Text 1236, 139 rader
Skriven 2006-05-16 18:10:14 av Philip Lozier (1:267/169)
   Kommentar till text 1190 av Carol Shenkenberger (1:261/1466.0)
Ärende: Immediate Action Require
================================
PL>>PL>> will prevent the new node from ever sending the node application.

PL>> CS> NC's are not supposed to block unlisted nodes.  Thats a primary 'do
PL>> CS> not do that' thing many NC's got stupid about and did anyways.
PL>> CS> NC's have to be unblocked so as to accept new nodes.

PL>>I was bringing up a hypothetical... my system is not listed
PL>>as LO, nor ever has been since I've been NC here, and you
PL>>know that.

 CS> Yes, and my reply was to those who do run LO (only reason
 CS> technically
 CS> for adding a 9999 listing, but some others do it out of net
 CS> tradition
 CS> they were 'raised with').

Okay... It's been awhile since this message, but looking at the quoting above
it was directly to my mention of it... (reference to your "reply was to
those").

Your statement above brings the idea that for "tecnical reasons" and NC would
HAVE to not be LO to accept new nodes, but the use of 9999 negats that concept.
 A new node applicant is "LISTED" when using the 9999 concept.

The idea has been brought up that it doesn't matter anyway (somewhere back in
this) that it wouldn't matter anyway on an LO system because anybody can add an
AKA to their system and spoof a listed node... yes they can... BUT, in order to
do so, one would have to be seriously bent on doing it for some reason because
to do it effectively they would have to remove any and all other AKA's they
have on their system setup, or set up an entirely seperate one for such a
purpose.

In most typical fidonet setups this ivolves chaning information in at least
your mailer, tosser, and editor.  Not an very light task, as one mistake in any
of them will either render the system to have errors occur, screwing the effort
up, or give away the non-thorough person by having something they missed come
through... and THEN, it all has to be changed back again so they "are who they
are".

They might throw an aka "in" that they want to play with, but without proper
removal of all other info once the connection is established, all AKA's are
presented, and spoofers could be busted by a simple look at the log file or
info embedded in the message. That used to be a regular "toy around" game in
this net prior to 1999 only to get the "nice try" response and not acted upon
by the same NC who was busted for netmail disclosure and tampering (and
echomail to cover it up). I know how -that- game works.

A person found doing this has *NO* defense against an EAB foreiture of their
node number. It's a big risk to take unless somebody was leaving anyway. That's
why that jagoff resigned knowing he was about to get nailed to the nearest
tree, and knowing the home brewed software he used with his entire cat lineage
Db database on it (the ENTIRE puropse for
his BBS) was about to drop dead, and with three locals only ever to have copies
of it, and the home brewer dead at the time, he knew he was out, so played. It
happens.

A person in FidoNet, putting another setup in place for such a purpose
is not that difficult, yet still requires -some- effort, and still care that
they don't screw up and give themselves away, as the same EAB applies, and
there would be no defense against it.

Back to it, I have never been listed LO, however there has been some stuff I've
seen pullled that would even want an NC have some level of security WRT listed
nodes, yet I am of a trusting nature until given a reason otherwise since I've
been NC here it is that way... so far no
"bad" stuff has happened, but on the first sign it ever does, I'll list LO
without a second thought on it, and upon complaint just resign, as this -is- my
system, and we have much more to fear with our systems these days
than we did -then-.

The idea of LO being a -bad- thing is removed when the 9999 idea is used, and
it is of course, up to the applying node to know how to apply.  They need to
get access by mailer ... (NOT E-MAIL DAMMIT, or something else) and submit the
apllication that contains the verifiable information requested.  That's not
ancient, it's what seperates FidoNet from the newsgroups and other junk to be
found out there.

While it may be desirable to make it "easier" for nodes to apply, it's not the
best course of action.  FidoNet has MANY other issues to clear up first before
"ease of access" is considered, such as the recent Fidonews submission by
(somebody), the guy who talks about the state of the echoes and the way it
"looks"... I was saying that 5 years ago, and that *IS* the general oppinion of
anybody from the outside looking in since we have made public "reading", even
though not writing, so freely available on the web. That "read access" was not
a service, but a detrement... I know of a few non-network affilaiated BBS's
that have a message flow per-day in "local" bases that would make a FidoNetter
blush with embarrasment.  I've solicited the idea that they might join,
hopefuly that their active users would -use- FidoNet, and they decline feeling
it would *HURT* their system, a couple of them -being- old Fido's... Go figure.

Anyway... again... the idea that 9999 as innapropriate is ridiculous. The idea
that an NC should be required to be non LO is ridiculous. The state of FidoNet
echoes and the lack of FidoNet to control them is also... RIDICULOUS.  The
public perception, (for those who even know anympore because we no longer stand
out), is FAR, FAR *BEYOND* ... RIDICULOUS.

From cutting edge, to the bottom of the barrel. Good legacy we have...

The same old faces, arguing the same old things... PATHETIC.  We're still not
"shot" though... there still is a chance.  Question is, do we still have the
resources left, or have the valuable ones all since long abbandoned us?












PL>>The responses other than "this should not do that, or that should not
PL>>this" so far have been insufficient reasons for not actualy
PL>>allowing listings in nets of the 9999 listing, other than
PL>>bullshit claims that hold no weight.

PL>>JEEZE.  If it's a matter of the size of a nodelist that
PL>>bothers everybody (and I don't see how it could) as in the
PL>>old days, and if I see the typing of "bandwith" one more
PL>>time (it just may make me crazy), I just may go over the
PL>>edge!!!!

 CS> Grin, has nothing to do with size of nodelist either.  More like
 CS> just
 CS> extra un-needed junk is all. If the NC isnt running LO, its a
 CS> harmless
 CS> cosmetic fluff that gives neither benefit nor harm.
 CS>            xxcarol

 CS> ___
 CS>  þ OLX 2.2 TD þ MSI - Connecting The World In '94

 CS> --- Maximus/NT 3.01
 CS>  * Origin: Owl's Anchor (1:261/1466)

--- FMail/Win32 1.60
 * Origin: ==<<FLaSHBaCK-BBS>>== part of the NYCap/Adirondack Netwo (1:267/169)