Hello Steven,

 MvdV>> ;A  .. The FidoNet NodeList is compiled so that computer systems
 MvdV>> within FidoNet ;A     may communicate with each other.

 SH> The nodelist I examine is not compiled.

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

 MvdV>> Did you obtain the permission of Fido Software for this "other
 MvdV>> use" that is explicitly forbidden? 

 SH> Fido Software has not been inbusiness for a decade.
 SH> Although I can find Tom Jennings if I need to (via the
 SH> Internet), I've never considered this necessary.

I take that as a 'no'.

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

 SH> It is policy that defines a private node and it is
 SH> therefore appropriate to see if the nodelist implements this.

It does. Private nodes are recognisable in the nodelist by the absence of
relevant contact information.

 SH> In the case of IP nodes, it does not

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

 SH> and your suggestion that an IP node must be PVT because it
 SH> can't be dialled is ludicrous.

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

 MvdV>> That is only a problem for those that do not understand that the
 MvdV>> nodelist is not written in English but in computerese.

 SH> With that attitude, you should go to work for Microsoft.:-)
 SH> Good code has its own consistent syntax and is properly documented.

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

 MvdV>> What humans that do not undestand it is not English make of it is
 MvdV>> not the problem of those that generate the nodelist.

 SH> The FTSC serves Fidonet and not vice versa.

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

 MvdV>> I don't see how that changes by redefining the meaning of a
 MvdV>> keyword.

 SH> You can redefine the meaning if it makes sense. But you
 SH> don't need to call my node "Pvt" so you can't dial it.

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

 MvdV>> I also added the provision of "downward compatible".

 SH> There is a time when one may have to give that up.

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

 SH> Rules are changed to serve the general good on a regular
 SH> basis and while "grandfathering" may occur if a real need
 SH> appears, that will have a limited life.

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

 MvdV>> Good for you, but since the specs say it should either be a
 MvdV>> numeric sequence or -Unpublished- one can not expect ALL
 MvdV>> nodelist processing software to be so forgiving.

 SH> Find me a nodelist processor which is in generral use which isn't.

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

 MvdV>> I have. How do I make a mailer not dial *anything at all* by
 MvdV>> merely adapting a table that translates one number into another?

 SH> Tell it not to dial a number which begins "000-".

How?

 SH> After all, that's how a static IP is entered into Field 6.

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

 MvdV>> There is nothing like 20/20 hindsight you know. So maybe the
 MvdV>> choices that emerged fifteen years ago weren't the best possible
 MvdV>> in retrospect. Nevertheless those were the choices made and we
 MvdV>> can't just reverse that without breaking a lot of things and
 MvdV>> leave people out in the cold.

 SH> It's not a case of reversing but a case of evolution.

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

 SH> And lest you forget, there have been a lot of changes made
 SH> since the St. Louis nodelist emerged and a lot of people
 SH> have either had to upgrade their hardware or software or
 SH> had to leave.

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

 MvdV>> Because they got fed up by lawyers and managers trying to boss
 MvdV>> them around just like they would if this was not a hobby and they
 MvdV>> were paid for it?

 SH> I think instead that they left because they saw a lot of
 SH> people resisting change.

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

 MvdV>> If that is the reason I can sympathise with them. I sometimes
 MvdV>> feel that way when someone that can't programme himself out of a
 MvdV>> wet paper bag that is open on three sides says "you guys should
 MvdV>> have come up with a decent solution long ago".

 SH> I doubt that programming was ever the issue but they had
 SH> visions that people like you with your insistence on
 SH> "backward compatibility" would not let them actualize.

Sorry, I don't se it that way.

 MvdV>> Oh, c'mon Steven, what line of questioning is this?

 SH> I'm trying to find out where you are coming from?  Are you
 SH> really afraid of the future and what it offered.

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

 MvdV>> I do know however why Henk Wevers left. To fresh up your memory
 MvdV>> Henk was the founder of the first net outside the Americas (net
 MvdV>> 500) and he is also the author of the Dutchie mailer.

 SH> His name certainly rings a bell.

