Text 2691, 52 rader
Skriven 2008-04-01 16:37:13 av Richard Webb (1:116/901.0)
   Kommentar till text 2669 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
Ärende: MO
==========
Hi Michiel,

Michiel van der Vlist wrote in a message to Richard Webb:

 RW> I knew of some z1 systems like this back in the '90's as well. I was
 RW> mo in net 290 in 1994-96.  IN fact, other sysops who had a user
 RW> express an interest in pointing often steered prospective points to
 RW> me.  I think at its height I had somewhere around 30 points.

MvdV> Pointing was popular in Z2. At the height of Fidonet in 1996,
MvdV> there were 5500+ registered points in The Netherlands. An average
MvdV> of 4.5 per nodelisted system. But not every system had points, the
MvdV> average number of points for the systems that had points was about
MvdV> 17. There was one system that claimed to have over 800 points, but
MvdV> I suspect that sysop used some creative book keeping. 

SOunds like he did from my pov as well.
My points never had a problem connecting.  SInce the only 4d capable tic
processor at the time wasn't one I liked I had to work around to send points
nodediffs fidonews etc. But we got it done. Because of my mo status other
sysops were quick to encourage a regular echomail user even with a passing
interest in pointing to talk to me about it. I even went hunting for fruitydog
to get an apple II user set up as a point <g>.

MvdV> What was not unusual for systems with many points and users is
MvdV> that they had more than one line and listed ony one. That way they
MvdV> only had to observe ZMH for the nodelisted line.

NEver had a problem with that.  My points were all well behaved in the
observance of zmh. Where i had trouble was getting them to give me a good
window after zmh to poll a node in california to get some echoes not on the
backbone. A lot of my points seemed to hit my system in those hours to have
their echomail and netmail to read with morning coffee.
Also made it a problem for me getting in when traveling on business as I
pointed off my own system <g>.

 RW> HOWever, I knew of two systems that defied the assumed logic of mo.
MvdV> There are always people who use the system in another way then
MvdV> what was intended. Just as there are people who run red light.
MvdV> Exceptions like that do not changed definition. We are not going
MvdV> to call red green just because some oeople treat it that way do
MvdV> we?

AGreed, and I asked my nc about it at the time.  HIs comment was that as long
as the system observed zmh and didn't cause problems he wouldn't ask the sysop
of node in question to change his flags. Iirc he interpreted mo as Carol
described in a earlier msg this thread.

Regards,
           Richard
--- timEd 1.10.y2k+
 * Origin: Radio REscue net operations BBS       (1:116/901)