Text 29436, 153 rader
Skriven 2015-12-24 07:21:56 av David Drummond (3:640/305)
  Kommentar till text 29404 av mark lewis (1:3634/12.73)
Ärende: Rules of Echomail
=========================
On 24/12/2015 1:22 AM, mark lewis -> David Drummond wrote:

 ml>>> 2.1.5  No Alteration of Routed Mail
[...]


 DD>> Does that include echomail? It doesn't state "netmail"...

 ml> "echomail is simply a different flavor of netmail"...

Meaning... that it is to be treated exactly the same as echomail?

And I did post an update to my original message. I missed "only"

 ml>>> [...]

 ml>>> 2.1.7  Not Routing Mail

 DD>> Nothing about content. But DOES include echomail.

 ml> specifically, it includes *routed echomail* ;)

Even though it cannot be routed (under normal operating procedure). But once
again, Policy covered echomail

 DD>> Rather interesting too that I am a network coordinator but do not
 DD>> route mail.

 ml> that's because you're a PVT system and have someone else doing the heavy
 ml> work for you...

Heavy lifting? How heavy is the netmail forwarding load your system carries?

I think that Internet email has almost killed netmail just as the Web has
almost kill Fidonet itself..

 ml> you could route said netmail if you wanted to, though...

Actually I couldn't, my node has no external contact. It must initiate all
external transactions. No-one can deliver netmail to my node.

Does point out the futility of that paragraph though.
[...]
 DD>> Still no reference to content

 ml> maybe not directly but it allows you the freedom to decide to not to
 ml> forward a message... you can make that decision based on numerous
 ml> factors... content is one of those factors...

Including echomail content?

 ml>>> [...]

 ml>>> 4.2  Routing Inbound Mail
[...]
 DD>> Nothing about the content...

 ml> right... this is about quantity...
[...]

 DD>> Nothing about content.

 ml> there's that *routed echomail* thing again ;)

Again, something that cannot happen (under normal operating procedure)

 ml>>> You are not required to forward encrypted, commercial, or illegal mail.

 DD>> Without reading said in-transit messages how does one determine they they
 DD>> are encrypted, commercial or illegal -

 ml> how can you read it if it is encrypted? ;)

I think that's the whole point of encrytion...

 ml> commercial content is easy enough to figure out...

 DD>>  and what constitutes illegal?

 ml> illegal by the laws of the area where the message is currently being
 ml> handled...

So you think it's fine by Policy4 for me to post a netmail message here
regarding Nazi principles and send it to someone in Germany?

 ml>>> However, you must follow the procedures described in section
 ml> 2.1.7 if you do not forward the mail.

 DD>> I don't bother, no-one sends mail to my node to be routed.

 ml> hehehe...

 ml>>> [...]

 ml>>> 9  Resolution of Disputes
[...]
 DD>> All that and nothing about content.

 ml> that's resolution of disputes... it is not specific to netmail or
 ml> echomail but they may be cause for disputes...

So netmail and echomail have equal standing under that paragraph?

 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?

 ml> it doesn't suggest anything to me... it plainly states that echomail is
 ml> covered and higher up it makes it clearer as to what is covered... if
 ml> you route mail through my system

As echomail cannot be routed (under normal operating procedures) that concept
is redundant.

But if I deliver a packet contain echomail to your system I can have what ever
content in it I want because it's not "routed'?

 ml> and i don't like you spelling flavor with a 'u', then i can bounce those
messages back to you based on that...

What you like doesn't matter - it is perfectly legal in this country to spell
flavour with a u - in fact it is expected of us.

Policy covers echomail just as it does netmail - as claimed in my posting to
Joe that you jumped in on.

Thank you for confirming my point to Joe.

 DD>> A lot of guff but only 2 references to mail content.

 ml> it is what it is...

 DD>> Interesting that it DOES include echomail in a few places.

 ml> it always has...

And yet there are those who deny that echomail is covered by Policy4...

Strange......

-- 

regards
David

--- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
 * Origin:  (3:640/305)