= Сообщение: 4697 из 7124 ====================================== FTSC_PUBLIC = От : Sean Dennis 1:18/200 20 Apr 19 17:35:04 Кому : Bj÷rn Felten 20 Apr 19 17:35:04 Тема : The mystery of mark's empty lines FGHI : area://FTSC_PUBLIC?msgid=1:18/200@fidonet+5cbb919a На : area://FTSC_PUBLIC?msgid=2:203/2+5cbb0704 = Кодировка сообщения определена как: CP437 ================================== Ответ: area://FTSC_PUBLIC?msgid=2:203/2+5cbc0640 ============================================================================== Hello Bj÷rn,
20 Apr 19 13:48 at you wrote to Michael Dukelsky:
BF> Further more, mark is one of the people in Z1, that for decades BF> have insisted that P4 does *not* cover echomail.
According to Policy 4, section 9.9, echomail -is- covered by P4 at least for policy disputes:
=== Cut === 9.9 Echomail
Echomail is an important and powerful force in FidoNet. For the purposes of Policy Disputes, echomail is simply a different flavor of netmail, and is therefore covered by Policy. By its nature, echomail places unique technical and social demands on the net over and above those covered by this version of Policy. In recognition of this, an echomail policy which extends (and does not contradict) general Policy, maintained by the Echomail Coordinators, and ratified by a process similar to that of this document, is recognized by the FidoNet Coordinators as a valid structure for dispute resolution on matters pertaining to echomail. At some future date the echomail policy document may be merged with this one. === Cut ===
I was always told that P4 didn't cover echomail in general since echomail is an "add-on" to Fidonet since Fidonet was originally founded for netmail only.
I think though that traditionally (now, at least) it's inferred that P4 covers echomail.
Later, Sean
... Living is like licking honey off a thorn. --- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20180707 * Origin: Outpost BBS * Limestone, TN, USA (1:18/200)
