Hello Ross.

31 Jul 04 19:48, you wrote to me:

 MG>> I'm not against anyone using it.
 MG>> What I'm against is listing wihtout placing contact information in the
 MG>> nodelist.

 RC> If you mean listing the traditional dns info within the listing, like
 RC> most of us do now, I agree, whether or not its INA method or the other
 RC> methods we all argue about, like how you and I are listed now???

It doesn't even have to be that much. Some mentioned a flag that was
proposed; that would do nicely. Just so long as there is /something/ listed
as an indicator of fidonet.net's use.

 RC> But I do recall you passionately arguing againt the other method to the
 RC> point that you raised such a stink and demanded that under no
 RC> circumstances was your info to be included in that other method.

I believe passionately in every node's right to choose what services they
will or will not use. The only concrete obligations that the nodes of this
network have to adhere to are those set forth in the policy document. They
are not obligated to participate in anything other than what policy spells
out, and it is wrong to force them to participate in something that they
may not wish to.

Placing information in a DNS database against a node's wishes is forcing
fidonet.net upon that node. To do so is morally reprehensible, and can
never be justified in my eyes.

 RC> However if your concerns are allayed by maintaining traditional means of
 RC> contact in the nodelisting, then this other method is mere supplementary
 RC> and I am wiffya!

That's all I ever objected to; those who push to list nodes using
fidonet.net without listing any indication of it's use in the nodelist, and
those who speculate about forcing fidonet.net upon all nodes of this
network, when doing so may be against their wishes.


--- GoldED/W32 3.0.1