Text 1802, 272 rader
Skriven 2012-08-02 12:03:14 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
Kommentar till en text av mark lewis (1:3634/12.0)
Ärende: Ward's Z1 node number
=============================
Hello mark,
On Wednesday August 01 2012 09:45, you wrote to me:
MvdV>> The NADS is not used for netmail routing. Only for echomail
MvdV>> distribution.
ml> the hell you say? that suxorz... all of the distribution systems i've
ml> known of have been able to and have actually handled routed netmail...
ml> it is a no brainer...
I did not say that it /can/ not handle netmail, just that it isn't used for it.
MvdV>> I can't think of a third, but you insist that an application
MvdV>> fopr a node number should not be routed, but the first thing
MvdV>> you come up with is that it is held up in the routing. When the
MvdV>> first and prefeable option is to send it direct, a routing
MvdV>> problem would not be on top of my list.
ml> you are thinking too literally... are there not routing tables on your
ml> system to tell your tosser and/or mailer where to send netmail?
My tosser knows nothing about routing. My tosser is not used for netmail. Yes
there are routing tables for my mailers. One for Irex and one for Intermail.
The one for Intermail is just a relic from the past, I might as well do away
with it, I haven't used Intermail to send routed mail for ages. Irex is
configured to route only when there is no possibility for direct delivery.
ml>> i didn't say "MUST" ;)
MvdV>> Indeed, you said "is supposed". So tell me where it says it "is
MvdV>> supposed". I can't find it anywhere in P4.
ml> i did point to P4 section and paragraph... two paragraphs, actually...
ml> it says "must" in there... guess you couldn't find that either as you
ml> seem to indicate above? ;)
You are throwing a smoke screen again. Yes, the word "must" appears sevaral
times in the relevant section. E.g. it says that the application must be send
by netmail. But nowhere does it say, this netmail is supposed to be send direct
and that it may not be routed.
MvdV>> Though I agree that it is better to send it direct, as that
MvdV>> right away demonstrated the ability to do so, nowhere in policy
MvdV>> does it say anything about not routing it.
ml> i guess...
But it does not say that it MUST be send direct.
ml>>> and with the proper FROM address if one is going to go strictly
ml>>> by policy as you seem to be trying to do...
MvdV>>> What makes you think that an improper FROM address- i.e. an
MvdV>>> address that causes problems for the coordinator that receives
MvdV>>> it - was used?
ml>> it is a possibility...
MvdV>> Extremely unlikely.
ml> really? you do not know what kind of configuration everyone has...
I know that the coordinator in question does not carry the LO flag. So if the
use of an unlisted, but otherwise well formed address causes problems for him,
his setup is flakey.
ml> i really do have a special setup such that netmail from the
ml> 1:3634/9999 (and 1:3634/999) nodes to 1:3634/0 are moved into a
ml> specific netmail area called "New Applications"... if they aren't in
ml> there, i cannotguarantee that i will see and recognize them as new
ml> applications and start the necessary processes...
Oh, what a bullshit. Coordinators should stimulate the growth of the network
and this is not done by discouraging new sysops by making them jump through
hoops.
Special handling for mail coming from net/9999 may have been useful when
Fidonet was big and a coordinator got LOTS of new applications. Nowadays with
maybe one or two new application a year, this is utter nonsense and only serves
to put people off.
ml> those with existing node numbers are handled slightly differently but
ml> all are required to use the proper form because additional processing
ml> is done on info in there...
Setting up needless hoops conflicts with your duty to "stimulate the growth of
the network".
ml>> the instructions for getting a node number are contained in P4
ml>> Section 2.2 paragraphs 4 and 5... they also indicate that you may
ml>> be contacted for more information PLUS that one should wait for
ml>> up to two weeks for the request to be processed...
MvdV>> Yeah, yeah...
ml> hey, that's where "must" is used... ya lead a horse (you) to water
ml> (P4) and all he does is piss in it (not even look at the cite) :/
P4 provides /guidelines/. They were meant to /help/ people wanting to join. But
you are using it to find excuses for delaying or turning down an applicant. You
should be ashamed of yourself!
MvdV>> When the coordinator is not on holiday, in these days of almost
MvdV>> instantaneous fido communication, there is no reason why it
MvdV>> should take two weeks.
ml> instaneous communication aside, there is nothing that says that one
ml> must check their netmail each and every day...
Common sense says that a coordinator who is interested in "the smooth operation
of the newtwork" DOES check his netmail regularly.
ml> hell man, i got so burnt out back around y2k that my systems ran
ml> completely automated for about a year... i might have scanned thru the
ml> messages once every few months if i could even do that without getting
ml> physically sick... that burnout was extremely hard on me physically
ml> and emotionally...
I am sorry to hear that, but I also say that if it was that bad, you should
have deputised your coordinator duties to someone else.
MvdV>> That two week period was never meant to give the coordinator an
MvdV>> excuse to drag his feet.
ml> no one ever said or implied that it did...
