Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555) wrote to Frank Vest at 11:42 on 30 Oct 2002:

 MvdV> They create problems were there aren't. The "Pvt" problem is a
 MvdV> non existent problem. It is politicians like Michael Grant that
 MvdV> refuse to see that "Pvt" is computerese and
"private" is English
 MvdV> and that they are not and need not be the same. This problem does
 MvdV> not exist. That does not mean there are no problems at all, it
 MvdV> means that /this/ problem does not exist.

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

It is Policy 4.07 that states that PVT is private, not Michael Grant.  As a
regional independent, I can't have a private listing (see 2.1.9).  Now you
can amend P4 to state that PVT means this for POTS nodes and somrthing else
for IP nodes but you know how difficult that this is.  That amendment also
would not deal with the possibility that an IP node would want to be truly
private.

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could be combined with -Unpublished- but that might well be hard on legacy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

  
Take care,

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

--- timEd/386 1.10.y2k+