Text 1388, 110 rader
Skriven 2009-11-20 18:09:32 av Roy Witt (1:387/22)
   Kommentar till text 1367 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
Ärende: FidoNews 26:45 [01/0
============================
20 Nov 09 00:42, Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Roy Witt:

 MvdV> Hello Roy,

 MvdV> On Thursday November 19 2009 13:48, you wrote to me:

 MvdV>>> Of course they are. The ZyXElNET Gate, the SIGnet Gate and the
 MvdV>>> VirNet gate are zonegates as documented by the FTSC.

 RW>> Which are as obsolete as the IC.

 MvdV> Not really. InterFido zonegates (1-5|6) are obsolete as they were
 MvdV> only needed for 2D only software. But gates to zones >6 (othernets)
 MvdV> are still usefull as they can be used to send mail to nodes in the
 MvdV> othernet without the need to have a nodelist for that othernet.

So, the gates aren't exactly 100% Fidonet, but 50/50...

 MvdV>>> The FidoNet side of those gates is 100% FidoNet.

 RW>> Virtual Net is 100% Fidonet? Zyxelnet is 100% Fidonet?

 MvdV> No, but the Fidonet side of the Gateway is.

That makes them 50% Fidonet.

 MvdV>>> MasCanc is an ordinary ZIN.

 RW>> Where does P4 define an 'ordinary ZIN'? :o) Nowhere.

 MvdV> I define it

I asked for a definition from P4.

 MvdV> as a ZIN that is assigned to a node that can for one
 MvdV> reason or another not be accomodated in a net or as a RIN. This
 MvdV> opposed to administrative AKAs.

 MvdV>>> It is not an AKA of a regular node number.

 RW>> So it's NOT an ordinary ZIN...

 MvdV> It is, as opposed to a ZIN AKA.

 MvdV>>> No idea why he has a ZIN instead of a number in normal net,
 MvdV>>> but it sure is a FidoNet node. Of course FidoNet.org is also
 MvdV>>> FidoNet.

 RW>> Sure it is, 100% bullshit...

 MvdV> As was your 1:1/22 ZIN?

What one could call a stop-gap measure, listing. Until the rift between
the RC19 and myself was resolved, it served it's purpose. But yes, it was
a bullshit way to circumvent Bedynek's 'no RINs in R19 ruling'...

 MvdV>>> Just like the Z2PK entry. The Z2PK keeps maintains a list
 MvdV>>> of FidoNet point numbers. A FidoNet point number is a FidoNet
 MvdV>>> address.

 RW>> Not! If they were, they'd be included in the 'Official Fidonet
 RW>> Nodelist'...they may have Fidonet 'type' node numbers.

 MvdV> A Fidonet address has the format z:n/f.p@fidonet. The address of a
 MvdV> point is Fidonet *address*.

Perhaps in Z2, but it doesn't cut the mustard here.

 MvdV>>> If not, I would still be the FTSC adminstrator. FTA-1003 is the
 MvdV>>> authoritative document.

 RW>> But of course. You don't need a special Z-node number to reflect
 RW>> that.

 MvdV> Indeed. It was Ward's idea. Initially I was reluctant to accept it.
 MvdV> It took some persuasion from Ward. Now that I have it I find it
 MvdV> useful to differentiate between posting that I write   titre
 MvdV> personel and postings that I write as administrator.

I see you write this often: "I write   titre"

Is that a mixture of Dutch and English?

 MvdV>>> So you have no proof. Figures...

 RW>> I didn't say that. You made the assumption, again.

 MvdV> Not an sassumption, a deduction, If you had proof you would have
 MvdV> presented it.

Or not. The proof was presented at the time of your attempted hijacking.
It doesn't need to be presented again, unless you want to see it again to
job your memory of it.

 MvdV> Having proof and not presenting it to back up an accusation is
 MvdV> illogical.

Logic has failed you this time. If you want to see it, I'll post it for
you.

 MvdV> You are not illogical.

Thanks for that.


                R\%/itt

    You can put lipstick on a pig, but the pig still stinks!
--- Twit(t) Filter v2.1 (C) 2000
 * Origin: SATX Alamo Area Net * South * Texas, USA * (1:387/22)