>>>> that 000-213-134-221-195 sure looks like an IP number to me ;)

 >>>> in fact, that is (was?) one of the preferred methods of
 >>>> listing an IP node...

 MvdV>>> Preferred by whom? Preferred by you perhaps.

 >> preferred by those with capable software AT THE TIME...

 MvdV> You wrote "is", present tense.

yes... it is a present form of a preferred listing in this zone... please
don't start trying to play word games with me... i have neither the
patience nor the desire... to do so will only raise a lot of ire and
acrimony yaknowwhaddaimean?

 MvdV> Anyway, capability alone does not explain preference. It could
 MvdV> be the preferable method for those who this method was the
 MvdV> only method though....

thank you...

 >> my software was capable as were many others using other software
 >> packages...

 MvdV> That does not explain preference.

oh go away, idjut... if my software is capable of it, it may very well be
my preference since it may be the only way i have of contacting that
node... think about it from _all_ sides instead of just "your"
side, scientist... supposedly you are trained in this way but over the
years i've read your writtings, it is obvious that you aren't, weren't or
have become indiffernt to others and their ways, thoughts, or
capabilities...

so is pluto/charon a planet with a moon or not? ;)

 MvdV> Anyway, the past is the past. Even if what you say is true,
 MvdV> things change and what once was preferable can now be obsolete
 MvdV> or even undesirable. We banned lead from car fuel didn't we?
 MvdV> We banned asbestos didn't we?

yes but we didn't require that everything using them be banned, removed,
destroyed, or renovated... case in (moot?) point... 911 and the world trade
center towers... they were filled with asbestos...

 MvdV> In the real world we ditch methods that turn out to be
 MvdV> potentially harmfull when safer methods are developed.

yes, but we don't always clean up after ourselves...

 MvdV> Why should it be different for FidoNet? Why should we insist
 MvdV> on keeping something that is no longer needed and carries
 MvdV> potential harm? I say that is selfish and irresponsible.

and i say that it is selfish, irresponsible and harmful to remove
capabilites from those who have no other methods available to them... seems
to me that intermail may fall into this crevice?

 >>>> my software (frontdoor) has no problems with it

 MvdV>>> Mine does. And mine isn't the only one having problems. The
 MvdV>>> world of FidoNet is bigger than the world of FrontDoor.

 >> maybe it is today, but it wasn't really when this stuff was
 >> designed and implemented...

 MvdV> Not true. The Telnet kludge wasn't the first and never was the
 MvdV> only way to transfer FidoNet mail over the InterNet. Way
 MvdV> before the experimental introduction of the 000- numbers there
 MvdV> was TipTop tranferring mail between Henk Wevers in Z2 and
 MvdV> Randy Bush in Z1. Via FTP....

and completely OUTSIDE FTN technology, FTN methods, or *general* FTN
knowledge... thankyouverymuch...

 >> besides, i can't help your software doesn't have the capabilities
 >> that mine does... perhaps you chose to use inefficient software
 >> back during that period...

 MvdV> The software in question is and was fully FTS compatible. For
 MvdV> a POTS mailer. The problem is that there is no documented way
 MvdV> that it can properly handle invalid telephone numbers. It
 MvdV> expects either a valid telephone number or "-Unpublished-" in
 MvdV> field six. It can translate the number into something else
 MvdV> before dialling, but stopping it from attempting to dial at
 MvdV> all is not one of its features. And why should it be? Invalid
 MvdV> phone numbers were never part of the FTN specifications.

seems to me that intermail simply fell behind in the capabilities that were
being developed... FD has done the same WRT to BINKP transfers... however,
FD's authors were still developing FD after intermail's author quit and
left those like yourself sitting in the freezer... at least FD users have a
way of using psuedocountry codes to indicate other than POTS method of
communication with other nodes...

 >> remember, this is history that is coming under fire along with
 >> some apparent rewritting of what really happened, when and how...

 MvdV> Yeah, yeah...

ummhumm... exactly what one would expect from a history rewriter...

 >>>> and could connect to it with no problems

 MvdV>>> Only when supplemented with an emulator programme that fools
 MvdV>>> it into thinking it is dialling up via classic modem.

 >> so? and your problem with that is??

 MvdV> That your statement that "my software (frontdoor) has no
 MvdV> problems with it" is incomplete and misleading.

no, it is not... FD has no problems with it... period... that it requires
something else to complete the equation is beside _that_ point... no FTN
mailer would be able to do anything without a modem and a POTS line (at
least)... that's at least two additional requirements for one to be a
member of fidonet of the past... yet, you assume that they are understood
and conviently leave them out of the argument while also overlooking their
necessity...

 >>>> if it also had the ITN flag signaling telnet mailer access ;) ;)

 MvdV>>> But it doesn't fly the ITN flag, and Frontdoor can't do Binkp,
 MvdV>>> so you have no argument.

 >> ahhh... but i do have a binkp mailer online and thus i can
 >> still contact that system...

 MvdV> But not with FrontDoor. (per your hypothetical argument)

you are now confusing the issues...

 >> it only took a little bit of extra work to incorporate into my
 >> existing setup...

 MvdV> Like manually entering the IP number....

nope... not really... more like installing binkd/2 and incorporating a
method of moving outbound mail to "fileboxes"...

 >> it also took a bit more knowledge than many you purchased or
 >> downloaded turnkey systems or had someone else set everything
 >> up for them ;)

 MvdV> Here we go again. Talk down those who disagree with you... :-(

if the shoe fits, wear it in good health and hold your head high... at
least you and i know where you stand ;)

 >>>> and what's in a location name? O:)

 MvdV>>> It is supposed to supply useful information about the system's
 MvdV>>> physical location. "IP" is uninformative.

 >> it seems to tell me that it is "on the internet" O:)

 MvdV> "On the internet" is not a physical location.

oh? to a point, it sure is... to another point, yeah, sure, it doesn't list
latitude and longitude of the acutal system... but then again, a lot of
systems (ie: those using email transfers) don't list the true location of
the _actual_ server that you may contact when sending them FTN traffic...

 >> does it tell you anything different?

 MvdV> It tells me nothing useful about the location. I already know
 MvdV> it is "on the InterNet" because of the IBN flag.

ermmm... hasn't one of your arguments been that the nodelist is not
supposed to be "human readable"? thus the IBN flag shouldn't
really mean diddle squat to you, right?

 MvdV> I say this is an obvious attempt at hiding the location. So
 MvdV> that it would  be less conspicuous that it is an out of zone
 MvdV> listing.

so what? why do you care about where the system is actually located if you
are using IP methods to contact it?? did you also care about kilgore
trout's listing not displaying his real name? what about randi
somethingorother? what about Bob R.? given a full nodelist from 15 years
ago, i could pull a lot more instances for display... not only sysop names
but also locations... heck, zorch frezberg is still listed and that one is
well known to be a play on the words "torch fresno"...

)\/(ark