Tillbaka till svenska Fidonet
English   Information   Debug  
GET_INFO   105
GOLDED   0/408
HAM   0/16041
HOLYSMOKE   0/6791
HOT_SITES   0/1
HTMLEDIT   0/71
HUB203   466
HUB_100   264
HUB_400   39
HUMOR   0/29
IC   0/2851
INTERNET   0/424
INTERUSER   0/3
IP_CONNECT   719
JAMNNTPD   0/233
JAMTLAND   0/47
KATTY_KORNER   0/41
LAN   0/16
LINUX-USER   0/19
LINUXHELP   0/1155
LINUX   0/22002
LINUX_BBS   0/957
mail   18.68
mail_fore_ok   249
MENSA   0/341
MODERATOR   0/102
MONTE   0/992
MOSCOW_OKLAHOMA   0/1245
MUFFIN   0/783
MUSIC   0/321
N203_STAT   894
N203_SYSCHAT   313
NET203   321
NET204   69
NET_DEV   0/10
NORD.ADMIN   0/101
NORD.CHAT   0/2572
NORD.FIDONET   189
NORD.HARDWARE   0/28
NORD.KULTUR   0/114
NORD.PROG   0/32
NORD.SOFTWARE   0/88
NORD.TEKNIK   0/58
NORD   0/453
OCCULT_CHAT   0/93
OS2BBS   0/787
OS2DOSBBS   0/580
OS2HW   0/42
OS2INET   0/37
OS2LAN   0/134
OS2PROG   0/36
OS2REXX   0/113
OS2USER-L   207
OS2   0/4779
OSDEBATE   0/18996
PASCAL   0/490
PERL   0/457
PHP   0/45
POINTS   0/405
POLITICS   0/29554
POL_INC   0/14731
PSION   103
R20_ADMIN   1117
R20_AMATORRADIO   0/2
R20_BEST_OF_FIDONET   13
R20_CHAT   0/893
R20_DEPP   0/3
R20_DEV   399
R20_ECHO2   1379
R20_ECHOPRES   0/35
R20_ESTAT   0/719
R20_FIDONETPROG...
...RAM.MYPOINT
  0/2
R20_FIDONETPROGRAM   0/22
R20_FIDONET   0/248
R20_FILEFIND   0/24
R20_FILEFOUND   0/22
R20_HIFI   0/3
R20_INFO2   2630
R20_INTERNET   0/12940
R20_INTRESSE   0/60
R20_INTR_KOM   0/99
R20_KANDIDAT.CHAT   42
R20_KANDIDAT   28
R20_KOM_DEV   112
R20_KONTROLL   0/13030
R20_KORSET   0/18
R20_LOKALTRAFIK   0/24
R20_MODERATOR   0/1852
R20_NC   76
R20_NET200   245
R20_NETWORK.OTH...
...ERNETS
  0/13
R20_OPERATIVSYS...
...TEM.LINUX
  0/44
R20_PROGRAMVAROR   0/1
R20_REC2NEC   534
R20_SFOSM   0/340
R20_SF   0/108
R20_SPRAK.ENGLISH   0/1
R20_SQUISH   107
R20_TEST   2
R20_WORST_OF_FIDONET   12
RAR   0/9
RA_MULTI   106
RA_UTIL   0/162
REGCON.EUR   0/2055
REGCON   0/13
SCIENCE   0/1206
SF   0/239
SHAREWARE_SUPPORT   0/5146
SHAREWRE   0/14
SIMPSONS   0/169
STATS_OLD1   0/2539.065
STATS_OLD2   0/2530
STATS_OLD3   0/2395.095
STATS_OLD4   0/1692.25
SURVIVOR   0/495
SYSOPS_CORNER   0/3
SYSOP   0/84
TAGLINES   0/112
TEAMOS2   0/4530
TECH   0/2617
TEST.444   0/105
TRAPDOOR   0/19
TREK   0/755
TUB   0/290
UFO   0/40
UNIX   0/1316
USA_EURLINK   0/102
USR_MODEMS   0/1
VATICAN   0/2740
VIETNAM_VETS   0/14
VIRUS   0/378
VIRUS_INFO   0/201
VISUAL_BASIC   0/473
WHITEHOUSE   0/5187
WIN2000   0/101
WIN32   0/30
WIN95   0/4275
WIN95_OLD1   0/70272
WINDOWS   0/1517
WWB_SYSOP   0/419
WWB_TECH   0/810
ZCC-PUBLIC   0/1
ZEC   4

