Text 1560, 239 rader
Skriven 2006-06-02 19:24:52 av Peter Knapper (3:772/1.0)
Kommentar till text 1551 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
Ärende: Vlist's conjecture
==========================
Hi Michiel,
MvdV> No. Here is what I glean from P4:
MvdV> 1) It prescribes geographical non overlappping nets
MvdV> based on "areas of conveniEnt calling"
Then look closer at the word BASED. P4 does not LOCK everything down, it
provides a basis for evaluating what it says. Also look at the word CONVENIENT.
CONVENIENT does not equate to a FREE or LOCAL call.
MvdV> 2) Nodes that can not be fitted in such a scheme will be listed as RIN.
As most nodes can fit, the RIN count should be low...
MvdV> 3) The host of a net is to receive incoming netmail
MvdV> destined for nodes in the net.
Yes...
MvdV> The NC has to arrange for delivery of that mail to the
MvdV> nodes in the net.
No. By AGREEMENT between the NC and the NODE, any inbound mail for a NODE is
able to be found at a convenient location, either -
1. Delivered to the NODE by the NC, a Hub, or via another agreed Node,
2. Available for collection from the NC, a Hub, or via another node.
All this is by AGREEMENT between the NODE and the NC. Anything else you read in
there is your invention.
MvdV> 4) P4 does *not* say who is to bear the cost of
MvdV> getting the mail from the host to the leaf nodes.
And so it shouldn't either...
MvdV> =================================================================
MvdV> Those are the facts as I glean them from P4.
Rubbish,. That is simply YOUR INTERPRETATION and nothing more...
MvdV> MvdV>> there are provisions for nodes routing extraordinary
MvdV> 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.
MvdV> True. And so it *also* is a cost issue.
If your conjecture is that P4 was written without cost considerations then
THERE IS NO COST ISSUE! If you say there IS a Cost issue, then COST MUST have
been a consideration. Please make up your mind...
MvdV> Then the crunch is in the last mile. Setting up the
MvdV> correct routing is no good if the mail just sits
MvdV> there in the host's outbound waiting for someone to
MvdV> do something.
Oh it does wonderous good. It ensures the NODE calls to collect it. If they
don't call, then the NODE is dead and can be removed from the Nodelist.
Membership of Fidonet is not free, it always costs someone something, and as a
body of hobyists, ALL should carry their fair share of any costs. Forcing an NC
to deliver all mail at THEIR cost is not how a Hobby should operate.
MvdV> MvdV>> What is does *not* say is how it gets from the host to the
MvdV> MvdV>> leaf nodes.
PK> Correct.
MvdV> Which is part one of the omission I noted.
THERE is your problem, it is not an omission, it is a design factor.
MvdV> MvdV>> In particular it does not say who bears the *cost*. A glaring
MvdV> MvdV>> omission I say.
PK> Omitted on purpose perhaps?
MvdV> I find that difficult to accept.
So you acknowledge that it is possible.
MvdV> P4 is full of
MvdV> details to the point of paternalism.
Make up your mind, one moment you are saying P4 is vague and leaves things
out,the next you say it is "full of details". You can't have it both ways...
MvdV> And then they
MvdV> would be aware of this potential source of problems
MvdV> and just choose to not address it?
I will let you in on a little secret Michiel, they DESIGNED it that way.
Stunning eh?
MvdV> Besides, if all is left to the net to sort out the cost issue for
MvdV> themselves, the geo restriction makes no sense.
It makes perfect sense. If YOUR interpretation was correct, then NODES from the
other side of the world could bankrupt an NC by forcing him to absorb THEIR
cost of membership of Fidonet. Think about that carefully Michiel...
MvdV> Why force them to join the local net? The geonet
MvdV> restriction makes little or no sense *unless* one
MvdV> assumes they wanted to avoid debates over the cost by
MvdV> restricting nets to areas where calls between the
MvdV> members of the net are free.
Flip the coin and look at it from the other side, you are using far too many
one sided coins...
MvdV> The geo restRictions caused a *lot* of problems here
MvdV> I might add. Such as forced cost recovery plans,
MvdV> dictatorial NCs, etc, etc.
The exact same issue arose in ALL Nets, the only differing part was the scale
of the costs involved. In Europe that cost was higher than in a lot of other
parts of the world, but regardless of WHO paid those costs, someone had to
incurr them to belong to Fidonet.
MvdV> Such as cost of getting
MvdV> the mail form the host to the leaf nodes.
Why do people have such a hard time seeing that ALL Hobbie's have a cost to
them? Everyone want their Hobby to be "free", but very few achieve that, and
Fidonet is no exception.
MvdV> MvdV>> The only explanation I can come up with is that the
MvdV> MvdV>> writers of P4 wrote it from the position that there
MvdV> MvdV>> *is* no cost. Which was true for most if not all of
MvdV> 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.
MvdV> 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.
MvdV> In that case the geo restrictions lose their justification.
That statement debunked previously.
PK> Shock... Horror... Michiel's clearly defined manual on how Fidonet
PK> works is torn apart...
MvdV> Torn apart? Hardly. Yo have not disproven Vlist's conjecture.
I dont have to, Vlist's conjecture falls apart by itself, due to the simple
omission of relevant detail! This actually goes directly back to several of our
past "discussions", your supposed "proofs" simply fail because they do not
consider all the details. Its called selective thinking or selective logic
(failure by omission)...
MvdV> MvdV>> There may have been exceptions even in Z1 at the time
MvdV> MvdV>> of writing of P4. If that was the case, the writers
MvdV> MvdV>> of P4 were not aware of it or they choose to ignore it.
PK> So its not conceivable to you that they DESIGNED
PK> it to work that way?
MvdV> Not really.
So that suggests that you cannot prove your conjecture...
MvdV> I go for Ockham's razor.
Careful... I think you may be cutting yourself.....;-)
MvdV> The explanation
MvdV> that requires the least additional assumprions is the
MvdV> one to be used: i.e. Vlist's conjecture.
Any explaination that is based on assumption is doomed to failure.
PK>> Nope, there is no such obligation. A Host must
PK>> agree to ROUTE INBOUND
PK>> mail, but is not obliged to deliver it.
MvdV> He has an obligation to see that it reaches the desitnation.
Nope, his obligation ends when there is an AGGREED METHOD for the mail to reach
its destination.
MvdV> 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
PK> fashion for ALL NETS in Fidonet.
MvdV> That makes sense as a sub goal, but it loses all
MvdV> sense if the *ultimate* goal is not to get the mail
MvdV> to its final destination.
That is the goal, but you seem to not be able to see the methodology......;-)
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,
MvdV> I would not label an omission that lead to a seven year cost sharing war
MvdV> in The Netherlands, to a several year schism in
MvdV> Germany and to severe net wars in The UK as "brilliant".
So because 1 group of Fidonet Sysops could not find a common way to service
their needs without pain, means that the document that works for most other
Fidonet NODES is a failure. Not that is what I call "really wishfull thinking".
... Continued ...
Cheers............pk.
--- Maximus/2 3.01
* Origin: === Maxie BBS. Ak, NZ +64 9 444-0989 === (3:772/1)
|