REPLY: 2:280/5555 458a6433
 MSGID: 6:757/1 b5d31cba
 PID: Telegard 3.09.g2-sp4
 TID: GE 1.2
*** Quoting Michiel van der Vlist from a message to Carol Shenkenberger ***

MvdV>  MvdV>> acceptance by *anyone*. Allowing an all zero
"telephone number
MvdV>  MvdV>> was a decree by * ZC. No one outside that zone was consulted.
MvdV>  MvdV>> Not the FTSC, not the othe

 CS> Why should the 2 zones most affected, ask the others for permission to
 CS> fix a problem and use the existing 000- FTSC documented specs to
 CS> further narrow the listings?

MvdV> Because it *affects* the nodes in those other zones. When there is an
MvdV> all zero number in the nodelist it affects everyone using that nodelis
MvdV> The effects are not limited to the zone where the listing appears.

The situation has been there over 10 years now.  The only 'change' is one to 
make a more standard application of it with no variation.  Previous 'standard' 
has no such guidance and some pretty knarly messes were developing.


MvdV> It is flawed. Period.

 CS> No one in Z1 was required to contact another zone to fix their
 CS> internal lack of continuity on such and then establish one.  It wou;d
 CS> be like asking Z1 people if R49 and R50 should combine.  Kinda not
 CS> their place to say or not say.

MvdV> Now thats a complete non-sequitor.

No worse than the one you had.  In fact, more applicable as yours involved red 
lights and driving a car.  Zero Fidonet applicability, mine was just a silly 
idea on where one area of the world has say and no one else would be more than 
just interested bystanders.

 CS> Thats been 10 years or more since the 000-

MvdV> That could be about right. Yes, I think it was about ten years ago tha
MvdV> Z2 started an experiment with listing IP numbers in field six prefixed
MvdV> with three zero. AND ABONDONED IT!

So you are still fighting it?  Give over Michiel.  It's been 10 years and you 
even have to go back before David Moufarrage to see the inception of it.  
Thats 2 Z1C's back.

 CS> There is a big difference between 'ignored' and 'not followed after
 CS> discussion'.  You seem to have not noted the discussion ad recall
 CS> only the end product didnt go as you would have wished.

MvdV> There was never any real interzonal discussion. Z1 pushed the 000- lis
MvdV> trough after the experiment in Z2 showed its flaws and despite the obj
MvdV> from other zones.

It was over 10 years ago.  It suited a need.  It is now embedded and no advice 
I have ever seen from you, has ever been usable to fix it in Z1.  Certainly 
your Z6 'solutions' have been 'less than usable' for me here an no matter how 
many times i have tried to explain that, you ignore me.

MvdV> is what is happening in FidoNet.

MvdV> First the 000- numbers, then the all zero numbers and now culminating
MvdV> in your last invention: totally unreachable hosts and RC's with no con
MvdV> info whatsoever. If you can not see that from the POV of an engineer t
MvdV> is a joke, you should resign as member of the FTSC.

Z6 is largely ION.  I know that disturbs you but that is simply a fact and it 
was one before I arrived here 5 years ago.  Your acceptance or denial of this 
is no longer relevant to me because you have proven you will not listen to any 
'facts' that you cant 'validate' under some arcane rules of your own that suit 
your needs to prove your point.


 CS> You are free to feel such.  Since all ZC's are in there already, I
 CS> dont think it makes much differnce.

MvdV> ZC's are invited guests in the FTSC echomail conference. You however a
MvdV> the only one who is both a ZC and a *member* of the FTSC.

MvdV> Another experiment that IMNSHO is not to be repeated.

Fine, flail at me again.  I really dont care anymore about how you think 
everything should be run.
                                       xxcarol

--- Telegard v3.09.g2-sp4