ml>  MvanL> satisfied the requirement of whomever invented it.

 ml> i never said that dorinfox.def should carry more 
 ml> details... i said that it doesn't carry the node number 
 ml> internally... you extrapolated that on to something else...

 MvanL> The number in the dorinfo1.def dropfile file name was never 
 MvanL> meant to designate a node number -- not dorinfox.def, not 
 MvanL> dorinfo#.def, not "dorinfo dropfile" -- DORINFO1(ONE).DEF 
 MvanL> dropfile.

 MvanL> Do you understand the distinction between "The" dorinfo1.def
 MvanL> dropfile and "those" dorinfo(x|#).def dropfiles ?

do you understand the meaning of "POST THE SPECS OR A LINK TO THEM"?

 ml>  MvanL> If people deviate from the specification and adopt different
 ml>  MvanL> methods for using dorinfo1.def that's their perogative, which
 ml>  MvanL> doesn't change the fact that the number in the dorinfo1.def
 ml>  MvanL> dropfile was never meant to designate a node number.

 ml> you've still not provided the proof of this... i'm more 
 ml> than willing to look at it once it is made available... 
 ml> i would hope that it is written by the original author 
 ml> of the dorinfox.def specification ;)

 MvanL> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dropfile:

oh, cool... i'll go fix that right now... 

hint: don't take wikipedia as gospel...

[trim]

 MvanL> Which is totally conclusive evidence that the RA mob initiated a
 MvanL> dorinfo(x|#).def propaganda against dorinfo1.def which the BBS
 MvanL> community later acquiesced towards.

no, it is not conclusive of that... QBBS was also using dorinfox.def at
that time as were wildcat, pcboard, and many other mainstream bbs
packages... besides, there's no cite for that information or a link to the
specs those statements are drawn from...

 MvanL> You therefore are a victim of misinformation.

in this instance, your mistake is in believing unproven and undocumented
writtings that you read on wikipedia ;) 

)\/(ark