BBS: TELESC.NET.BR Assunto: Re: #1 in Google De: Dan Clough Data: Mon, 16 Mar 2026 11:04:22 -0500 ----------------------------------------------------------- -=> Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Dan Clough <=- MvV>> Consider this: Not only is 2:2/29 in violation of P4, it also is MvV>> incomplient with the FTSC standards. In particular FTS-5000.005. MvV>> So what we see is that in order to "save" the FTSC the FTSC MvV>> standard is violated. Instigated by the IC/ZC2. Hold on to that MvV>> thought... DC> Yeah, none of that makes any logical sense. Makes one wonder about DC> "ulterior motives". Why save an organization that is ignored any way? MvV> I don't know about the "ulterior motives" but ineed, why save a paper MvV> tiger? I don't know why it (FTSC) needs to be saved. I think the answer is closely tied to the "motives" question, though. Maybe there's only one person who knows the answer? MvV>> *1) By the IC - without any consultation with the Fidonet MvV>> community - who introduced the so called MOB nodes by decree. MvV>> And forcing RCs to accept and process nodelist segments in MvV>> violation of FTS-5000. DC> Wow. That's pretty disturbing. Not even sure what MOB nodes are, MvV> Something like this: MvV> ,865,Lucas_Visions,Mortsel,Luc_Sienaert,-Unpublished-,300,U,MOB MvV> See also my article in Fidonews 36:43 [01/07] Yep, I just finished reading the article. Those MOB nodes make no more sense than the invalid 2:2/29 entry. Sure would like to know the actual/real reason that Ward wants such things in the nodelist, and how he justifies disregarding P4 so blatantly. I have a hope that he might jump in here and shed some light, but as a medical precaution I won't be holding my breath. Thanks for the information you've provided. ... Apathy Error: Strike any key...or none, for that matter. === MultiMail/Linux v0.52 --- SBBSecho 3.37-Linux * Origin: Palantir * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL * (1:135/115) ----------------------------------------------------------- [Voltar]