Text 25704, 148 rader
Skriven 2006-02-19 14:34:00 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
  Kommentar till text 25681 av Dale Shipp (1:261/1466.0)
Ärende: This echo...
====================
 MVDV>> Even if that is true, how long does it take to transmit the
 MVDV>> information 30 seconds? So it staill only costs a Dollar a
 MVDV>> year. Big deal.

 >    You are off by an order of magnitude.   If calls cost a
 > dollar per minute, then it would have cost me at least $12 per
 > year, not $1. Doesn't matter if the call takes 10 seconds, the
 > minimum charge is one minute.

Greedy bastards...

 > I update every month.

Your choice. Peter only required updating every six month.

 > In any case, it would have been an unnecessary cost.

Indeed. FidoNet can do very well without e-lists - as the situation in Z2
proves - any money spent on it is not needed.

 MVDV>> And who would pay for the cost of making the calls to keep the lists
 MVDV>> in sync?

 >   The list keepers could easily have done that with one call,

One call a month? a week? a day?

 > or via internet transfer.

And the moderators could have used e-mail for the updates. Poof goes your cost
argument.

 > You are grasping for straws to support your untenable position.

On the contrary, I am debunking your arguments.

 >>>  Routed netmail of messages containing the password for the echo was
 >>> not considered secure enough.

 MVDV>> Odd, You trust a self apointed e-list keeper who is not
 MVDV>> accounatble to anyone with your echolist password, but you

 >    He is accountable to me and to all the other moderators.

Yeah, right. ... Dream on..

 MVDV>> will not trust a mail router that is subject to policy and
 MVDV>> one that you can even chose yourself.

 >   I don't even know who the mail routers would be.

Then my advice is to you educate yourself on the matter.

 > Once I  upload a routed netmail to my uplink,

Which you can select for yourself...

 > I have no further control of where it goes.

But you can make arrangements...

 > Coming from someone who denigrates routed netmail and insists
 > on the ability to do direct netmail, I find your argument
 > for routing in this case to be rather self serving.

Find what you like. My point stands: it is odd that your trust a self appointed
e-list keeper, but do not trust mail routers.

 MVDV>> Souds like an excuse to me....

 MVDV>>> That could heve been solved by using encryption.

 >>   Which is forbidden in some circles.

 MVDV>> Forbidden by whom?

 >   By policy.

No, it is not.

 > And in some places by law.

But not in the US and not in Europe. So that can not be an excuse for Z1 sysops
to not accept a Z2 sysop as list keeper.

 >> And against policy for routed netmail unless done via special
 >> links who have given explicit permission to route encrypted traffic.

 MVDV>> That goes for unencrypted mail as well. The only routed
 MVDV>> mail with implied permission is host routed netmail. Any
 MVDV>> other routing requires permission. Another excuse...

 >    Another stretch on your part.   Encrypted routed netmail is
 >    explicitly forbidden.

No, it is not.

 > Routed netmail is not.

Except for host routed mail it is considered annoying to have others route mail
for you without previous agreement.

EXACTLY the same as with encrypted mail.

 > You are talking apples and oranges.

I am talking oranges and oranges. Routing - other than hoist routing - requires
previous permission. Encrypted or clear.

 >> That was, and still is, the majority of the moderators of
 >> intercontinentally distributed echos.

 MVDV>> Maybe. But why now the restriction to intercontinentally
 MVDV>> distriburted echos? Don't all the arguments in favour of
 MVDV>> the e-list that you continue to preech not hold for
 MVDV>> regional mail as well?

 >   Yes, and many of them list their echos as well.

Only a small minority. The vast majority of moderators are in the former USSR.
They don't use the Z1 e-list.

 MVDV>> Indeed, whatever. It is all water under the bridge. My
 MVDV>> point stands. By restarting their own list after the merger
 MVDV>> failed, the Z1 sysops created a Z1 list and that's what it
 MVDV>> still is: a Z1 list.

 >    Only in your mind.  It is an international list, used by
 > moderators from multiple zones and networks,

You can say that until you see blue in the face, but until that list is in some
way recognised outside Z1, either by the *C's or by the majority of the users,
then it is just a pet project from a minority.

 >    If you and others want to boycott it -- be my guest.

What I see is a cure that is FAR worse than the problems it problems it claims
to solve. So yes, I will stay away from it as fa as I can.

 > If it causes a problem, so be it.

See above, the cure is worse than the disease.


Cheers, Michiel

--- Buy Danish
 * Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)