Text 10347, 102 rader
Skriven 2010-09-10 10:29:23 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
  Kommentar till text 10288 av Janis Kracht (1:261/38)
Ärende: PVT Nodes
=================
Hello Janis,

On Wednesday September 08 2010 13:03, you wrote to me:

 >> Or maybe you did not provide a phone number at all.

 JK> Private nodes are requested to give their phone numbers to their NCs,
 JK> so THAT is not the case.

From the context it should have been clear that I meant the phone number for
his modem, not his voice number.

 >> I am merely attempting to enumerate the possibilities.

 JK> Baloney, you are trying to push Dale into something which is none of
 JK> your business.

Dale called me a hypocrite for not following his interpretation of EP1. I am
holding the mirror for him.

 >>> I say again, I never requested a private node.  It was given to me
 >>> without requesting it. That is all I have to say about the matter.

Keep that in mind.

 >> The zones are de facto autonomous. There is no interzonal court of
 >> appeal with the power to enforce a ruling. It has been demonstrated
 >> over and over again that in FidoNet there is no authority above the
 >> ZC's.

 JK> Sure there is.  The ZCC has come together to make decisions in the
 JK> past.

A paper tiger. The ZCC can make a ruling, but they do not have the power to
enforce it. If a dissident ZC refuses to comply, there is nothing the ZCC can
do. This too has been demonstrated over and over again.

 >> So... if the powers that be in Z1 decide - which they appear to have
 >> done - that they will ignore that part of policy that says private
 >> nodes should be implemented as points when possible and that they
 >> will ignore the part saying that otherwise justification must be
 >> provided, there is nothing I can do about it.

 JK> There is justification,

Odd. Dale claims to never have requested a private node. It was just given to
him he claims. So obviously he never provided any justification either. Yet you
claim there is justification. Does not make sense...

 JK>  and it must be killing you to not know the reason.

Not really. I have long ago stopped worrying about things I can not change.

 JK> Again, none of your business.

That is sort of your standard answer when you are receive out of zone
criticism. You get away with that attitude because the zones are de facto
autonomous. They can do whatever they dammed well please without any regard for
the needs and wishes of other zones.

 >> And if they rule that doing so is not a violation of policy, there is
 >> nothing can do about that either.

 JK> That's true.  It's like forcing a node to have a direct connection to
 JK> fidonet.. NOT necessary.. if routed mail can reach a node, that's
 JK> fine.  This time, read policy 4 without your blinders on :)

Janis, I am not a newby. I already had my own home made modem in 1978. Way
before the first BBS appeared in the Netherlands and way before Fido was born.

When BBS appeared, I was one of the first to become a user and when FidoNet was
born and the first net outside Northern America was founded, I watched it from
very close by. I was there when Tom Jennings came to Utrecht for the yearly
hobby computer fair organised by the HCC, where Net 500 was formerly introduced
in The Netherlands By the founding father and Henk Wevers, later the first ZC2.

When Echomail was introduced, I was one of the first to particiate. I read the
rants of Tom Jennings and Tom Henderson and the other founding fathers. I read
the rants of Felix Kasza and Ron Dwight and other promiments.

Over the last 25 years, I must have read P4 hundreds of times. And not just P4,
also its predecessors, P1, p2 and P3. Not only have I read it, I have discussed
it with the old farts. Not only do I know P4, I also know the history.

Fidonet was designed as a peer to peer network. The idea was that every node
can connect to any other node. The original Fido programme was a BBS and a
mailer, but not both at the same time. It had to be started in BBS mode OR in
mailer mode. So, in order to allow sysops to run their BBS and exchange mail
between systems, ZMH (originally called NMH) was introduced. During ZMH all
node must switch to mailer mode so that they can receive mail from others.

Considering all that, it is pretty obvious that your interpretation that the
requirement to be able to receive mail during ZMH is restricted to the ability
to receive mail from one's NC, is not what the founding fathers had in mind. I
am pretty sure it is not what the authors of P1 to P4 had in mind either. Plus
that it is not what P1-P4 says. The restriction is your invention.


Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20070503
 * Origin: P4 is a smelly crock of shit (Tom Jennings)  (2:280/5555)