Text 40743, 103 rader
Skriven 2006-10-04 23:42:42 av Matt Bedynek (1:106/1)
  Kommentar till text 40645 av mark lewis (1:3634/12.0)
Ärende: DUD-file
================
Hello mark.

04 Oct 06 09:32, you wrote to me:

 ml> yousay that now but you weren't singing that song years back during
 ml> the backbone wars before you left fidonet for a while...

At first, I went along for the ride but quickly began to realize the goal of
the backbone was to wrench control of mail transfer from fidonet.  That is why
I was a founder of the wwb and in recent years became independent.  It became
apparent that private sattelite groups were the source of a most the of
distention in the network and the benefits of their existence nonexistent.  In
fact, mail transport reliability has never been this stable within the last
decade.

 MB>> Put simply, the ifdc has no bearing on this discussion.

 ml> bullshit...

I'm glad you agree.

 ml> yeah right... what makes them so much more important now than they
 ml> were years ago when the same type of stuff was done on almost a daily
 ml> basis?

Because this topic was largely unspoken.  The concept of organizations within
fidonet were blindly accepted and nobody considered the consequences. 
Moreover, organizations generally existed with little or no conflict.  There is
a strong need for _organization_ within fidonet but no need _organizations_. 
The former can exist without the other.

 MB>> How does one determine where fidonet policy ends and private
 MB>> organizations within fidonet begin?

 ml> exactly... this was one of the big things that souvestre and company
 ml> had to deal with... the concensis<sp?> at that time was that it
 ml> depended on what file the area was listed in... if an area was listed
 ml> in backbone.na or backbone.no, then the area was considered to be on
 ml> the backbone... if the area was listed in pvtdist.na or pvtdist.no (or
 ml> some other name), then it was _not_ considered to be on the
 ml> backbone...

You see, this is not the same thing.  The backbones were not official entities
within fidonet and the fact that an echo was not listed did not limit its
propagation.  In fact, I do things exactly that way here by generating my own
fidonet.na and forwarder lists.  Many of the echoes I list in my fidonet.na are
not listed in the echolist.  I base criteria for their listing as to whether
they are prodominantely english speaking areas - not "z1 based", even though I
assume the convention of fidonet."NA" implies north america.

 ml> it was this movement to allowing the private and independant backbones
 ml> to carry fidonet's traffic that lead to the widespread discovery that
 ml> folk had the freedom to link where ever they wanted and were able to
 ml> make an agreement for the linkage..

People were generally given the freedom to link anywhere they chose as long as
they were willing to shoulder the LD cost.  In fact, when I first started in
fidonet while some of the so-called repression was still around, a few members
in Net106 did just that.  The default route for inbound netmail was and still
in controlled by the nets administrative structure.

 ml> this also lead to the breakdown of the *C distribution chain as well
 ml> as the routing of netmail... this is where the regional routing charts
 ml> were supposedly to come into play, too...

Fortunately, then, there were less "hubs" so despite the larger distribution
loads, less cooperation was needed thereby resulting in smoother operation. 
Today, there are more hubs, less load; yet, the system does not work as good as
it did a decade ago.  I'm specifically referring to routed netmail as you might
suspect.  Echomail works better today but thats because its watched closer and
is a broadcast medium.

 ml> however, there were some RCs at that time that didn't want to play
 ml> fairly and do the charts...  those regions had a lot of problems with
 ml> routed netmail...

One of them is still here today.  :-)

 ml> that lead to a huge hullabaloo about censoring and the reading of
 ml> others mail and all kinds of mess...

There are a few hubs that still read intransit traffic; however, though I
dislike the practice, I believe it is within their right to monitor traffic
that passes through their system.

 ml> distribution... what file is it listed in? filegate.na and filegate.no
 ml> or fido.na and fido.no or something else that serves to seperate its
 ml> listing from the other areas??

Just ask why we cannot simply publish a list of echoes?  Why have organizations
within an organization?  I think what Ward said in a prior message made a lot
of sense regarding 'bones.

 ml> no thanks to those that created the situation, eh? ;)

Or those who continue to throw gasoline on it.  Heh.

Matt

em: matt [at] thunderdome.us | icq: 16568532 | yahoo: mbedynek

---
 * Origin: ..::[ high speed feeds - http://fido.thunderdome.us/ ]::.. (1:106/1)