Text 26141, 215 rader
Skriven 2015-07-20 23:03:11 av Lee Lofaso (2:203/2)
  Kommentar till text 26136 av Bill McGarrity (18328.2fidonews)
Ärende: New Stuff
=================
Hello Bill,

 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.

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

There is a distinct difference in how it is
transmitted/delivered/routed.  That difference
should be obvious to all who have used netmail
and echomail.  Most especially sysops.  ;)

 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 BM>and
 BM> echomail as it pertains to distribution and not the actual BM>content?

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

 BM> Had they wanted to they could have said content as well.

Actual content is covered elsewhere, as noted in P4 9.1

 BM> As previously stated, they didn't so am assumption they meant content is
on
 BM> 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 BM>simply a different
 BM> flavor of netmail, and is therefore BM>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.

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

Without content, there is nothing to distribute.
Therefore, your interpretation is nonsensical.

Here is a better explanation, from a fidonet sysop
who understands how this system works better than most -

"Technically speaking, echomail is netmail with an
`AREA:XXX' tag.  When a tosser encounters traffic
with that tag it is broadcast rather than unicast."
- Matt Bedynek

 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 -

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

I make no assumptions about content.
Either it exists, or it does not exists.
If none exists, what would be the point
of transmitting/delivering/routing?
Kind of silly, don't you think?

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

 BM> Agreed, but where is content mentioned?

Some things are implied.  Especially where such things are so
obvious as there being no need to make mention.  For example, if
there is no content to transmit, then why make a transmission at
all?  Makes no sense.

However, if there is content to be transmitted...

 BM> Netmail and Echomail co-exist on the same delivery pattern and that is the
 BM> only similarity...

How do I send a netmail to ALL?  What is the node?
I can't seem to find it (listed or unlisted) on any
nodelist anywhere ...

 BM> moving from point A to point B. At one time you actually needed a .MSG to
 BM> move echomail....that no longer being the case does, the statement *same
 BM> flavor* even hold true?

Content can mean many things, not necessary limited to .MSG

A sysop might want to test his/her system for bugs, or to
make enhancements.  Any of a number of reasons.

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

 BM> To what level?

At every level.  Most especially The Highest Level.
Nobody really cares about The Lowest Level.  Except
maybe those on The Lowest Level.

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

That depends.  If one is excessively annoying, and another
is excessively annoyed, then those who are annoying and annoyed
would be excommunicated in due accordance with P4.

To the best of my knowledge, this edict mandated by P4 has
never been carried out.  Even though there has been lots of
huffing and puffing for years on end, no such record could
ever be found of any sysop(s) having been excommunicated
as a result.

Must be the orders were written in invisible cyberink?

 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.  :)

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

Different flavor of netmail.  Never the same flavor.  I mean,
be serious.  How many same flavors of plain vanilla can there be?
Besides, chocolate is most everybody's favorite flavor ...

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

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

 BM> Then why is it there?

Somebody was on an ego trip.

 BM> Were the authors looking to waste paper?

More like cyber pixels.  Not sure how useful they would
be for wiping one's arse, but I have heard some sysops have
made it a favorite pastime ...

 BM> By saying certain sections are Editorial by nature is like saying Fox
 BM> Entertainment delivers news.  Neither is true.

FoxNews does report the news.  As does CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS,
and every other news organization.  There are also shows and
other broadcasts that are more entertainment than anything
else, but that is beside the point.  FoxNews (and others)
are playing to an audience.  A specific audience, to be sure.
But most definitely an audience.

FidoNet is the same way.  An audience exists, and FidoNet sysops
fulfill the needs and wants of that audience.  Even if that audience
is comprised exclusively, or almost exclusively, of themselves.

 BM> The base of those statements were to initiate an echomail policy to cover
 BM> all of it, which in this document does not cover content.

P4 was not written/ratified with the intent of limiting
freedom of speech.  Hence the two cardinal rules in P4,
section 9.1, noting the judicial philosophy of fidonet.

 BM> Transmission, yes. Maybe HAL should think about getting a node...??

He did.  Formerly known as Dave Bowman.  ;)

--Lee

--- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
 * Origin: news://felten.yi.org (2:203/2)