Text 1033, 85 rader
Skriven 2012-07-21 14:53:48 av mark lewis (1:3634/12.0)
   Kommentar till text 1014 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
Ärende: dupes!
==============
 MvdV>> I know. But back then it didn't work when crossing zones.

 ml> sure it did... multiply interconnected systems, like the backbone(s),
 ml> rely on them all the time...

 MvdV> Yes, so called fully connected polygons use the seen-by to
 MvdV> prevent messages running around in circles. But if susch a
 MvdV> polygon crosses a zone boundery and the zone crossing link strips
 MvdV> the seen by, that doesn't work any more. 

right... this is why we have set them up as a "dumbbell" shape in the past...

 MvdV> For a 3 node ring, one can get away with tiny seen-by (stripping
 MvdV> all but the own node number and those of the direct links) but
 MvdV> for a four or more node polygon that does not work.

here in Z1, we had a backbone that was made of 5 or 6 systems in a fully
connected polygon... it worked just fine and messages were delivered very
rapidly thru the polygon... then, between the NAB and the Z1B there was one
system that was a member of both... that system handled the passing of the
traffic between the 'bones... this would be similar to one system in one zone
and one system in another zone... you still do the strip and the other zone has
its backbone(s)... there was also a connection between the Z1B and the WWB and
tha system performed the same task as the one between the Z1B and the NAB... in
fact, they may have been the same system... i don't recall at this time but
rossC might since he was involved with both the Z1B and the NAB at different
times...

 MvdV> This crappy system with 2D seen-by and path in a 3D environment
 MvdV> and cross zone SEEN+BY stripping only works as designed when
 MvdV> zones are connected at ONE place only. It utterly fails when
 MvdV> there are zone crossing loops.

there should not be should there?

 MvdV> But having zones connected at one place - the zonegate - has the

zonegates are something else entirely... zonegates are for netmail not
echomail... you don't zonegate echomail and besides, the zonegates were all
done away with years ago... zonegates required netmail to be addressed to the
zonegate system with the control lines carrying the actual destination
system...

 MvdV> weakness of placing the distribution at the mercy of the gate
 MvdV> keeper. Too often sysops of such key systems have abused their
 MvdV> power. The NAB coup is only the last in a row of major incidents
 MvdV> in the history of Fidonet.

you definitely weren't around back in the heyday, then... Z1 had huge
"discussions" about echomail and those attempting to control it in more ways
than one...

 MvdV> This situation is highly undesirable. In the POTS area with sky
 MvdV> high cost of intercontinental data transport we had little
 MvdV> choice. But now in the age of the internet, with for all
 MvdV> practical purposes zero cost of world wide Fidonet distribution,
 MvdV> we can and should go back to the benign anarchy that Fidonet once
 MvdV> was.

agreed to a point... that point being that we must still work together for the
network to operate smoothly with regard to netmail routing and echomail
distribution... what is being done about gated echos that are gated by more
than one system and each has its own method of generating the MSGID on the
fidonet side? that was a big problem years back...

 ml>> what is supposedly new and better about this other distribution
 ml>> system?

 MvdV>> It defeats any NAB filtering .

 MvdV> By restoring the benign anarchy and avoiding a situation where
 MvdV> the sysops of a handful of key systems can rule by right of
 MvdV> might.

 ml> <SIGH> SMH

 MvdV> Sigh as much as you want. It works.

i'm not sighing about whether the system works to move the mail... i'm sighing
because you are assigning a reason that doesn't affect the system if it exists
or not...

)\/(ark

 * Origin:  (1:3634/12)