Text 35764, 63 rader
Skriven 2006-08-03 02:19:20 av Matt Bedynek (1:106/1)
  Kommentar till text 35640 av Carol Shenkenberger (6:757/1)
Ärende: a
=========
Hello Carol.

02 Aug 06 16:28, you wrote to me:

 CS> I do not remember the specifics, just that it was later fixed up.
 CS> When I'm at sea for long periods, my feeds are still good but I often
 CS> cant find the time to keep up fully.  Just enough for a 'gist'.

To recap-I initially stated I would not add a RI since viable nets were
available.  However, a week following that I reversed myself after reviewing
policy.  I changed my position such that I would add a RI if it could be
justified. And, clearly stated that the 'justification' portion was very
flexible.  It has been a long time preference to add nodes to nets so I do not
have to go through the unfortunate process of dissolving nets.  So far, contary
to popular belief, we have been doing well.  Net106 has picked up a new node
last week and should appear this week!

 CS> I'm not sure if he has real ones.  It's his job if he has, to provide
 CS> you sufficient information for you to validate them.  I gather they
 CS> all were PVT with no contact information.

Exactly.  There is no NC for his area so either he refers them to the nearest
adjacent net or to the RC.  It is our job to find them a home.  However, I
highly suspect this was nothing but a ham-handed attempt to bulldoze his way
into a NC position.  Nodody picks up a *C title that way.

 CS> I apologize.  Perhaps I got a little too upset and took out a stronger
 CS> wording than was merited.

And, I hope you accept my apology for coming off strong as well.  I have
typically worked in structured environments that have order and procedure.  As
a military person, I know you can appreciate the use of procedure and the chain
of command.  Although I don't believe fidonet to be a rigid body in that sense,
there are some basic things, as ward point out that are (to put mildly) child's
play.  So no reason for someone to not conform.

 CS> I anticipate that this will take at least another week to resolve
 CS> 'somehow' and possibly longer than that, especially since he seems to
 CS> want a net created but hasnt provided you enough information for you
 CS> to validate it.  You are in the right there totally and I agree and
 CS> would do same.

I was seriously considering filtering traffic for his unlisted node but since
he has applied for a node number, I will hold off till its resolved.  For what
it's worth, I did not get his CC of his node app to 19/0.  It seems there is a
netmail routing problem for the 19/* administrative net.  This bothers me as I
have been RC for several years now and there is no reason for routing to not be
pointing my way.  I have netmailed hubs asking them to check the routing.

I did see from my tracking logs that 1/22 sent a netmail to Net 397 (who picks
up here) so both netmails (the one to me and 397) should have been seen at the
same time.  So, if Roy has been routing to 19/0 it is highly likely those
netmails got lost.   Though he dropped off that netseg direct, he should have
did the same with any netmails.

Either way, that might explain some of the problem.

Matt

em: matt [at] thunderdome.us | icq: 16568532 | yahoo: mbedynek

---
 * Origin: ..::[ high speed feeds - http://fido.thunderdome.us/ ]::.. (1:106/1)