Text 29404, 207 rader
Skriven 2015-12-23 10:22:06 av mark lewis (1:3634/12.73)
Kommentar till text 29342 av David Drummond (3:640/305)
Ärende: Rules of Echomail
=========================
23 Dec 15 08:11, you wrote to me:
DD>>> How much of the content of netmail doe P4 cover?
DD>>> Chapter and verse please...
ml>> ==== Begin "mark_lewis_can't_read_policy.txt" ====
ml>> 2.1.5 No Alteration of Routed Mail
ml>> You may not modify, other than as required for routing or other
ml>> technical purposes, any message, netmail or echomail, passing through
ml>> the system from one FidoNet node to another. If you are offended by
ml>> the content of a message, the procedure described in section 2.1.7
ml>> must be used.
DD> Does that include echomail? It doesn't state "netmail"...
"echomail is simply a different flavor of netmail"...
ml>> [...]
ml>> 2.1.7 Not Routing Mail
ml>> You are not required to route traffic if you have not agreed to do so.
ml>> You are not obligated to route traffic for all if you route it for
ml>> any, unless you hold a Network Coordinator or Hub Coordinator
ml>> position. Routing traffic through a node not obligated to perform
ml>> routing without the permission of that node may be annoying behavior.
ml>> This includes unsolicited echomail.
DD> Nothing about content. But DOES include echomail.
specifically, it includes *routed echomail* ;)
DD> Rather interesting too that I am a network coordinator but do not
DD> route mail.
that's because you're a PVT system and have someone else doing the heavy work
for you... you could route said netmail if you wanted to, though...
ml>> If you do not forward a message when you previously agreed to perform
ml>> such routing, the message must be returned to the sysop of the node at
ml>> which it entered FidoNet with an explanation of why it was not
ml>> forwarded. (It is not necessary to return messages which are
ml>> addressed to a node which is not in the current nodelist.)
ml>> Intentionally stopping an in-transit message without following this
ml>> procedure constitutes annoying behavior. In the case of a failure to
ml>> forward traffic due to a technical problem, it does not become
ml>> annoying unless it persists after being pointed out to the sysop.
DD> Still no reference to content
maybe not directly but it allows you the freedom to decide to not to forward a
message... you can make that decision based on numerous factors... content is
one of those factors...
ml>> [...]
ml>> 4.2 Routing Inbound Mail
ml>> It is your responsibility as Network Coordinator to coordinate the
ml>> receipt and forwarding of host-routed inbound netmail for nodes in
ml>> your network. The best way to accomplish this is left to your
ml>> discretion.
ml>> If a node in your network is receiving large volumes of mail you can
ml>> request that the sysop contact the systems which are sending this mail
ml>> and request that they not host-route it. If the problem persists, you
ml>> can request your Regional Coordinator to assign the node a number as
ml>> an independent and drop the system from your network.
DD> Nothing about the content...
right... this is about quantity...
ml>> Occasionally a node will make a "bombing run" (sending one message to
ml>> a great many nodes). If a node in another network is making bombing
ml>> runs on your nodes and routing them through your inbound host, then
ml>> you can complain to the network coordinator of the offending node.
ml>> (If the node is an independent, complain to the regional coordinator.)
ml>> Bombing runs are considered to be annoying.
ml>> Another source of routing overload is echomail. Echomail cannot be
ml>> allowed to degrade the ability of FidoNet to handle normal message
ml>> traffic. If a node in your network is routing large volumes of
ml>> echomail, you can ask the sysop to either limit the amount of echomail
ml>> or to stop routing echomail.
DD> Nothing about content.
there's that *routed echomail* thing again ;)
ml>> You are not required to forward encrypted, commercial, or illegal
ml>> mail.
DD> Without reading said in-transit messages how does one determine they they
DD> are encrypted, commercial or illegal -
how can you read it if it is encrypted? ;)
commercial content is easy enough to figure out...
DD> and what constitutes illegal?
illegal by the laws of the area where the message is currently being handled...
ml>> However, you must follow the procedures described in section 2.1.7 if
ml>> you do not forward the mail.
DD> I don't bother, no-one sends mail to my node to be routed.
hehehe...
ml>> [...]
ml>> 9 Resolution of Disputes
ml>> 9.1 General
ml>> The FidoNet judicial philosophy can be summed up in two rules:
ml>> 1) Thou shalt not excessively annoy others.
ml>> 2) Thou shalt not be too easily annoyed.
ml>> In other words, there are no hard and fast rules of conduct, but
ml>> reasonably polite behavior is expected. Also, in any dispute both
ml>> sides are examined, and action could be taken against either or both
ml>> parties. ("Judge not, lest ye be judged!")
ml>> The coordinator structure has the responsibility for defining
ml>> "excessively annoying". Like a common definition of pornography ("I
ml>> can't define it, but I know it when I see it."), a hard and fast
ml>> definition of acceptable FidoNet behavior is not possible. The
ml>> guidelines in this policy are deliberately vague to provide the
ml>> freedom that the coordinator structure requires to respond to the
ml>> needs of a growing and changing community.
ml>> The first step in any dispute between sysops is for the sysops to
ml>> attempt to communicate directly, at least by netmail, preferably by
ml>> voice. Any complaint made that has skipped this most basic
ml>> communication step will be rejected.
ml>> Filing a formal complaint is not an action which should be taken
ml>> lightly. Investigation and response to complaints requires time which
ml>> coordinators would prefer to spend doing more constructive activities.
ml>> Persons who persist in filing trivial policy complaints may find
ml>> themselves on the wrong side of an excessively-annoying complaint.
ml>> Complaints must be accompanied with verifiable evidence, generally
ml>> copies of messages; a simple word-of-mouth complaint will be dismissed
ml>> out of hand.
ml>> Failure to follow the procedures herein described (in particular, by
ml>> skipping a coordinator, or involving a coordinator not in the appeal
ml>> chain) is in and of itself annoying behavior.
DD> All that and nothing about content.
that's resolution of disputes... it is not specific to netmail or echomail but
they may be cause for disputes...
ml>> [...]
ml>> 9.9 Echomail
ml>> Echomail is an important and powerful force in FidoNet. For the
ml>> purposes of Policy Disputes, echomail is simply a different flavor of
ml>> netmail, and is therefore covered by Policy.
DD> WOW! What does that paragraph suggest to you?
it doesn't suggest anything to me... it plainly states that echomail is covered
and higher up it makes it clearer as to what is covered... if you route mail
through my system and i don't like you spelling flavor with a 'u', then i can
bounce those messages back to you based on that...
ml>> By its nature, echomail places unique technical and social demands on
ml>> the net over and above those covered by this version of Policy. In
ml>> recognition of this, an echomail policy which extends (and does not
ml>> contradict) general Policy, maintained by the Echomail Coordinators,
ml>> and ratified by a process similar to that of this document, is
ml>> recognized by the FidoNet Coordinators as a valid structure for
ml>> dispute resolution on matters pertaining to echomail. At some future
ml>> date the echomail policy document may be merged with this one.
ml>> ==== End ====
DD> A lot of guff but only 2 references to mail content.
it is what it is...
DD> Interesting that it DOES include echomail in a few places.
it always has...
)\/(ark
"So let me ask you a question about this brave new world of yours. When you've
killed all the bad guys, and when it's all perfect, and just and fair, and when
you have finally got it exactly the way you want it, what are you going to do
with the people like you? The trouble makers. How are you going to protect your
glorious revolution from the next one?" - The twelfth Doctor
... If ignornace is bliss, you ought to be ecstatic.
---
* Origin: (1:3634/12.73)
|