Text 29471, 222 rader
Skriven 2015-12-23 18:09:56 av mark lewis (1:3634/12.73)
  Kommentar till text 29436 av David Drummond (3:640/305)
Ärende: Rules of Echomail
=========================
24 Dec 15 07:21, you wrote to me:

 ml>>>> 2.1.5  No Alteration of Routed Mail
 DD> [...]

 DD>>> Does that include echomail? It doesn't state "netmail"...

 ml>> "echomail is simply a different flavor of netmail"...

 DD> Meaning... that it is to be treated exactly the same as echomail?

you misspelled that last word... it should be "netmail"...

 DD> And I did post an update to my original message. I missed "only"

yes, i saw that... i was answering the first part...

 ml>>>> [...]

 ml>>>> 2.1.7  Not Routing Mail

 DD>>> Nothing about content. But DOES include echomail.

 ml>> specifically, it includes *routed echomail* ;)

 DD> Even though it cannot be routed (under normal operating procedure). But
 DD> once again, Policy covered echomail

maybe not under /today's/ normal operating methods but it was possible and
widely done...

 DD>>> Rather interesting too that I am a network coordinator but do not
 DD>>> route mail.

 ml>> that's because you're a PVT system and have someone else doing the
 ml>> heavy work for you...

 DD> Heavy lifting? How heavy is the netmail forwarding load your system
 DD> carries?

netmail availability is not the only job of an NC's system...

 DD> I think that Internet email has almost killed netmail just as the Web
 DD> has almost kill Fidonet itself..

to a point i can agree... more to the point, it is all this arguing and all the
attempts to destroy what has been in operation for 30+ years which is doing the
most harm...

 ml>> you could route said netmail if you wanted to, though...

 DD> Actually I couldn't, my node has no external contact. It must initiate all
 DD> external transactions. No-one can deliver netmail to my node.

actually you can... the system acting as the /0 can package all that routed
netmail and place it on hold for you to pick up and repackage to other systems
which you would then deliver...

 DD> Does point out the futility of that paragraph though.
 DD> [...]
 DD>>> Still no reference to content

 ml>> maybe not directly but it allows you the freedom to decide to not to
 ml>> forward a message... you can make that decision based on numerous
 ml>> factors... content is one of those factors...

 DD> Including echomail content?

yes! "echomail is simply a different flavor of netmail"... if you don't like
the content of a netmail, you don't have to keep it if it is destined to your
system and you don't have to pass it on to the next system if it is being
routed... you do, however, have to bounce it back to the originator with a note
of the reason for the bounce... the exact same thing can be done with echomail,
too... only the bounce would travel back to the originating system via
netmail... you would also have to have some way of preventing it from being
passed on to your other links... this was easily done when tossing was
performed in two steps... one to toss into the message areas and one to scan
the new messages out... between the two, the operator could easily go read what
was new and decide to pass it on or bounce it back...

 ml>>>> [...]

 ml>>>> 4.2  Routing Inbound Mail
 DD> [...]
 DD>>> Nothing about the content...

 ml>> right... this is about quantity...
 DD> [...]

 DD>>> Nothing about content.

 ml>> there's that *routed echomail* thing again ;)

 DD> Again, something that cannot happen (under normal operating procedure)

your vision is too limited... it can happen under normal operating
procedures... one just has to have the software which allows for it...

 ml>>>> You are not required to forward encrypted, commercial, or illegal
 ml>>>> mail.

 DD>>> Without reading said in-transit messages how does one determine they
 DD>>> they are encrypted, commercial or illegal -

 ml>> how can you read it if it is encrypted? ;)

 DD> I think that's the whole point of encrytion...

in that case, you can bounce it because it is encrypted and you cannot legally
protect yourself from trafficing illegal material...

 ml>> commercial content is easy enough to figure out...

 DD>>>  and what constitutes illegal?

 ml>> illegal by the laws of the area where the message is currently being
 ml>> handled...

 DD> So you think it's fine by Policy4 for me to post a netmail message here
 DD> regarding Nazi principles and send it to someone in Germany?

that's my argument to you... it is not fine by policy because that content is
illegal in germany...

 ml>>>> 9  Resolution of Disputes
 DD> [...]
 DD>>> All that and nothing about content.

 ml>> that's resolution of disputes... it is not specific to netmail or
 ml>> echomail but they may be cause for disputes...

 DD> So netmail and echomail have equal standing under that paragraph?

to a certain point, sure...

 ml>>>> [...]

 ml>>>> 9.9  Echomail

 ml>>>> Echomail is an important and powerful force in FidoNet.  For the
 ml>>>> purposes of Policy Disputes, echomail is simply a different flavor
 ml>>>> of netmail, and is therefore covered by Policy.

 DD>>> WOW! What does that paragraph suggest to you?

 ml>> it doesn't suggest anything to me... it plainly states that echomail
 ml>> is covered and higher up it makes it clearer as to what is covered...
 ml>> if you route mail through my system

 DD> As echomail cannot be routed (under normal operating procedures) that
 DD> concept is redundant.

again, your vision is lacking...

 DD> But if I deliver a packet contain echomail to your system I can have
 DD> what ever content in it I want because it's not "routed'?

if you deliver a packet containing echomail to my system, it won't be processed
because echomail is not tossed into distribution from insecure sessions... if
you are sending nazi propoganda in that packet, it is not illegal here so if we
had a secure session then i would have no problem tossing that mail to
distribution... if the content was stolen credit card numbers, on the other
hand, that would be stopped and reported to the gendarmes in my and your area
if it originated from your system... knowing about the stolen numbers and
failing to report them to the authorities constitutes accessory after the
fact...

 ml>> and i don't like you spelling flavor with a 'u', then i can bounce
 ml>> those messages back to you based on that...

 DD> What you like doesn't matter - it is perfectly legal in this country to
 DD> spell flavour with a u - in fact it is expected of us.

that's not the point... the point is that if you don't like something in a
message (aka content) that you have previously agreed to allow transit and now
you won't transit that message because of said content, you have to bounce it
back since "echomail is simply a different flavor of netmail"... you have to do
it for netmail so you have to do it for echomail...

 DD> Policy covers echomail just as it does netmail - as claimed in my
 DD> posting to Joe that you jumped in on.

only so far...

 DD> Thank you for confirming my point to Joe.

which point was that?

 DD>>> A lot of guff but only 2 references to mail content.

 ml>> it is what it is...

 DD>>> Interesting that it DOES include echomail in a few places.

right but only certain things regarding echomail are actionable just like with
netmail...

 ml>> it always has...

 DD> And yet there are those who deny that echomail is covered by Policy4...

again, folks are forgetting or leaving out the entire context which puts things
in the proper perspective... leaving that context out changes the perspective
and gets you the wrong understandings we see today... just like those cost
sharing organizations that tried to abuse folks in years past...

 DD> Strange......

not really... it is called control which you seem to want no one to have at all
even to the complete detriment of the network...

)\/(ark

"So let me ask you a question about this brave new world of yours. When you've
killed all the bad guys, and when it's all perfect, and just and fair, and when
you have finally got it exactly the way you want it, what are you going to do
with the people like you? The trouble makers. How are you going to protect your
glorious revolution from the next one?" - The twelfth Doctor

... You are assuming I learned and remembered.  Dream on, old friend.
---
 * Origin:  (1:3634/12.73)