Text 22252, 126 rader
Skriven 2011-09-10 01:14:14 av Richard Webb (1:116/901.0)
  Kommentar till text 22246 av Janis Kracht (1:261/38)
Ärende: The isolation
=====================
HI Janis,

fIrst, this will also reply to JOe's reply to me, two birds, one message <g>.
On Fri 2011-Sep-09 17:00, Janis Kracht (1:261/38) wrote to Joe Delahaye:

> I cannot speak regards that issue, as I have never thought myself capable of
> actually writing an article.  I did give permission and hoped that both
> versions of Fidonews would publish what I wrote shortly after this started.

JK> I know that when I asked Gary to publish something written in here
JK> at the top of my post, he did so.  Perhaps he missed your request? 
JK> I also followed up my request with a netmail to Gary to make sure he
JK> say my request. 

YEp, understood.  Btw, am working on something, won't be to
Gary by this deadline, but hopefully next week.  Bet you saw my netmail on
that.  I nuked my msg base in its entirety
last weekend to troubleshoot a problem, then found the
problem was elsewhere.  Ain't it always the way?

> Agree with you there.  The amount of traffic is not the point,  They type of
> traffic certainly is an issue or was at least.  The fight has simply moved to
> FN_Sysop, but I notice that some of the offenders have quieted down
> considerably <G>.

JK> Thank goodness <grin>

MOre on this further down, as you and JOe both address those points in more
detail.

>> I've in no way in expressing my concerns endeavored to point fingers at
>> individuals re the routing problem, I"ve
>> endeavored to state what I know to be true in case it helps
>> diagnose the problem.
>>

> That is always a good idea.

JK> Anything routed through here will "go" if it's in the body of the
JK> message and if the netmail message has proper routing commands (in
JK> other words, people can't just drop off netmail here as some mailers
JK> will allow).  Most of my downlinks know this, and when a mail fails
JK> for that reason, I let them know why it failed. Netmail that fails
JK> because of this is marked as "not for us" by BBBS, so I know when it
JK> happens.

As it did when I wasn't archiving the netmail with other
mail sent you.  I would get a complaint from bbbs when it
wouldn't route something, and since then I route
specifically through you traffic for numerous systems in r19 as rc19 connects
with you.  Those always get through and I
get replies to them.  I mention it because that's been my
default routing for r19 systems since Marc Lewis
discontinued pots.  Before then I routed all my r19 traffic
through him.  Therefore I know that my messages don't bounce at your system. 
Same with my other path, to 3634/12 where
Mark routes them according to his own system's rules, and
they all get where they're going it appears.  I don't know
what the problem is with 2:2/2, but it's been ongoing using
more than one routing.

JK> Yes, both my concerns, as well. No one should have to put with
JK> bashing of his/her country here, or personal insults of any type.

iT was that constant bashing, and the sniping from both
sides that made FIdonews not worthy of carriage on my system as publicly
available, and not available to any points that
I feed, or might in the future.  I passed FIdonews the echo
through to Bob Ackley, and at times would have it available
for me to read, but most of the time since I rejoined
FIdonet if i was linked at all to that echo it was passthru
to another system.  I truly felt that the traffic there was
unbecoming to a truly international network and represented
FIdonet extremely poorly.  Had it been Matzdobre or another
such echo I wouldn't have had a problem, but FIdonews the
echo by default has a special place in fIdonet as does
FIdonews the publication.  Both deserve greater respect,
including from those who are directly in the routing path to the FIdonews
editor, in this case major mail movers in z2,
especially those which connect with the editor's system
directly.

>> Imho this is something the zcc needs to address, but I"ve
>> said that all along iirc.

>But, what can they do about it, and, who is still around, other then Janis and
> Ward.

JK> Russell is still here and posting in ZCC, Manual is still here, and
JK> of course Scott.

IT would appear that all five zones are represented then.

JK> The ZCC really can have no place in this since they cannot be made
JK> to decide anything relative as to who has to carry what on their
JK> systems. 

Of course not, but, as FIdonews is the official organ of
FIdonet, imho the zcc could be a little bit of a squeaky
wheel on what the problem is with routed nm consistently
reaching the editor, and could ask the editor that if he's
going to moderate the FIdonews echo to clean house a bit so
as to better serve FIdonet, or mandate that even though he
keeps the newsletter position if he won't do that with the
echo which represents the FIdonews then the moderatorship
should be elsewhere.  That imho the zcc could do, without
mandating who is required to carry what, or to feed whoever. Imho the zcc has a
direct interest in protecting the good
name of FIdonet, and seeing to it that those who represent
it, such as the FIdonews editor conduct him/herself in a
manner fitting somebody with that position.  That is
directly within the purview of the zcc's authority.  YEs, I
know, FIdonet is a grand experiment in constructive anarchy, but any
organization's leaders have a responsibility to see
that what is done in the organization's name properly
represents said organization.  The zcc has a vested interest in seeing to it
that the FIdonews is accessible to all who
wish to read it, and contribute to it, especially via routed FIdonet traffic.

<soap box mode off>


Regards,
           Richard
---
 * Origin:  (1:116/901)