Hello All.

03 Nov 02 20:54, Rick Van Ruth wrote to Steven Horn:

 RR> P4 states "private" nodes should be avoided.

 RR> I tell you what, do a text search of P4  for "Pvt". I will bet you
 RR> that you don't find the 3 letter flag/word "Pvt" listed anywhere
 RR> within the document.

 RR> Why not follow the standards as issued by the FTSC so that the node is
 RR> contactable by other mailers?

 RR> No-one is asking you to become a private node.

Ah, the mark of a true politician... use semantics and ignore the fact that
the flag was created to actually /mean/ "private" in the first
place, and that applying dual meanings to the flag is based purely on a
political hierarchy envisioned in your mind. Then claim that an ambiguous
document that's contradicted in other documents and always was backs you
up; all the while baffling 'em with bullshit to hide the fact that you want
to keep those nasty ION's second class to POTS nodes...

The FTSC is dead, and it's high time we buried it, because it's starting to
stink up the place. Fidonet doesn't need those who would use so called FTSC
"solutions" which are non-solutions as political weapons against
nodes. If these sorts of people are the sort that wish to run the FTSC, God
help us all.

BTW, HOLD is no solution either, if a IP node is directly contactible. It
prevents one from crashing netmail directly to that node.



--- GoldED/386 3.0.1-dam3