MvdV> Yes there is. Being in a net is the default situation. That is
 MvdV> how the network was designed to optimally function. Being a RIN
 MvdV> is the exception that requires justification. The primary reason
 MvdV> to be a RIN is that routing is impractical or undesirable.

The primary reason is (as you mention later) that calling is inconvenient. 
In any case, I received my RIN from Bob Satti who was then RC17 but later
became Z1C and then IC. I respect his judgment.

 MvdV> Then your mode of operation has always been against an efficient
 MvdV> network.

Only by your defintion which makes no sense.  As a RIN who could not call
anyone conveniently, it was both efficient for me and the network that I
route mail. 

 SH> How do you think yours gets here?

 MvdV> It gets to you via a direct connection with what you call your
 MvdV> uplink.

Try again.  It passes through six nodes before it gets here: 280/5003,
2432/200, 774/605/123/500, 106/2000 and 140/1.  Do you not look at Path
statements? 

 SH> Being an RIN is based on location.

 MvdV> No, network topology it is beased on "convenient calling".

 SH> The nearest node to me (also an RIN) is 1100 kilometers away.

 MvdV> So what?

Clearly you don't comprehend that all telephone calls I wish to make
outside the Yukon will be long distance.  I attribute that to location but
it is certainly not "convenient" calling.

 MvdV> I don't want to use the InterNet, it is monitored by the CIA.


Who are you trying to kid?  If a law enforcement agency had any reason to
believe you were breaking the law and the offence was serious, your
telephone would already be monitored.  It is also misleading to suggest
that the CIA monitors the whole Internet.  Not only would their computers
not handle the load but even if they could, they could not cope with the
masses of data they would accumulate.  In addition, if your assertion were
correct, it is likely that the routed Fidonet packets you send now would
also be in the CIA's hands because they are already carried over the
Internet. 

 MvdV> If I am deprived of aver more things I could do within FidoNet
 MvdV> but for which I should now seek the use of other methods, why
 MvdV> should I stay?

As you said, it's your hobby. 

 MvdV> Then start your own network instead of forcing the existing one
 MvdV> to bow to your wishes.

It is hardly an "either or" situation and you're being a great
deal more dogmatic about what Fidonet should be than I've ever been.

 MvdV> Yes, it does. The host is the node carrying the net/0 number and
 MvdV> the Host keyword. There is no such node in your "net".

Apart from my private arrangements, RINs are listed under the RC for a good
reason.  And if you send mail to me to 1:17/0, I will get it.

 MvdV> To me it is not worth the money I'd have to spend. I do not make
 MvdV> much use of my car. Less than 10.000 km a year. i have no need
 MvdV> for more comfort. The handling is fine and the brakes are
 MvdV> excellent. I have no need for better cruising speed. It can do
 MvdV> well in excess of the general speed limit. Environmently
 MvdV> friendly? Well this one isn't the latest of the latest but is is
 MvdV> reasonably friendly to the environment. Scrapping it now and
 MvdV> burdening the environment with the load of producing a new car
 MvdV> instead of letting this one run out its natural life would not
 MvdV> compensate for the marginal gain a new car would bring.

Even though I don't make many long trips, I accumulate over 10,000
kilometers a year and I notice that the car is beginning to appear tired.
So it's time to make change, particularly as I have only 6 years left
before I retire. 

 MvdV> Not to me in my present conditions.

That is, of course, your choice.

 MvdV> {at}ATH: 280/5555 5003 2432/200 774/605 123/500 106/2000 140/1

Again, note the "path" statement.  This has almost as many hops
in it as some of my Internet connection.

Take care,

Steven Horn (steven_a_horn{at}yahoo.ca)
Moderator, ALASKA_CHAT 
--- timEd/386 1.10.y2k+