Felipe T. Dorado (2:345/702) wrote to Steven Horn at 23:11 on 20 Dec 2002:

 FTD> Ok, this "directly" has to be clarified. It seems to create
 FTD> problems of communication.

If one understands that the packet on its way from point A to point B may
be routed through several systems, "directly" may be easier to
understand.

 FTD> Since I do not know enough about certain areas of IP technology I
 FTD> distrust SysAdmins not belonging to Fido managing Fido packets. IP
 FTD> traffic goes through those providers and they do not appear on the
 FTD> nodelist. I may not get the full picture of how traffic goes
 FTD> through them but I hear it is easy to "tap" it. Much easier than
 FTD> packets going through a telephone exchange.

Although it is Fidomail which is being moved, sysadmins are not managing
packets.  Instead, all that happens is that packets are being routed
without human intervention.  Furthermore, in some cases, some packets of
what System A sends will be routed differently and the message will not be
put together until it reaches its destination.

Is it easy to tap?  Not particularly although it is not impossible.  But
Fido mail packets are compressed before being sent so they may be more
difficult to access than an unencrypted e-mail echo.  Lastly, your packets
may not only gpo through an exchange but may also ride piggy-back on the
Internet.  How do you think your posts get over here? 

 FTD> And it is. But read the above again and you will find two things:
 FTD> the dish and the expression. The former good the latter bad.

I'm not sure if the expression is bad if the result is good.

 FTD> That was possible before that, including South American ones as
 FTD> well. So, no argument there.

"No argument" is slightly different from "so what"?

 FTD> Thinking that it will not change will make it so.
 FTD> Most nodes I know think the same as you do and that is precisely
 FTD> the reason why they do not move a finger to support a change.

Why would we not support a change?  We are the ones who may need it and are
told we cannot have it because of what it does to the POTS part of the
system.

 FTD> Can I dial your node?  Can you dial mine?  Never mind cost.  We
 FTD> can't and therefore that list is not global. That is what I called
 FTD> an "ensalada rusa", the expression.

But your node can reach mine and vice versa.  Michiel van der Vlist sent me
some netmail a few days ago and his mail reached me.  That he could not
dial my node was immaterial.

 FTD> I do not get the point. You say that as a positive or as a
 FTD> negative thing? The same happenned here. I see it as a bad thing
 FTD> for this network. We move to where the users are?  It is a bit
 FTD> like prostituting this network.

From the point of view of Fidonet, the appearance of easy access to the
Internet was awful.  The World Wide Web, direct access to newsgroups, easy
access to files, and e-mail across the world were all phenomena which ended
Fidonet participations.  

 FTD> For the other network, we already have it. But I use this one more
 FTD> and to more satisfaction than the other. More alternatives would
 FTD> help.

Do you have bulletin boards there?

 FTD> I like slow things, offline, round the corner little shops and
 FTD> systems we have more control over rather than the opposite of all
 FTD> those.

Perhaps but I have correspondents the world over and business concerns in
two continents so I need what allows me to connect to them.

 FTD> You see, we do not happen to have those means around the planet

But Fidonet has minimal connections in Zone 5 and Zone 6 so its reach
around the planet is equally limited. 

 FTD> ... And no-one is telling you to forget your privileged 
 FTD> connections, which I also have ...

I'm afraid I don't consider my connections privileged.  They come with the territory.

 SH> And while Fido is an interesting messaging protocol, it is less
 SH> than useful for research or file transfers.

 FTD> I like messaging, I like it and Fido provides it. For research and
 FTD> other things I use other network. We are talking about Fido as it
 FTD> is.

At one time Fidonet was much more useful for file transfers than it now is.
 When someone wanted a file, they often called my system.
 
 FTD> If making Fido useful for, say, videoconf and online database
 FTD> access is going to leave out offline messaging, then I prefer to
 FTD> use another network and leave this one for what it was created.

I've never suggested Fidonet be used for videoconferencing or for data base
access.  All I've suggested is that the Internet be used to carry the
messages because it would be more officient.

 FTD> I have though about it I _know_. But whoever wants to access my
 FTD> messages or my BBS has to use Fido technology.  IP has made my

Or seize your computer.  That's been the classic mode of police action in
the United States or Canada,

 FTD> messages available to people who do not use nor need to use Fido.

And who don't see your messages.  They may see your packets but these
remain unchanged.

 FTD> I do not like that because it does not add anything to Fido but
 FTD> rather substracts from it.

I think you overstate the case.


