Text 22254, 148 rader
Skriven 2011-09-10 00:13:56 av Janis Kracht (1:261/38)
  Kommentar till text 22252 av Richard Webb (1:116/901.0)
Ärende: The isolation
=====================
Hi Richard,

> fIrst, this will also reply to JOe's reply to me, two birds, one message <g>.

Ok, makes sense <g>

>> I know that when I asked Gary to publish something written in here
>> at the top of my post, he did so.  Perhaps he missed your request?
>> I also followed up my request with a netmail to Gary to make sure he
>> say my request.

> YEp, understood.  Btw, am working on something, won't be to
> Gary by this deadline, but hopefully next week.  Bet you saw my netmail on
> that.

Yep, I saw your netmail to me.. can't know when it was though (the material you
were requesting).. sorry :(

>  I nuked my msg base in its entirety
> last weekend to troubleshoot a problem, then found the
> problem was elsewhere.  Ain't it always the way?

Oh man, what a drag.. well if you want, I can pull out qwk of the msg. base you
need.. it's probably in there.. will that help?  BBBS doesn't do %resend or
whatever the areafix command is, sadly enough.  Mark could probably do that as
well if he's around this week (I know he travels a bit with work).

[...]

>> other words, people can't just drop off netmail here as some mailers
>> will allow).  Most of my downlinks know this, and when a mail fails
>> for that reason, I let them know why it failed. Netmail that fails
>> because of this is marked as "not for us" by BBBS, so I know when it
>> happens.

> As it did when I wasn't archiving the netmail with other
> mail sent you.  I would get a complaint from bbbs when it
> wouldn't route something, and since then I route
> specifically through you traffic for numerous systems in r19 as rc19 connects
> with you.  Those always get through and I
> get replies to them.  I mention it because that's been my
> default routing for r19 systems since Marc Lewis
> discontinued pots.  Before then I routed all my r19 traffic
> through him.  Therefore I know that my messages don't bounce at your system.

Right.

> Same with my other path, to 3634/12 where
> Mark routes them according to his own system's rules, and
> they all get where they're going it appears.  I don't know
> what the problem is with 2:2/2, but it's been ongoing using
> more than one routing.

That is strange.

>> Yes, both my concerns, as well. No one should have to put with
>> bashing of his/her country here, or personal insults of any type.

> iT was that constant bashing, and the sniping from both
> sides that made FIdonews not worthy of carriage on my system as publicly
> available, and not available to any points that
> I feed, or might in the future.

Understand that one :(

>  I passed FIdonews the echo
> through to Bob Ackley, and at times would have it available
> for me to read, but most of the time since I rejoined
> FIdonet if i was linked at all to that echo it was passthru
> to another system.  I truly felt that the traffic there was
> unbecoming to a truly international network and represented
> FIdonet extremely poorly.

Some didn't seem to care about that face we present to the outside world. It's
a concern of mine as it is yours and many others in Zone 1 and other zones.

>>> Imho this is something the zcc needs to address, but I"ve
>>> said that all along iirc.

>>But, what can they do about it, and, who is still around, other then Janis an
>> Ward.

>> Russell is still here and posting in ZCC, Manual is still here, and
>> of course Scott.

> IT would appear that all five zones are represented then.

Yes, they are all still here and sending in segments, generally each week.

>> The ZCC really can have no place in this since they cannot be made
>> to decide anything relative as to who has to carry what on their
>> systems.

> Of course not, but, as FIdonews is the official organ of
> FIdonet, imho the zcc could be a little bit of a squeaky
> wheel on what the problem is with routed nm consistently
> reaching the editor, and could ask the editor that if he's
> going to moderate the FIdonews echo to clean house a bit so
> as to better serve FIdonet, or mandate that even though he
> keeps the newsletter position if he won't do that with the
> echo which represents the FIdonews then the moderatorship
> should be elsewhere.  That imho the zcc could do, without
>mandating who is required to carry what, or to feed whoever. Imho the zcc has
> direct interest in protecting the good
> name of FIdonet, and seeing to it that those who represent
> it, such as the FIdonews editor conduct him/herself in a
> manner fitting somebody with that position.  That is
> directly within the purview of the zcc's authority.  YEs, I
> know, FIdonet is a grand experiment in constructive anarchy, but any
> organization's leaders have a responsibility to see
> that what is done in the organization's name properly
> represents said organization.  The zcc has a vested interest in seeing to it
> that the FIdonews is accessible to all who
> wish to read it, and contribute to it, especially via routed FIdonet traffic.

> <soap box mode off>

Hehe..Richard, I understand what you're saying.. but without a means to make a
statement worth anything, except as a fellow sysop, the words from various or
maybe even all ZCs can carry no weight.  I liked ZC3's statement to Ward given
Ward's query of ZC's 3, 4 and 5, that I mentioned earlier.

He called the NAB action lame.. but also said

===clip===
>However it is not undeserved.  If Fidonews is so important (I don't much see
>the point myself), it should not have been used as a lowbrow general chat/flam
> war echo.
====clip===

And the best comment, I thought <g>

===clip===
>Frankly I think all you cranky old geezers need to have your meds checked.
===clip==

Lol.. Scott hit it right on the head in some ways with his response.

As ZCs we can't really "do" anything but make sure our segments are correct
(your point about routing would be ZC2's responsibility) and that's about it.

Hope this makes some sense at least.

Take care,
Janis

--- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Dada-1
 * Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/38)