 
4DOS   0/134
ABORTION   0/7
ALASKA_CHAT   0/506
ALLFIX_FILE   0/1313
ALLFIX_FILE_OLD1   0/7997
ALT_DOS   0/152
AMATEUR_RADIO   0/1039
AMIGASALE   0/14
AMIGA   0/331
AMIGA_INT   0/1
AMIGA_PROG   0/20
AMIGA_SYSOP   0/26
ANIME   0/15
ARGUS   0/924
ASCII_ART   0/340
ASIAN_LINK   0/651
ASTRONOMY   0/417
AUDIO   0/92
AUTOMOBILE_RACING   0/105
BABYLON5   0/17862
BAG   135
BATPOWER   0/361
BBBS.ENGLISH   0/382
BBSLAW   0/109
BBS_ADS   0/5290
BBS_INTERNET   0/507
BIBLE   0/3563
BINKD   0/1119
BINKLEY   0/215
BLUEWAVE   0/2173
CABLE_MODEMS   0/25
CBM   0/46
CDRECORD   0/66
CDROM   0/20
CLASSIC_COMPUTER   0/378
COMICS   0/15
CONSPRCY   0/899
COOKING   27601
COOKING_OLD1   0/24719
COOKING_OLD2   0/40862
COOKING_OLD3   0/37489
COOKING_OLD4   0/35496
COOKING_OLD5   9370
C_ECHO   0/189
C_PLUSPLUS   0/31
DIRTY_DOZEN   0/201
DOORGAMES   0/1974
DOS_INTERNET   0/196
duplikat   5999
ECHOLIST   0/18295
EC_SUPPORT   0/318
ELECTRONICS   0/359
ELEKTRONIK.GER   1534
ENET.LINGUISTIC   0/13
ENET.POLITICS   0/4
ENET.SOFT   0/11701
ENET.SYSOP   33773
ENET.TALKS   0/32
ENGLISH_TUTOR   0/2000
EVOLUTION   0/1335
FDECHO   0/217
FDN_ANNOUNCE   0/7068
FIDONEWS   23435
FIDONEWS_OLD1   0/49742
FIDONEWS_OLD2   0/35949
FIDONEWS_OLD3   0/30874
FIDONEWS_OLD4   0/37224
FIDO_SYSOP   12841
FIDO_UTIL   0/180
FILEFIND   0/209
FILEGATE   0/212
FILM   0/18
FNEWS_PUBLISH   4155
FN_SYSOP   41520
FN_SYSOP_OLD1   71952
FTP_FIDO   0/2
FTSC_PUBLIC   0/13556
FUNNY   0/4886
GENEALOGY.EUR   0/71
Möte IC, 2851 texter
 lista första sista föregående nästa
Text 1551, 263 rader
Skriven 2006-06-01 10:20:00 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
   Kommentar till text 1523 av Peter Knapper (3:772/1.0)
Ärende: Vlist's conjecture
==========================
Hello Peter.

31 May 06 19:10, you wrote to me:

 MvdV>>> P4 was written with little or no concern for the situation
 MvdV>>> outside Z1 period. For one it tacitly assumes local calls are
 MvdV>>> free.

 PK>> Nope, nowhere does P4 say anything like that at all, that is
 PK>> simply YOUR interpretation.

 MvdV>> It is not my interpretation, it is my conclusion.

 PK> interpretation = conclusion.......;-)

No. Here is what I glean from P4:

1) It prescribes geographical non overlappping nets based on "areas of
conveniEnt calling"

2) Nodes that can not be fitted in such a scheme will be listed as RIN.

3) The host of a net is to receive incoming netmail destined for nodes in the
net. The NC has to arrange for delivery of that mail to the nodes in the net.

4) P4 does *not* say who is to bear the cost of getting the mail from the host
to the leaf nodes.

=================================================================

Those are the facts as I glean them from P4. You may argue that what is above
the double line is a result of my interpretation of P4, but that does not go
for the *conclusion* drawn from the above:

Vlist's conjecture: P4 was written from the tacit assumption that local calls
are free.

