Text 41029, 136 rader
Skriven 2006-10-09 21:06:48 av mark lewis (1:3634/12.0)
  Kommentar till text 40990 av Torbjorn Mohn (2:211/37)
Ärende: DUD-file
================
>> But why was it then neccesary for Janis to make sure that people
>> WITHIN Fidonet didn't receive it?

>she didn't... because there is no hardline seperation between the
>distribution system and fidonet, the replacement went to all systems 
>that are downstream from her...

 TM> Then, either they should have been separated, or she should have
 TM> handeled it differently.

the only way to seperate them would be to not allow linking by the "wall"
systems... that means that the tic stops with them... then for the file to go
on any further would require either manual downloading, freqs, or some other
way of acquiring the file other than simply linking with a tic processor...

as for handeling it another way? i don't know that there really was another way
without violating some other policy...

>> She didn't have to hatch the fake issue into Fidonet?

> that is the only way to remove distributed file via the same 
> automation... consider a system with 100 hubs... send a message to 
> 100 systems after the file has arrived to try to have it pulled 
> before it leaves their systems? ain't gonna happen when they're 
> sleeping...

 TM> May be automation isn't the thing then? 

that is how the distribution works... as a sysop, you get up on friday morning
and you expect to see the nodediff has arrived and been processed while you
slept, right? and then the snooze arrives on monday and it automatically added
to your files list, right? ;)

 TM> At one point in time, the content was discovered, and acted upon?

if you are talking about this situation, the content was discovered after the
file arrived, was processed, and passed on to others for further automatic
processing...

>> By doing so, she deliberately (?) made sure that people receiving
>> the file through Fidonet "legally", also was deprived of it,

> no, not unless they were in a loop somewhere or were part of the
> distribution network...

 TM> Seems to be the case on many systems though?

dunnon about that... part of the problem happened due to some "high level"
systems being multiply connected to each other... in otherwords, there is/was
another track back to the feed...

   A ===== B
   |\     /|
   | \   / |
   |  \ /  |
   |   X   |
   |  / \  |
   | /   \ |
   |/     \|
   C=======D

the above 4 systems are all fully connected... if A removes a file by sending
out a replacement dud-file, then B C and D will all get it either directly from
A or from one of the others... if any of them do not allow send/receive from
all the others, then that area is not part of a fully connected polygon...

>> and that was never the intention in the copyright notice the first
>> place?

> supposedly that is not the intention, yes... at least that's what bf
> and mvdv said a week or so back when this whole thing blew up... but 
> it is confusing because they say it one time and then reverse 
> themselves later and then flip back again...

 TM> Mvdv's intention has been clear all the time I think.

not to me, for one... i read the copyright and take it at face value... then i
see them saying that it doesn't mean diddlysquat outside of sweden or germany
or whereever... so, how's one supposed to know if what one reads actually does
apply to one or not??

>> Seems to me she thought; "well since I can't have it in my precious
>> Filgate system, no one else should have it on their Fidonet system
>> either"??

> no, that's not it at all...

 TM> Well.. as I said, that's the way it looks to me. Nothing I've heard
 TM> or seen sin ce has changed my oppinion on that.

have you missed her messages on the subject? did you not see the initial one
where she said that she was removing the file and exactly why? reread that
paragraph i just wrote and replace "i" with "janis" or anyone else's name and
see what answer you come up with :)

>> That's at least the way it looks to me? It may not have been
>> intentional, but it stinks no matter what the reason is?

> i agree that it is an unfortunate thing to have happened...

 TM> Unfortunate, clumsy and unneccesary.

sorry, the system was designed years ago and those designers have long ago left
this network behind... we're stuck with a whole lot of legacy no matter how
much many try to advance and believe that they don't have the legacy to contend
with O:)

>FWIW: this is the type of stuff that used to happen here in Z1 that
>lead to Z1 having certain parctises that everyone else believes are 
>not necessary... the requirement for an echo to be elisted being one 
>of those after some were playing games trying to claim ownership of an 
>echo that others had started and worked very hard to get distributed 
>and have traffic... you guys (collective) just need to be glad that 
>the likes of those have long since left the network 'cause if they 
>were still here, today, there'd be a lot more controversy and  
>shenanigans that the little stuff we've been seeing...

 TM> This is also the type of stuff I do not think we have seen much of
 TM> here in Z2. I take your word for it, and find it easy to believe
 TM> after having seen it now, that this is a normal "Z1 way of handling
 TM> things". :-)

you guys in Z2 have had one or two dealings with such but nothing as major as
Z1 had to deal with... i was just reading an old snooze where a couple of Z2
*ECs instituted deletion of one annoying user's echomail as a way of
eliminating the controversies he kept stirring up... as a user, he simply
jumped from bbs to bbs as his method of getting around the moderator's "take a
vacation" edict... another thing to remember is that Z2 has also had a long
history of kowtowing to "the powers that be" and "following the piper with the
rest of the mice"... i don't mean any disrespect in that statement but it is
true... Z1, on the other hand, seperated itself from Z2 by war and a nice
little tea party in the boston harbor many years ago :)

)\/(ark

 * Origin:  (1:3634/12)