On Friday September 08 2017 13:22, you wrote to Ward Dossche:
WD>> I'm under the impression that a RIN has to be direct addressable.
AV> EONs _are_ direct addressable.
Not in my perception. There is no direct real time interaction between a mailer at the sender's node and a mailer at the receiver's node. The .pkt is dumped on the hard disk of a third party and just like with a point, the sender has no control over if/when the recipient picks it up.
WD>> How would an IMI take care of that in your opinion ?
AV> The problem (as I see it) is to make "Pvt RIN".
And why would we want Pvt RINs? What problem is a Pvt RIN a solution for?
Even more: in this day and age, why would we allow Pvt nodes at all? What is the added value for the network as a whole in this day and age?
In the past (POTS age) we had sponsored echomail hubs that were behind a private branch exchange. They could not accept incoming calls, but they could make outgoing calls and the telephone bill landed on the desk of the sponsor. Using a point to distribute echomail had various problems, so these echomail hubs needed a fully fledged node number. They had value for the network as a whole, so a Pvt node was justified.
Today with virtually no extra cost for mail transport, there is no longer a justification for such Pvt nodes. IMNSHO today someone asking for a Pvt node is someone who wants the benefits of Fidonet membership, but not the duties.
IMNSHO, a system that does not have a mailer on-line to accept mail at least during ZMH has the reachability of a point and therefore should BE a point. They do not belong in the nodelist.
