Text 2797, 90 rader
Skriven 2004-12-06 10:51:00 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
   Kommentar till text 2683 av Roy Witt (1:10/22)
Ärende: Z1B <> EP1
==================
 >  MvdV> I am starting to have my doubts. I keep hearing that the backbone
 >  MvdV> systems will not carry echo that are not in the list and that they
 >  MvdV> will use the list as the ultimate authority as to who is moderator,
 >  MvdV> but no one will tell me who these backbone systems are. Where is
 >  MvdV> the list of systems that actually operate in such a rigid way?
 >
 > You're conversing with one individual (Matt) who was part
 > of that scheme, when it was being used.

I note that you are using the past tense.

 > There were two sysops who first implemented the SCHEME, bRUCE bODGER
 > and John Sylvester.

I take it you mean "Souvestre"?

 > You might recognize node 1:396/1 as a major echomail
 > mover during that time.

I am not good in remembering numbers, but I know John Souvestre's system was
one of the "Stars" and so played an important role in the distribution. He was
one of my uplink's uplink. When John left FidoNet my uplink switched to Dale
Ross.

 > That practice was continued up until Bodger and Sylvester
 > left Fidonet. I believe it was Ross Cassell and Jeff Smith who
 > took over the reins of the Z1B when they left (Matty boy joining
 > in later under someone else's node number (1:106/1 wasn't
 > always his node)).

Yes, I know. I remember the fuss when he appeared as cosysop of 1:106/1 in
FN_SYSOP.

 > The Z1B grew to bigger porportions and lived a while longer
 > until a political battle ensued about two years ago and the
 > members of the Z1B split, Cassell deserting his fellow mail
 > movers and joining with the NAB (which it looks like he's
 > also abandoned most recently). The battle continued until
 > the Z1B organization was desolved,

Right. So all this talk about "the Z1 backbone will not carry echos not in the
e-list" is just hot air.

 > even though all remaining Z1B members continue to move mail
 > to this day.

And these remaining members are?

 > Their version was rejected by the *Cs of this zone and thus,
 > they implemented a 'Service Level Agreement'.  (you can find
 > a partial quote from it at the end of this message)

Interesting.

But of course it has as little meaning for us outside Z1 than EP1 has for you
in Z1...

 > I can't speak for the NAB, but I don't recall them ever
 > having such a scheme in place. In fact, they carry echoes
 > that are not in the echolist

And so do many others. So we must conclude that this "the distribution of an
echo in Z1 is in serious trouble if it is no longer listed" is a myth. It may
have been that way in the past, but it is not so any more.

 > and they even carry echoes with no traffic in them.

Which is silly of course.

 > Which was the reason why the Z1B issued echolist warnings
 > to those echoes either not in the list or were about to expire.
 > Why I don't know because carrying a dead echo has no traffic
 > and therefore, doesn't put any burden on your mail
 > tosser, accept to take up room in the configs.

Some configurations will only allow a limited number of tags.

 > When tossing, that tag will pass through the tosser in a
 > matter of nano-seconds when there's no traffic to toss.

The main problems with empty echos is that it puts the users off.


Anyway, thank you for debunking the myth that an echo must be listed or else
the distribution in Z1 will be seriously impaired.

Cheers, Michiel

--- InterMail 2.50
 * Origin: If privacy is outlawed, only outlaws have privacy. (2:280/5555)