Rick Van Ruth (3:640/954) wrote to Steven Horn at 20:54 on 03 Nov 2002:

 RVR> Incorrect, you need to re-read P4. You will note that P4 states
 RVR> flag references are current with FTS-1000 (which was current at
 RVR> the time of writing P4) but the current FTSC standard document
 RVR> will apply. 

 RVR> In this day and age the closest thing to that is FTS-5000 FTS-5001

Neither of which help you.  In FTS-5000, the Pvt flag defines a private
node with unlisted number.  FTS-5000 goes on to say "Private nodes are
only allowed as members of local networks". 

 RVR> P4 states "private" nodes should be avoided.

And FTS-5000 states as I have already noted that private nodes are only
allowed as members of local networks.  As a regional independent, my node
can't fly that flag.

I can use the "HOLD" flag as FTS-5000 suggests but that has its
own problems because some mail comes to me through my hub and other mail
for goes to my host.

 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.

Of course not.  FTS-5000 tells me when the flag can be used and it can't 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?

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

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

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

Take care,

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

--- timEd/386 1.10.y2k+