Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555) wrote to Steven Horn at 21:35 on 18 Dec 2002:

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

The nodelist I examine is not compiled.  It is the list I receive and
subsequently compile but have available if other nodes need it. 

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

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

 MvdV> That they /think/ they knwo what they mean and hence arrive at a
 MvdV> wrong conclusion when they use the tool of the nodelist for a
 MvdV> purpose that it was never intended for is their own fault.

It is policy that defines a private node and it is therefore appropriate to
see if the nodelist implements this.  In the case of IP nodes, it does not
and your suggestion that an IP node must be PVT because it can't be dialled
is ludicrous.  The fact that you can't reach my node means only that. 
Others regularly drop off and pick up mail. 

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

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

 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.

The nodelist is generated by a host of people which included me when I
contributed my net3409 stub on a weekly basis.  I made sure that the nodes
in my net were properly entered according to their status.

 MvdV> That's real life. In this Role Playing Game it is different. Here
 MvdV> the programmers can't be ordered around by the bosses to do
 MvdV> things they consider technically unsound.

The FTSC serves Fidonet and not vice versa.

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

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

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

There is a time when one may have to give that up.  Rules are changed to
serve the general good on a regular basis and while
"grandfathering" may occur if a real need appears, that will have
a limited life.

 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.

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

 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?

Tell it not to dial a number which begins "000-".  After all,
that's how a static IP is entered into Field 6.

 MvdV> De beste stuurlui staan altijd aam de kant. ;-)

I* would suggest that my contribution to this hobby has been at least as
significant as yours and has extended over a longer period.

 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.

It's not a case of reversing but a case of evolution.  And lest you forget,
there have been a lot of changes made since the St. Louis nodelist emerged
and a lot of people have either had to upgrade their hardware or software
or had to 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?

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

 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".

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

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

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

 MvdV> I don't know why Vince or Randy left. I never met them in person
 MvdV> and their goodbye messages were to short to be conclusive. Maybe
 MvdV> it was for the reasons you suggest. Maybe not.

I met Randy some years ago and am still in touch with him from time to
time.  I haven't been in touch with Vince for some time but at one point we
were looking at Binkleyterm as a vehicle for using commercial mail and I
discussed that with him at some length.

 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.

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.

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

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

Standard changes regularly, in part because of unanticipated needs.

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

Of course not but it will tell you what you can replace your old software
if you need to.
 
 MvdV> It can not be because there is no way to know what is all out
 MvdV> there, let alone test it.

People have computers and if one piece of software won't do the job, an
other can replace it.  How many mailers, packers and editors have you
played with?

 MvdV> Wrong. Rocket science deals with the possible. There are mailers
 MvdV> that can NOT be so configured.


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

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

One has to wonder what Ward is using?  My Binkley certainly can.

 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.

Or obtain a different clock.

 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.

Have you tried Bonk lately?

 MvdV> That's anarchy.

And what do you call a document that half the nodes work around?

 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.

No excuse is needed.  In any case, my routed netmail has always gone through
nodes in nets of which I would never be a part of.

 MvdV> Echomail is never routed.

How do you think yours gets here?

 MvdV> If you were able to receive routed mail you should never have
 MvdV> been a RIN in the first place. You should have been a member of
 MvdV> the net you got your routed mail from. THAT is common sense.

Being an RIN is based on location.  The nearest node to me (also an RIN) is
1100 kilometers away.

 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.

Bypass Fidonet and use Telix or Procomm, join SecureNet, use the Internet,
or stick it in a mailbox.

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

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

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

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

 MvdV> If someone would not insist on driving his car upside down, there
 MvdV> would be no need for a technical monstrum as a car with wheels on
 MvdV> the roof.

My car is on its wheels.  I gave up on horses decades ago. 

 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?

You might get a car which is more comfortable, has better handling, better
brakes, better cruising speed, and is more environmentally friendly.  How
much is that worth?  A great deal to me.

Take care,

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