Hello Steven.

30 Oct 02 21:22, you wrote to me:

 SH> Russell Tiedt (5:7105/1) wrote to Steven Horn at 20:23 on 28 Oct 2002:

 RT>> No, not at all, if you don't particularly want to, just that the
 RT>> subject is  also being debated there as well.

 SH> But how much other stuff is populating the echo?

More than I have time for most days. :-)

 RT>> Well, aside from being non-compliant, and breaking a program or
 RT>> two here and  there, no reason at all, especially as you say it
 RT>> works, and it is not one of  the worst offenders listed by far.

 SH> Non-compliant?  It compiles in my XlaxNode and I've never had any
 SH> complaints from POTS or IP nodes.

Not that that means a hell of a lot. :-)

 RT>> Well, people trying to write nodelist compilers to make use of
 RT>> the nice  little IP bits that have crept into Fido over the last
 RT>> couple of years, for  starters, and I believe some older programs
 RT>> also have issues, not that it behooves me to tell those folk to
 RT>> upgrade their software, or what ever.  

 SH> I can appreciate the need for standards but these often conflict.  For
 SH> example, a RIN can't be PVT (Policy 4.07, 2.1.9> but Carol
 SH> Schenkenberger suggests I have to be.  And since I'm a RIN and can't
 SH> be PVT, I have to have a dummy telephone number and if my
 SH> 1-000-000-000 does not always work well in North America, Australians
 SH> don't like 000-000-000.

Ambiguity, is a problem. 

 SH> And I can't change my status as an RIN because I've been one for 7
 SH> out
 SH> of the last 11 years.  The only time my node became part of a network
 SH> was when I was NC of Net3409 and that net disappeared 4 years ago.

Hmmm.....

 SH> Take care,

I try. 

Russell

--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.4.7