 MvdV>> Of course that is only the part that made it into the record. Off
 MvdV>> the record we talked about it for a while. It simply ammounted to
 MvdV>> Henk losing interest and finding other priorities in life. My
 MvdV>> guess it that that goes for most of those that have left us.

 SH> You may be right but people who have a keen interest often come
 SH> back. Henk obviosly did not.

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

 MvdV>> He isn't testing against the standard. On the contrary he is
 MvdV>> testing how that software behaves /out of standard/.

 MvdV>> That way he may get answers on how that particular software
 MvdV>> behaves, but it will tell you nothing about the untested sofware.

 SH> Of course not but it will tell you what you can replace
 SH> your old software if you need to.

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

Too often I have seen people change their software to find out the
replacement is not what they wanted or not to work at all under their
conditions. So they wnet back to what they had before. if that is not
possible they will be lost.

 MvdV>> It can not be because there is no way to know what is all out
 MvdV>> there, let alone test it.

 SH> People have computers and if one piece of software won't do
 SH> the job, an other can replace it.

Or not...

 SH> How many mailers, packers and editors have you played with?

Half a dozen or so.

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

Someone less persitent than I woulkd have trown the towel long before and
we'd have another piece of dead wood in the nodelist.

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

 MvdV>> 2) I am still not convinced that it is actually possible with
 MvdV>> ALL> mailers. The fact that your Frontdoor can do it does
 MvdV>> not mean that ALL POTS mailers can do it.

 WD>> My mailer can not blocj a call to a "000"-number

 SH> One has to wonder what Ward is using?

D'bridge.

 SH> My Binkley certainly can.

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

 MvdV>> Putting a FQDN in the phone number field however is NOT according
 MvdV>> to standard. It is using the tools for something that is not in
 MvdV>> the specs. It is like the spanner that was designed for a
 MvdV>> hexagonal bolt to be used to crank up the weights of a
 MvdV>> grandfather clock. It may work or it may not. And if it works on
 MvdV>> my clock it may not work on yours. To know if it works on all
 MvdV>> clocks one does indeed have to try it on all different types of
 MvdV>> clocks.

 SH> Or obtain a different clock.

I don't want another clock. I like the one I'v got.

 MvdV>> Do I? Yes /I/ do. I do now because I have digged into the matter.
 MvdV>> In general I have no other way of knowing if a node like you is
 MvdV>> POTS callable or not than to fire up an ascii editor and look at
 MvdV>> the raw nodelist. And that is not how it was intended to be.

 SH> Have you tried Bonk lately?

 MvdV>> Common sense says that if one is able to send and receive routed
 MvdV>> netmail one no longer has an excuse not to be in a net.

 SH> No excuse is needed.

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

 SH> In any case, my routed netmail has always gone through
 SH> nodes in nets of which I would never be a part of.

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

 MvdV>> Echomail is never routed.

 SH> How do you think yours gets here?

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

 SH> Being an RIN is based on location.

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

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

So what?

 MvdV>> I may want to send you a message that I consider confidential and
 MvdV>> so I do not want others to be able to read it.

 SH> Bypass Fidonet and use Telix or Procomm,

Telix or Procomm is no good. They require that I make a POTS connection to
you just the same as if I would use direct netmail.

 SH> join SecureNet, use the Internet,

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

 SH> or stick it in a mailbox.

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

 MvdV>> What is relevant is that you force me to replace and/or
 MvdV>> update my software.

 SH> No more than you force me and others to not use our
 SH> software to its full potential

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

 MvdV>> No you do not. Now who is bastardizing the language?

 SH> Because you can't find my host in the nodelist does not
 SH> mean it does not exist.

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

 MvdV>> Actually I have a car that is even a year older. It is a Volvo
 MvdV>> 345. It just had its annual service. It works fine and suits my
 MvdV>> needs, so why should I spend a lot of money to replace it?

 SH> You might get a car which is more comfortable, has better
 SH> handling, better brakes, better cruising speed, and is more
 SH> environmentally friendly.  How much is that worth?

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

 SH> A great deal to me.

Not to me in my present conditions.

Regards, Michiel

--- InterMail 2.29k