Text 26142, 278 rader
Skriven 2015-07-20 20:02:00 av Bill McGarrity (18334.2fidonews)
Kommentar till text 26141 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.
BM> No real distinction in how it is transmitted/delivered/routed.
LL> There is a distinct difference in how it is
LL> transmitted/delivered/routed. That difference
LL> should be obvious to all who have used netmail
LL> and echomail. Most especially sysops. ;)
Transmitting whether file attached or FLO has no distinction how it gets from
point A to point B. My cable line doesn't give a damn what the content is.
Neither does my mailer.
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.
LL> Actual content is covered elsewhere, as noted in P4 9.1
Now you're catching on.... :)
BM> As previously stated, they didn't so am assumption they meant content is
LL> 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
LL> distribution.
LL> Without content, there is nothing to distribute.
LL> Therefore, your interpretation is nonsensical.
Says you. The content is moot whether it's dealing with the weather or the
lastest fad in Hollywood. The contect doesn't alter the distribution route.
Point A to Point B.... very simple concept.
LL> Here is a better explanation, from a fidonet sysop
LL> who understands how this system works better than most -
LL> "Technically speaking, echomail is netmail with an
LL> `AREA:XXX' tag. When a tosser encounters traffic
LL> with that tag it is broadcast rather than unicast."
LL> - Matt Bedynek
Key word... TOSSER. By then the content was already transmitted. Now, the route
it took to get to the final destination can be gounds for discussion IF
somewhere along the line a system was being abused. Then a PC can be filed but
cotent has nothing to do with it.
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?
LL> I make no assumptions about content.
LL> Either it exists, or it does not exists.
LL> If none exists, what would be the point
LL> of transmitting/delivering/routing?
LL> Kind of silly, don't you think?
I'm not argueing that... you are. While either echomail or netmail is
scurrying along the wires of the internet... no one has a clue what the content
is except the sender. Therefore they are similar in that regard. Basic content
of echomail does not follow the same guidelines as netmail when it comes to
content. No where in 9.9 is content mentioned so it can't be assumed.
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
LL> 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?
LL> Some things are implied. Especially where such things are so
LL> obvious as there being no need to make mention. For example, if
LL> there is no content to transmit, then why make a transmission at
LL> all? Makes no sense.
You mean your assuming. Implied is just a scapegoat word. Agreed, no content
hy transmit but when there is content echomail doesn't fall within the same
scrutiny as netmail as there is no mention of it in P4.
LL> 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...
LL> How do I send a netmail to ALL? What is the node?
LL> I can't seem to find it (listed or unlisted) on any
LL> nodelist anywhere ...
You can't.... no one is debating that.
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?
LL> Content can mean many things, not necessary limited to .MSG
LL> A sysop might want to test his/her system for bugs, or to
LL> 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?
LL> At every level. Most especially The Highest Level.
LL> Nobody really cares about The Lowest Level. Except
LL> 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
LL> so,
BM> then yes, a PC would be warranted BM>but not because of content.
LL> That depends. If one is excessively annoying, and another
LL> is excessively annoyed, then those who are annoying and annoyed
LL> would be excommunicated in due accordance with P4.
With regard to netmail I wholeheartedly agree...
LL> To the best of my knowledge, this edict mandated by P4 has
LL> never been carried out. Even though there has been lots of
LL> huffing and puffing for years on end, no such record could
LL> ever be found of any sysop(s) having been excommunicated
LL> as a result.
Are you sure that had to do with content of echomail or a technical issue?
LL> 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
LL> mean
BM> it covers it as well.
LL> Different flavor of netmail. Never the same flavor. I mean,
LL> be serious. How many same flavors of plain vanilla can there be?
LL> 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?
LL> Somebody was on an ego trip.
Maybe someone knew that P4 lacked when it can to policing echomail.... :)
BM> Were the authors looking to waste paper?
LL> More like cyber pixels. Not sure how useful they would
LL> be for wiping one's arse, but I have heard some sysops have
LL> 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.
LL> FoxNews does report the news. As does CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS,
LL> and every other news organization. There are also shows and
LL> other broadcasts that are more entertainment than anything
LL> else, but that is beside the point. FoxNews (and others)
LL> are playing to an audience. A specific audience, to be sure.
LL> But most definitely an audience.
Which proves my point...
LL> FidoNet is the same way. An audience exists, and FidoNet sysops
LL> fulfill the needs and wants of that audience. Even if that audience
LL> is comprised exclusively, or almost exclusively, of themselves.
We're getting off topic...
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.
LL> P4 was not written/ratified with the intent of limiting
LL> freedom of speech. Hence the two cardinal rules in P4,
LL> section 9.1, noting the judicial philosophy of fidonet.
Then why are you adding echomail to a policy that governs netmail which, has
limitations.
BM> Transmission, yes. Maybe HAL should think about getting a node...??
LL> He did. Formerly known as Dave Bowman. ;)
He was an odd one...
--
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)
|