Text 6879, 203 rader
Skriven 2013-12-09 05:23:00 av Henri Derksen (2:280/1208)
Kommentar till text 6845 av Roy Witt (1:387/22)
Ärende: Dispute from ZCC.
=========================
Hello Roy,
RC> Host,203,West_Net,Sweden,Bjorn_Felten,46-31-960447,33600,CM,XA,V34,I
RC> BN,INA:felt en.yi.org,U,NEC
RC> Can you tell me or show me from the above which is your nodelist
RC> segment where the names of those 87 registered users are?
RC> I do see _YOUR_ name!!
HD> Did you notice there is no MO (=Mail Only) flag in his line?
HD> That means there is a BBS too!
RW> Not really.
HD> Yes, almost ALLWAYS!
RW> Never.
You are very wrong.
First my system and nodelisting still alone proves my point already.
UniCorn BBS has no MO-flag, and it is callable by BBS-Users.
The same for Bjorn his system.
So your "Never" is broken and complete nonsense!
HD> If there is no BBS, the node should be listed with an MO flag.
HD> Or the system is not well configurated,
HD> or the nodelist entry is wrong.
RW> Whatever, what you're saying is irrelevant to the election,
Many BBS users writing in echomail area's are using the SAME aka as the SysOp.
So a listed nodenumber does not automatically imply the SysOp only.
It could be every one that ever logged in and wrote EchoMail.
That's the point some people here do not want to see ;-(.
RW> not to mention that you contradict yourself.
Wrong.
RW> Nobody other than the nodelisted sysop is elegible to vote in any Fidonet
RW> election.
That may be,
but my point is that a sysop is NOT the one and only unique person
behind that aka.
A nodenumber alone does NOT indicate a single unique person.
I.e. only a nodenumber is not valid for voting alone.
The right and full name of the candidate has also to be present.
A candidate's name without a nodenumber is invalid even, i.e. incomplete,
if that should occur.
Reason: there can be two people with the same name, sometimes even with the
same birthday, yes really ;-).
In FidoNet they would get a different and unique nodenumber.
But nodenumbers do not have unique writers and receivers.
So both indicating "keys" do need to be present!
That wrong o is not the point. Every normal sysop will understand that.
The other point is that the name "Bjerk" without a surname is not a candidate,
nor nodelisted, period.
HD> No MO-Flag, there should be a BBS, and a mailer, both! period.
HD> MO flag, than BBS-users have no access, only mailers.
RW> Unless there is a BBS noted in the nodelist,
How?
The word BBS is NOT mandatory in the nodelisted system name field.
There could be a BBS active without the word BBS in de name field,
or there could be no BBS even if that word is used in the name,
for historically reasons for instance.
In the past there was a BBS at many nodes and they have the word BBS
in their name, even with a MO flag in the nodelist, no problem.
I found many of them.
RW> there is no flag that indicates that there is.
There is a flag of the opposite indication, i.e. MO = Mail Only, so no BBS.
That also means, no MO-flag, then there must be a BBS.
Otherwise the SysOp of that system creates Annoying Behavior.
In my (last) mail to Mark Lewis I explain that.
RW> The CM flag indicates that the node is in Continuous Mail mode.
HD> You are confused.
HD> That's CM flag is to indicate the node is 24 h online and always
HD> accept mail, also outside ZMH.
RW> LOL!
There is nothing to laugh at.
Because you can not win from my arguments, you introduce another flag.
RW> It simply means that the node accepts mail 24hrs a day.
So we agree about the CM flag.
But keep to the subject:
No MO flag means there is a BBS with BBSusers, period!
My system UniCornBBS and the node of Bjorn both have a BBS, and many more.
Note, if I was a (supposed) RC and driving or sailing on a trip in Sweden,
from a hotel, harbor or camping I could log in into the system of Bjorn
and write a vote message there, because when I am home, I may be too late.
