Hello Michael.

28 Oct 02 07:42, you wrote to Carol Shenkenberger:

 CS>> In what way?  I'm not aware of any IP mailers that aviod dialing those
 CS>> with the PVT flag header.  They ignore it by policy.

 MG> That's the whole point. The authors of IP based mailers are making them
 MG> /ignore/ the nodelist, because this non-solution forces them into that
 MG> situation. The whole *point* of having a nodelist is so that our mailers
 MG> can take cues from it for connectivity. If the mailer ignores the flags
 MG> that signify connectivity, then we might as well not even have a
 MG> nodelist.

Incorrect, authors of IP mailers are using the nodelist under the standards
guidelined by the FTSC. Perhaps they might also add a couple extra as well on
the thought it might become a standard in the future....

You however are ignoring the standards guidelined by the FTSC.
You are trying to make your node a non-standard non-contactable node.

And on another point, if you are so vehement about the use of the 000- prefix
for IP nodes and that it won't cause problems, then why the hell aren't you
using it in your 1:134/10 node entry?

Btw, I can't contact IP node 1:134/10 at the IP address 1.000.000.0000 it
must be down. That node has no modem flags, only IP ones, it must be an IP
node.

Cheers,
        Rick

... Syntax Error in KITCHEN.H: COFFEE not found.

--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.4.7 - Debian/GNU