Hello Vladimir.

13 Jul 06 10:07, you wrote to me:

You still here? Good. ;-)

 MV>> At first I thought the Z7 advocates had a point. But them I
 MV>> realised creating a Z7 would not solve the problem they claimed
 MV>> exists. Add to that that several solutions were offered: Region
 MV>> "ZMH", Net level "ZMH". Flags, etc , etc,
but none of these got
 MV>> any serious response. This lead me to suspect that the alleged
 MV>> ZMH problem was just an excuse.

 VD> You forget one more case: suspend ZMH on Zone-level. As ZMH
 VD> established by ZC, he can establish it time as "worktime of
any node".

I did not forget. That is covered by Russel's local time flags and by my
NOZMH flag proposals.

 MV>> If it ever was a problem, it is a problem that is dying out
 MV>> anyway. FidoNet is slowly shifting from POTS to IP. More and more
 MV>> are shifting to a permanent connection to the InterNet and so ZMH
 MV>> is no longer an issue for them.

 MV>> ZMH is a non problem.  Trying to solve non problems is a waste of
 MV>> time.

 VD> Yes, for you (and other sysops of you area) it is not a problem.

It is a problem, but it is a small problem that is managable. Plus of
course that there is always the alternative of running the system as a
point if one is unable or unwilling to observe ZMH.

 VD> But for us it is a problem - live on the law (Policy, with ZMH) or on
 VD> the real work (ZMH == Node work mail time).

You lost credibility on that arguments with your z6 dual listing stunt.

Anyway, it is good to see you are still here. Some evil tongues claimed you
all had left because you did not get your chocolate cake. Seems they were
once more trying to fabricate facts....

Cheers,

Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20060315