On Sun, 01 Mar 2015, Michiel van der Vlist wrote to mark lewis:

 MvdV> [ file request on hold ]

 MvdV>> You would get rid of the "maybe not" very soon if you were a
 MvdV>> node in 28 during the CSO wars. It definitely was considered
 MvdV>> annoying behaviour here. No maybe about it.

 ml> that's when i would simply turn on the option of NOT picking up
 ml> requests... simple and easy to do...

 MvdV> Easy for mailers software that supports that option. Not all do.
 MvdV> InterMail doesn't. Irex doesn't.

are you absolutely sure about that? wasn't intermail branched off of the
frontdoor code? frontdoor had that option way back in like 2.02... irex was
also modeled closely after frontdoor... the author was a FD Beta team member
for a while... it would surprise me if he didn't include that option as well...
irex can also handle freqs, right??

 MvdV> So even trying it was considered annoying behaviour. 

then someone isn't using all available resources... turn off the ability to
pick up waiting freqs and there is no problem... the solution is available...
refusing to use it is also annoying behaviour...

 ml>> not everyone has zero cost for their internet connections...
 ml>> there are still many on metered connections... placing reqs on
 ml>> hold may still be desirable to some...

 MvdV>> In the IP age it does not help to reduce cost on the metered
 MvdV>> connection. The cost is not paid by the initiator of the
 MvdV>> connection, it is paid by the amount of bytes transfered. The
 MvdV>> requester pays either way.

 ml> not in all cases... some are metered by their outbound requests...
 ml> i've worked with several that have this setup...

 MvdV> Now you are doing it again: Creating an outlandish scenario by

until you walk in my shoes and deal with the support scenarios that i deal
with, you are clueless and ignorant... yet you spout off as if you do know
everything about anything...

 MvdV> stacking exception upun excapotion until the situation becomes so
 MvdV> exceptional that the original action makes no sens any more.

i have not stacked any exceptions... i stated plainly that some ISPd charge
their customers by the customers' requests... if the customer uses ftp and
pulls down a 2gig file, the request and response are noted together and the
customer has that 2gig deducted from their allocation... this is stupidly
simple to do and it is done by many firewall products as a matter of normal
operations... without this capability, the firewall would not be able to
associate the return data stream on a different port to the request that went
out... if it couldn't associate the request, the return data stream would be
dropped/blocked and you would not get your file... the same thing is easier
done for streams that use the same port in both directions... the fact remains
that the ISP can easily detect the outbound request and match it to the inbound
response...

 ml>> you and i are not the ones to determine that nor are we the ones
 ml>> to tell others they cannot do that...

 MvdV>> I am not telling others what to do, nor am I making it
 MvdV>> impossible for them do do as they always did. All that I want
 MvdV>> is that I can perform certain functions without the need to
 MvdV>> jump through hoops in order to support ballast that I no longer
 MvdV>> need.

 ml> then perhaps binkd and the BSO format is not for you...

 MvdV> You are not the one to tell me what is good for me or not. I will
 MvdV> decide for myself what suits my situation.

i didn't tell you it was or wasn't... i suggested that it may not be if your
expectations and desires are not conformant to BSO operations...

there's a fella in new york city that has a business selling point of sale
solutions... their motto is "we will sell the customer exactly what they want
exactly as we have it."... that means that they will not modify the software to
fit the customer but the customer will, instead, alter their operations to
conform to the solution they have purchased... if the customer won't/can't
conform to the solution then it is not the right solution for them... you are
the customer...

 ml> the fact is that these hoops are needed and they always have for the
 ml> BSO format...  hese activities to be unnecessary hoops but they
 ml> aren't... they are SOP for the format being used...

 MvdV> "have always been"... "SOP for the format"... That does not
 MvdV> impress me very much.

sorry about that... i don't know that anyone here is trying to impress
anyone... is this another failed expectation on your part?

 MvdV> W'd still be riding horses instead of cars, trains and airplanes 
 MvdV> if we had all followed that line of reasoning.

 MvdV> I see a short cut here that gets rid of at least one hoop.

taking shortcuts also lead one into trouble...

)\/(ark