Hello mark,

On Sunday October 05 2014 21:10, you wrote to me:

 ml> while i applaude ERRFLAGS operations, i do not like it because it
 ml> forces approved flags... even in "do nothing" mode the operator of
 ml> said tool has to deal with the so-called "errors"... U flags, in
 ml> particular, were never supposed to be "approved" and then there's the
 ml> possibility of experimental flags which generally start as U flags and
 ml> then may be moved to non-U flags...

When citisizing something one should know what one is taling about. When I
mentioned ERRFLAGS could easely be configured to do "nothing", I did not mean
run it in check mode. 
This configuration file will make it do "nothing".

BAUDDEFAULT 9600
BAUDRATE 300 1200 2400 4800 9600 14400 16800 19200 28800 33600
FLAGS *
USER *

 ml> this then seems to become a political problem because some *C may not
 ml> approve of said flag while others might... thus we end up mixing
 ml> politics with technical aspects...

Once we had an IC and flags had to be IC approved...

 ml> this is not a GoodThing and it wasn't when ERRFLAGS was introduced
 ml> even though it gave the possibility of conformance it was
 ml> and has been used as a political tool instead of a technical tool...

Your opinion.... It is not shared by the majority of the sysops in the zone
where the nodelist is cleaned up by ERRFLAGS


Cheers, Michiel

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