Hi Michiel!

Sunday April 23 2006, Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Vladimir Donskoy:

 MV>>> 3) You shot yourself in the foot with your Z6 number. For that
 MV>>> number you have to onbserve Z6MH. which is ... eh . .somewhere
 MV>>> around noon local for you. That does not seem to bother you
 MV>>> though.... Poof goes your ZMH argument.

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

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

Yes! But these sysops _replace_ Z2MH to other MH, because they cann't use
Z2MH on Policy. This is our (particular and contradictory Policy) decision
in R50...

 MV> The sensible way to specify extra on-line hours is by the Tyz flags. That
 MV> awy one does not jave to exclude users and echomail traffic during that
 MV> time.

 MV>>> What other problems?

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

 MV> Authorised?! By whom? The KGB?

By R50 sysops or R50C as minimum.


Regards, Vladimir Donskoy

--- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20060326