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.

 SH> You guys do manage to bastardize the language over there,
 SH> don't you?

"You guys" ?

 SH> You take a keyword that was designed for the unreachable POTS
 SH> node and apply it to a ION node only because a POTS node can't
 SH> reach it.

Yes, what's the problem? The nodelist isn't meant to be read by humans like
a novel. It is meant to be read by /machines/. Machines do not care if the
meaning of a keyword is changed. As long as it is downward compatible.

 SH> The least you could have done was come up with an accurate keyword.

It is as accurate as it needs to be. The machines understand it perfectly.
Once again: it is not English, it is computerese.

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

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

Meanings that are meant to be for machines are changed by programmers and
that is precisely what happened. Ip mailers ignore the Pvt keyword and for
POTS mailers it means "do not dial, reroute to the host".

 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.

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

For good reasons. The field is meant for /telephone numbers/ and so lots of
programmes expect to find numbers or the word "-Unpublished-"
anything else will confuse existing software.

 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.

 SH> If they were good technicians, they might consider
 SH> designing workarounds.

That has been done. Put the domain name in the BBS name field - IP mailers
can read it from there - and list the node with a Pvt keyword and an
-Unpublished- telephone number so that POTS mailers will not attempt to
dial it.

That /is/ the workaround. But you don't like that. You want the technicians
to design /your/ workaround.

Sorry, no deal. In the real world laywers and managers can order
technicians to implement bad ideas. That does not fly in a hobby
environment that is run by unpaid volunteers.

 SH> Michael Grant is doing some tests in nodelist compilers to see
 SH> how they deal with this issue. His first findings are promising.

It means nothing. He can not possibly test /every/ piece of software in use
in FidoNet if only because no one knwos what is out there.

 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.

 SH> Your mailer would know what to do if you set up its dialing
 SH> table properly.

That is assuming there is any way at al to ddo it properly. There are
mailers where this is not possible. They can be configured to dial
something else but they can not be configured to not dial anything at all.

 SH> As for your nodelist compiler, it may just work.

Or not.

But even if /my/ nodelist compiler can handle it, how do we know that ALL
nodelist compilers can?

 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
 MvdV>> compel me to get new software.

 SH> All I have done is forced you to set up a dialing table and
 SH> a routing file.  Your system will never call mine

It will attempt to make the call if I set the status of the message to
"crash".

 SH> if mail to my system is routed to another node.

Strictly speaking policy does not allow routing to RIN's.

 MvdV>> But I HAVEN'T GOT THAT!

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

I need it in order to make a direct connection to you.

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

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

It is new to me and that is what matters.

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

 SH> Who said there is here?  But POTS is not free either -- it
 SH> requires a telephone connection which costs and also

I already have the telephone. It involves no /extra/ cost to me. If I
didn't already have the telephone I would not be in FidoNet.

 SH> involves charges for long distance calls.

Yes, but they are moderate.

 SH> In the Netherlands I'm told it may also involve charges for local
 SH> calls.

Yes, a EUR 0.05 call setup fee plus some EUR 0.02 a minute.

That's why FidoNet over the InterNet is not an attractive proposition by itself.

 SH> I don't see a large part of the Fidonet community rebelling
 SH> about my listing.

That does not mean very much. There vast part of participants is always silent.

 SH> My node entry compiles and it is reachable either directly or
 SH> through host routing.

No it is not. It is not directly reachable for over half of FidoNet and it
is not reachable by host routing. You don;t have a host.

 SH> In addition, I have never asked any POTS node to change its
 SH> listing.

So you don't know how they would react to that. Has it ever occured to you
that if you provide me with sound technical argument, I may comply wit a
request to change my listing?

 SH> All I object to is someone like you trying to
 SH>> inflict a POTS mentality on ION nodes.

POTS mentality? Sorry, I don;t know what that is.

 SH> Is that isolationist?  Unlikely?  Instead we are working on
 SH> Fidonet alternatives to a technology which is rapidly fading.

Fidonet technology isn't fading at all. It works just as it did five years ago.

What is fading is the number of participants. Splitting FidoNet into a POTS
and an IP part isn't going to remedy that.

Regards, Michiel

--- InterMail 2.29k