Text 6968, 148 rader
Skriven 2013-12-13 04:08:25 av mark lewis (1:3634/12.71)
   Kommentar till text 6945 av Henri Derksen (2:280/1208)
Ärende: Dispute from ZCC.
=========================
On Wed, 11 Dec 2013, Henri Derksen wrote to mark lewis:

ML> if that were the case,
ML> then practically every system in Z2 would be flying MO

 HD> Yes they should.

ML> and they are not, are they?

 HD> Then the *C's donot test the nodes in their segment enough to check
 HD> their connectivity.

fidonet is about mailer to mailer connectivity to deliver files... verifying if
there is an actual BBS being operated is outside the realm of "fidonet
connectivity"...

 HD> Some still do. If you are to long offline, or some flag does not
 HD> match with practise, the sysop gets a message to let their listing
 HD> be corrected. 

that depends on the flags...

 HD> Fist start with the nodes who have the word BBS in their system
 HD> name ;-). 

what's in a name? just because some system has 'bbs' in its name doesn't mean
that there is a 'bbs' in operation like you and i may think of... my system's
name doesn't have 'bbs' in it yet i've run a bbs for over 20 years...

 HD> In a region a re entered node wanted to have a TelNet flag this
 HD> year. The *c did not want to put that in the Nodelist,
 HD> until that connectivity is a reallity.
 HD> I think that is the right attitude.

telnet flag for mailers to mailer use, yes... telnet flag to indicate that a
bbs is available via telnet? not only no but hell no... the nodelist and its
flags are for mailers... of course, the flag should not be placed on the node's
entry until what the flag signals is actually operational...

HD> Or the system is not well configurated, or the nodelist entry is wrong.
ML> that depends on one's perspective(s)...
HD> That's the wrong practise.
HD> FTSC documents and NodeList epilogue are very clear about this item.

ML> where is the enforcement division? what are they doing?

 HD> A caller can tell the *C that the listing of a node has missing or
 HD> wrong flags. 

what 'caller'?? an average joe bbs caller or another fidonet sysop?? start
there first...

 HD> The *C has the duty to send in a correct nodelist
 HD> segment to his upper *C. If he does not, you can make a claim at a
 HD> higher level, NC->RC->ZC->IC. But then you have to log in at the
 HD> node of the *.c who has no BBS either ;-(. 

why do you have to log in to a *C's bbs? there is no reason that i can think
of...

 HD> Bacause its cost you
 HD> Euro 0,07 per short call, nobody is doing a complaint. So many
 HD> callers let it so, in stead of figthing for their rights. It's a
 HD> pity, but some things do change very slow.

what "caller's rights"?? an average joe bbs caller or another fidonet sysop?

 HD> Take the roaming prices for instance, or when you donot use your
 HD> total amount of calls or SMSes a month, or wait too long, the telco
 HD> gets the rest of your money for doing nothing ;-(.
 HD> When I go to Belgium for instance (every month I do) I have to pay
 HD> much higher prices to call a person just on the other side of the
 HD> Belgium/Duth border. Here clients are figthing to have the same
 HD> prices all over Europe. And it seems to have effects.

it is understandable... but it has nothing to do with fidonet, really ;)

ML> not everyone in fidonet thinks the same way ;)
HD> Not listing a MO flag, and rejecting BBScallers is Annoying Behavior.

ML> how can it be policy defined 'annoying behavoir'
ML> when that only applies to members of fidonet?

 HD> The sysop of the node, or the *C is doing the A.B., not the
 HD> BBScaller. So they are fully judgeable about that.
 HD> It is their system that is listed wrong, and it costs others money.
 HD> So that's A.B.

*who* is being annoyed by the behavoir?? if it is juts an average joe bbs
caller, policy does not apply to them so there is no policy defined annoying
behavoir on the part of the system operator...

ML> bbs callers are not members of fidonet...

 HD> Long ago that was normal, but I think this is a mistake.
 HD> Every usere should have almost the same rights.

users are users of the BBS... the BBS is a member of the network... the user's
traffic may or may not travel on the network... users follow the rules of the
bbs and areas they participate in but they are not required to follow any rules
of the network... the system operator is responsible for the user's
activities... if the user steps out of bounds, it is up to the operator to
throw the flag and handle them...

 HD> When electing a moderator, normal BBS users should have the right
 HD> to vote too. 

every general public echo i've been in where there was moderator elections, all
participants were allowed to cast a vote... administrative echos are different,
though... same with restricted access echos (eg: sysop only echos)...

 HD> For *c's of FTSC-member ship, still only sysop's
 HD> should vote. 

i can't tell if you misspelled 'or' so i can't answer this question...


HD> Because it costs POTS BBS-callers money for nothing; CONNECT, No
HD> Carrier...

ML> then they should stop calling that system...

 HD> They will do, but there are many more callers who discover that
 HD> problem at the same node, independent of each other,
 HD> So that sysop or his *C is annoying.
 HD> Because when the node had the right flag (i.e. MO),
 HD> than allmost all caller(s) would know and not call at all.

ML> they should also stop using the nodelist as a bbs phonebook...

 HD> The function of the nodelist is not only for mailers and points,
 HD> but also for BBS users, from the beginning until now, and should
 HD> allways be. 

many do not agree with you on that... some folks have tried to use the nodelist
as a phonebook for humans and bbses but the nodelist is a technical device for
mailers and it is used for looking up the address of other sysops or systems...

i'm done with this topic in this area... it is stepping too far outside FTSC
business... sorry...

)\/(ark

Not only is the Universe stranger than we think, it is stranger than we can
think. - Werner Heisenberg

--- FMail/Win32 1.60
 * Origin:  (1:3634/12.71)