28 Mar 12 22:23, mark lewis wrote to Roy Witt:

 RW>>>> That's a product of their ZC...as big an error as one can make in
 RW>>>> this day and age.

 ml>>> that is incorrect... the idea was in development years ago..

 RW>> That's when I became aware of it in the instance of a ZC, Ward
 RW>> Dossche.

 ml> i'll give ya that... it was a bit before he became ZC/IC, IIRC...
 ml> granted, he was in there fighting against it but the PoV was much
 ml> different from the developers side than that from the political
 ml> side... alas, many of the developers simply tossed it all in the wind
 ml> and that de first and foremost to being sick and tired of fighting
 ml> with the politicos about technical developments for the network :? :(

I think one encounter with the Dossche would be enough of that. I just
reviewed his opinion of it and it was obvious he was going to make a
political hassle about it...

 ml>>> . i remember it being discussed when FTN-over-Telnet was coming up
 ml>>> and how to be able to indicate such capability in the nodelist...

 RW>> Which Dossche was against.

 ml> and is still quite incorrect as to the capabilities that it would
 ml> give the network...

He was worried about country-code.area-code.city-code.number-code
(01.312.202.5555 {aka 12 digits}) in the phone number field of the
nodelist was going to cause problems with the Euro phone system mistakenly
calling xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx (12 digit) nodes. I guess the placement of those
digit seperaters caused him to think wrong.

 ml>>> this was back when the idea of using domain host names or ip
 RW>>   numbers ml> in the "phone" field was being discussed...

 RW>> Yeup. Follows is a netmail from Ward Dossche, when RIN-ION nodes
 RW>> were first listed in Z1.

 ml> oh well... they should have learned from their history... that being
 ml> their allowance of ISDN-only nodes ;)

 ml> [trim message]

 ml>>>> the fidonet.net and now binkp.net stuff is specifically used by
 ml>>>> them and those wanting to contact them... this format was
 RW>>   actually ml>> being discussed and implemented way back when FTN
 RW>> over
 RW>>   telnet was ml>> widely used...

 RW>>>> I remember that and Ward's objection to listing ION nodes in the
 RW>>>> nodelist in the first place. That he continues this practice only
 RW>>>> serves to make people do such things as create fidonet.net and
 RW>>>> binkp.net workarounds. It's moronic to say the least.

 ml>>> on the one hand, possibly... on the other, not really... when Z2
 ml>>> allowed ISDN-only nodes into the nodelist, that set the
 RW>>   precedent...

 RW>> After Ward was finally convinced to do so by showing us his
 RW>> ignorance and having to  change his mind about listing them.

 ml> well, he didn't have much choice, right? and then there was that
 ml> other thing that he didn't have much choice in, either ;)

 RW>>>>> And then browse each newly released nodediff to look for
 RW>>   anything RW>>> that needs an update. Certainly
someone with some
 RW>>   programming RW>>> skills could write a utility to do that. ;)

 RW>>>>> It would certainly be a much better project than writing a
 RW>>   weekly RW>>> newsletter that isn't very well received by the
 RW>> masses.

 ml>>>> hhehehehehe...

 RW>>>> BTW, on top of which she can't get the format right and it has no
 RW>>>> comparison to the quality of the Z2 version, even if it is empty.

 ml>>> seems that we are talking about two different publications... i
 RW>>   see ml> your writing as relating to bj”rn... he has mad
 RW>> programming
 RW>>   skillz, ml> too ;)

 RW>> I see Bj”rn's as working as they should. OTH, I see Janis' as
 RW>> working some of the time, but not all of the time.

 RW>> Case in point is the misconfiguration of her version of Fidonews.

 ml> that's nothing compared with the decade or so of empty snoozeletters
 ml> :? :(

VS content that doesn't apply to much in the way of Fidonet is as bad as
an MT snooze.


                R\%/itt


  ... Only those who will risk going too far can possibly
  ... find out how far one can go ~ TS Eliot


--- Twit(t) Filter v2.1 (C) 2000-10