Then my message from Sweden gets the AKA of Bjorn's system, right?
Does that mean he wrote it?
Off course not. If he did it with my name, I would protest.
The other way round is also possible.
I.e. Bjorn could be on travel in NL and logs into my BBS.
If that's the one and only vote of either of us,
they are still valid, because we are both nodelisted sysops.
But you still do not (want to) understand my points he?
May be that's because you are not running a BBS.
Note this is not political, but pure technical, grounded on real facts
merely read in the FidoNet nodelist together with common sense.
In your words: simply modern Englisch.
HD> First there were BBSes, then they were connected to exchange mail too.
HD> And later on many are Mail Only withouth a BBS, hence the MO-flag.
HD> The CM flag does not indicate there a BBS or not, i.e. irrelevant.
HD> The MO flag does wat it tells you, Mail Only, so No BBS.
HD> A NodeNumber with a BBS means BBS-users with are adressed to as
HD> Point 0 (=Zero), ALL of them!
RW> Reading that listing doesn't imply that any BBS is present.
RW> It has a modem baud rate and a few modem flags,
RW> but nothing that says there is a BBS there.
HD> Wrong, the lack of a MO-flag allways implies a BBS.
RW> Wrong. A BBS is listed in the BBS field of a nodelisting.
The word BBS is not mandatory.
If you think so, tell me the FTSC document where that states.
No one knows the whole contents of all these documents.
Even on my system they are not complete.
So show me the right FTSC document number how a BBS is mentioned in the
NodeList.
RW> The operating condition MO flag indicates that the node does NOT accept
RW> human callers.
Yes, that's what the NodeList epilog says.
The abbriviation MO stands for Mail Only,
and human (data-) callers are BBS users, and may be rejected, simple he?
HD> The MO-flag was created to accept mailhovers to leave the BBS
HD> function away, because their systems were so busy with mailmoving,
HD> that there was no time to accept BBS-users.
HD> That was another reason why at ZMH no BBSusers were alowed.
HD> The (not) use of the MO flag implies that BBSusers want to know wich
HD> systems they can call with a terminal program.
HD> And people still do that, at my BBS for instance.
HD> I do not mention their names for privacy reasons.
HD> And of course there are many (un)registered BBS-users.
RW> Irrelevant.
HD> If there is No MO-Flag, there must be a BBS, and mostly also
HD> BBS-users.
RW> You're now saying that without an MO flag there is no BBS
^
No I am not, and was not.
English is your native language?
Read a little bit better from this not native writer,
may be you can learn from it.
I was consequent in my writings about the absents of the MO-flag.
So do not insinuate a false writing from me.
A very bad try, and it tells more about you, then about me.
RW> when before you claimed that the MO flag indicates that there is?
No, I did not.
I claimed that if there is no MO flag, there should be a BBS, and users.
-----
I was very clear about that.
Again:
MO flag present, then a BBS is not mandatory, en mostly absent.
No MO flag, then there must be a BBS present, allways!
Very simple.
No MO flag and No BBS is Annoying Behavior!
RW> You contradict yourself.
Not at all.
With my explanation here, I proved that you did not read well.
In reallity you overlooked the word "no" in both the combinations:
First: No MO-flag = Yes allways a BBS (that's mandatory),
Second: MO-flag = there is (mostly) no BBS.
If you try to call, then you may be rejected.
But you do not like that I proved the point that a nodenumer or an AKA
stands for more users than only the SysOp.
That's the real problem with you.
When voting for a FTSC-seat two "keys" should be presented;
Both the complete NAME of the candidated SysOp AND the NODENUMER of her/his
system should exist to be valid.
At least with two voters this was not the case this round, so NACKed.
End of discusion now I think.
May be I should stop writing to you, because it seems useless ;-(.
The rest of the long quote whitout new comment not copied again.
Henri.
---
* Origin: Connectivity is the Future; UniCorn BBS 31 26 4425506 (2:280/1208)
|