Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555) wrote to Steven Horn at 16:00 on 11 Dec 2002:

 MvdV> "You guys" ?

Try "you persons".  My comment about bastardizing the language
still stands.

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

The nodelist is an information source for both machines and persons.  I
regularly read the raw nodelist to see who is where, what their status is,
and so on.  

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

Again, it is read by persons who normally know what the various
abbreviations mean.  Now you can change "CM" from
"continuous mail" to "chocolate malt" but it will lose
its meaning in real language.  What use a computer makes of it is not my
problem.

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

Programmers serve people and not vice versa.  The beauty of the nodelist
was that a lot could be done with the "raw" nodelist and a lot by
the "compiled" nodelist.

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 "-Unpublished-" anything else will confuse existing software.

Apart from the fact that you have already said that anything could be put
in there because it is a "meaning for a machine", there is
nothing that suggests that my Xlaxnode would have any difficulty in
compiling a nodelist with what is in there now anymore than it has had with
compiling any nodelist since 1992. 

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 keyword and an -Unpublished- telephone number so that POTS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

Have you not heard of the expression "dialing table"? 

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

What I am suggesting to you is that what you call "the
workaround" is merely a workaround.  What I "want" and
already have is merely another one.

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

Had we been more professional, it is quite likely we would have implemented
better ideas.  Instead, we got bad ideas implemented in a mediocre fashion
while the brilliant stars simply left.  Have you ever asked yourself why
people like Randy Bush or Vince Perreillo are no longer part of this hobby?


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

Fidonet itself rests on standards.  If he or others test a number of pieces
of software which comply with the standards and they work, that may be the
end of the story.

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

Michiel, Michiel.  They can be configured to not dial "-000". 
This is not rocket science.

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

Do you need to try every wrench in the world on a 13 mm bolt to know a
wrench will turn the bolt?

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

Point taken but you know who you are writing to.  Crashmail to me would
make no sense even if I were still POTS capable.  

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

Policy is now so far out of date that people may simply decide to say to
hell with it.  And sometimes common sense does prevail -- I was receiving
routed netmail and routed echomail when I first became a RIN in 1991.

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

And why do you need to make a direct connection to me?

 MvdV> It is new to me and that is what matters.

There are thousands of software programs out there that I do not use.  If I
decide to use one, it may be new to me but it's far from the cutting edge.

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

I take it that you have decided not to become a recluse.:-)

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

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

Nothing over the Internet would be particularly attractive at those prices.:-( 

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

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

Anyone who is aggravated enough will complain.:-) 

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

I have a host.  Now if someone did some serious work on the nodelist,
they'd figure out how to insert that information.  Alternatively, you can
always use echorouted netmail.

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

There is no need for me to ask.

 MvdV> POTS mentality? Sorry, I don't know what that is.

The notion that this network will only work with POTS.

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

So does my 1992 Honda Accord but the time to upgrade the technology does come. 

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

You may keep some participants around.  As it stands, the numbers seem to
have steadied. 

Take care,

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