>>> The point is, that those listings have worked in the past and
still do...

 MvdV>> No, the point is that these listings cause problems for some.
 MvdV>> Unnecessary problems because these listings can easily be
 MvdV>> avoided. Causing unnecessary problems to others is selfish and
 MvdV>> irresponsible.

 > said the kettle to the pot... ie: this supposed problem works both ways...

How? Does my listing cause problems to others? Unnecessary problems to
others that can easely be avoided by listing me in a differnet way?

 > need i mention that the international dialing code of one's
 > locale invalidates the 000-, 61-, 91-1-, and 1- problems that
 > others are obviously not thinking thru??? ;) you are also
 > included in "others" ;) ;)

No, yee need not mention that. Becuase:

1) Problems related to telephone numbers with country codes 61-, 91- an 1-
do not fall in the catagory "Easely avoided by listing them in a
different way".

2) The numbers with country codes 61, 91 and 1 are valid dialable numbers.
Therefor the problem that there is no documented  way to stop the mailer
from attempting to dial them does not apply. Contrary to "phone
numbers" starting with 000-.

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

 MvdV>>>> Mine does.

 >>> If you're talking about yours being Irex,

 MvdV>> No, I am talking about my POTS mailer, InterMail, for which
 MvdV>> there is no documented way of telling it to never attempt to
 MvdV>> dial these 000- numbers.

 > ahhh, then it seems to me that i'd be dropping intermail if it
 > cannot handle the situation _and_ it is not being supported ;)

The old "upgrade or die".... :-(

Why should I ditch a perfectly good mailer for which I paid good money just
because some selfish sysops decide they want to put non dialable numbers in
the phone number field?

 > evidently, it is not up to the standards of fidonet O:)

It was up until the selfish introdution of those fake 000- numbers.

Why don't YOU ditch that obsolete FrontDoor modem emulator combo?

 MvdV>> I suppose I could make my Irex connect to his Binkp system.
 MvdV>> I'd have to manually enter the IP number in my setup though.
 MvdV>> Irex can not read an Ip number hidden in the phone nr. field.

 > that is a problem that charles cruden needs to handle in a
 > future revision, then... since you are a user as well as a
 > FTSC member, if i were you, i'd be knocking on his door about
 > this problem ;)

As a user, the problem is not high on my list od priorities. Almost all of
those 000- entries are telnet entries and Irex does not do telnet. I'd
rather have Charles spent his valuable time in items that are on top of my
wish list.

As an FTSC member: I don't think it is my job to chase programmers with a
carrot and a whip to implement features. Especially not features that the
FTSC has labelled as "only to be used in exceptional
circumstances".

 MvdV>> An IP node can be located anywhere where there is InterNet
 MvdV>> access. a POTS node can be located anywhere where thers is
 MvdV>> access to a public telephone network. It absolves neither from
 MvdV>> properly using the location field.

 > define "properly", please...

Don't play word games with me. I don't know how to define this but I do
know an "improper" one when I see it. And you know it too. You
know dammed well that "IP" is not a proper location.

 > it is a well known fact that handles are generally not allowed
 > in fidonet...

Right!

 > however, many past well known individuals flew handles in their
 > SYSOP NAME fields... they also used these "handles" in all their
 > echomail and netmail messages...

So? People run red lights and some get away with it. Does that mean running
red lights should now be allowed to all whi desire to do so.

 > precedence was set long before you or i joined this network...

Precedence is a legal term. It does not apply to Fidonet.

 > it cannot be removed now ;)

Nonsence. Entries have been removed from the nodelist when people were
caught at flying a second node under an alias.


Cheers, Michiel

---