Text 25812, 236 rader
Skriven 2006-02-22 10:58:00 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
Kommentar till text 25784 av Dale Shipp (1:261/1466.0)
Ärende: Elist mergers
=====================
>> Needed or not, it is a useful tool.
MVDV>> Your opinion and YOUR choice to use it.
> My choice and the choice of more than 400 other moderators
> who choose to enter information about their echos there
We don't really know if they all made a free choice do we? After all you guys
have been telling us for years that unlisted echos would be taken off the Z1
backbone. There is a disticnt possibility that many moderators only listed
their echos because they felt they had no choice.
Luckily we have freed ourselves from the stranglehold of e-list/backbone
kartel, but many moderators may not be aware of that yet.
>> They would need to coordinate once per month, prior to
>> issuing the updated monthly list.
MVDV>> Once a month is unaceptable. If I wanted to know who the
MVDV>> moderator of an echo is, I would want to know who it is
> If you are that much in need of instant gratification then
> you can do a direct query of the Elist data base
That only works if there IS a central elist data base. Which would not be the
case with synchronised zonal lists.
> out in most cases that it has not changed since the last monthly
> publication of the Elist.
> Personally, I think that such a desire is overkill.
I don't. If I have to wait a minth to get to know who the moderator of an echo
is, I may as well wait for the monthly rules.
MVDV>> NOW, not a month ago. An out of date list is totally
MVDV>> useless. 48 hour is the maximum I would consider acceptable.
> You are posturing for effect, and your stated expectation is
> unreasonable.
Then let me tell you that the one and only instance where I thought I migh have
some use for the echolist, I was put on the wrong foor because the informatio
was out of date without me being aware of it.
> Do you insist that the telephone company send you an
> updated phone book every week?
No, but I do require that they offer an alternative to get up to date
information. And they do, I can call the directory information service. And
since a decade or so I can consult the on-line telephone directory.
Peter Witschi offered the service of requesting an up to date list.
> That is equally absurd.
Information that can be uo to a month out of date is useless. I don't think it
is absurd to make that observation.
>> Same as the ZCs who need to coordinate once per
>> week prior to issuing the weekly nodelist update.
MVDV>> A compromise which is on the brink of being acceptable. It
MVDV>> does not work all that well IMNSHO. Most NC's btw, offer
MVDV>> actual up to date nodelist segments by file request.
> And your point is?
That - although most of the information may be quit static - uo to date
information is essential when it comes to resolving issues. For example we have
seen disputes over who was eligible to vote or who had wrote access to sysop
echos due to dircrepancies between the nodelists ars distributed in different
zones.
> That nodelist segment does not change more than once per week with
> respect to the nodes not in their net.
Wrong. My NC f.e. updates the nodelist whenever a change is made and that
actual up to date segment is available by file request.
> The fact that it is available to you via request is no different
> from the fact that the Elist information is available to you via
> request.
With lists for each zone that are only synchronised once a month the up tp date
informationis NOT available.
MVDV>> I don't think so. Actually the longer I think about it, the
MVDV>> more I tend to the POV that this system with a merged list
MVDV>> and a keeper for each zone would not have worked well anyway.
MVDV>> A ship needs one and no more that one captain.
> The merged list
I think we have a sematics issue here. A merged list is ONE list that came into
being by merging two or more that existed as a separete entity before the
merger. This is what Andrian Walker and Peter Witschi had in mind when Adrian
handed over his part to Peter, so that in future there woukd be ONE list for Z1
and Z2, handled by Peter.
What you refer to, a list for each zone, each maintained by a zonal list keeper
and monthly synchronised, is not a merged list. That is a system of
*synchronised* lists.
> would have required cooperation, not one captain.
Yes, synchronised lists require cooperation. Something which is not one of the
strong points of FidoNet escpecially when it is interzonal. So it should be no
big surprise that it failed.
You blame it all on Peter. I see it different. We will never agree.
> But Peter abandoned the list being kept in Z2 instead of being a
> part of that cooperation.
It is difficult to cooperate with "my way or the high way"type dictators like
Thom.
