Text 25894, 67 rader
Skriven 2006-02-24 01:18:04 av Dale Shipp (1:261/1466.0)
  Kommentar till text 25862 av Matt Bedynek (1:106/1)
Ärende: Re: Elist mergers
=========================
 -=> On 02-23-06  03:57,  Matt Bedynek <=-
 -=> spoke to Dale Shipp about Elist mergers <=-

 MB> Hello Dale.
 DS> My choice and the choice of more than 400 other moderators who
 DS> choose to enter information about their echos there ..

 MB> Does your number take into account 1:N (one moderator to many echoes)?

  Yes, it is moderators.   The average ratio at the time for fidonet
  echos was 2 or 3 echos per each 1 moderator.   I can't find the total
  list that I had made back then, but I have found a netmail message
  where I mention that there were 450 moderators who Thom initially
  moved from Adrian's list into his list.  Of those, about half sent in
  a new update to Thom without prompting.  I have another note that says
  that after about a month, there were 270 moderators of 642 echos who
  had not updated their listing since Thom started up his list.   A
  group of us volunteered to send netmails or emails to moderators to
  make sure that they had gotten the word that the old Elist no longer
  existed -- by the time we did that in December 1998, there were only
  about 220 moderators who still needed to be notified.  I think that
  almost all of them subsequently sent in an update to Thom, but some of
  them were no longer around.

   All of those numbers above are fidonet numbers.  The othernet numbers
   were not of concern to us.

 MB> A few of us out here support audit requests (arq).  A 

   That is something I did not know about.  However, looking at my
   netmail program (IE, associated with IM) I do not see it as an
   allowed flag that I can put on.  Does it go into the status field
   along with things like PVT, CRASH, etc.?

 MB> Most people do not run software that can detect encryption. 
 MB> Their software will pass an encrypted message as though it 
 MB> were a regular netmail.  I know some tossers had options to 
 MB> do that but they are likely limited to detecting older 
 MB> encryption methods and had to explicitly be configured to 
 MB> do so.  Otherwise, it becomes a question, is the activity 
 MB> 'annoying'.

  It is annoying behavior by definition of P4, section 2.1.4. unless all
  links in the chain have given express permission.

  The two reasons that I can think of it being annoying are that

  a. the sysop who the mail is passing through cannot verify (if need
     be) that the mail does not contain illegal or commercial traffic.
     That is the reason given by P4.

  b. Encryption methods may well expand the message considerably.  For
     example, to send an 8 character password encrypted using a PGP
     public key of the receiver, one would need to send more than 1000
     characters. In the modern days of high band width, that is still
     neligible, but it is a significant expansion of the text.

                               Dale Shipp
                  fido_261_1466 (at) comcast (dot) net
                              (1:261/1466)


... Shipwrecked on Hesperus in Columbia, Maryland. 01:13:36, 24 Feb 2006
___ Blue Wave/DOS v2.30

--- Maximus/NT 3.01
 * Origin: Owl's Anchor (1:261/1466)