Text 6011, 128 rader
Skriven 2013-01-25 17:02:00 av Bob Seaborn (1:140/12)
   Kommentar till text 6007 av Nicholas Boel (17207.fidonews)
Ärende: Z4
==========
 >   Re: Z4
 >   By: Roy Witt to Nicholas Boel on Fri Jan 25 2013 12:21 pm
 >
 >RW> So, you could have done this all on your own, using a PVT listing and
 > no
 >RW> one would be the wiser, if you didn't put a 'location' in the listing.
 >RW> Meanwhile, your new node could be working on this RC to get his shit
 >RW> together.
 >
 > Well, it sort of happened like that. Except instead of a PVT listing
 > under my
 > net, he was told to use a "temporary" node number under the RC -- which


      HOGWASH!! You are still spreading mistruths yet again.  I'd suggest you
shutting up since it's very clear that you don't know what you are talking
about.


      Since when would a temporary node number of 1:140/999 be considered
'under the RC".  I make it under NC140.  Betcha don't even know who that is
without looking it up.




 > Joe has
 > pointed out a great bit today, that that shouldn't have happened
 > (/unless/ the
 > RC was also the acting NC). The RC should have let the applicant know
 > who the
 > appropriate NC was, so he could go from there.
 >
 >NB>> He actually did, amusingly enough. And told him that the netmail has
 >NB>> to be setup directly with the RC. You see, we've already tried that
 >NB>> and let him know it wasn't working properly.. so there's really only
 >NB>> one thing left to do..
 >
 >RW> List him in your net.
 >
 > Agreed. I have one more option that we're going to try, which is still
 > the
 > promoted way of doing things, just bypassing the person that couldn't
 > get his
 > shit together. We'll see how that goes, I guess.
 >
 >RW> I guess I did miss that. So what you're saying is that the RC replied
 > to a
 >RW> request for a listing, but failed to set the correct attributes of that
 >RW> reply.
 >
 > Something like that. Or his configuration for that "temporary" node
 > number was
 > allowing netmailed to be received at the RCs system, but not sent back
 > to the
 > applicant (by this, I mean it sitting in their outbound so the applicant
 > can
 > pick it up the next time they poll, since there is usually no valid
 > binkd
 > address to send to at that time).

      Or (more likely) the person 'helping' the new node didn't have a clue!



 >
 > All of this was done per the RCs instructions, and it failed on
 > receiving any
 > kind of netmail reply from him. Then the RC blamed the applicant's
 > system as
 > being the reason why it wasn't working. [shakes head]
 >
 >RW> I think the only consequence of that would be like the R12 story above.
 > P4
 >RW> would call it annoying, but it wouldn't cost you anything to do so.
 >
 > True. Yet IIRC, it would be equally as annoying that the person in
 > question
 > didn't do their job as an RC, by delegating the work to the correct NC,
 > but
 > rather took it upon himself to try and accept or deny an applicant.
 >
 > So doesn't that cancel each other out? :)
 >
 >RW> Especially in this day and age of relaxed policy.
 >
 > I'm beginning to realize the hell out of this. Yet the first thing
 > people like
 > to do is refer to it, and force it down your throat.
 >
 >RW> Heh. At my age, I know that my head has shrunken from the size it was
 > when
 >RW> I was your age. The facial skin sags, your nose and ears appear to grow
 >RW> larger, and your teeth are like stars, they come out at night. If I
 > could
 >RW> see my eyes without my glasses, I'd say that they're blue pools,
 >RW> cesspools.
 >
 > :)  Such is life. And I don't think I've ever seen an exact age of
 > yours, I
 > remember you mentioned you were older than Bob Bashe, and he said he was
 > like
 > 72? Look at it this way, You've probably outlived the majority of people
 > born
 > in your year of birth, and you don't seem to be going anywhere anytime
 > soon.
 > You've obviously done something right! :)
 >
 >RW> If this continues, I may have to take up drinking Belgian beer, to kill
 > of
 >RW> a few brain cells so that the brain shrinks enough to fit in the
 > shrunken
 >RW> skull.
 >
 > HAH. I must admit some are pretty good, though some of the ones that are
 > more
 > alcohol content than most wines aren't very good, and probably could in
 > fact
 > kill brain cells. :)
 >
 > Regards,
 > Nick
 >
 > --- SBBSecho 2.20-Linux
 >  * Origin: thePharcyde_ telnet://bbs.pharcyde.org (Wisconsin) (1:154/10)

--- GEcho/32 & IM 2.50
 * Origin: http://www.fidonet.ca (1:140/12)