Text 29500, 165 rader
Skriven 2015-12-24 12:32:32 av David Drummond (3:640/305)
  Kommentar till text 29471 av mark lewis (1:3634/12.73)
Ärende: Rules of Echomail
=========================
On 24/12/2015 9:09 AM, mark lewis -> David Drummond wrote:

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

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

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

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

 ml> you misspelled that last word... it should be "netmail"...

"Would netmail be treated the same as netmail? No I do not think I mispelled
that.
[...]
 ml>>>>> 2.1.7  Not Routing Mail

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

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

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

 ml> maybe not under /today's/ normal operating methods but it was possible
 ml> and widely done...

Bullshit!

Put you money where you mouth is, route an echomail message to me via one of
the systems who said that they will allow you to do it.
[...]
 DD>> Heavy lifting? How heavy is the netmail forwarding load your system
 DD>> carries?

 ml> netmail availability is not the only job of an NC's system...

What other part of the role is affected by no direct access?
[...]

 ml> to a point i can agree... more to the point, it is all this arguing and
 ml> all the attempts to destroy what has been in operation for 30+ years
 ml> which is doing the most harm...

Destroying Z1's stranglehold you mean?

Face it, Z1 is a very small part of Fidonet today - you don;t get to call/force
the shots any more.

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

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

 ml> actually you can... the system acting as the /0 can package all that
 ml> routed netmail and place it on hold for you to pick up and repackage to
 ml> other systems which you would then deliver...

What would be the point of that? /0 can deliver it them with one less hop.
[...]
 DD>> Including echomail content?

 ml> yes! "echomail is simply a different flavor of netmail"... if you don't
 ml> like the content of a netmail, you don't have to keep it if it is
 ml> destined to your system and you don't have to pass it on to the next
 ml> system if it is being routed... you do, however, have to bounce it back
 ml> to the originator with a note of the reason for the bounce... the exact
 ml> same thing can be done with echomail, too... only the bounce would
 ml> travel back to the originating system via netmail... you would also have
 ml> to have some way of preventing it from being passed on to your other
 ml> links... this was easily done when tossing was performed in two steps...
 ml> one to toss into the message areas and one to scan the new messages
 ml> out... between the two, the operator could easily go read what was new
 ml> and decide to pass it on or bounce it back...

Have you got your *Cs' permission to acknowledge that Policy covers echomail
content?
[...]
 DD>> Again, something that cannot happen (under normal operating
 ml> procedure)

 ml> your vision is too limited... it can happen under normal operating
 ml> procedures... one just has to have the software which allows for it...

Then do it - I'm waiting with bated breath.

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

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

 ml> in that case, you can bounce it because it is encrypted and you cannot
 ml> legally protect yourself from trafficing illegal material...

Who would know that it was illegal other than the un-encrypter?

 DD>>>>  and what constitutes illegal?

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

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

 ml> that's my argument to you... it is not fine by policy because that
 ml> content is illegal in germany...

You're relying on hear-say again.

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

 ml> again, your vision is lacking...

As are you skills  - send me a routed echomail message.
[...]
 DD>> Thank you for confirming my point to Joe.

 ml> which point was that?

That echomail is covered by Policy to the same degree that netmail is. You've
quoted all the relevant Poliy referenes for me saving me from chasing up a copy
of Policy
[...]
 DD>>>> Interesting that it DOES include echomail in a few places.

 ml> right but only certain things regarding echomail are actionable just
 ml> like with netmail...

:)

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

 ml> again, folks are forgetting or leaving out the entire context which puts
 ml> things in the proper perspective... leaving that context out changes the
 ml> perspective and gets you the wrong understandings we see today... just
 ml> like those cost sharing organizations that tried to abuse folks in years
 ml> past...

Huh? Not sure what you are alluding to here. What context?


 DD>> Strange......

 ml> not really... it is called control which you seem to want no one to have
 ml> at all even to the complete detriment of the network...

The perceived control of moderator does nothing to support the technicalities
of the network - Rude words travel exactly the same as polite ones in the
ether. Nazi propaganda travels just the same as US propaganda.

The only detriment is to the Z1 stranglehold.

Your statement is baseless.

-- 

regards
David

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