Text 6827, 132 rader
Skriven 2013-12-05 05:34:00 av Henri Derksen (2:280/1208)
   Kommentar till text 6782 av Roy Witt (1:387/22)
Ärende: Dispute from ZCC.
=========================
Hello Roy,

RC> Host,203,West_Net,Sweden,Bjorn_Felten,46-31-960447,33600,CM,XA,V34,I
RC> BN,INA:felt en.yi.org,U,NEC

RC> Can you tell me or show me from the above which is your nodelist
RC> segment where the names of those 87 registered users are?
RC> I do see _YOUR_ name!!

HD> Did you notice there is no MO (=Mail Only) flag in his line?

RW> Irrelevant.

It still is relevant.
But you did not motivate your p.o.v., I did.

HD> That means there is a BBS too!

RW> Not really.

Yes, almost ALLWAYS!
If there is no BBS, the node should be listed with an MO flag.
Or the system is not well configurated, or the nodelist entry is wrong.

No MO-Flag, there should be a BBS, and a mailer, both! period.
MO flag, than BBS-users have no access, only mailers.

RW> The CM flag indicates that the node is in Continuous Mail mode.

You are confused.
That's CM flag is to indicate the node is 24 h online and always accept mail,
also outside ZMH.
First there were BBSes, then they were connected to exchange mail too.
And later on many are Mail Only withouth a BBS, hence the MO-flag.
The CM flag does not indicate there a BBS or not, i.e. irrelevant.
The MO flag does wat it tells you, Mail Only, so No BBS.

HD> A NodeNumber with a BBS means BBS-users with are adressed to as
HD> Point 0 (=Zero), ALL of them!

RW> Reading that listing doesn't imply that any BBS is present.
RW> It has a modem baud rate and a few modem flags,
RW> but nothing that says there is a BBS there.

Wrong, the lack of a MO-flag allways implies a BBS.
The MO-flag was created to accept mailhovers to leave the BBS function away,
because their systems were so busy with mailmoving,
that there was no time to accept BBS-users.
That was another reason why at ZMH no BBSusers were alowed.
The (not) use of the MO flag implies that BBSusers want to know wich systems
they can call with a terminal program.
And people still do that, at my BBS for instance.
I do not mention their names for privacy reasons.

HD> And of course there are many (un)registered BBS-users.

RW> Irrelevant.

If there is No MO-Flag, there must be a BBS, and mostly also BBS-users.
At least the SysOp, but often many more users.
Note writing via A BBS (In my case Remote Access) gives other mailflags,
than writing via a Mailer (In my case FD 2.02 NC).

HD> 2:203/2.0 could be any one of that BBS-users (SysOp included).

RW> Also irrelevant.

A SysOp can ask his CoSysop to write the messages that is asked for.

HD> So a NodeNumber alone does not specify a certain person,

RW> On the contrary. The nodelist was used as a reference for the elebibilty
RW> of candidates with their names and node number to prove it.
RW> No BBS users were included or allowed in the FTSC vote...

A SysOp is also a BBSUser, and he may write his mail via his BBS,
i.e. when he is not at home at an location with no internet, but only phone.
Than he can log in remotely to his own BBS and write the message needed,
so even a FTSC Vote.
The message form his BBS is different, from that one written via his mailer.
May SysOp's have a Point account for reading and writing on the move?
Michiel van der Vlist, Ward Dossche and Kees van Eeten have shown that,
and many more SysOp's still do.

HD> Here are many Point 0 (=Zero) BBSusers too. Note, they can also write
HD> and receive NetMail or EchoMail.

RW> Irrelevant, as users and points aren't elegible as a candidate to the
RW> FTSC.

Wrong, as I proved in this message earlier.
A NodeListed SysOp can alsow be his own BBSuser, and also a Point.
Are SysOp's not allowed to write from their BBS or their Point-adress?
Off course they are, even for voting.

HD> One votes only for or against a candidated human being (FidoNet
HD> participant) as a FTSC member, and not a nodelisted SysOp,

RW> Wrong. You should get Michiel to explain this to you in Dutch, since
RW> English  seems to go way over your head.

You know nothing about my knowledge of Englisch, you only think you know.
Note that it is not my native language, so may be I make a little bit more
mistakes, but a normal educated person will understand what I write.

HD>  Point or (un-)registerd BBS-user by only a number, or a false name.

RW> Irrelevant.

No, the NodeNumber is NOT uniquely couppled to a SysOp only.
That is what I try to tell, but many not want to hear.
Every BBS-user has the same NodeNumber as that particular SysOp.

RC> Your claim is as lame as the character set translation thing.

HD> My Point Zero proof shows your RC18 p.o.v. is hereby not valid for a
HD> complaint.

RW> Neither is your non-compliant logic.

No, As I proofed my point in other words and with arguments in this message
too.

That only SysOp's may be a candidate is another (bad) thing.
Because there could be not nodelist very good technical talents for the FTSC
that do have no chanche now ;-(
A former SysOp for instance, or a very good Point software engineer.

Henri.

---
 * Origin: Connectivity is the Future; UniCorn BBS 31 26 4425506 (2:280/1208)