Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555) wrote to Steven Horn at 14:07 on 03 Dec 2002:

 MvdV> I fail to see the relevance. For friends that make contact
 MvdV> through FidoNet, it does not matter if they are on the next block
 MvdV> or on the other side of the world. For the virtual community
 MvdV> physical distance is irrelevant. So how is you situation
 MvdV> different from mine in regard with loosing friends by a change of
 MvdV> node number?


When did you last live in a virtual community?

 MvdV> More than half of the FidoNet community can not reach you
 MvdV> directly. That /should/ bother you. Your presence in the nodelist

Michiel, why should this bother me?  At various times when I upgraded
modems over the last decade, I inevitably lost someone who could not
connect to me but no one objected.

 MvdV> is not just there for your own personal satisfaction you know, it
 MvdV> is there for the benefit of others. So that they can contact you.
 MvdV> You could at least have the courtesy to see to it that those that
 MvdV> can not reach you directly should at least be able to do so via
 MvdV> host routing.

And (subject to my RC being active> they can.  They can also route
netmail to me through 1:140/1.  

 MvdV> Also you are contradicting yourself. You worry about loosing
 MvdV> friends over a change of node number. You are afraid you may
 MvdV> loose contact. yet it does not bother you in the least that over
 MvdV> half of the FidoNet community can not reach you directly.
 MvdV> Strange.

But they know where I am and they can reach me.  They also do.

 MvdV> When your system was a POTS system, ION's could not reach you
 MvdV> directly.

When my system was POTS, there were very few IONs. 

 MvdV> Ah, yes that is the version that expired last year. It no longer
 MvdV> reflects current practise.

And who defines what "current practice" is and where is it published?

 MvdV> Current practise is that "Pvt' mans not reachable by POTS. IP
 MvdV> mailers either do not use the nodelist at all or ignore the Pvt
 MvdV> keyword.

You guys do manage to bastardize the language over there, don't you?  You
take a keyword that was designed for the unreachable POTS node and apply it
to a ION node only because a POTS node can't reach it.  The least you could
have done was come up with an accurate keyword.

 MvdV> Since the meaning of "Pvt" changed to "not
callable by POTS",
 MvdV> they are.

So black becomes white because you say it is?  Meanings are not changed by
administrative fiat in a cvivilized world.  

 MvdV> But it isn't. It is listed as 000-000-000 and that can not be an
 MvdV> IP number so it must be a telephone number.

Perhaps it's what we have to do to fill the field because you don't let us
inset a domain address in there.

 MvdV> The authors of FTS-5000 are technicians, not laywers. They
 MvdV> understand that putting "000-northof60.tzo.com" in the phone
 MvdV> number field of the nodelist will break a LOT of existing
 MvdV> software.

If they were good technicians, they might consider designing workarounds. 
Michael Grant is doing some tests in nodelist compilers to see how they
deal with this issue.  His first findings are promising.

 MvdV> A new mailer and nodelist compiler for one. My present mailer
 MvdV> does not know what to do with a telephone number of all zeros.

Your mailer would know what to do if you set up its dialing table properly.
 That's something I learned to do when I first became a point 14 years ago.

As for your nodelist compiler, it may just work.

 MvdV> You could help me by being listed in a normal met with a Pvt
 MvdV> keyword so that my mailer knows not to call that number and
 MvdV> divert to the host, But that you refuse to cooperate. You compel
 MvdV> me to get new software.

All I have done is forced you to set up a dialing table and a routing file.
 Your system will never call mine if mail to my system is routed to another
node.

 MvdV> But I HAVEN'T GOT THAT!

I feel for you but I've already indicated that you don't need it as long as
I ensure that you can route it through a node that is POTS capable. 

 MvdV> Getting Binkd and an internet connection IS getting new software,
 MvdV> don't you see that?

It's new to you but I would not call it new.

 MvdV> And for your information, there is no such thing as truly free
 MvdV> Internet access here.

Who said there is here?  But POTS is not free either -- it requires a
telephone connection which costs and also involves charges for long
distance calls.  In the Netherlands I'm told it may also involve charges
for local calls.

 MvdV> The world of FidoNet is bigger than Zone 1 and zone 1 is not an
 MvdV> island. The way you are listed is considered problematic by a
 MvdV> large part of the FidoNet community. If the members of zone 1
 MvdV> ignore that and insist on that isolationist attitude of "we do it
 MvdV> our way and screw the rest" than I say the members of zone 1 are
 MvdV> arrogant and selfish and that attitude needs to change. 

I don't see a large part of the Fidonet community rebelling about my
listing.  My node entry compiles and it is reachable either directly or
through host routing.  As things go, that's not so bad.

In addition, I have never asked any POTS node to change its listing.  All I
object to is someone like you trying to inflict a POTS mentality on ION
nodes. Is that isolationist?  Unlikely?  Instead we are working on Fidonet
alternatives to a technology which is rapidly fading.

Take care,

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