BBS:      TELESC.NET.BR
Assunto:  Re: #1 in Google
De:       Dan Clough
Data:     Wed, 18 Mar 2026 09:39:54 -0500
-----------------------------------------------------------
-=> Ward Dossche wrote to Dan Clough <=-

 WD> Hello Dan,

 DC> MvV> ,865,Lucas_Visions,Mortsel,Luc_Sienaert,-Unpublished-,300,U,MOB

 DC> Yep, I just finished reading the article.  Those MOB nodes make no more
 DC> sense than the invalid 2:2/29 entry.  Sure would like to know the
 DC> actual/real reason that Ward wants such things in the nodelist, and how
 DC> he justifies disregarding P4 so blatantly.

 WD> I'm not certain how the concept of user-flags is interpreted in Z1, or
 WD> even if it is used at all, but this is what FTS-5001.006 showed when I
 WD> went looking:

 WD> ************************************************************************
 WD> ****
 WD> 6.1 Format Of User Flags
 WD> ....
 WD>   Entries following the "U" flag must be of a technical or
 WD>   administrative nature. While experimentation of new software
 WD>   functions using this flag is encouraged, advertisement is strictly
 WD>   prohibited.
 WD> ************************************************************************
 WD> ****

 WD> Pls read carefully "While experimentation of new software functions
 WD> using this flag is encouraged..."

 WD> As it was, the developper of Aftershock Anatoly Vdovichev claimed he
 WD> was working on technology which would allow his product, which
 WD> basically is a primitive mail-out only system on Android, to accept a
 WD> kind of inbound-connections as long as there was WiFi connectivity. He
 WD> requested a specific user-flag AFS to indicate a mobile node using an
 WD> Aftershock implementation. That was Sept.8 2017 ... close to 9 years
 WD> ago. Mind you, that is the time frame Michiel is referencing.

 WD> The same day, for identical reasons another user-flag HDG was
 WD> introduced to indicate a mobile node using an HotdogEd implementation
 WD> (HotdogEd being also a primitive mail-out only system on Android).

 WD> As a catch-all measure for any software surfacing with the same
 WD> intentions, I invented the MOB user-flag indicating a mobile node using
 WD> an unidentified platform or implementation. Sept.11 2017.

 WD> Sept 23 2017 Because of redundancies AFS- and HDG-user-flags were
 WD> discontinued. Only MOB remained for these testing purposes and a number
 WD> of entries were introduced into the nodelist. The development went
 WD> nowhere and the user-flag was scrapped in 2022.

 WD> Please tell me what your problem is when a developer wants to attempt
 WD> something which the FTSC-pope from the Netherlands doesn't like?

I'd say it is so much what that particular person "doesn't like".  I 
think it was more that that person was the one who felt like standing up 
(or at least speaking out) against something which he thought was an 
over-use of the "authority" granted to a ZC/IC.  Specifically, the way 
the new user-flags were just "decreed" rather than being 
discussed/ratified by whoever (other ZCs, maybe RCs).  That's all.

 WD> The intention was to have hand-held nodes which would work from
 WD> anywhere without any set-up tinckering ... you live in the US, go to
 WD> South Africa, flip open your phone and get served with your mail
 WD> without having to initiate anything or wade through set-up files...

 WD> Over the years there have been other weird/funny flags which you could
 WD> say are a violation of something somewhere .... for example the BEER
 WD> user-flag, AVI4 and AVI6. You need a list so you can become upset and
 WD> thinking you have discovered the holy grail?

No, I don't need a list.  Please note your own snarkiness here...

 DC> I have a hope that he might jump in here and shed some light, but as a
 DC> medical precaution I won't be holding my breath.

 WD> What kind of a preposterous assumption is that? If a person approaches
 WD> me respectfully, I will deal with it respectfully ... not in how you're
 WD> proceeding here wihout understanding what you are dealing with.

It wasn't an assumption.  It was a statement made based on my prior 
experiences when trying to discuss something with you.  Quite honestly, 
the usual process has been one of the below:
1. Complete ignoring of the question(s), because it would have made you 
look bad, or possibly your realization that your position was completely 
non-defensable.
2. A (sort-of) answer, which more often than not was just 
deflection/diversion/denial/smoke-and-mirrors.  AKA just bullshit.

 WD> To quote my good friend Nick Andre, indeed... "good friend", "Everyone
 WD> thinks that the work of a ZC is limited to producing a nodelist weekly.
 WD> it is so much more that no one ever sees." He reminded me of that
 WD> wisdom last week when we were on the phone for close to an hour ironing
 WD> out a myriad of things.

I am aware that there is plenty of behind-the-scenes work involved.

 WD> 2:2/29 ??  I don't understand at all what the problem is with a
 WD> nodelist entry from a guy you don't know, who doesn't interest you, who
 WD> doesn't bother you and whom you're certainly not going to try to
 WD> crashmail. Don't tell me that the presence of that one node limits how
 WD> you can enjoy your Fidonet hobby.

No, it doesn't affect me, really.  It's more just that it's so BLATANTLY 
invalid, and is there as a ZIN with the obvious knowledge of the ZC, who 
doesn't seem to care about the requirements of P4.  Basically it's not 
the expected conduct of somebody in that position - maybe an ignorant NC 
or something would do it, but at least *I* would expect better from a 
ZC.

 WD> But if absolute compliance with P4 is such a holy cow from your
 WD> perspective the weekly nodelist production is the task of the IC, not a
 WD> ZC .... any ZC ...as stated in P4, but you haven't stumbled upon that
 WD> yet either.

See above about the expected conduct of a ZC, and just substitute "IC" 
for "ZC".  Hope that helps you understand, and I *have* read that in P4.  

You don't need to reply if you don't want to, as there probably isn't 
any further useful content that can be supplied by either of us.  Bottom 
line is that you're violating P4, you don't seem to care, and there's nothing 
any of us can do about it.



... Oxymoron: A contradiction in terms, e.g. rap music...
=== MultiMail/Linux v0.52
--- SBBSecho 3.37-Linux
 * Origin: Palantir * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL * (1:135/115)

-----------------------------------------------------------
[Voltar]