Text 40829, 75 rader
Skriven 2006-10-06 01:05:52 av Matt Bedynek (1:106/1)
  Kommentar till text 40675 av mark lewis (1:3634/12.0)
Ärende: DUD-file
================
Hello mark.

04 Oct 06 12:18, you wrote to me:

 ml> outside in the other world lies the law... this copyright stuff is law
 ml> and it is the law that janis was looking to protect the IFDC systems
 ml> from by following the IFDC policy...  never forget, the law overrides
 ml> everything...

It has not been demonstrated that the law was broken or in treat of being
broken.

 ml> the funny thing about that is that the same connections still remain
 ml> in place as they did when those associations were in effect ;)

With the exception of one so-called hub the days of musical links are long
gone.  With the unfortunate departure of juge there have been some changes to
topology.  Only time will tell if these changes will be stable but I believe
they will be.

 ml> and to think... all this mess started because three "fat daddys with
 ml> large pockets" decided to link together in a triangle and facilitate
 ml> the distribution of fidonet echomail to help remove a lot of the delay
 ml> time in propogation... others got jealous, advanced and grew, joined
 ml> that triangle as others dropped out and then led the charge in
 ml> creating private groups doing the same task... the whole problem
 ml> is/was competition and "mine's bigger or better than yours"...

I believe it was more an idea of ideaological differences.  What prompted the
creation of a Z1B was centered around the disagreement of how echoes were to be
handled with respect to purging.  Also, there was a lot of two personal
differences between two people that account for the bulk.

 ml> the IFDC is the ultimate authority on the files it carries within the
 ml> confins of the IFDC boundaries... those boundaries are denoted by the
 ml> list of areas that the IFDC considers to be IFDC areas as well as the
 ml> list of systems that the IFDC considers to be IFDC distribution
 ml> points... if the IFDC wants to prevent tunneling as others are trying
 ml> to say the snooze area is being done, then the IFDC must cut off
 ml> automatic distribution access of those areas to other systems such
 ml> that there are "hard" boundaries and such that for those files carried
 ml> by the IFDC must be acquired by some other means than being TIC'd out
 ml> to them...

Not if any decisions it makes conflicts with policy.  That is why I say policy
is the ultimate governing authority here.  If it is determined and agreed
policy is not violated then the rest of the discussion is pointless since if
policy is not violated the filegate can do whatever it wants.

 ml> i think you mean that if she had just held the file that we'd have a
 ml> reversible delima (not irreversible) because she could then just put
 ml> the file and the tic back in place... sadly, though, the file and tic
 ml> had already been processed and thus the only recourse to protect the
 ml> IFDC and the IFDC systems was to remove the file from those systems...
 ml> there's only one way to do that which is what janis did... now that
 ml> there was a stink made about that, configs all over fidonet have been
 ml> changed to prevent it from happening again... guess what that's
 ml> done... it has also stopped a re-hatch from the top from making it out
 ml> to all systems...

 ml> don'cha jus' lurve it! O8}

You may not think so but I can understand where a concern might exist.  Due to
how I think, I can invent a half dozen other scenarios that would indeed be a
real problem (legally).  For example, what if a node were to post a message (a
key generator to windows xp in uuencoded format).  With the exception of squish
most tossers do not allow someone to 'recall a message' and everyone passing or
holding that message on their system would be in violation.

Matt

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

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