 MvdV>> P4 is full of cost issues. There are penalties for unduly incurring
 MvdV>> cost on others,

 PK> Yes, THAT is a cost issue...

Right.

 MvdV>> there are provisions for nodes routing extraordinary
 MvdV>> amounts of mail, etc, etc.

 PK> No, that is NOT just a cost issue, it is also a load issue. Yes, it
 PK> does have a cost component but it is not targeted at cost alone.

True. And so it *also* is a cost issue.

 MvdV>> The NC has an obligation to see that mail delivered
 MvdV>> at the host gets to the nodes in the net.

 PK> Yes, the NC has an obligation to see that mail "gets to the Node", BUT
 PK> it does not say that the host HAS to hand deliver it.

Exactly. It does not say how this has to be done and more to the point at hand:
it does not say who bears the cost.

 PK> As long as the NC has correct mail ROUTING in his configuration, I
 PK> would be happy to say that the bulk of the job is done.

Then the crunch is in the last mile. Setting up the correct routing is no good
if the mail just sits there in the host's outbound waiting for someone to do
something. No, I say the NC's obligation goes much furtjer than that; he has to
see that it actually *gets* there. Some way...

 MvdV>> What is does *not* say is how it gets from the host to the
 MvdV>> leaf nodes.

 PK> Correct.

Which is part one of the omission I noted.

 MvdV>> In particular it does not say who bears the *cost*.  A glaring
 MvdV>> omission I say.

 PK> Omitted on purpose perhaps?

I find that difficult to accept. P4 is full of details to the point of
paternalism. And then they would be aware of this potential source of problems
and just choose to not address it?

Besides, if all is left to the net to sort out the cost issue for themselves,
the geo restriction makes no sense. If a node is outside the "area of
convennient calling" and its sysop is preparaired to pay for the (long
distance) calls to pick up the mail, why deny him or her? Why force them to
join the local net? The geonet restriction makes little or no sense *unless*
one assumes they wanted to avoid debates over the cost by restricting nets to
areas where calls between the members of the net are free. Free in the sense
that there is no *extra* cost involved once one has the line set up.

The geo restRictions caused a *lot* of problems here I might add. Such as
forced cost recovery plans, dictatorial NCs, etc, etc. Problems that could have
been avoided had the makers of P4 not ignored the problems associated with it.
Such as cost of getting the mail form the host to the leaf nodes.

 MvdV>> The only explanation I can come up with is that the
 MvdV>> writers of P4 wrote it from the position that there
 MvdV>> *is* no cost. Which was true for most if not all of
 MvdV>> the US and Canada at the time of writing of P4.

 PK> How short sited on your part, I can see several reasons for this.

All of them are either far fetched or denbunkable.

 PK> Perhaps the most obvious one is that they simply let the nodes work
 PK> this out for themselves.

In that case the geo restrictions lose their justification. If the members of
the net are allowed to arrange the cost recovery between them, there is no
reason to deny out of area nodes into the net.

 PK> Shock... Horror... Michiel's clearly defined manual on how Fidonet
 PK> works is torn apart...

Torn apart? Hardly. Yo have not disproven Vlist's conjecture.

 PK>> In addition, in many nets "local" was a cost call the same as in your
 PK>> part of the world.

 MvdV>> There may have been exceptions even in Z1 at the time
 MvdV>> of writing of P4. If that was the case, the writers
 MvdV>> of P4 were not aware of it or they choose to ignore it.

 PK> So its not conceivable to you that they DESIGNED it to work that way?

Not really. I go for Ockham's razor. The explanation that requires the least
additional assumprions is the one to be used: i.e. Vlist's conjecture.

 MvdV>>  MvdV>> So it does not matter who calls who when it comes to the
 MvdV>>  MvdV>> host's obligation of delivering incoming routed mail.

 PK>> Nope, there is no such obligation. A Host must agree to ROUTE INBOUND
 PK>> mail, but is not obliged to deliver it.

He has an obligation to see that it reaches the desitnation.

 MvdV>> The intention obviously is to get the mail to its final destination

 PK> Not so obvious I am afraid...

Not? How so?

