= Сообщение: 852 из 7127 ======================================= FTSC_PUBLIC = От : mark lewis 1:3634/12.71 13 Dec 13 04:08:25 Кому : Henri Derksen 13 Dec 13 04:08:25 Тема : Dispute from ZCC. FGHI : area://FTSC_PUBLIC?msgid=1:3634/12.71+2aad4140 На : area://FTSC_PUBLIC?msgid=2:280/1208@FidoNet+ac837322 = Кодировка сообщения определена как: CP866 ================================== ==============================================================================
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
