Hello Rick.

04 Nov 02 17:39, you wrote to me:

 RR> That is rather foolish, tell me what IP software doesn't read the
 RR> protocol flags and ignore the Pvt flag at the beginning? What IP
 RR> software is going to screw up because of the Pvt flag?

Tell me what use is a nodelist flag if a mailer is supposed to ignore it?
Tell me what mailer works more efficiently, one that recognizes /all/ the
flags and acts on them, or one that ignores flags?

 RR> You have developers out there both past and present whose
 RR> software is specifically designed to operate under these
 RR> conditions yet all you can do is condemm it and promote listings
 RR> that no software supports.

Who exactly decided that Pvt, -Unpublished- was an acceptable solution? Did
Charles Cruden, author of Internet Rex, have any say on that? Did the
Russian author of BinkP and BinkD have any say? Did the developers of
Argus, Radius, Olegon, or BeeMail have /any/ say on the use of the Pvt
-Unpublished- kludge?

I'd be very suprised if /any/ of those developers thought it's a good idea
to have their mailers ignore nodelist flags, and I'll bet they also think
it's a bad idea to have dual meanings for nodelist flags. The FTSC made the
kludge before most of these IP mailers even /existed/, and made it at a
time when POTS nodes were the vast majority in this network. The kludge was
designed to protect POTS nodes and place their concerns before the concerns
of Internet Only Nodes. The developers of the later mailers had to
accomodate the FTSC documentation whether they liked it or not, because the
FTSC refused to or was unable to change the standards. Thus the developers
were /forced/ into making their IP based mailers ignore nodelist flags.

 MG>> probably be so much easier to just put it in the phone number
 MG>> field, why is it so *blamed* hard for POTS nodes to make a small
 MG>> accomodation by agreeing that /any/ 000-* listing in the
 MG>> phone number field will indicate IP only node, and thus agree
 MG>> that all POTS nodes will block it out???

 RR> Then why were you using 1-000 prefix and yet now advocate a 000-
 RR> prefix?

I've now changed it, but IMO, either one works just as well. All that's
needed is a simple agreement. Why is it so hard to agree to reserve a
certain numerical sequence to mean non-connectivity of POTS mailers?

 RR> No, its time to activate a central organisation of developers who not
 RR> only can propose standards but also work towards adjusting and
 RR> creating software to support those standards. It is useless promoting
 RR> a self-styled method if not only the majority don't accept it but also
 RR> no software supports it.

At the best of times, the FTSC was a political body, and excluded many
bright developers of Fidonet software. An exclusive club of a few Fidonet
members who have developed a few programs is of no help, and causes more
problems that it solves. Fidonet needs to move to a far more open approach;
the open source movement has proven it's value, and Fidonet ought to adopt
similar development methods. A small group forcing their opinions on the
rest of this network is counterproductive.

 RR> I prefer to travel the path and listen to the developers rather
 RR> then telling everybody what I think the ideal method should be.

The problem is that the FTSC /stopped/ listening to the developers a /long/
time ago, and /insisted/ on continuing to promote the use of ancient
kludges that have caused more problems than they've solved, and they also
failed to look for any /real/ solutions to the problems that IP
connectivity poses to the nodelist. That is the main reason why the FTSC is
dead in the water today.

 RR> I am quite prepared to use the standards they have proposed and
 RR> agreed upon and use software that supports those standards. With
 RR> those standards then it is possible to connect to anyone with no
 RR> manual intervention.

Standards are of no use when they do not recognize the realities of the
network and the realities of the software it's users are using to
participate in it today. A "standard" that was designed for old
software that any given node may never use or may never even have /heard/
of, is no "standard" for that node.

 RR> Btw, I notice your /10 address dissappeared from the last
 RR> nodelist. You gone back to being just a POTS node?

No. It probably was related to Janis' nodelist compiler problems.


--- GoldED/386 3.0.1-dam3