[ 06 Jan 03 01:03, Bill Birrell wrote to Micael Bulow ]

 BB>     There has been much correspondence, Micael. I now uderstand why
 BB> you think this is desirable. Before saying any more, I have to be sure
 BB> that doubling the size of the nodelist without doubling the membership
 BB> is permissible, and I have doubts about that. It will become clear in
 BB> a few days, so I must counsel patience till then.

Maybe you and Jan can redirect those kinds of arguements to the *Cs... they
are only relevant to them, and only if/when they are to decide whether XML
is to become the 'official' nodelist format.

This is not the place to argue Policy and suchlike.  As with the rise of IP
connectivity, the old-schoolers can bitch and moan all they like but those
that want to progress will do so regardless, and as long as it doesn't
negatively interfere with other nodes, nobody can do a damn thing about it.

 BB>     There are also problems in introducing 'new' elements into the
 BB> nodelist, because each element has to be examined by the government of
 BB> each country to which the nodelist is distributed to ensure that it
 BB> still complies with each individual data protection statute. At some

How does that differ from the current list?

 BB> point the sum of all the elements may become an invasion of
 BB> individual privacy, too.

All nodes accept that whatever they put in the nodelist is public
information, privacy issues are irrelevant AFAICT...  ??

 BB>     We are bound by the concept of "annoying behaviour" not to do
 BB> anything which could cause the sysop of any node in the net to be
 BB> arrested or imprisoned for something outside his control.

Like phone numbers prefixed with 000?  It would appear nobody cares anyway.


-- Scott Little  [fidonet#3:712/848 / sysgod{at}sysgod.org]

--- FMail/Win32 1.60+