MvdV> I concentrated on the main issue: configuring a system as to make this
 MvdV> possible. As for accidentally setting the crash attribute; it happens.
 MvdV> We all have seen numerous examples, even from those that should be a
 MvdV> long way from the starting point of the learning curve.

   Ah, c'mon now Michiel! Surely you really don't believe that? To be able
to get a nodenumber you have to prove (for a reason!) that you can send a
crash mail to your host. That alone should prove that you know all about a
simple thing like configuring your mailer to properly process the phone
number field.

 BF>>    I think it was brilliant in all it's logic. IP-numbers are phone
 BF>> numbers on the internet and what country code would be more logical
 BF>> for internet than 000?

 MvdV> It may have looked liked a good idea at the time,

   Only a "good" idea? Where's that logically thinking,
technically versed friend of mine, that I thought I knew? Surely you must
admit that this is the most logical way to put internet connection data
into our nodelist?

 MvdV> the results are unpredictable. As for 000, the logical assigment for
 MvdV> that is the access code for out of planet dialling.

   I take it then, that your InterMail never had JoHo's '000- internet'
conversation incorporated in it, something that FrontDoor had almost from
day one of Fidonet-over-IP.

 MvdV> Indeed. When experimenting to find new and better ways one should
 MvdV> however also be prepaired to drop methods that on investigation turn out
 MvdV> to be not such a good idEa after all instead of foolhardedly insisting
 MvdV> on it.

   If the only reason for an idea to be judged as "not good" is
that some ignorant Aussie sysop, that was under the impression that the
nodenumber was used by the mailer when converting international and
regional prefixes into dialable numbers, do you still think it should be
judged as "not good"? Oh yes, I was there, I saw it all emerge,
make no mistake about it.

 MvdV> Because developers and programmers arent clearvoyant. When they
 MvdV> developed those mailers, they expected *dialable* phone numbers in the
 MvdV> phone number field, except for the string -Unpublished-. They never
 MvdV> expected someone to put non dialable numbers in there and so they did
 MvdV> not take measures to see tha it is handled properly.

   So when someone comes up with a method, that fits perfectly well into
what those old developers designed, don't you think this should be
encouraged rather than rejected for some completely stupid reason?

   Using 000 to indicate IP numbers *does* work with several of those old
mailers, in particular the mailer that was by far the most used one until
zone 2 made it impossible, because of a decree from Belgium some six or so
years ago, after which most of the FrontDoor based nodes disappeared from
zone 2 -- including the node that provided most of the Region 20 (Sweden)
mail by that time.

   How do you think fidonet has benefited from this?

 MvdV> 1) There are mailers out there that have no documented way of stopPing

 MvdV> 2) There is only room in the phone number field for ONE entry. That

   Jeezzz, man! 1) all mailers convert the raw phone number data from the
nodelist, and 2) do you really think that having dual entries for POTS and
IP is that a big issue? At least *I* think there are much more obvious
garbage in our nodelist than that. Including flags, so many and so long,
that some people even suggest that we must extend the present line length
limitation of the nodelist to accommodate them.

---