Text 29268, 103 rader
Skriven 2015-12-21 02:42:33 av Lee Lofaso (2:203/2)
  Kommentar till text 29236 av Earl Croasmun (1:261/38.0)
Ärende: Rules of Echomail
=========================
Hello Earl,

 >> "Usual rules of Fidonet echomail"?

 >> What is that supposed to be? The powers that be in Z1 have decreed that P4
 >> doe
 >> not cover echomail. They have no echomail policy in Z1. So there are no
 >> rules
 >> for echomail in Z1. What rules?

 EC> If there were rules governing ALL echomail, then the term "usual" would
 EC> probably not have been used. Lee doesn't give the context of the quote, of
 EC> course, but it may have been used in posting the rules in one particular
 EC> echo.

"The usual rules of Fidonet echomail apply. These include
the use of real names, proper displaying of address and other
information on messages originating from your system, etc."
- Mark Lewis, Fidonet lawyer and main consultant for P4

What exactly are "the usual rules of Fidonet echomail"?
Can you tell me?  Mark seems to know all the answers, as
he is the one who wrote the above quote.  I wonder where
he got the idea from?  Hmmm.  I'll give you a hint -

"Jeff Snyder" = Bill Kochman

Janis Kracht can fill you in on the details, how Bill was
able to swipe the node of a sysop in Hawaii as he was on a
tour of duty in Iraq ...

You see, I had asked Janis about it via email.  She responded
to my query by informing me that all sysops and moderators are
allowed to use an alias/handle in fidonet.  This same policy
did not apply to non-sysops who were not moderators.

However, the issue here is not Bill Kochman, or his alias/handle.
What is at issue is echomail policy.

What are "the usual rules of Fidonet echomail"?  Whatever Janis
Kracht wants them to be!  Those are the rules!  And that is all
one needs to know!

Those rules are not limited to Fidonet echomail.  For a full and
comprehensive review of those rules, you will have to read The
Secret Book of Janis.  However, I am sorry to say I do not have
a copy.  And besides, it is written in invisible ink, in a language
I cannot understand.

But hey.  Ignorance is no excuse.  So read it anyway.  And if you
still can't figure it out, ask Mark.  I am sure Mark will be more
than happy to interpret it for you.

 EC> The rules look like the type of rules that are usual (typical, routine) in
 EC> other echoes.

You have a copy?  A copy that is legible, and not invisible?
Can you post them here, so others can also read them?  We would
all be so very grateful ...

 EC> Richard Webb used the same phrase in 2012 without drawing any comment from
 EC> Lee that I am aware of.

I wouldn't know.  And I doubt anybody else does, either.
The only person(s) who cares what the rules look like are those
who wrote the rules.  And in this case, those who wrote the
rules also interpret (and seek to enforce) the rules.  So what
are the rules?  There are no rules.  That is the only thing
I can gather.

 EC> "Usual rules of FIdonet echomail apply. These include the use of real
names,
 EC> proper displaying of address and other information on messages originating
 EC> from your system, etc.

 EC> Gateways to/from other networks must be approved by users of the
conference.

Only the moderator of an echo has the right to decide what to do
with his/her echo.  Not anybody else.

 EC> IF approved any gateway must work in both directions.

The moderator controls his/her echo, nobody else.  You seem to have
a problem with that.  It is not a question of "if approved" or any
other "if".  There are no ifs, ands, or buts when it comes to this.
ONLY THE MODERATOR OF AN ECHO HAS THE RIGHT TO DECIDE WHAT TO DO
WITH HIS/HER ECHO.  NOT ANYBODY ELSE.

[..]

 EC> Mark uses pretty much the same rules in the same echo now that he is the
 EC> moderator.

In other words, his "usual rules of Fidonet echomail" are his
own made-up rules.

Thanks for playing.  :)

--Lee

--- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
 * Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)