Text 1443, 67 rader
Skriven 2008-03-24 17:26:58 av mark lewis (1:3634/12.0)
   Kommentar till text 1382 av Ward Dossche (2:292/854)
Ärende: Nomination
==================
 WD> I was not in that discussion, but I would like to remind
 WD> nevertheless that there is a ZC who for years has been asking not
 WD> to introduce numbers with three leading zeroes, and all-zero
 WD> numbers qualify, because in his home country that is a national
 WD> emergency number and he could be in deep shit if it ever would
 WD> set-off an alarm somewhere.

true... however, one of the ZCs also set a precdent by using a program to alter
the nodelist in their zone... this same tool or a similar one can/could also be
used to replace these types of numbers with an entity that that ZC finds more
acceptible... this is one of the several reasons why Z1 choose to use the
000-0-0-0-0 format until such time as something else was available...

another reason was so as to NOT hurt the connectivity capabilities of those
systems which can use info in field 6 and no where else... but no! "you folk"
obviously don't give a damn about that... "you can change your software" is
your argument... no, not everyone can... why should i give up the capabilities
i have now for some crap that everyone fights with all the time and get even
get a basic system using their preferred software operational?? :roll:

even so, something else could be used instead of 000- for those systems that
can use IP information in field 6 but others whine, whinge, and cry about the
possibility of placing letters in that field... one of the most popular mailers
in fidonet has/had no problem with that or the 000- IP indicator in field 6...
however, many others have their own agendas and are simply flat against using
field 6 for contact "numbers" but they happily use other fields for something
other than what they were intended for? gimme a break :(
  
 WD> I've been on a years long crusade against these "000-" numbers only
 WD> to see them replaced by "00-0" "0-00" "0-0-0" ...

yes, ward... you've been on numerous crusades over the years... sadly, some of
them have lead us into the shitbucket that we find ourselves in now and trying
to get out of... you, sir, set that precedent i speak of above and you first
set it when you changed the defacto-definition of _USER_flags to include "ZC
approved" when they never had to be before...

you posed the question, recently, to xxcarol asking about advocating ZCs
altering the nodelist... you already do this so why are you asking about it?
the IC position has been defunct for many many years... however, when Malcolm
(Z3C) was selected for the position when you were ousted from it, he could
easily have stated that these types of numbers were not to be used... however,
all of this is dancing right on that old politician vs technician dance floor
that has been under us for so many years... i tried and tried and tried along
with some others but no... the technician doesn't know a damned thing and we
politicians will shout him/them down whenever the discussion comes up... not
only that, but we'll just keep up the battle and keep everything in confusion
until "they" go away, or give up, or are such a minority that it won't make any
difference and the politicians will win yet another effin' fightonet war :(
  
 WD> It really must be a big problem, a really really big problem, to
 WD> comply with such a basic simple honest request from a
 WD> colleague-sysop and ZC.  

yeah... must be, hunh... the ZCs have been managing the creation of the
nodelists for their zones ever since the IC hat became nothing more than a wall
hanging... one of the IC's jobs was to create the netwide nodelist and
distribute it... but since the ZCs already do this on their own, and there's at
least one that edits the nodelist to suit his ideas of what the nodelist should
contain and how it should contain it, well... surely those zones that have a
problem with this could have, years and years ago, filtered it to fit their
zone's needs... and if they are already doing this, then what's your bitch
about? :(

)\/(ark

 * Origin:  (1:3634/12)