Hello Joe.

01 Apr 06 10:52, you wrote to me:

 >>  JD> It would be ther responsibility of the highest *C to let those
 >>  JD> in the chain below them know about this and to advise them to
 >>  JD> pass it JD> on right down to the last node, and point.

 >> 1) Dream on. You can't expect every NC to know the ins and out of
 >> every mail and the workarounds for them.

 JD> Who said anything about an NC having to know the ins and outs
 JD> of aall mailers?

That's the logical conclusion isn't?

 JD>   I mentioned that he should advise new nodes, and old ones as
 JD> well. to make sure that their mailer are set to not dial such.

And then the newbie sysop asks: how do I do that? And then what?

 JD> It is after all the sysop's responsibility to take care of his or
 JD> her's own system.

Nice theory.

 >> 2) Highest *C taking responsibility? Well it seems this is exactly
 >> what happened. The highest *C in FidoNet discourages the use of
 >> 000- numbers in general and banned the use in his own zone. What
 >> more do you want as far as taking responsibility goes?

 JD> I want that 'highest' *C to educate people on how to set up their
 JD> mailers.

The highest *C took a different approach. He encourages that there are no
undialable numbers in the nodelist.

 JD> Not on how to set up a particular mailer, but in general,
 JD> that certain numbers should never be called.  Tell me what is
 JD> different about setting your mailer to NOT dial the local
 JD> emergency # and the (non) problem with the 000 solution?

1) Repeatedly saying it is a non problem does not make the problem go away.

2) There never was any need to stop my mailer from attempting to dial the
local emergency number. As for numbers with country code 91, there never
was a problem either: they were dialable numbers, no need to stop my mailer
from attempting to dial them. Contrary to numbers starting with 000.
attempting to dial *those* may lead to problems.


Michiel

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