Hello Michiel,

On 30 Dec 13 00:20, Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Ward Dossche:

 WD>> Meaning ... if ZC1, ZC2 and ZC3 enable it and ZC4 continues being
 WD>> MIA that all kinds of"wonderful things" can happen on his
 WD>> autopilot system. Right?

 MV> AFAIK, ZC4 already HAS it enabled. At least he had in february this
 MV> year.

Now that you mention it, I thought I remember Janis mentioning she passed 
it along to him and either helped him or made sure it was ready for when it 
was ready to be enabled, quite some time ago.

 MV> If I am wrong and the - how many, 3, 4, 7? - sysops in the Z4 segment
 MV> of the nodelist that aren't  ghost entries, get a fucked up nodelist
 MV> because their ZC is MIA again, then I say, they get what they deserve.

In my last message to Ward, I mentioned this same thing. I'm not sure which 
ones are ghost entries or not, but none of them were reachable via telnet 
(port 23 or binkp ports listed in the nodelist) when I tried, except for ZC4's 
system.

 MV> Now that we have come this far, should we really allow the less than a
 MV> handful of nodes left of a zone that has not been functioning as a
 MV> zone for several years, to hold all the rest of Fidonet at ransom and
 MV> stand in the way of progress?

At this point in time, I'd have to agree with you and say no. Then again, if 
ZC4 is able to change upon request, it would only be affected on those 
possible ghost systems. So what? :)

 MV> Is this fair to all the people that have worked on the project?

Definitely not. And probably discourages those few people that do actually 
contribute to development of FTN software, to not care to do anything more for 
the community if it's not going to be accepted and/or actually used.

Regards,
Nick

--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20130910
 * Origin: Dark Sorrow | darksorrow.us (1:154/701)