Rick Van Ruth (3:640/954) wrote to Steven Horn at 23:30 on 31 Oct 2002:

 RVR> The whole point here that you are missing is the fact that you
 RVR> aren't a private (Pvt) node system. You are an ION that is forced
 RVR> to use the Pvt flag to overcome the deficiences in nodelist
 RVR> compilers. Just because you then put the Pvt keyword at the
 RVR> beginning of your entry does not make you a private node in the P4
 RVR> sense of the word.

 RVR> You are a standard node using the guidelines covered by the FTSC
 RVR> to ensure your listing does not break older technology. The use of
 RVR> "Pvt" is advised in these cases by the FTSC (which is ratified in
 RVR> P4 concerning ZMH connections and FTSC standards) and does not
 RVR> make you a "private" node.

Rick, please re-read Policy 4.07.  The only way one can identify a node's
status in the nodelist is through flags and if my RIN node is listed as
"Pvt,-Unpublished-", people who do not note my IP address or
overlook it will conclude I'm a private node and that my listing is in
breach of policy.

The difficulty with the FTSC "advice" is that it forces a large
number of nodes that are not and never were private to adopt  the PVT
workaround to deal with deficiencies in existing compilers.  The result is
that more and more nodes get stuck with this while P4 continues to state
that PVT node listings are to be avoided like the plague.

Instead, why not work on a solution that will give IONs a workable nodelist
listing.  My node was first listed in the fall of 1991 and has never been a
private node.  I see no reason why it should be characterized as that now
because I am an ION.
 
Take care,

Steven Horn (steven_a_horn{at}yahoo.ca)
Moderator, ALASKA_CHAT 

--- timEd/386 1.10.y2k+