Hello Roy.

15 May 06 10:43, you wrote to me:

 RW> 15 May 06 09:44, Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Carol Shenkenberger:
 MvdV>> I do not think it is *totally* harmless.

 MvdV>> 1) A new applicant could be mislead into believing the net/9999
 MvdV>> number is *whereto* he/she should send the application.

 RW> Not if he read policy first.

And if he didn't read P4 he can be mislead. He attempts to send an
application to net/9999, fails and gives up. he never gett to know about
the existence of P4. One potential new node lost.


 RW> How do you know who to send it to? By reading policy

And how do you know you can find these facts in p$ if you have never heard
about it before?

 RW> and finding out that not only do you send your application to the
 RW> Z:net/0 person listed in the nodelist; NODELIST!?, where do I find
 RW> that!? Oh, there it is in policy, I get that from the same Z:net/0...

Information that those who have never heard about the existance of P4 will
not attempt to look for. Escpecially not if they have a nodelist that lists
net/9999 as "new application"

 MvdV>> 2) An NC putting such an entry in his segment shows (IMHO) that
 MvdV>> he does not fully understand the mechanism of new applications.
 MvdV>> An NC not fully understanding what he is doing is not totally
 MvdV>> harmless....

 RW> Hmmmm, that's some crazy logic. The NC who puts /9999 in the nodelist
 RW> knows how the system works.

Apparently he does not know that net/9999 should not be in the nodelist and
that an NC should never configure his system as LO.

 RW> A new app, if he's read policy, will use that number to send his app
 RW> 'from'

or from -1/-1 as P4 meantions as the *first* option.

 RW>  and thus, the LO flag means diddly squat!

And thus will be rejected because -1/-1 is unlistd.

Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20060315