Hello Steven.

05 Nov 02 00:59, you wrote to me:

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

 SH> Of course not.  FTS-5000 tells me when the flag can be used and it can't
 SH> be used by a Regional Independent.

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

 SH> The FTSC "standards" you refer to would make me
uncontactable by any
 SH> node. Using "Pvt" is not permissible and using
"Hold" is deceptive.  I
 SH> could insert my IP address in Field 6 as FTS-5000 suggests but how many
 SH> mailers would like "000-Northof60.tzo.com"

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

 SH> And no one can force me to adopt unworkable flags either.

I can see your confusion. Taken verbatim you are correct, the problem lies
with the FTSC because they forgot to include part of the IP proposal stating
that the flag Pvt is a kludge and different to the Pvt used to state a
private node ie: there are 2 definitions of that flag.

In which case Pvt as a kludge is usable as a RIN.

Otherwise you could be like me, I also am the only one around these parts for
some distance, in actual fact the Net I belong to spans over 2500kms and 2
countries. :-)

Cheers,
                Rick

... Basic programmers never die. They just GOSUB without RETURN!

--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5 - Debian/GNU