Text 3619, 148 rader
Skriven 2004-12-19 16:47:00 av Bob Seaborn (1:140/12)
   Kommentar till text 3592 av SHANNON TALLEY (1:275/311)
Ärende: Z1B <> EP1
==================
 >
 > My discussion is regarding an echo list, not the moderatorship regarding

      And other than making use of an echolist as reference material, as a
top-level mail mover, I have nothing else to do with any elist.

 >
 >>      BACKBONE.NA is _still_ as up-to-date as individual moderators keep
 >> it.
 >> The North American Backbone is *NOT* echopolice, never has been, never
 >> will be!
 >
 > I'm not suggesting that anyone hire any echo police Bob..... ???
 > (what's up
 > with the negativity??)

      Because you, and others, seem to want exactly that.  Who's
responsibility is it to decide to transport an echo or not to?  It costs
absolutely zero to transport an empty echo, so why the fuss?  Is it the mail
mover's responsibility to decide that an echo is inactive (NOT), or is it the
moderator's?

 > The issue appears to that people haven't been updating it.  It doesn't
 > accurately reflect the list of echos we hub in North America.

      It does accurately reflect what echo tags are available, it has nothing
to do with the quantity of messages contained in those echos.  Hubs are free to
transport other echos as they wish.  In my case, as of right now I have 1895
echos available to my links on my main hub, only 455 of them are listed in
BACKBONE.NA.  The other 1440 echos are (1) private distributed, (2) specialty
or restricted, or (3) echos that my downlinks have requested that are available
despite anyone requesting that the NAB officially transport them.  Some are
non-English.

 >
 >>> required to maintain a single item on the list to be considered a
 >>> Fidonet node, but rather, simply have a node number listed.
 >>      Huh?  Aquiring and holding a Fidonet node number has *nothing* to
 > do
 >> with any echos being distributed.  Sorry but you seem quite confused over
 >> this
 >> subject.
 >
 > Actually, that's exactly what I meant by my statement, "One isn't
 > required
 > to maintain a single item on the (echo) list to be considered a Fidonet
 > node
 > number, but rather, simply have a node number listed".  This statement
 > was
 > made in response to someone else who made a comment that perhaps someone
 > was
 > intending to force people to carry echos (crazy talk).  Bob, I've been

      That's not how it came across to me.

 > in
 > this business since the early '90's.. I can assure you that I'm not

      And I've been in Fidonet since the early '80's.

 > confused, you simply misunderstood me -- or -- haven't been following
 > the thread.

      You kept referring to the BACKBONE.NA file as BACKSTAT.NA, which is an
entirely different item.  That sounds confused to me.

 >
 >>> I'm not advocating the requirement of sysops to carry anything. I'm
 >>> simply
 >>> suggesting that we have an up-to-date listing of echos which are
 >>> considered
 >>> FidoNet.  A "guide" to those echos which fall within "our" Fidonet
 >>> domain.
 >>      There *never* has been such a thing, so why start now?
 >
 > Uhmm.. The baskstat.na file?  Did you state that the backstat is a guide
 > to
 > echos in the NAB ??  I'm really not trying to sound condescending here

      Nope, not at all,  BACKSTAT.NA is a weekly publication (sort of a
newsletter) that describes changes to what the North American Backbone
transports.  BACKBONE.NA is the actual list of echotags being distributed.

 > Bob,
 > but it's certainly blurting out that way.

      See what I mean about "confused"?

 >
 >>> From what I've been told, George Peace maintains the backstat.na, and
 >it>> has been a VERY long time since that list has been updated.
 >>      George Peace NEVER maintained either BACKSTAT.NA nor BACKBONE.NA,
 >> never! Also, fyi, George Peace has not been involved in Fidonet for
 >> close to 5 years now.
 >
 > I haven't heard from him in at least that long, which explains why.  For

      Nor have you attempted to contact him, he's been gone from the nodelist
for as long.  His last entry was the last nodelist of 1999 I believe.

 > the
 > last 4 years I've been attached to a ship, and have been deploying
 > around
 > the world.  Fidonet politics haven't been very important to me.  I was
 > incorrectly informed regarding who maintained the .na file, as you
 > stated, it's you.  Thank you for that correction.

      'k

 >
 > I do remember when John was maintaining it.  I was the Zone Four
 > coordinator
 > in the those days, and I did a great deal of mail work with John.  He
 > helped us bring Mexican Link into the NAB.

      Which is still done today via 1:10/3, a very able top-level hub!

 >
 > I do receive a copy every week, and my mail tosser incorporates it.
 > However, it lists echos that haven't had traffic in a very long time,
 > and it
 > doesn't list echos that do.  Like you said, I suppose it's up to the
 > moderators to list them.

      It lists every echo that moderators have requested the NAB to carry.  As
stated above, it's up to the moderators to decide when/if their echo is no
longer viable or not, not any distribution system hub - after all you've agreed
that NO mail-mover needs to play 'echo-police'.

 >
 > What about abandoned echos?  For instance, 12 Steps is listed -- but I
 > haven't had traffic in there in (at least) 6 months (which is as long as
 > I maintain any echo messages).

      It's _your_ choice to carry them or not.  Just as it's your choice to
contact the moderator and suggest they be removed (or not).  If there's no
elisted moderator, _you_ are most welcome to register as moderator, then
request that they be discontinued (or not).  Bobby Queen did that one time, it
worked. But the NAB is _not_ echo-police.





                       .....Bob

--- GEcho/32 & IM 2.50
 * Origin: http://www.fidonet.ca (1:140/12)