HD> That means there is a BBS too! RW> Not really. HD> Yes, almost ALLWAYS! HD> If there is no BBS, the node should be listed with an MO flag. ML> should be but they are not always listed as mail only... HD> That's why I used the words "almost" and "should".
ML> point being that there is no requirement for a non-BBS system to fly the ML> MO flag...
Think.... When I have more (exact) information on this, I'll come back on this item. That will not be fast, so be patient.
ML> if that were the case, ML> then practically every system in Z2 would be flying MO
Yes they should.
ML> and they are not, are they?
Then the *C's donot test the nodes in their segment enough to check their connectivity. Some still do. If you are to long offline, or some flag does not match with practise, the sysop gets a message to let their listing be corrected.
Fist start with the nodes who have the word BBS in their system name ;-).
In a region a re entered node wanted to have a TelNet flag this year. The *c did not want to put that in the Nodelist, until that connectivity is a reallity. I think that is the right attitude.
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?
A caller can tell the *C that the listing of a node has missing or wrong flags. The *C has the duty to send in a correct nodelist segment to his upper *C. If he does not, you can make a claim at a higher level, NC->RC->ZC->IC. But then you have to log in at the node of the *.c who has no BBS either ;-(. Bacause its cost you Euro 0,07 per short call, nobody is doing a complaint. So many callers let it so, in stead of figthing for their rights. It's a pity, but some things do change very slow. Take the roaming prices for instance, or when you donot use your total amount of calls or SMSes a month, or wait too long, the telco gets the rest of your money for doing nothing ;-(. When I go to Belgium for instance (every month I do) I have to pay much higher prices to call a person just on the other side of the Belgium/Duth border. Here clients are figthing to have the same prices all over Europe. And it seems to have effects.
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?
The sysop of the node, or the *C is doing the A.B., not the BBScaller. So they are fully judgeable about that. It is their system that is listed wrong, and it costs others money. So that's A.B.
ML> bbs callers are not members of fidonet...
Long ago that was normal, but I think this is a mistake. Every usere should have almost the same rights. When electing a moderator, normal BBS users should have the right to vote too. For *c's of FTSC-member ship, still only sysop's should vote.
ML> they are users of the bbs and users of fidonet...
Yes, and at some points users are more important than a node or a sysop. Without users and writers, they really have nothing to read ;-(. And not only that. Many users have also good input in subjects and techniques. They deserve more respect, than in the past.
HD> Because it costs POTS BBS-callers money for nothing; CONNECT, No Carrier...
ML> then they should stop calling that system...
They will do, but there are many more callers who discover that problem at the same node, independent of each other, So that sysop or his *C is annoying. Because when the node had the right flag (i.e. MO), than allmost all caller(s) would know and not call at all.
ML> they should also stop using the nodelist as a bbs phonebook...
The function of the nodelist is not only for mailers and points, but also for BBS users, from the beginning until now, and should allways be.
ML> especially since it is well known that places like Zone 2 don't run bbses ML> like may have been done in the past...
That's why most of them should carry the MO flag in the nodelist.
ML> they don't run bbses because of the metered call times...
I know, and that is a result of the pricing strategie. The TelCo's are digging there own holes. You make the price too high, then we do not call anymore. Then they receive more less, than they had before. We call that overasking. They hate VoIP too, but that is also a result of their own strategy.
ML> this is why points are such a big thing in Zone 2... ML> points are mailer to mailer with no bbs involved at all...
I know that for very many years. UniCorn BBS has Points too since very long.
HD> A BBScaller can ask a *C to correct the listing when needed.
ML> really?
Yes, (s)he can, as the second route.
ML> that is the bbs operator's job to ask his *c to fix his nodelist entry...
In the first time yes. But when a BBScaller sees that the listing keeps unchanged, he can ask the *C tot correct it, because the nodelistline is not in conjunction with the real practise. It's the same as when baudrates or IP-connectivity does not match with the real practise of that node.
ML> bbs callers do not have that right...
Of course they have. First becaus they made a misconnection that costs them money. Secondly the sysop has the duty to let the listing be correct.
ML> bbs callers barely even know what a nodelist is...
That's for your responsability. Many BBS callers are sysop of a node or point too.
HD> No MO-Flag, there should be a BBS, and a mailer, both! period. HD> MO flag, than BBS-users have no access, only mailers. RW> The CM flag indicates that the node is in Continuous Mail mode. HD> You are confused. HD> That's CM flag is to indicate the node is 24 h online and always HD> accept mail, also outside ZMH. ML> true... HD> Not only that, HD> it has nothing to do with the absents of the MO flag I started HD> talking about, to prove that a Nodenumber is not always only the HD> SysOp behind the mails from that AKA, HD> but also could be one of the BBS-users ((Co-)SysOp inclusive).
ML> while that may be absolutely true, in the case you are trying to argue, ML> bbs callers are not allowed to participate... ML> not as candidates or voters...
You forget that sysop's can be a BBS caller too. As I wrote to Roy, every sysop can log in into a BBS of another node, when (s)he is on travel somewehre else, and then write messages. When I am in the USA, I would not poll my UniCorn BBS in NL, nor log in, because of the heavy costs doing so, POTS only he ;-). For me it's cheeper to log in into a BBS nearby where I am travelling.
ML> the main point being made is that the nodelist is used to determine who ML> qualifies to be a participant and that means the one person that is listed ML> as the system operator...
Read my mail to Roy Witt, where I show that there can be more users on everey system, who also are a participant. The sysop is not the unique only user of a node.
ML> plus MO doesn't mean that there is not a BBS, either... ML> perhaps it is a private BBS that is not advertised to the public? ;) HD> I Agree. HD> But my main argument was the opposit, i.e. HD> No MO-flag listed, then there must be a BBS besides the mailer, HD> otherwise the *C should place a MO flag. HD> So when no BBS is available, the MO flag is mandatory.
ML> well, the 'thing' is supposedly ended now... ML> so no need to try to argue either side any more...
Not for this event, but the possibilities still should be clear for the future. And second I thind some *C's have work to do. I.e. testing their members if they have a BBS or not, and in the last case, add the MO in the listing of that node. Should I call a flag factory? ;-).
ML> Not only is the Universe stranger than we think, ML> it is stranger than we can think. - Werner Heisenberg
HD> Not only that, also FidoNet does have many strange birds flying HD> around ;-).
ML> 'strange' doesn't even begine to cover it in some cases ;)
In some societies every participant behave very different. That seems to become normal.
Henri. --- * Origin: Naugthy dog, do not byte the cable... NO TERRIER (2:280/1208)
