Text 10243, 97 rader
Skriven 2010-09-06 10:57:28 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
  Kommentar till text 10234 av Dale Shipp (1:261/1466.0)
�rende: Fido
============
Hello Dale,

On Monday September 06 2010 02:59, you wrote to me:

 MVDV>> You are entitled to your opinion. It is however just an opinion.
 MVDV>> Since you have no authority on the matter, let  alone any power of
 MVDV>> enforcement, I shall ignore your opinion  and act on my own.

 DS> It is an opinion based upon understanding the written word.

In your case: obviously a misunderstanding.

 MVDV>> It mentions the justifications for an exception. You do not
 MVDV>> qualify.

 DS> Why not?

Read the section is question:

 P4> Persons requesting private nodes should be supported as points if
 P4> possible.  A private listing is justified when the system must
 P4> interface with many others, such as an echomail distributor.

Is it possible for you to run as a point? I would say the answer is yes. MUST
you interface with many others? Are you an echomail distributor? Seems to me
the answer to both questions is no. You do not qualify for a private listing.

You do precisely what you claim I do: you only follow those parts of policy
that fit your agenda and you ignore what does not.

 DS> It allows for exceptions, and it is in the judgement of the
 DS> *C chain whether or not any exception is permissible.

An NC does not have the authority to violate P4. Which obviously happened. And
by accepting the listing you made yourself an accomplice to the violation.

 DS>> Unlike you, I'm not making up words that are not there, nor
 DS>> ignoring words that I don't like.

 MVDV>> You ignore "Persons requesting private nodes should be
 MVDV>> supported as points if possible."

 DS> I never requested a private node.  It was given to me without
 DS> requesting it.

Then it is even worse. If you did not request a private listing you should have
been given a normal listing.

However, when requesting your node number you must have given some clue that
you wanted a private listing. For example by given a "phone number" of
"-Unpublished-".

 MVDV>> You can only be contacted through your uplink. So you have
 MVDV>> the reachability of a point. It is possible for you to run
 MVDV>> as a point. According to P4 2.1.9 you should BE a point.

 DS> That is up to the *C chain.

*Cs do not have the liberty to ignore those parts of policy that do not fit
their agenda.

 DS>> Like it or not, PVT systems are allowed and do exist for a
 DS>> variety of reasons.

 MVDV>> Like it or not, EP1 does not prohibit non ASCII.

 DS> It is quite explicit.

Yes, it is. It prohibits ASCII characters in the range 128-255.

 MVDV>> � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
 MVDV>> � �  � � � �
 MVDV>> � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �
 MVDV>> � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �

 DS> And all of those are 8-bit characters, commonly called the Extended
 DS> ASCII set.

Sometimes WRONGLY called Extended ASCII.

Argue till you see blue in the face, thsoe characters are NOT ASCII.

 DS> They are not permissible according to EP1 -- which may be
 DS> one of the reasons it was not adopted as policy.

If so, it was rejected for the wrong reasons. The above characters - and many
more - are not prohibited by EP1, they are not "ASCII 128-255".

I understand why you believe EP1 forbids all non ASCII characters. As I
mentioned before, we made the same mistake in the early days. Until we saw the
light....


Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20070503
 * Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)