Text 1756, 178 rader
Skriven 2012-08-01 09:45:20 av mark lewis (1:3634/12.0)
   Kommentar till text 1701 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
Ärende: Ward's Z1 node number
=============================
 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...

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

the hell you say? that suxorz... all of the distribution systems i've known of
have been able to and have actually handled routed netmail... it is a no
brainer...

 MvdV>> What makes you think it was routed?

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

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

you are thinking too literally... are there not routing tables on your system
to tell your tosser and/or mailer where to send netmail?

 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" ;)

 MvdV> Indeed, you said "is supposed". So tell me where it says it "is
 MvdV> supposed". I can't find it anywhere in P4. 

i did point to P4 section and paragraph... two paragraphs, actually... it says
"must" in there... guess you couldn't find that either as you seem to indicate
above? ;)

 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.

i guess...

 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. 

really? you do not know what kind of configuration everyone has... i really do
have a special setup such that netmail from the 1:3634/9999 (and 1:3634/999)
nodes to 1:3634/0 are moved into a specific netmail area called "New
Applications"... if they aren't in there, i cannot guarantee that i will see
and recognize them as new applications and start the necessary processes...
those with existing node numbers are handled slightly differently but all are
required to use the proper form because additional processing is done on info
in there...

 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...

 MvdV> Yeah, yeah... 

hey, that's where "must" is used... ya lead a horse (you) to water (P4) and all
he does is piss in it (not even look at the cite) :/

 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.

instaneous communication aside, there is nothing that says that one must check
their netmail each and every day... hell man, i got so burnt out back around
y2k that my systems ran completely automated for about a year... i might have
scanned thru the messages once every few months if i could even do that without
getting physically sick... that burnout was extremely hard on me physically and
emotionally...

 MvdV> That two week period was never meant to give the coordinator an 
 MvdV> excuse to drag his feet. 

no one ever said or implied that it did...

 MvdV> Plus that by now it is over a month since the first contact over 
 MvdV> this issue.

first contact was asking where/who to contact to file an application... nothing
has been done by the originating party since then... at least, nothing has
shown up on the system that they were told to contact...

"ward: who do i contact for a Z1 node number?"
"bobS: you might try 1:140/0."
"time passes... nothing arrives..."
"tick tock tick tock tick tock"

 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. 

ok... and 1:140/0 has not received anything like an application for a node
number from ward yet...

"ward: who do i contact for a Z1 node number?"
"bobS: you might try 1:140/0."
"time passes... nothing arrives..."
"tick tock tick tock tick tock"

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

 MvdV> All according to policy .. sure.

i tacked that on because you did in the paragraph i was responding 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 is
 MvdV> 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 through
 MvdV> a charade to gain another two weeks of delay.. 

my understanding is that there has been no application sent... the original
contact was asking for information and that was answered but there has been
nothing else forthcoming... asking for information is NOT sending an
application...

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

 MvdV> Bullshit.

prove it!

"ward: who do i contact for a Z1 node number?"
"bobS: you might try 1:140/0."
"time passes... nothing arrives..."
"tick tock tick tock tick tock"

 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.

exactly! and that could be due to a miss in the routing tables on that machine
which one could take to mean that the message is hung up in routing :)

 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. 

mmmmhummm... and if ward tells you the sky is green you're going to believe him
or are you going to test it yourself? we already know you say you aren't in the
believing business ;)

"ward: who do i contact for a Z1 node number?"
"bobS: you might try 1:140/0."
"time passes... nothing arrives..."
"tick tock tick tock tick tock"

)\/(ark

 * Origin:  (1:3634/12)