Hello mark,   
      
   On Sunday October 05 2014 21:10, you wrote to me:   
      
    ml> while i applaude ERRFLAGS operations, i do not like it because it   
    ml> forces approved flags... even in "do nothing" mode the operator of   
    ml> said tool has to deal with the so-called "errors"... U flags, in   
    ml> particular, were never supposed to be "approved" and then there's the   
    ml> possibility of experimental flags which generally start as U flags and   
    ml> then may be moved to non-U flags...   
      
   When citisizing something one should know what one is taling about. When I   
   mentioned ERRFLAGS could easely be configured to do "nothing", I did not mean   
   run it in check mode.    
   This configuration file will make it do "nothing".   
      
   BAUDDEFAULT 9600   
   BAUDRATE 300 1200 2400 4800 9600 14400 16800 19200 28800 33600   
   FLAGS *   
   USER *   
      
    ml> this then seems to become a political problem because some *C may not   
    ml> approve of said flag while others might... thus we end up mixing   
    ml> politics with technical aspects...   
      
   Once we had an IC and flags had to be IC approved...   
      
    ml> this is not a GoodThing and it wasn't when ERRFLAGS was introduced   
    ml> even though it gave the possibility of conformance it was   
    ml> and has been used as a political tool instead of a technical tool...   
      
   Your opinion.... It is not shared by the majority of the sysops in the zone   
   where the nodelist is cleaned up by ERRFLAGS   
      
      
   Cheers, Michiel   
      
   --- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20130111   
    * Origin: http://www.vlist.eu (2:280/5555)