Text 1701, 125 rader
Skriven 2012-07-31 22:40:08 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 Monday July 30 2012 17:47, you wrote to me:

 MvdV>>> If it was send and not received it was lost wasn't it?

 ml>> it may still be in route... your nads stuff has added a lot of
 ml>> hops to messages arriving here that used to be only two or three
 ml>> hops away...

The NADS is not used for netmail routing. Only for echomail distribution.

 MvdV>> What makes you think it was routed?

 ml> it is but one possibility... there are only two...

I can't think of a third, but you insist that an application fopr a node number
should not be routed, but the first thing you come up with is that it is held
up in the routing. When the first and prefeable option is to send it direct, a
routing problem would not be on top of my list.

 ml>> BUT an application for a node number is supposed to be delivered
 ml>> DIRECT

 MvdV>> Is it? Please point me to the part of P4 where it says that
 MvdV>> then netmail with the application MUST be sent direct.

 ml> i didn't say "MUST" ;)

Indeed, you said "is supposed". So tell me where it says it "is supposed". I
can't find it anywhere in P4. Though I agree that it is better to send it
direct, as that right away demonstrated the ability to do so, nowhere in policy
does it say anything about not routing it.

 ml> however, one would be very trusting if they sent in an application
 ml> containing session, packet, area manager and file manager passwords
 ml> via routed netmail...

That's another story. a new node may want to set up a secure connection with
his NC, but if he does not want echomail or files from him, there is no need. I
have secure connections with many of the nodes in my net, but not with all.

 ml> i have, personally, never gotten an application sent to me via routed
 ml> netmail... everyone who wants a node number in this network is pointed
 ml> to the 3634.APP file to download and follow the instructions contained
 ml> within... that is our official application form and we have not
 ml> deviated from it since i joined this net...

Aw.. c'mon. In this day and age, there is no need for all that formality. I do
not have an application form, never had. I just tell em what I need to know to
complete the application and they give me the information. One way or another.

 ml> with folk in some cases but those cases are few and far between... the
 ml> application must arrive via netmail and

I am not that strict.

 ml> i must be able to respond to them via netmail before i issue a node
 ml> number...

Oh sure. I will not complete the final step until I am sure that direct netmail
works both ways.

 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...

Extremely unlikely. The only thing that will cause problems is the use of an
existing node number that is in use by someone else. Anything else points to a
musconfiguration of the NC's system. Ward is not so stupid as to use an
existing node number in use by someone else.

 ml> the instructions for getting a node number are contained in P4 Section
 ml> 2.2 paragraphs 4 and 5... they also indicate that you may be contacted
 ml> for more information PLUS that one should wait for up to two weeks for
 ml> the request to be processed...

Yeah, yeah... When the coordinator is not on holiday, in these days of almost
instantaneous fido communication, there is no reason why it should take two
weeks.  That two week period was never meant to give the coordinator an excuse
to drag his feet. Plus that by now it is over a month since the first contact
over this issue.

 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...

It is my understanding that the NC that Ward was pointed to is 1:140/0.

 ml> my understanding is that R17C pointed him to the proper NC... all
 ml> according to policy...

All according to policy .. sure.

But not according to common sense if the RC and the NC that he is referred to
are the same person. If Bob wanted him to have a number in net 1:140 instead of
a RIN in R17, he could just have swicthed hats on the fly and continued.
Instead of going through a charade to gain another two weeks of delay..

 ml>>  THAT application has not arrived for processing...

Bullshit.

 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

If it is still on the sending machine, it was not sent.

 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...

If Ward says that it is sent, then of course that is all taken into account.


Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20110320
 * Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)