Hello Vladimir.

24 Apr 06 14:06, you wrote to me:


 VD>>> The significant part of nodes R50 already now observes Z6MH
 VD>>> (look nodelist on a flag #20).

 MV>> Bad argument. That flag is for support of *additional* ZMH. It
 MV>> does not absolve the node in question from supporting his own
 MV>> ZMH. This flag was meant for gateways, never for end nodes. Use
 MV>> by end nodes is silly as it only imposes unneeded resterictions.
 MV>> Whn one flies this flag one must observe ALL requirements fot
 MV>> that extra ZMH: i.e. no users, no echomial, etc etc.

 VD> Yes! But these sysops _replace_ Z2MH to other MH,

Then they are using the flag in a wrong way.

 VD> because they cann't use Z2MH on Policy.

They can, It is merely inconvenient.

 VD>  This is our (particular and
 VD> contradictory Policy) decision in R50...

The problem is that you kept it to yourself. I would not mind at all if ot
was decided that R50 or part of it had a ZMH different from that of the
rest of the zone.

But if that was decided it would have to be:

!) A decision of *ALL* of Z2.
2) Widely published so that every FidoNet particpant could adaot his configuration.

Now you run the risk of people otside R50 who do not know all this
attempting to call during the official ZMH. This is irresponsible and
selfish.


 MV>>>> What other problems?

 VD>>> It is a lot of them, and I am not authorized (have not the
 VD>>> right) to notify all world on them now.

 MV>> Authorised?! By whom? The KGB?

 VD> By R50 sysops or R50C as minimum.

If you refuse to discuss the problems, you can not expect us to support your POV.

Michiel

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