 PK> To me, the intention is to define an arrival point for inbound mail
 PK> that then has a good chance of reaching the target system, and it can
 PK> reach that arrival point in pretty much the same fashion for ALL NETS
 PK> in Fidonet.

That makes sense as a sub goal, but it loses all sense if the *ultimate* goal
is not to get the mail to its final destination.

 MvdV>> and in order to do that *someone* has to make a call. The glaring
 MvdV>> ommission of not saying *who* has to make the call is the telltale
 MvdV>> evidence for the tacit assumption of free local calls.

 PK> I think you mean that by brilliant design that fact was left out,

I would not label an omission that lead to a seven year cost sharing war
in The Netherlands, to a several year schism in Germany and to severe net wars
in The UK as "brilliant". If I am in a good mood, I would call it an oversight.
In an bad mood I call it bloody stupid.

 MvdV>>> In Z2 local calls are *not* free and so it does matter
 MvdV>>> who calls who.

 PK>> And in many situations the same applies to other
 PK>> parts of the world, so don't worry, you are not alone......;-)

 MvdV>> We have adapted but not without some problems.
 MvdV>> Obviously it is unreasonable to demand that the host
 MvdV>> makes all the calls to deliver the mail.

 PK> But you can't say that, because you are just invalidating your
 PK> previous statement on the issue.

Well I just said it didn't I? What previous statement did I invalidate?

 MvdV>> That would put *all* of the coast on one person. So we went by
 MvdV>> the rule: the leaf nodes have to call their host or hub at regular
 MvdV>> intervals to pick up mail. Prefereably every day, but once a week
 MvdV>> at minimum.

 PK> Exactly. Logic prevails...

At the cost of violating P4. And even then, there is no logic in the geonet
restriction if the leaf node carries all the cost of getting his mail from the
host.

 MvdV>> There *have* been a few cases here in The Netherlands
 MvdV>> were sysops refused to comply. Nodes *have* been
 MvdV>> removed from the nodelist for not picking up mail for
 MvdV>> an extended period of time. (A couple of month).

 PK> And rightly so.

Yoy think so? Apparently some *C's higher up in the chain disagreed with you as
some of the smarter sysops had their excommunication overruled in an appeal. It
would appear that striking a node from the nodelist because the sysop refuses
to poll the host/hub at regular intervals is not 'rightly so'.

 MvdV>> Of course that is history. The few remaining POTS only nodes poll
 MvdV>> at regular intervals and for IP it does not matter as the calls
 MvdV>> *are* free.

 PK> No... not free... the cost is paid for access to the service, not the
 PK> use of it.

Why do I have to write every word as if it is to be read by lawyers in a court
of law. You know what I mean: there is no *extra* cost for the call once the
system is set up.

 PK> The entire point of Fidonet is to operate as a co-opertive group of
 PK> people who work together following a common set of ideas.

All very nice and in an ideal world we would not need rules. Rules are for when
a conflict arises.

 PK> All of the points you "desire"

Desire? What makes you think it is what I desire? I do not desire any of the
above. If I had my desires P4 would never have been adopted.

 PK> above are trying to turn Fidonet into something much more rigid and
 PK> fixed, something that Fidonet is not.

I am merely stating my conclusions based on P4. I did not say, nor did I intend
to say that it is what I want.

 PK> As a document, overall I think P4 has been extremely well written,
 PK> even if it does have 1 or 2 rought edges.

A few rough edges? I think it is very badly written. It is full of holes and
inconsistencies. TJ had it right: P4 is a crock of smelly shit.

 PK> The beauty of P4 is that it does not tie things down too far,

Seven year cost share war resulting form geonet restrictions.....

 PK> it gives Fidonet Members the chance to work things out themselves,

Well they haven't been very successful at that, given that fidonet's alias is
fight'onet...

 PK> IE it lets them work together in a co=operative spirit. Your approach
 PK> is to build walls and stop/go signs,

*My* approach? He, I didn't write P4! I am merely sharing my ideas on what its
implications are.

 PK> but sorry, that simply wont work in a co-operative environment.

Indeed, it does not work very well. But do not blame it on me, blame it on the
writers of P4. *They* wrote that crock of smelly shit.

Cheers,

Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20060315
 * Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)