>>> 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...

You wrote "is", present tense. (followed by "was" in
parenthesis and suffixed with a question mark). "At he time" is
in the past.

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

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

That does not explain preference.

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

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

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

 >>> 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...

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

 > 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...

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number or "-Unpublished-" in field six.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

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

Yeah, yeah...

 >>> 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??

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

 >>> 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...

But not with FrontDoor. (per your hypothetical argument)

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

Like manually entering the IP number....

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

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

 >>> 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:)

"On the internet" is not a physical location.

 > does it tell you anything different?

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

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

Cheers, Michiel

---