Text 18794, 116 rader
Skriven 2014-10-03 21:58:54 av Janis Kracht (1:261/38)
  Kommentar till text 18790 av Ward Dossche (2:292/854)
Ärende: Re: Echomail / P4
=========================
Hi Ward,

>So the full statement ought to be that "Echomail is covered by P4 with the sol
>proviso that there cannot be any formal complaint resolution by moderators, no
> the *EC-chain, nor the *C-hierarchy based on echomail content."


I might not go that far.  I would want to let policy speak for itself as far as
echomail is concerned when we are talking about situations not involving "sysop
content" or "user content".  Perhaps this is where the idea of technical issues
comes up, because all things discussed here are technical, not content-related.
In essense:

2.1.5 You cannot modify the content of traffic except for routing, no matter
what kind of traffic, netmail or echomail 2.1.7 no routing through a node
unless he agrees beforehand no matter what kind, netmail or echomail.
2.1.12 no aid in terms of a feed to those have been excomm'd no matter what
kind of traffic involved, netmail or echomail.

Paraphrased, but I think we can all agree on that.

> However, this is also what I read in P4:

> ****************************************************************************
> 9.9  Echomail

> "In recognition of this, an echomail policy which extends (and does not
> contradict) general Policy, maintained by the Echomail Coordinators, and
> ratified by a process similar to that of this document, is recognized by the
> FidoNet Coordinators as a valid structure for dispute resolution on matters
> pertaining to echomail."
> *****************************************************************************
> Please read "is recognized". Not "will be recognized in future" nor "the need
> for such a policy is recognized".

> What I read is that there "IS" such an echomail-policy and it "IS" recognized
> by the Fidonet Coordinators. That statement is written in the "now" when P4.7
> was released, not in the "future".

Forward thinking writers perhaps, but we all know the history of EP1.  It
_never_ got past draft status (I have a copy of the original here as I'm sure
many others do), and never came up to the body (then) of RCs or EC* who could
have elected to accept it. Yes, you can pick out that one sentence and claim
that echomail "is" recognized, however that ignores the second phrase of that
complex sentence:

It is the _structure_ (the method) to remedy the situation that is recognized.
Not the draft of ep1.  Forgive my annoted quotes below.  I'm sure you've
considered all this before.


"Echomail is an important and powerful force in FidoNet.  For the purposes of
Policy Disputes, echomail is simply a different flavor of netmail, and is
therefore covered by Policy

{as noted in previous technical sections}

.  By its nature, echomail places unique technical and social demands on the
net over and above those covered by this version of Policy.

{we know we haven't covered echomail outside of tech. issues}

In recognition of this, an echomail policy which extends (and does not
contradict) general Policy, maintained by the Echomail Coordinators, and
ratified by a process similar to that of this document, is recognized by the
FidoNet Coordinators as a valid structure for dispute resolution on matters
pertaining to echomail.

{We've set out the methods of acceptence the ECs or RCs must follow in order to
deal with an echomail policy.  Do we have such a document at this point? No.}

 At some future date the echomail policy document may be
merged with this one."

{it's not merged, because it wasn't accepted via the structure described above}

> So where is this echomail policy? If it isn't EP1 which was being referenced,
> then what was it?
> Further:

> P4.7  Jun.09 1989
> EP1   Feb.01 1989

No, the date of the original is dated differently for all that matters:

===================cut here==============
Draft  -:-  Draft  -:-  Draft  -:-  Draft  -:-  Draft  -:-  Draft

                      Draft Revision 2.008

    Changes by John Souvestre, 1:396/1, on February 26, 1991

Draft  -:-  Draft  -:-  Draft  -:-  Draft  -:-  Draft  -:-  Draft



             ZONE ONE BACKBONE ECHOMAIL POLICY 2.0

================cut here=============

Quite a bit later, not 1989.  Perhaps the date you are showing above is the
date the file was received by someone down the line?  This document above has
it's date stamped within the document with no question as to it's date.

>It would be very interesting now to have access to the 1989 echomail-archives
> as to me this is a clear indication P4 references EP1, even though it is not
> specifically mentioned. The 4 month overlap is all too obvious.
> So which echomailpolicy, if not EP1, is referenced in P4.7?

The date you show is more than questionable.

Take care,
Janis

--- BBBS/Li6 v4.10 Dada-1
 * Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/38)