Text 10801, 165 rader
Skriven 2010-09-28 16:49:06 av Richard Webb (1:116/901.0)
Kommentar till en text av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
Ärende: PVT Nodes
=================
Hello Michiel,
On Tue 2038-Sep-28 13:40, Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555) wrote to Richard
Webb:
RW> ACknowledged and granted. But, moot for the email tunneling connected
RW> node, etc.
MvdV> Speaking about e-mail tunneling, I never considered those as a
MvdV> "direct connection". It uses store and forward through a third
MvdV> party on a level higher than the packet level, and it is not real
MvdV> time. From my POV e-mail tunneling is routed mail.
Acknowledged, and valid. WOndered about the spam part you
mentioned as well.
<snip>
MvdV>> Plus of course, sometimes one wants some privacy. In the past I
MvdV>> have often used crasmail for the sole reason that I did not want
MvdV>> my mail to be read by others. Some others in particular.
RW> <rotfl> Understand that one. YEah there's always pgp and
RW> other such encryption schemes, but according to strict
RW> reading of policy they're verboten as well unless all those
RW> in the routing path agree to route encrypted traffic.
MvdV> Which in practice is hard to get. Particularly from those I do not
MvdV> want to read my mail....
MvdV> I think we missed an opportunity here. When we - FidoNet - had
MvdV> encouraged our users - when we still had lots of them - to
MvdV> massively encrypt their mail, it might have become "standard
MvdV> procedure" to do so and it would have been e lot harder for
MvdV> governments to push restrictions.
OF course, and I argued for it when I had a lot of users
back in the day. AT least, here in the U.S. encouraging
users to encrypt mail, and making it known you didn't read
private mail from users put one in a more favorable position re the law. tHis
is why still I pass through mail to/from
downlinks. I can't read what ain't there.
RW>> We have evolved quite a bit since the days of the founding
RW>> fathers of Fido. A good number of connection schemes, all
RW>> incompatible with each other.
MvdV>> Which is a mixed blessing and partly unneeded.
RW> True, but take away any of those connection schemes and you
RW> deny some nodes connectivity in any form.
<snip>
<snip>
RW> IN the name of all inclusive nobody gets shut out we may have, in the
RW> long run shot ourselves in the foot.
MvdV> Indeed we may. We may have kept some in by allowing a multitude of
MvdV> connection methods, but how many have left us because they got fed
MvdV> up with having to deal with so much incompatibility? Someone
MvdV> playing devil's advocate may point out that the decline of Fidonet
MvdV> set in after we allowed systems not FTS-001 connectible via POTS.
MvdV> Suggesting a causal relationship....
THey may be right to some degree, but I think they're
missing a variety of other factors. IMho fido should have
embraced the usenet community a lot more fully. USenet is
still a great resource, but what has driven people from
usenet in large numbers is the free for all unmoderated
atmosphere, whereas Fidonet offered the advantages, along
with sensible moderation. IF you'll recall, usenet was in
its infancy a separate network of sorts whose traffic ws
carried via the internet. FIdo embraced using the internet
as the primary carrier for far too long. I'm still there
are still usenet systems which dial each other for usenet
traffic, but by and large even into the heyday of FIdonet
most usenet interconnections was via the inet.
RW> The best defense against this is those systems which offer a variety
RW> of ways to connect, i.e. pots; binkd; telnet; ftp. sYstems with
RW> enough horsepower can offer multiple connection schemes, and can then
RW> with some willingness to do it stand in the gaps.
MvdV> Supporting multiple connection methods however puts an extra
MvdV> strain on hosts and hubs. With shrinking nets, it is hard enough
MvdV> to find candidates as it is. In my net I have delegates the host
MvdV> function to someone who in addition to several IP related
MvdV> connection methods, offers POTS and ISDN. He is the only one left
MvdV> who can offer all that and when he quits, I will have no choice
MvdV> but to settle for less.
Understood. THere are whole nets these days without pots
connectivity, but at least one can reach at least one system in each region
over here, at least last time I looked
<grin>.
MvdV>> Regarding coinnection methods, it is not P4 that has to evolve.
MvdV>> P4 states one must be able to receive and send mail via FTS-0001
MvdV>> but allows for having the minimum required protocol changed
MvdV>> through the FTSC. Unfortunately their are other hurdles on that
MvdV>> road... :-(
AGreed, but something has to evolve. IF the policy no
longer fits the way things are done then one has to
acknowledge that with a change of policy. When the
exceptions outnumber standard operating procedures then the
exception becomes the policy, whether stated or not.
<snip>
MvdV>> Many thing just work better if one can agree on a few things.
MvdV>> How would the roads look like if we could not agree which side
MvdV>> to drive on and we settled for agreeing to disagree?
RW> AGain a point of agreement. But, in this case, we have to
RW> go from where we are, and that was what we were given, an
RW> agreement to disagree. IT's up to current fido folks to
RW> sort it out, and, the place for that, as you noted, is the ftsc.
MvdV> I wish it were that easy. The problem is that the FTSC has no
MvdV> authority of its own. Its playing field is limited to what the
MvdV> *C's are willing to give. As it is, the ftsc is pretty much
MvdV> limited to "documenting current practise".
ACknowledged, and this has been, iirc as it has always been. FTSC documents
current practices. But, the ftsc can make
recommendations. I'm working with just such a situation
elsewhere, and hoping that the bureaucracy, although small
will get off its collective behind and move forward before
the opportunity is lost within another comunications
organization as well.
MvdV>> "Agree to disagree" certainly did not help and still does not help
MvdV>> in keeping FidoNet together. OTOH, I do not think FidoNet could
MvdV>> have been "saved" by better coordination and agreeing on standards.
MvdV>> FidoNet served a purpose of affordable access to a world wide
MvdV>> network for lots of individuals. And then something better came up.
MvdV>> Better for most anyway.
RW> YOu might be right there, but for many even when I took my
RW> node down in Iowa fidonet was still the only low cost method of access
RW> to the world of computer comms.
MvdV> That is history. Not only is fidonet no longer the only affordable
MvdV> way, it is no longer the best way for most either. If I have a
MvdV> problem with my Honda motorcycle, I do not bother with Fidonet, I
MvdV> just go to the website dedicated to the model in question. That is
MvdV> where I find the knowhow.
RIght, and part of my argument that if FIdo would have tied
itself into the usenet community more closely, a la bitnet
then those users who looked to usenet for information would
have found the friendly fidonet echo the place to go. NOte
where the traffic is at least on z1 backbone echoes. THose
echoes which have automated postings, such as weather, a
couple of political discussion echoes, and the fidonet admin and stats echoes.
OTher topical echoes run hot and cold,
mostly cold.
Regards,
Richard
... Everybody does better when everybody does better.
--- timEd 1.10.y2k+
* Origin: (1:116/901)
|