Text 1244, 83 rader
Skriven 2006-05-16 15:18:06 av Roy Witt (1:1/22)
   Kommentar till text 1234 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
Ärende: Immediate Action Require
================================
16 May 06 17:10, Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Roy Witt:

 MvdV> Hello Roy.

 MvdV> 15 May 06 10:43, you wrote to me:

 RW>> 15 May 06 09:44, Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Carol Shenkenberger:
 MvdV>>> I do not think it is *totally* harmless.

 MvdV>>> 1) A new applicant could be mislead into believing the net/9999
 MvdV>>> number is *whereto* he/she should send the application.

 RW>> Not if he read policy first.

 MvdV> And if he didn't read P4 he can be mislead. He attempts to send an
 MvdV> application to net/9999, fails and gives up.

Then he begins to look around, if he's a smart sysop, and sends his app to
a node that answers the phone/binkd, etc...if he doesn't, he probably
wouldn't be happy in Fidonet anyway.

 MvdV>  he never gett to know about the existence of P4. One potential new
 MvdV> node lost.

Not a very curious individual, in that case.

 RW>> How do you know who to send it to? By reading policy

 MvdV> And how do you know you can find these facts in p$ if you have
 MvdV> never heard about it before?

Obviously, you already know there's a Fidonet by logging onto a BBS and
reading the echoes.

 RW>> and finding out that not only do you send your application to the
 RW>> Z:net/0 person listed in the nodelist; NODELIST!?, where do I find
 RW>> that!? Oh, there it is in policy, I get that from the same
 RW>> Z:net/0...

 MvdV> Information that those who have never heard about the existance of
 MvdV> P4 will not attempt to look for. Escpecially not if they have a
 MvdV> nodelist that lists net/9999 as "new application"

It will make no difference in any case. They'd be hard up to use that
number because they don't know what software to use. If they can't figure
out what /9999 is for, then they're going to ask questions, if they're any
kind of interested.

 MvdV>>> 2) An NC putting such an entry in his segment shows (IMHO) that
 MvdV>>> he does not fully understand the mechanism of new applications.
 MvdV>>> An NC not fully understanding what he is doing is not totally
 MvdV>>> harmless....

 RW>> Hmmmm, that's some crazy logic. The NC who puts /9999 in the
 RW>> nodelist knows how the system works.

 MvdV> Apparently he does not know that net/9999 should not be in the
 MvdV> nodelist and that an NC should never configure his system as LO.

It makes no difference, as anyone who uses /9999, already knows what to do
next. They've read what documentation is available, even if they  haven't
found P4 yet. That LO flag is irrelevant, unless the new sysop uses the
zone:-1/-1 nodenumber which is suggested as first choice in P4. But he
wouldn't do that, because he's not read the document?

 RW>> A new app, if he's read policy, will use that number to send his app
 RW>> 'from'

 MvdV> or from -1/-1 as P4 meantions as the *first* option.

That too.

 RW>>  and thus, the LO flag means diddly squat!

 MvdV> And thus will be rejected because -1/-1 is unlistd.

You don't know that. The NC may be augmenting his nodelist with that
nodenumber in a private nodelist.


Roy
--- Twit(t) Filter v2.1 (C) 2000
 * Origin: Hacienda de Rio de Guadalupe * South * Texas, USA * (1:1/22)