Text 29609, 208 rader
Skriven 2015-12-25 11:22:56 av David Drummond (3:640/305)
  Kommentar till text 29593 av mark lewis (1:3634/12.73)
Ärende: Rules of Echomail
=========================
On 25/12/2015 7:21 AM, mark lewis -> David Drummond wrote:

 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.

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

No I didn't I spelled it correctly. That was the word my brain was thinking of.

What happened was I thought the wrong word.
[...]
 ml>>>>> specifically, it includes *routed echomail* ;)

 DD>>>> Even though it cannot be routed (under normal operating 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!

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

Policy mentions many things that have turned out to be bullshit.

Fire up your confmail and route an echomail message to be via one of the nodes
who have indicated they wish to participate in the experiment.

 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.

 ml> BELCH!

Now you've got rid of the excess hot air - route that echomail message to me.

I await with bated breath.

 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?

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

Neither require direct incoming contact.

 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?

 ml> Z1 never had a stranglehold... no one was prevented from creating and
 ml> distributing echos..

Except the squatters sitting on the tags in the almighty elist.

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

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

I am aligned with the majority. Not sure who george is....

 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.

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

There is no requirement for that - I am a nodelist clerk not a mail hub.
[...]

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

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

I don't need my *C's permission to claim anything - I am NOT in the repressive
Z1. The *Cs her edon't rule by power of might - they're just nodelist clerks.
[...]
 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.

 ml> when you start turning blue, it is time to take another breath...

Then admit it - this is beyond your skill set. You're all talk and no do.
 DD>> Who would know that it was illegal other than the un-encrypter?

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

According to whose law - you're very free with these legal references but
produce no evidence. I send encrypted content frequent from my computer to
others in other countries. No-one has ever approachem to tell me that isn't on.

[...]
 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.

 ml> and you are not??

I trust Michiel's say so as he lives in the region rather than your opinions on
the matter.

You have made so many claims in this thread and produced nothing to back them
up.

I think you're full of shit.


 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.

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

You're the one that introduce the farcical idea of routed echomail.

You claim it is possible but seem incapable of doing it.

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

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

Go back and check your messages - you quoted the parts of Policy that made the
connections between the two mail types.
[...]

 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>> :)

 ml> glad you finally understand that ;)

However, ECHOMAIL IS COVERED BY POLICY.
[...]

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

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

huh? I've missed the bit where the IC commented in Policy about echomail.

 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.

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

What else do you think I am trying to shoot down?

I'm claiming that moderators have no control over what I or anyone else post in
an echo. They have no control because nothing official has given them that
control.

-- 

regards
David

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