But you are forgetting something. Peter did not "abandon" the list. He
*resigned* from the position of Z2 e-list keeper. The Z2 community could have
appointed or elected a successor. Instaed they decided we no longer had use for
a list on the zone level. So if there was any "abandonning" it was by the Z2
community as a whole.
>> Or the reverse. All either of us can really say for sure is who
>> we deliver the netmail to. After that, it is out of our control.
MVDV>> No, one can make arrangements with whoever one routes the
MVDV>> message to, to use only certain routes. Alternatively a
> How absurd an expectation. I should tell my uplink's
> uplink how they should route mail. NOT!
You can ask him how he routes mail. But who says you have to throw yourself at
the mercy of thet particular mail router? Simplt select one that will cooperate
with you on an acceptable route.
MVDV>> trusted person in Z1 could take the position of routing
MVDV>> moderator updates. This person would set up a direct link
MVDV>> with the e-list keeper in Z2 and forward messages for the
MVDV>> Z1 moderators.
> DUH! That trusted person in Z1 would have been the person
> who maintains the portion of the Elist in Z1.
No. The trusetd person does not maintain the list. He mereley forwards messages
from moderators to the e-list keeper.
> Since the Elist keeper in Z2 abandoned his portion of the Elist,
Wrong. The Z2 community abandonned.
> that means that Thom is the only one left.
He is the one left, so much is true. Does not mean he all of a sudden gets
promoted from zonal to glaobal list keeper.
MVDV>> The cost and security with this setup would be EXACTLy the
MVDV>> same as with separate Z1 and Z2 e-list keepers and a merged
MVDV>> list.
> The cost is the same because it is the same method.
No, it is not. See above.
MVDV>> I did. There is no gebral ban on encryption.
> You are not making sense, and what ever you meant to type
> you are wrong.
I meant to write "there is no general ban on encryption".
> Encryption is prohibited unless restricted to special networks.
Wrong. Routing encrypted messages is allowed when the sysops involved agree.
No different than routing unencrypted mail (except fpor host routed)
> I have not heard of such networks existing in fidonet for
> a number of years now. Educate me by showing how you would
> encrypt a netmail and send it to me,
That may be a tad difficult because you technically are a point, getting mail
to you depends on you picking it up somewhere. No one can "push" mail to you,
so I am severely restricted in finding someone to take the last step.
But.. getting encrypted mail TO you is not the issue. The issue is can you send
routed encrypted mail to the e-list keeper without having to make an
intercontinental call?
You can send encrypted mail to me by dropping it off at 1:123/500. he will
forward it to me.
>> At the moment, I do not know of any node who would accept an
>> encrypted routed netmail.
MVDV>> I know plenty.
> Prove it -- send me an encrypted netmail. I want to see the evidence.
What is needed is that you can SEND encryoted mail. You can send encrypted mal
to me. See above.
Anyway, coming to think of it: to update the echolist in a secure way, it is
not needed to encrypt the entire message. All that is needed is to encrypt the
password. As the password already is a meaningless string, it would merely mean
that it would be replaced y another string just as meaningless with the
difference that the "password" that is now in the masssage is no longer
sufficient to get the update processed. It also requires the key, which is only
known to the moderator and the echolist keeper. If a router does not object to
a message containing a password of "XyZzy", why would he object if it was
replaced by "A4fJq5"?
My point is that there are many solutions for the cost problem, But you do not
want to hear it, you find excuses for rejection. All you want to hear about is
a solution where the list is NOT in the hands of a Z2 e-list keeper.
>> Never mind, telling me how you would encrypt it in a manner that
>> would allow me to decrypt it.
MVDV>> There are programmes for that. Not more difficuolt to set
MVDV>> up than the stuff needed to maintain an e-list.
> So tell us all how you would set it up. Don't duck the question.
I am not going to write a tutorial on PGP. That would be reinventing the wheel.
The information is freely available at various places. PGP is freeware. I can
make it requestable from my system too if you want.
Plus that there are alternatives for PGP. Some of them freeware too.
Cheers, Michiel
--- Buy Danish
* Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)
|