Hello Michael.

05 Nov 02 23:05, you wrote to me:

 RR>> I can see your confusion. Taken verbatim you are correct, the problem
 RR>> lies with the FTSC because they forgot to include part of the IP
 RR>> proposal stating that the flag Pvt is a kludge and different to the
 RR>> Pvt used to state a
 RR>> private node ie: there are 2 definitions of that flag.

 MG> Two definitions for a nodelist flag is an *unacceptable* situation. It
 MG> causes confusion and creates a political class system that has /nothing/
 MG> to do with connectivity. Connectivity is the true purpose of nodelist
 MG> flags.

Political? The only person trying to make FTSC nodelist standards political
is you.

 RR>> In which case Pvt as a kludge is usable as a RIN.

 MG> In which case Pvt as a kludge is /unacceptable/ for any full-time IP
 MG> based node.

Take another look, that /10 node doesn't exist in the current nodelist.

If it is unnaceptable to you to follow fidonet standards you should not be in
fidonet. And it now appears you aren't, at least IP wise.


Cheers,
                Rick

... No honey, I can't eat with the family. My computer gets lonely!

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