Yes, you implied it.
MvdV>> Plus that by now it is over a month since the first contact
MvdV>> over this issue.
ml> first contact was asking where/who to contact to file an
ml> application... nothing has been done by the originating party since
ml> then... at least, nothing has shown up on the system that they were
ml> told to contact...
Or so you were made to believe.
ml> "ward: who do i contact for a Z1 node number?"
ml> "bobS: you might try 1:140/0."
ml> "time passes... nothing arrives..."
ml> "tick tock tick tock tick tock"
Or so you were made to believe. But actually you only have Janis' word for it,
who in turn only had Bob's word for it.
The other side of the story is that Ward told me he DID file a formal
application. So now it is Bob's and Janis'word against mine and Ward's...
ml>>> my understanding, as of 30 minutes ago, is that the NC that ward
ml>>> was pointed to has not received any application from ward yet...
MvdV>> It is my understanding that the NC that Ward was pointed to is
MvdV>> 1:140/0.
ml> ok... and 1:140/0 has not received anything like an application for a
ml> node number from ward yet...
Or so you were made to believe. But actually you only have Janis' word for it,
who in turn only had Bob's word for it.
The other side of the story is that Ward told me he DID file a formal
application. So now it is Bob's and Janis'word against mine and Ward's...
ml> "ward: who do i contact for a Z1 node number?"
ml> "bobS: you might try 1:140/0."
ml> "time passes... nothing arrives..."
ml> "tick tock tick tock tick tock"
Or so you were made to believe. But actually you only have Janis' word for it,
who in turn only had Bob's word for it.
The other side of the story is that Ward told me he DID file a formal
application. So now it is Bob's and Janis'word against mine and Ward's...
ml>> my understanding is that R17C pointed him to the proper NC... all
ml>> according to policy...
MvdV>> All according to policy .. sure.
ml> i tacked that on because you did in the paragraph i was responding
ml> to... you slung it so i slung it back at ya ;)
MvdV>> But not according to common sense if the RC and the NC that he
MvdV>> is referred to are the same person. If Bob wanted him to have a
MvdV>> number in net 1:140 instead of a RIN in R17, he could just have
MvdV>> swicthed hats on the fly and continued. Instead of going
MvdV>> through a charade to gain another two weeks of delay..
ml> my understanding is that there has been no application sent...
Or so you were made to believe. But actually you only have Janis' word for it,
who in turn only had Bob's word for it.
The other side of the story is that Ward told me he DID file a formal
application. So now it is Bob's and Janis'word against mine and Ward's...
ml> the original contact was asking for information and that was answered
ml> but there has been nothing else forthcoming... asking for information
ml> is NOT sending an application...
If that ois all what happened. My information says that a formal application
was sent.
ml>>> THAT application has not arrived for processing...
Or so you were made to believe. But actually you only have Janis' word for it,
who in turn only had Bob's word for it.
The other side of the story is that Ward told me he DID file a formal
application. So now it is Bob's and Janis'word against mine and Ward's...
MvdV>> Bullshit.
ml> prove it!
ml> "ward: who do i contact for a Z1 node number?"
ml> "bobS: you might try 1:140/0."
ml> "time passes... nothing arrives..."
ml> "tick tock tick tock tick tock"
Or so you were made to believe. But actually you only have Janis' word for it,
who in turn only had Bob's word for it.
The other side of the story is that Ward told me he DID file a formal
application. So now it is Bob's and Janis'word against mine and Ward's...
MvdV>>> So it was lost in the mail...
ml>> no, it has simply not arrived... it may still be sitting on the
ml>> sending machine
MvdV>> If it is still on the sending machine, it was not sent.
ml> exactly! and that could be due to a miss in the routing tables on that
ml> machine which one could take to mean that the message is hung up in
ml> routing :)
Bullshit. It is confirmed that the message asking for information arrived. So
no routing problems. you are throwing smoke and looking for excuses.
ml>> if it only operates on certain days and/or at certain
ml>> times... look at ward's spotty posting in this very echo for some
ml>> evidence of that...
MvdV>> If Ward says that it is sent, then of course that is all taken
MvdV>> into account.
ml> mmmmhummm... and if ward tells you the sky is green you're going to
ml> believe him or are you going to test it yourself? we already know you
ml> say you aren't in the believing business ;)
And if Janis tells you the sky is red, you'r going to believe her? Or are you
going to look for yourself?
ml> "ward: who do i contact for a Z1 node number?"
ml> "bobS: you might try 1:140/0."
ml> "time passes... nothing arrives..."
ml> "tick tock tick tock tick tock"
Or so you were made to believe. But actually you only have Janis' word for it,
who in turn only had Bob's word for it.
The other side of the story is that Ward told me he DID file a formal
application. So now it is Bob's and Janis'word against mine and Ward's...
Cheers, Michiel
--- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20110320
* Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)
|