*** Quoting Michiel van der Vlist from a message to Carol Shenkenberger ***

MvdV>  MvdV>> acceptance by *anyone*. Allowing an all zero
"telephone number
MvdV>  MvdV>> was a decree by * ZC. No one outside that zone was consulted.
MvdV>  MvdV>> Not the FTSC, not the othe

 CS> Why should the 2 zones most affected, ask the others for permission to
 CS> fix a problem and use the existing 000- FTSC documented specs to
 CS> further narrow the listings?

MvdV> Because it *affects* the nodes in those other zones. When there is an
MvdV> all zero number in the nodelist it affects everyone using that nodelis
MvdV> The effects are not limited to the zone where the listing appears.

The situation has been there over 10 years now.  The only 'change' is one
to ¨make a more standard application of it with no variation.  Previous
'standard' ¨has no such guidance and some pretty knarly messes were
developing.


MvdV> It is flawed. Period.

 CS> No one in Z1 was required to contact another zone to fix their
 CS> internal lack of continuity on such and then establish one.  It wou;d
 CS> be like asking Z1 people if R49 and R50 should combine.  Kinda not
 CS> their place to say or not say.

MvdV> Now thats a complete non-sequitor.

No worse than the one you had.  In fact, more applicable as yours involved
red ¨lights and driving a car.  Zero Fidonet applicability, mine was just a
silly ¨idea on where one area of the world has say and no one else would be
more than ¨just interested bystanders.

 CS> Thats been 10 years or more since the 000-

MvdV> That could be about right. Yes, I think it was about ten years ago tha
MvdV> Z2 started an experiment with listing IP numbers in field six prefixed
MvdV> with three zero. AND ABONDONED IT!

So you are still fighting it?  Give over Michiel.  It's been 10 years and
you ¨even have to go back before David Moufarrage to see the inception of
it.  ¨Thats 2 Z1C's back.

 CS> There is a big difference between 'ignored' and 'not followed after
 CS> discussion'.  You seem to have not noted the discussion ad recall
 CS> only the end product didnt go as you would have wished.

MvdV> There was never any real interzonal discussion. Z1 pushed the 000- lis
MvdV> trough after the experiment in Z2 showed its flaws and despite the obj
MvdV> from other zones.

It was over 10 years ago.  It suited a need.  It is now embedded and no
advice ¨I have ever seen from you, has ever been usable to fix it in Z1. 
Certainly ¨your Z6 'solutions' have been 'less than usable' for me here an
no matter how ¨many times i have tried to explain that, you ignore me.

MvdV> is what is happening in FidoNet.

MvdV> First the 000- numbers, then the all zero numbers and now culminating
MvdV> in your last invention: totally unreachable hosts and RC's with no con
MvdV> info whatsoever. If you can not see that from the POV of an engineer t
MvdV> is a joke, you should resign as member of the FTSC.

Z6 is largely ION.  I know that disturbs you but that is simply a fact and
it ¨was one before I arrived here 5 years ago.  Your acceptance or denial
of this ¨is no longer relevant to me because you have proven you will not
listen to any ¨'facts' that you cant 'validate' under some arcane rules of
your own that suit ¨your needs to prove your point.


 CS> You are free to feel such.  Since all ZC's are in there already, I
 CS> dont think it makes much differnce.

MvdV> ZC's are invited guests in the FTSC echomail conference. You however a
MvdV> the only one who is both a ZC and a *member* of the FTSC.

MvdV> Another experiment that IMNSHO is not to be repeated.

Fine, flail at me again.  I really dont care anymore about how you think
¨everything should be run.
                                       xxcarol

--- Telegard v3.09.g2-sp4