Hello Carol.

Friday November 15 2002 15:34, Carol Shenkenberger wrote to Felipe T. Dorado:

 CS> No one can!  But at least little of it is flamer type.

Something apreciated :)

 FTD>> I remember an article in the snooze talking about mailmovers. It said
 FTD>> something about "serious" versus
"hobbists" mailmovers and the stabili
 FTD>> and durability of either.
 FTD>> A dedicated POTS line was something of a convenient filter for the acc
 FTD>> of the list. Let's hope whateveer method is used now and in future con
 FTD>> that bit, I mean, stability of the nodes. Since, *who nowadays would s
 FTD>> a server just for Fido? ...

 CS> Well, I'm not sure just which article as there have been so many!

It's gone from my msgbase :(  I'll dig it out and post it.

 FTD>> And, what about that paragraph in the policy about pvt nodes needing t
 FTD>> justify their not having a phone number to ring to?  Was it not Frank
 FTD>> Vest who said the policy had been done away with long ago?

 CS> Not really done away with, just that PVT nodes per policy have slightly
 CS> different restrictions and requirements.

Not really ... Mmmm.

 CS> For ION's listed as PVT due to the FTS specs, it's a new game and now
 CS> it's more under question than earlier as it doesnt really 'match'
 CS> what P4 says PVT nodes are for.

There!
Personally, being still an obsolete and redundant };)  POTS node, I have
found many people complaining about P4, saying it's old and that it
prevents Fido developing ..., but nowhere but here I've seen an intent to
change it  :(

If P4 is so outdated the obvious thing to do is to update it. Other than
that, ¨where are the alternative docs?
Many have used P4 as an excuse for not doing nothing for the network but
using inet tools and facilities as well as the name of this net to promote
their sites ...   Yes, I know it sounds hard, but using that excuse they've
finally detached themselves from this network. Their site remains though
...

 CS> Turns
 CS> out some zones are more restrictive than others on what contitutes
 CS> 'benefit to Fidonet' when assigning a PVT listing.  Z1 seems the least
 CS> restrictive of the 6 zones on that.

I'm afraid am not aware of the details but thought it was the other way around.

 FTD>> It appears to me that many seem to have no idea that a policy is an
 FTD>> _a
 FTD>> ...  This network is an agreement.

[ It's your editor that cuts the quoted text, right? ]

 CS> Yes, and we've found we dont always agree although that is a fairly
 CS> recent finding for most.

Well, that's what mail networks are for, to communicate, to debate, to
interchange opinions and arrive at agreements ... to disagree, if it comes
to be ;)

 CS>> nodelist format with some new tools to generate a nodelist.  That

 CS>> discussions on that have us using a dual node-stub, one traditional
 CS>> and one expanded then merged somehow with a tool by those who want
 CS>> the extended information.

Ok, if IP is to stay, and it is going to stay, then Fido needs that
nodelist. One list and not several.

 FTD>> All this talk about nodelisting ...  mmmm, no-one had the nerve to fou
 FTD>> a Fidoinet? ... No, it does not seem so.  Or, is it that hard to use i
 FTD>> directly and let good old Fido die in its bed in peace and quiet ... m
 FTD>> years in the future?

 CS> Grin,

Yeap. It is perceived.

 CS> the main effort seems to be to integrate the 2 types of sysops
 CS> happily so that both have the essentials they need and bring them
 CS> together as they are in some places of the world.

That doesn't seem to be that difficult, from this humble point of view.

 CS> It's kinda scarey to me personally that some are so worried about
 CS> ION's being the same as POTS nodes.  To me, they are the same and
 CS> only have a problem in that many are not listed with correct
 CS> information in the nodelist so as to be able to contact them.

Yes, they are the same, save ...   There is this little thing hanging out:
I cannot mail crash an ion node nor can he ring me  :(   And to me that
throws quite a few things of Fido to the rubbish  :(   Freedom of
communication between members of the network through the network itself,
for one thing.


 CS> Work seems to be progressing on that though and alot of listings have
 CS> been fixed up with the right information now.

If you happen to spot any irregularities in our segment, please inform.
We'll be most greatful.   I'll relay the bug.

Felipe  :)

--- Fastecho 1.45/GED/Fd 2.12