Text 2639, 197 rader
Skriven 2006-12-16 13:13:13 av Roy Witt (1:397/22)
   Kommentar till text 2630 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
Ärende: ION *C's
================
15 Dec 06 00:50, Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Roy Witt:

 MvdV> Hello Roy!

 MvdV> On Tuesday December 12 2006 10:44, you wrote to me:

 MvdV>>> no real problem indeed. The trouble started when some selfish
 MvdV>>> sysops with oversized egos insisted that they must be listed
 MvdV>>> with something that looked like a telephone number but isn't,
 MvdV>>> in field six and without the "Pvt" keyword. That opened the
 MvdV>>> door to ION hosts and that is where the trouble started.

 RW>> Those are/were the 'static' IPs of those who didn't have a clue as
 RW>> to how to set up a DNS that could have fit in several places.

 MvdV> Setting up host name through DNS may have been a problem for some
 MvdV> of them,

There's no difference in a DNS whether their IP is Static or Dynamic, the
DNS lookup servers will still connect you to their IP.

 MvdV> but is is no excuse for abusing the phone number field. He
 MvdV> who has a static IP can use it anywhere instead of a host name.
 MvdV> That is not just Fido over IP btw, it goes for almost the entire
 MvdV> internet. Enter my IP number in the address bar of your browser and
 MvdV> you get my website.

Or your DNS name, if you have one.

 MvdV> I was nodelisted with my static IP number in the system name field
 MvdV> for about two years and my NC still is.  No problem at all. Using
 MvdV> an fqdn is preferable for addressing websites because the url is
 MvdV> used by humans and humans are not very good in dealing with
 MvdV> numbers. For Fidonet it makes no difference. IP mailers can deal
 MvdV> with IP numbers just as well as with fqdn's. Actually dealing
 MvdV> directly with the IP number has the advantage of skipping the DNS
 MvdV> query, so it is faster.

 MvdV> I started using DNS for my nodelisting two years ago in
 MvdV> anticipation of a provider change that would involve a change of
 MvdV> IP. A change that came into effect beginning this year and not only
 MvdV> changed my IP, but changed it from static to dynamic as well. Had I
 MvdV> not changed provider and still had that static IP, there would have
 MvdV> been no need to get involved with DNS.

OTH, my DNS has pretty much stayed the same since I started using one,
although I've changed providers and locations several times over the
years.

 RW>>>> but ION hosts shouldn't be allowed without an alternative, such
 RW>>>> as a POTS node taking the place of the host's duties.

 MvdV>>> That is where the NEC flag comes in handy. Delegate the duty of
 MvdV>>> receiving incoming mail for the net to someone who is POTS
 MvdV>>> capable and list that system as net/0 and have the real NC
 MvdV>>> listed with the NC flag.

 RW>> Why not just make the POTS listed node the real NC. The fake NC
 RW>> doesn't seem to want to be capable.

 MvdV> I can think of a couple of legitimate reasons to separate the job
 MvdV> of host and NC. F.e. the person with the technical skills and
 MvdV> resources to handle incoming mail for the net, may not have the
 MvdV> diplomatic skills needed to handle complaints and silly little
 MvdV> things like that....

Nor the desire.

 RW>>>> Finding someone to replace them is probably not on any *C's
 RW>>>> mind.

 MvdV>>> Yes, that has always been a big problems in FidoNet. People
 MvdV>>> hanging on to *C positions because of their oversized egos.

 RW>> Sometimes it's probably hard to find someone who wants to take on
 RW>> the job, but I agree with you there too.

 MvdV> As I wrote in my Snooze article, if no suitable candidate for the
 MvdV> *C position can be found, it is time to contemplate merging
 MvdV> nets/regions/zones....

Probably true.

 RW>>>> Oh, haven't you heard? Right after I moved to Texas, Brenda
 RW>>>> Donovan, RC10 moved to a different region and is now RC15.

 MvdV>>> Oh? No, I missed that.

 MvdV>>> How odd. I thought RC's were *elected* in your part of FidoNet.

 RW>> Unless there's no one there to elect them.

 MvdV> In that case, the region should have been disbanded.

Or those who are left merged into R15.

 MvdV>>> So how come she is now RC15?

 RW>> I have no idea. You'll have to ask the ZC1 about that. There was a
 RW>> very nice guy in Phoenix, AZ that was the RC15, but I don't see him
 RW>> listed anymore. Brenda has also taken over his net (1:114/0) as NC.

 MvdV> IOW: dead wood.

I've talked to a couple of nodes in Phoenix, but don't know if the
nodelist has been stuffed or not. The lower half of Z1 should probably be
just one region.

 MvdV>>> That would be as odd as Arnold the Governator deciding he had
 MvdV>>> enough of California and moving to Texas. To become governor of
 MvdV>>> Texas upon arrival....

 RW>> Arnold wouldn't stand a chance of that happening. He wouldn't even
 RW>> be allowed to visit the governor's mansion if most Texans had their
 RW>> way.

 MvdV> It was just an example.

 RW>>>> He used to be the REC10, but never did his job.

 MvdV>>> What *is* the job of a REC in Z1?

 RW>> His title is now RC and REC, which the latter means Regional
 RW>> Echomail Coordinator.

 MvdV> I now what it stands for, but as Z1 lacks an echomail policy, where
 MvdV> are the duties of a REC documented?

With each RC. They serve at the whim of an RC, the same as the Z1EC serves
the Z1C. Mainly they just make up charts of who's feeding who. If the
chart is up to date, it can also be used as an echomail routing chart.
After Robres took over as R10EC, I never saw a newer routing chart than
the one Dave Hallford produced.

 RW>> Shades of Bob Kohl, who manipulated the REC so much that
 RW>> only he was 'good enough' for the position. BTW, they, or at least
 RW>> Al Robres does absolutely nothing to coordinate echomail.

 MvdV> So where does it say that he should?

See reference to routing chart, above.

 MvdV>>>>> in Z6 are worse. How can anyone possibly perfrom his duties
 MvdV>>>>> RCs if he is incommunicado?

 RW>>>> He can't and as xxcarol has pointed out, he's absent most of the
 RW>>>> time.

 MvdV>>> So why are the two of us the only ones who have the guts to say
 MvdV>>> that out loud?

 RW>> No *C wants to make waves because they're in the same situation?

 MvdV> There are still plenty of sysops who are not a *C and therefore
 MvdV> should not be inhibited form speaking up.

Well, you know the nature of sheep. They only speak up when the wolves are
lurking about.

 MvdV>>>>> And if they do not get in touch within a reasonable time
 MvdV>>>>> frame, just drop them.

 RW>>>> Absolutely.

 MvdV>>> Something that should have been done years ago.

 RW>> Yeah, but we have to keep the zone alive, no matter.

 MvdV> Something I never understood. A zone is just an administrative
 MvdV> unit. It is not a living being, so why attempt to keep it alive
 MvdV> just for the sake of keeping it alive? I don't get it.

It certainly doesn't matter anymore, but it did matter in the last IC
election.

 RW>>>> BTW, I enjoyed your recent snooze article. I also agree with it,

 MvdV>>> Good. You are the only one so far expressing agreement.

 RW>>>> but don't get a big head over it. :o)

 MvdV>>> Don't worry. I am not sure applause coming from you is a
 MvdV>>> compliment.

 RW>> You never know.

 MvdV> Indeed, with you I will never know.

:o) I like to keep them guessing.

               R\%/itt




--- Twit(t) Filter v2.1 (C) 2000
 * Origin: SATX Alamo Area Net * South * Texas, USA * (1:397/22)