Hello Carol.

29 Oct 02 18:31, you wrote to me:

 CS>> I netmailed a copy of the FAQ, pending outbound, for ya too as I
 CS>> saw that  message first .

 RT>> Not a problem, jusy got it this evening.

 CS> Glad to help!  Now, my current 'project' is totry to knock it into
 CS> some better  shape.  I lack some technical/societal input.  I dont
 CS> want to cause traffic in  this echo (P4 related) so can we meet in
 CS> either FN_SYSOP or the public FTSC  echo?  I want to be sure what I
 CS> try to write, doesnt have adverse effect on  anyone in Z5 (or any
 CS> other zone).

FTSC_PUBLIC would do fine, there being to many "heckler" type
that hang out 
there, and it is not an echo I give my full attention. I am by no means an 
authority on Z5, just possibly one of the more active sysops, tho I can give 
some input.

 CS> Even if we cant get the full FTSC rolling, we need a commonality for
 CS> IP  listings that software can actually USE.  No politics, just
 CS> technical based.  I  see no reason to wait on re-drafting a FAQ that
 CS> can later be a specification,  just because a group election of FTSC
 CS> may take a bit.

Why I asked the question about the FAQ/How-To thingy in the first place. If 
we have a well written, non-ambiguos document, detailing how to list nodelist 
segments with liberal examples, all of which fit within current FTSC 
standards, and circulate it widely, it will be read, and if it is well 
written, those reading it will take it seriously. Then when problems are 
found with a node segment, refer the people to the document, if you can get 
them to read it fully, you will have won half the battle.

Russell

--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.4.7