Hello Steven.

30 Oct 02 21:22, you wrote to Russell Tiedt:

 SH> I can appreciate the need for standards but these often conflict.  For
 SH> example, a RIN can't be PVT (Policy 4.07, 2.1.9> but Carol
 SH> Schenkenberger suggests I have to be.  And since I'm a RIN and can't be
 SH> PVT, I have to have a dummy telephone number and if my 1-000-000-000
 SH> does not always work well in North America, Australians don't like
 SH> 000-000-000.

 SH> And I can't change my status as an RIN because I've been one for 7 out
 SH> of the last 11 years.  The only time my node became part of a network
 SH> was when I was NC of Net3409 and that net disappeared 4 years ago.

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

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



Cheers,
                Rick

... Modem sex begins with a handshake!

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