Hello Steven,

 MvdV>> They create problems were there aren't. The "Pvt"
 MvdV>> problem is a> non existent problem.

[..]

 MvdV>> Technically there is nothing wrong with giving Pvt a
 MvdV>> different meaning for POTS and IP. But people like Michael
 MvdV>> Grant don't like that. They want pi to be equal to 3.

 SH> It is Policy 4.07 that states that PVT is private, not
 SH> Michael Grant.

I believe P4 offers enough room for interpreation to allow a distinction
between the computerese of "Pvt" and the English of
"private".

 SH> As a regional independent, I can't have a private listing (see 2.1.9).

Indeed you can not. The reason is that only Hosts have the obligation to
route incoming netmail and RC's do not. So in order to remain reachable by
the only officially supported means a node that is not directly reachable
must be in a net so that it can be reached by host routing.

The real problem of course is that you are a RIN. You should not be. Only
if you are not within convenient calling range of a net a node may be a
RIN. For an ION that does never apply. The whole world is within easy
caling range. There is no reason why you as an ION can not be in a net.

It is the sort of problem one creates when mixing the political with the technical.

 SH> Now you can amend P4 to state that PVT means this for POTS
 SH> nodes and somrthing else for IP nodes but you know how
 SH> difficult that this is.

The IC has the mandate to interprete policy. De facto he has already made
the interpretation that allows this. Look at the Z2 portion of the
nodelist.

 SH> That amendment also would not deal with the possibility that an
 SH> IP node would want to be truly private.

That is also based upon a misapprehension. There is no such thing as a
private IP node. Neither is there such a thing as a private POTS node. A
truly private node has no colour. It has no listed contact information and
so it is neither POTS nor IP. How it transfers mail to it's uplink is
irrelevant. It may be the floppy disk express or carrier pigeon for all
that matters.

 SH> The much more logical solution would be to have another
 SH> flag or flags that could be combined with -Unpublished- but
 SH> that might well be hard on legacy software.

From the technical point of view that would be the prefered solution but
unfortunately that is impossible. Every node and point would have to update
their software and any attempt to force them to do that will kill Fidonet.

Cheers, Michiel

--- InterMail 2.29k