Text 2630, 149 rader
Skriven 2006-12-15 00:50:00 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
   Kommentar till text 2617 av Roy Witt (1:397/22)
Ärende: ION *C's
================
Hello Roy!

On Tuesday December 12 2006 10:44, you wrote to me:

 MvdV>> no real problem indeed. The trouble started when some selfish
 MvdV>> sysops with oversized egos insisted that they must be listed
 MvdV>> with something that looked like a telephone number but isn't,
 MvdV>> in field six and without the "Pvt" keyword. That opened the
 MvdV>> door to ION hosts and that is where the trouble started.

 RW> Those are/were the 'static' IPs of those who didn't have a clue as to
 RW> how to set up a DNS that could have fit in several places.

Setting up host name through DNS may have been a problem for some of them, but
is is no excuse for abusing the phone number field. He who has a static IP can
use it anywhere instead of a host name. That is not just Fido over IP btw, it
goes for almost the entire internet. Enter my IP number in the address bar of
your browser and you get my website.

I was nodelisted with my static IP number in the system name field for about
two years and my NC still is.  No problem at all. Using an fqdn is preferable
for addressing websites because the url is used by humans and humans are not
very good in dealing with numbers. For Fidonet it makes no difference. IP
mailers can deal with IP numbers just as well as with fqdn's. Actually dealing
directly with the IP number has the advantage of skipping the DNS query, so it
is faster.

I started using DNS for my nodelisting two years ago in anticipation of a
provider change that would involve a change of IP. A change that came into
effect beginning this year and not only changed my IP, but changed it from
static to dynamic as well. Had I not changed provider and still had that static
IP, there would have been no need to get involved with DNS.

 RW>>> but ION hosts shouldn't be allowed without an alternative, such
 RW>>> as a POTS node taking the place of the host's duties.

 MvdV>> That is where the NEC flag comes in handy. Delegate the duty of
 MvdV>> receiving incoming mail for the net to someone who is POTS
 MvdV>> capable and list that system as net/0 and have the real NC
 MvdV>> listed with the NC flag.

 RW> Why not just make the POTS listed node the real NC. The fake NC
 RW> doesn't seem to want to be capable.

I can think of a couple of legitimate reasons to separate the job of host and
NC. F.e. the person with the technical skills and resources to handle incoming
mail for the net, may not have the diplomatic skills needed to handle
complaints and silly little things like that....

 RW>>> Finding someone to replace them is probably not on any *C's
 RW>>> mind.

 MvdV>> Yes, that has always been a big problems in FidoNet. People
 MvdV>> hanging on to *C positions because of their oversized egos.

 RW> Sometimes it's probably hard to find someone who wants to take on the
 RW> job, but I agree with you there too.

As I wrote in my Snooze article, if no suitable candidate for the *C position
can be found, it is time to contemplate merging nets/regions/zones....

 RW>>> Oh, haven't you heard? Right after I moved to Texas, Brenda
 RW>>> Donovan, RC10 moved to a different region and is now RC15.

 MvdV>> Oh? No, I missed that.

 MvdV>> How odd. I thought RC's were *elected* in your part of FidoNet.

 RW> Unless there's no one there to elect them.

In that case, the region should have been disbanded.

 MvdV>> So how come she is now RC15?

 RW> I have no idea. You'll have to ask the ZC1 about that. There was a
 RW> very nice guy in Phoenix, AZ that was the RC15, but I don't see him
 RW> listed anymore. Brenda has also taken over his net (1:114/0) as NC.

IOW: dead wood.

 MvdV>> That would be as odd as Arnold the Governator deciding he had
 MvdV>> enough of California and moving to Texas. To become governor of
 MvdV>> Texas upon arrival....

 RW> Arnold wouldn't stand a chance of that happening. He wouldn't even be
 RW> allowed to visit the governor's mansion if most Texans had their way.

It was just an example.

 RW>>> He used to be the REC10, but never did his job.

 MvdV>> What *is* the job of a REC in Z1?

 RW> His title is now RC and REC, which the latter means Regional Echomail
 RW> Coordinator.

I now what it stands for, but as Z1 lacks an echomail policy, where are the
duties of a REC documented?

 RW> Shades of Bob Kohl, who manipulated the REC so much that
 RW> only he was 'good enough' for the position. BTW, they, or at least Al
 RW> Robres does absolutely nothing to coordinate echomail.

So where does it say that he should?

 MvdV>>>> in Z6 are worse. How can anyone possibly perfrom his duties
 MvdV>>>> RCs if he is incommunicado?

 RW>>> He can't and as xxcarol has pointed out, he's absent most of the
 RW>>> time.

 MvdV>> So why are the two of us the only ones who have the guts to say
 MvdV>> that out loud?

 RW> No *C wants to make waves because they're in the same situation?

There are still plenty of sysops who are not a *C and therefore should not be
inhibited form speaking up.

 MvdV>>>> And if they do not get in touch within a reasonable time
 MvdV>>>> frame, just drop them.

 RW>>> Absolutely.

 MvdV>> Something that should have been done years ago.

 RW> Yeah, but we have to keep the zone alive, no matter.

Something I never understood. A zone is just an administrative unit. It is not
a living being, so why attempt to keep it alive just for the sake of keeping it
alive? I don't get it.

 RW>>> BTW, I enjoyed your recent snooze article. I also agree with it,

 MvdV>> Good. You are the only one so far expressing agreement.

 RW>>> but don't get a big head over it. :o)

 MvdV>> Don't worry. I am not sure applause coming from you is a
 MvdV>> compliment.

 RW> You never know.

Indeed, with you I will never know.

Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20060315
 * Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)