Text 967, 79 rader
Skriven 2012-07-20 13:06:10 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
     Kommentar till en text av mark lewis (1:3634/12.0)
Ärende: dupes!
==============
Hello mark,

On Thursday July 19 2012 13:41, you wrote to me:

 MvdV>> The only one I now of now is 250/1.  RC25 had the opportunity
 MvdV>> to prevent this when renumbering the region to a single net. He
 MvdV>> missed out. His bad.

 ml> there is no restrictions on it...

There should be...

 ml> it can and may very well come up again... why waste numbers by
 ml> skipping them if there is no good reason?

1) Wasting is only a problem when there is shortage. There is no shortage of
Fidonet node numers, even if we only use 2D numbering.

2) There is a good reason to avoid duplicate net/node combinations.

When introducing zones, a basic flaw in echomail distribution was introduced by
not upgrading the seen-by and path infornation to 3D. Avoiding duplicate
net/node combinations is a workaround for this flaw.

 MvdV>> Plus that 1:250/1 is an administrative AKA that should not be
 MvdV>> used in echomail anyway.

 ml> really? why?

P4 3.4

Coordinators are discouraged from acting as echomail and software-distri-
bution hubs.  If they do so, they should handle echomail (or other volume
distribution) on a system other than the administrative system.  A coordina-
tor's system should be readily available to the levels immediately above and
below.

 ml>  and if this is so, how come 2:203/0 is in the path and seenby lines?

Someone is not following that part of P4.

 ml> if they are not to be used in echomail then that would include all
 ml> aspects of echomail, would it not?

Yes.

Other than that: 1:250/1 is a vanity listing, The NEC user flag in (one of) the
regular listing(s) of the NEC suffices to identify the NEC.

 ml>> some are reporting that posts are still not propagating fully...
 ml>> this is one possible reason for such...

 MvdV>> No, that is not the reason.

 ml> you say that as if you know the reason...

You are jumping to conclusions. It is very well possible to eliminate one or
more items from a list of possible causes, without eliminating all but one.

 MvdV>> The very few duplicates are not involved.

The duplicate net/number combination(s).

 ml> it isn't the duplicates that are the problem... it is the lack of full
 ml> propogation that is the problem... there are only so many reasons for
 ml> this...

And I have eliminated the duplicate of 1:250/1 and 2:250/1 from my list.

Still on my list are:

A) Messages are lost at 1:140/1. This is known to have happened before.
B) Someone is censoring this echo. It is known to have happened before.


Cheers, Michiel

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