Text 10349, 66 rader
Skriven 2010-09-10 13:08:59 av Richard Webb (1:116/901.0)
  Kommentar till text 10347 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
Ärende: PVT Nodes
=================
Hello Michiel,

On Fri 2038-Sep-10 10:29, Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555) wrote to Janis
Kracht:

<big snip>

MvdV> Fidonet was designed as a peer to peer network. The idea was that
MvdV> every node can connect to any other node. The original Fido
MvdV> programme was a BBS and a mailer, but not both at the same time.
MvdV> It had to be started in BBS mode OR in mailer mode. So, in order
MvdV> to allow sysops to run their BBS and exchange mail between
MvdV> systems, ZMH (originally called NMH) was introduced. During ZMH
MvdV> all node must switch to mailer mode so that they can receive mail
MvdV> from others. 

THis is true.  But, and if I'm remembering right I've seen
this circular argument before, but ...

HOw does a node that only communicates via pots communicate
directly with a telnet only node?  How about a node that can communicate only
via email tunneling and a binkd node?

I always said even back in the halcyon days of this network
that it was reliable routing as well as the p2p component of Fido that would
keep it viable.  Many didn't, but I offered
bbs users routed netmail access, encouraged them to use uucp type email
gateways appropriately, and attempted to help
solve the mail black hole problems they brought to my
attention.

We have evolved quite a bit since the days of the founding
fathers of Fido.  A good number of connection schemes, all
incompatible with each other.

MvdV> Considering all that, it is pretty obvious that your
MvdV> interpretation that the requirement to be able to receive mail
MvdV> during ZMH is restricted to the ability to receive mail from one's
MvdV> NC, is not what the founding fathers had in mind. I am pretty sure
MvdV> it is not what the authors of P1 to P4 had in mind either. Plus
MvdV> that it is not what P1-P4 says. The restriction is your invention.

True enough, but, p1-p4 have not evolved with the evolution
of FIdonet.  Hence no universal conventions re echomail,
etc.  The best we could ever come up with when the subject
has come up is to agree to disagree, therefore the status
quo remains.  NOrmally if it ain't broke applies, but on the fly
interpretations that have kept up with the times have
existed at zone region and net levels depending on who's
interpreting and the needs of the area administered.


I've maintained for years that this "agree to disagree" did
as much as anything to bring about the rapid decline of
Fido, at just the time when internet access was becoming
more widely available and these various connection schemes
were just coming into wide acceptance.   All one need to do
to see the basis for my position there is review back issues of FIdonews.

FUny thing, but I'm fighting much the same battle with
another communications service right now, also operated as a volunteer effort.

Regards,
           Richard
--- timEd 1.10.y2k+
 * Origin:  (1:116/901)