MvdV>> All done! 1002 nodes read, 19 flagged as ;E .
BP> w@rd could need a hand to mark them ;E in nodelist, why does errflags BP> allow it :/
As I have said many times, the config for errflags the current ZC2 uses is incomplete. It allows flags in lines that should not be allowed (think about redundancy), and it forbid (old) flags that are technically still possible to use. And third it has not grown up to new flags such as V92 and V44. So that filter is thechnicaly spoken incorrect. And forth, the Z2C errflags config is used for political reasons, which is wrong as it should only be used for technical correct lines, or in a perfect world of NodeList clercks, not at all needed. The magical word here is "selfcorrecting" the output one sents after prereading. So "(s)think" before hitting the send knob ;-). And second fullfill corrections from the upper level if asked politely and in time (i.e. within a week) for the next official FidoNet NodeList.
BP> its not a problem for me since none of them is downlinks or uplinks here
The official FidoNet NodeList is like a phonebook that should only show stations that are really contactable. 3 Years on Hold is rediculous f.i. The main purpose are human BBS callers and automated mailers at nodes. Have you ever seen a paper phonebook with the term "unpublisch" behind a name at the place of the phonenumber?
It can also be of importance for you as you want or need to sent that unreachable node a private CrashNetMail. That way it is a problem for every participant, BBSusers, SysOp's, Points etc. Hopefully some time most NodeList clercks see the right light, or are helped? Good luck in connecting to others listed in the NodeList.
Henri.
--- * Origin: Connectivity is the Future; UniCorn BBS 31 26 4425506 (2:280/1208)
