Hello mark,

On Saturday October 04 2014 17:27, you wrote to me:

 MvdV>> That is not how it is documented in FTS-5000/FTS-5001. They
 MvdV>> were reviewed earlier this year. You as FTSC member were there.
 MvdV>> THEN was the time to speak up.

 MvdV>> You didn't..,. so...

 ml> i did speak up... i don't recall if i never got any response or was
 ml> instead "shouted down" or otherwise put off... but whatever...

That happens. In Fidonet we have a custom for making lists of node numbers,
information is inherited from the numbers preceding:

SEEN+BY 280/0 5003 5006 5555 292/464 854

when the INA flag came into the picture over a decade ago, I proposed  having
protocol flags inherit information from those preceding them as an alternative.

IBN:fido1.example.com,ITN,IVN,IFT:fido2.example.com,

That was voted out/shouted down/ignored as well. Instead the system continued
into one where flag meaning does not depend on order. That happens, one can not
always get the system to adopt what one thinks is the best way.


Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20130111