 FTD> Ha!    Do I really need to place a note at the beginning of all my
 FTD> messages stating that what I say is my personal point of view?

You don't but the tone of one's language is how it is interpreted.  The
preacher arguably only expresses his own view but will try to objectify his
statements.

 FTD> Not a sound argument. Techonology makes it possible to keep a
 FTD> record of all my IP messages. Is it possible? Yes. Then I distrust
 FTD> that technology. Full stop. It is not the actual thing it is a
 FTD> matter of principle.

My sense is that it is not at all feasible for someone to keep all of my IP
messages in an accessible form but I won't belabour the point.  However, if
it is done, trying to decipher the volume of those messages and all the
others  would greatly limit access.

 FTD> Does it?  I can encrypt packages to my uplink and he decrypts them
 FTD> so that in the far chance of a telephone operator tapping them
 FTD> (argument actually used) he cannot read my downlinks mail. What
 FTD> policy do you say I would be infringing?

Do re-read Policy 4.07, 2.1.4. 

 FTD> In Africa?  In Africa, in Per£, in Kamchatka, La Pampa, in Punjab
 FTD> is inet cheaper and better?
 FTD> You do not really mean that do you?

It may be comparable, especially when money is spent on infrastructure
upgrades.  And people don't spend much on telephone infrastructure upgrades
any longer unless it does double duty. 

 FTD> Was ...
 FTD> Steven, being frank:   _people do not have as much money as you
 FTD> do_.

But states do and they also get funds from places like the World Bank. 

 FTD> Have you tried them?  I haven't so I don't dare advancing that it
 FTD> is done. You declare it impossible.

You would have to spend time talking to someone like Gerad Van Essen (of
Artware fame).  He spent some years in Africa.

 FTD> Pots is the cheapest way for offline messaging so far since it
 FTD> only requires those machines we can find in rubbish bins for
 FTD> "obsolete" nowadays in our countries (literally: I have a couple
 FTD> of them right here on the table next to me).

I agree that Fidonet can be made to run on 8088, 286 or 386 technology (I
did it on all three).  But those computers aren't much good for anything
else.

 FTD> Fido is more accesible with practically no money.
 FTD> Inet is dear, meaning expensive.

Not on this continent.  Apparently not in the Netherlands either.

 FTD> If one has already Inet, Fido may be free of additional charges.
 FTD> But when one can not even afford Fido, a computer or a phone line,
 FTD> then Inet is simply science-fiction.

One goes to a school or a public library.  Every school and every public
library in the Yukon has a good free Internet connection.  We also have
Internet cafes.  Who offers the free Fido connection?

 FTD> That's not health.

What is health?  You said that the "sane" do not need a doctor
but I can think of hundreds of people who are perfectly sane but who do
need a doctor. 

 FTD> Ok, I used a word incorrectly. Please forgive this non native
 FTD> speaker and learner.

As someone who writes English for a living, I am always here to help.:-)

 FTD> I question new technologies because they are not thoughfully tried
 FTD> before selling them as sound.  Will not mention medicines, nuclear
 FTD> or biotechnology ...

How long does it need to be tested and how?  What we now know as the
Internet was tested for at least a decade before becoming available to the
public. 

 SH> Some nations have real problems and one can move to help them.

 FTD> That sounds like a politician press statement: says nothing.

Does Spain not give international aid?  Canada certainly does. 

 FTD> Ha!    You know the guy. Good for you. I hope your society
 FTD> informed you of some other things as well.  Mine did. And about
 FTD> seals, oil, "fletan", Inuit and other.

What are "fletan"?  I gather you have more oil on the Atlantic
coast than anyone would want to see and I was in Inuit country five months
ago. Had a laptop with me and checked my office and personal e-mail from my
hotel.

 FTD> No, I won't go for that bait. No politics with me. I don't know
 FTD> what that has to do with the topic at hand.

Underdeveloped countries need all the aid they can get to improve their
infrastructure.  That's political and on-topic.

 FTD> Either you do not know what Fido is or I don't.

I know this much. Fido is not POTS nor is it limited to POTS.  You might
want to start thinking of ways to bridge the gap which don't force the
(over 50%) non-pots systems to "dumb down" what you want.

 FTD> Until a couple of your statements are clarified I think I'll
 FTD> abstain from further dialogue, Steven.

And I would ask the same of you.

Take care,

Steven Horn (steven_a_horn{at}yahoo.ca)
Moderator, ALASKA_CHAT 
--- timEd/386 1.10.y2k+