Text 26136, 140 rader
Skriven 2015-07-19 19:39:00 av Bill McGarrity (18328.2fidonews)
  Kommentar till text 26129 av Lee Lofaso (2:203/2)
Ärende: Re: New Stuff
=====================
-=> Lee Lofaso wrote to Bill McGarrity <=-

Hiya Lee...

 BM> Playing Devil's Avocate here...

 LL> Am familiar with the approach.  Sometimes
 LL> necessary in making determination of validity.

 LL>> You heard that right.  There are "no exceptions" LL>in P4.  None at all.
 BM> Absolutely none.

 BM> Doesn't nee to be.

 LL> In most cases, exceptions are made, whether stated
 LL> or unstated.  However, in the case of netmail/echomail,
 LL> no clear distinction is made.  And for good reason,
 LL> that reason being there is no real distinction.

No real distinction in how it is transmitted/delivered/routed.


 LL>> As such, everything is covered.  Including netmail.  And
 LL>> all different flavors thereof.

 LL>> So what shall it be?  Chocolate, strawberry, or vanilla?

 LL>> Don't like those flavors?  Concoct something new!  Every
 LL>> fidonet sysop is an echomail chef, and many non-sysops are,
 LL>> too!  Butter pecan, pistachio, black walnut, cotton candy ...

 BM> Could the originators be making the comparison between netmail and
 LL> echomail
 BM> as it pertains to distribution and not the actual content?

 LL> No.  Had they wanted to do so, they would have.

Had they wanted to they could have said content as well. As previously stated,
they didn't so am assumption they meant content is on par with flying pigs.

 BM> 9.9  Echomail

 BM> Echomail is an important and powerful force in FidoNet.

 LL> How is that statement any different than "Netmail is
 LL> an important and powerful force in FidoNet"?

 BM> For the purposes of Policy Disputes, echomail is simply a different flavor
 BM> of netmail, and is therefore covered by Policy.

 LL> Very clearly stated - echomail and netmail are treated
 LL> in the same respect, as the two are virtually one and the
 LL> same.

But on what level? There is the issue.  You say content, I say distribution.


 LL> The next section you quoted is mere commentary, and not
 LL> actual policy.  More like an editorial within a policy
 LL> document that carries no weight -

Oh?  Is this the same reasoning you're using to assume content?


 BM> By its nature, echomail places unique technical and social demands on the
 BM> net over and above those covered by this version of Policy.  In
 LL> recognition
 BM> of this, an echomail policy which extends (and does not contradict)
 LL> general
 BM> Policy, maintained by the Echomail Coordinators, and
 BM> ratified by a process similar to that of this document, is recognized by
 LL> the
 BM> FidoNet Coordinators as a valid structure for dispute resolution on
 LL> matters
 BM> pertaining to echomail.  At some future date the echomail policy document
 BM> may be merged with this one.

 LL> End P4 section.

 BM> Where in that statement does it mention "content"?

 LL> The words "except" and/or "exception" do not exist anywhere
 LL> in P4.  Nor do any other similar such words.  Therefore, the
 LL> terms netmail and echomail are synonymous, meaning one and
 LL> the same.

Agreed, but where is content mentioned?  Netmail and Echomail co-exist on the
same delivery pattern and that is the only similarity... moving from point A to
point B. At one time you actually needed a .MSG to move echomail....that no
longer being the case does, the statement *same flavor* even hold true?

 LL> P4 is very clear on this.  No matter how you cut it,
 LL> netmail/echomail is covered by policy.

To what level?

 BM> It is taboo to route echomail through a node without previous permission
 LL> and
 BM> as such could this be the issue they had in mind?  If so, then yes, a PC
 BM> would be warranted but not because of content.

 LL> Content is covered under a different section - that section dealing
 LL> with the judicial philosophy of fidonet.  I am sure you and all other
 LL> sysops are quite familiar with that philosophy, as it encompasses all
 LL> of two very simple rules.  :)

Netmail content is covered.  Saying echomail is the same flavor may not mean it
covers it as well.  

 BM> The last statement "At some future date the echomail policy document may
 LL> be
 BM> merged with this one" more like describes content....

 LL> An editorial comment about a document that does not exist is
 LL> totally irrelevant to the discussion.  :)

Then why is it there?  Were the authors looking to waste paper?

By saying certain sections are Editorial by nature is like saying Fox
Entertainment delivers news.  Neither is true.  The base of those statements
were to initiate an echomail policy to cover all of it, which in this document
does not cover content. Transmission, yes. Maybe HAL should think about getting
a node...??


--

Bill

Telnet: tequilamockingbirdonline.net
Web: bbs.tequilamockingbirdonline.net
FTP: ftp.tequilamockingbirdonline.net:2121
IRC: irc.tequilamockingbirdonline.net Ports: 6661-6670 SSL: +6697
Radio: radio.tequilamockingbirdonline.net:8010/live


... Look Twice... Save a Life!!! Motorcycles are Everywhere!!!
=== MultiMail/Win32 v0.50
--- SBBSecho 2.27-Win32
 * Origin: TequilaMockingbird Online - Toms River, NJ (1:266/404)