Text 29593, 213 rader
Skriven 2015-12-24 16:21:24 av mark lewis (1:3634/12.73)
  Kommentar till text 29500 av David Drummond (3:640/305)
Ärende: Rules of Echomail
=========================
24 Dec 15 12:32, you wrote to me:

 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"...

 DD> "Would netmail be treated the same as netmail? No I do not think I
 DD> mispelled that.

"would echomail be treated the same as echomail?" yes, you did misspell 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...

 DD> Bullshit!

then why does policy mention it? have you ever run confmail?

 DD> Put you money where you mouth is, route an echomail message to me via
 DD> one of the systems who said that they will allow you to do it.

BELCH!

 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...

 DD> What other part of the role is affected by no direct access?

how about hub and node segs to be included in your nodelist segment?

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

 DD> Destroying Z1's stranglehold you mean?

Z1 never had a stranglehold... no one was prevented from creating and
distributing echos... nor were they prevented from closing and dropping
echos...

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

you're even smaller, george, but you certainly talk like you are the king of
the mountain... big words for such a little ass ;)

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

 DD>>> Actually I couldn't, my node has no external contact. It must
 DD>>> initiate all external transactions. No-one can deliver netmail to my
 DD>>> 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
 ml>> to other systems which you would then deliver...

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

the point would be that it actually passes through the NC's system...

 DD>>> Including echomail content?

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

 DD> Have you got your *Cs' permission to acknowledge that Policy covers
 DD> echomail content?

have you gotten your Cs' permission to deny that policy covers echomail
content?

 DD>>> Again, something that cannot happen (under normal operating
 DD>>> 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
 ml>> it...

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

when you start turning blue, it is time to take another 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
 ml>> cannot legally protect yourself from trafficing illegal material...

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

that doesn't matter... just the fact that it is encrypted and you may be held
legally responsible for allowing it to transit your system is enough reason to
bounce it back to the originator if you are unwilling to take the risk and pass
it on down stream...

 DD>>>>> and what constitutes illegal?

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

 DD>>> So you think it's fine by Policy4 for me to post a netmail message
 DD>>> here 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...

 DD> You're relying on hear-say again.

and you are not??

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

 ml>> again, your vision is lacking...

 DD> As are you skills  - send me a routed echomail message.

my skills are just fine... attempted diversion rejected...

 DD>>> Thank you for confirming my point to Joe.

 ml>> which point was that?

 DD> That echomail is covered by Policy to the same degree that netmail is.
 DD> You've quoted all the relevant Poliy referenes for me saving me from
 DD> chasing up a copy of Policy

no one said that echomail is covered to the same degree that netmail is... what
has been said about echomail content is that if you don't like it, you can
bounce it back to the originator...

 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> :)

glad you finally understand that ;)

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

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

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

the context that the IC's statement was made in...

 DD>>> Strange......

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

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

it isn't only the apparent control of moderators that you are trying to shoot
down... you are actively trying to shoot down a lot more than that...

 DD> The only detriment is to the Z1 stranglehold.

there is no Z1 stranglehold... there never has been...

 DD> Your statement is baseless.

your statement it baseless as well as full of ignorance and lacking in
understanding of the facts...

)\/(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

... Right now: Pigs are becoming...lunch!
---
 * Origin:  (1:3634/12.73)