AV> However, I'd like to know your official position.
Sure, but whenever someone uses Z2C to talk to me, it is political...
AV> The "sudden" problem is a practical killing of a region. AV> Yes, I realize that current R45C isn't a brilliant technical expert, but AV> existing practice (look at R50) proves the validity of "keep strict while AV> keeping simple" approach.
It is none of my own doing, that segment has been sent "as is" by the current non-brilliant-technical-expert residing in the 2:45/0 seat.
You may be aware I am concerned about the dead wood in the nodelist. 2 major contributors here that I am certain of are R40 and R45. R40 has a non-responsive RC [it seems if I need to reach him I need to send a netmail to Vladimir Donskoy who will then send him an SMS via GSM because he doesn't respond via Fidonet] but RC45 somewhat can be reached.
For years I've been asking RC45 to look into his segment because IP is everywhere in the nodelist, but in R45 it is as good as nowhere ... strange, not impossible but improbable at that level. He always said for 3 years it was perfectly valid the way it is, not a single update in 3 years.
Via R50-questions I sort of learned that there were a few active patches in R45 but connecting direct to R50 somewhere, more like points but not as a networked Fidonet-organisation, i.e. not via a structured network.
So I got fed-up with this not believing the situation and netmailed all the nodes in R45 delivering the bundle at RC45's system, my only +/- IP-contact. This was the netmail:
***************************************************************************** Due to the very long inactivity of the nodelist segment for your Fidonet region, I am sending you this netmail to check the validity of your entry as well as to see whether your node still is active.
The majority of Fidonet's nodes have migrated to IP-links but in R45 there hardly are any, and I'm seeking the region for this.
So when you see this message, please netmail reply to it to me so I can see you're still there. ****************************************************************************
Within the hour RC45 replied that none of these netmails would be received by their destinations because all of the nodes in R45 are in passthrough mode and don't read netmail ...
Duh ? ??
Just so you are aware ... all communications I have with RC45 are via Facebook-chat as he seems incompetent to send a netmail ... personally I also believe that none of these netmails ever got routed to their destination. Can't prove it however.
Within hours RC45 delivered sort of what we have now, however he had removed all "hub" and all "host" entries. When asked about that he stated R45 did not need hubs nor hosts as all nodes are operating at the same level and are connected in a ring ... completely oblivious to the fact that by removing the host-entries all nodes received a de-facto new nodenumber, became de-facto regional-independants and without major changes of all the nodes, netmail becomes unroutable and undeliverable for them.
I explained him the role of hubs and nodes and how they needed to be incorporated and within minutes he delivered a new segment wit hubs and hosts but with other errors ... for example omitting the only fully capable IP-entry. The man just has no clue, I completely distrust that hub/host-information ... as well as the rest.
So after 2 more sessions of Facebook-chat we are where we are ... the structure of the region-segment is OK. The content is garbage so far and that is a next project, but the structure at least is OK after several days of chat.
Just so you realise, when he delivers a new segment it also is delivered by Facebook-attach, not with a Fido-session ... it has a non-standard name, I need to manually download it, rename it, move it to the inbound and only then process it.
In case you wonder what a ZC does, this is part of the things that enlighten my days ... it doesn't happen often and this case is extreme I'll agree.
Have I so far answered your question?
AV>WD> If you want to play political shennanigans,
AV> Eh... political whaaaat?
Use my name, not the title. If you use the title there probably are politics behind it .... with the attitude of the rest of your message that could be easily understood that way. If I was wrong in that presumption, I humbly appologise.
AV> The question is purely technical. And I still hope to get an answer.
I hope I answered it.
The killing of all those nodes was done by RC45, I didn't change a single bit. Honestly ... Is it inaccurate? Do we need to keep inexistant nodes? Roy Witt who's dead? Helmut Hullen who's dead?
If entries are not live and have no viable chance of returning, they should be removed.
