Text 137, 46 rader
Skriven 2005-01-15 19:41:22 av James Bradley (1:134/77.0)
    Kommentar till text 136 av Bo Simonsen (2:236/100)
Ärende: But it's echolisted?
============================
01-15-05  09:28, Bo Simonsen told August Abolins about But it's echolisted?

 Well, how do, Bo?


 BS> 14 Jan 05 09:40, you wrote to me:
 
 BS>>>> But it's echolisted? As long as it's that, it would not be
 BS>>>> taken of the backbone afaik.
 
 AA>>> Not based on what I just learned and noticed recently.  For
 AA>>> example. the COFFEE_KLATSCH echo was *not* in the Echolist for
 AA>>> quite some
 AA>>> time, but it was still in the three BACKBONE.XX files and
 AA>>> available/active on the network.
 
 BS>> Yes but it expires at sometime?
 
 AA> Yes..  I think that's the way it still works.  But I am not sure what
 AA> the expiry rules are anymore.

 BS> My guess if it's not on the Echolist, it would expire on 
 BS> the hubs at some time.. Let me be sure about that.

My guess, is with the exodus of BBS's on or around Y2K, moderators were hard to
come by. As such, very active echoes may have had to operate without the
requisites that used to be standard.

I just noticed LINUX was expounded to include a number of branches. Good and
well, but if there are fourteen echoes on Windows, a user might get frustrated
while posting to a little visited echo. The same might happen to the plethora
of Linux echoes too. I'll use the modem echoes as an example. The echo on Zyxel
modems, I believe was delisted, but the Hayes specific echo may still be around
due to these relaxed rules. (I'm pulling these names out of my hat, just to
illustrate my point.) If USR_MODEM and MODEM, and WHATEVER_MODEM, see paltry
traffic by themselves, maybe the readers would be better served by a
streamlined, mean and lean MODEMS - all inclusive - echo?



... It's a good thing; you can't have it all. Where would you put it?

___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.20

--- Maximus 3.01
 * Origin: -=-= Calgary Organization (403) 242-3221 (1:134/77)