-=> On 06-28-04  14:02,  Bj”rn Felten <=-
 -=> spoke to Dale Shipp about test! <=-

 DS>   If you intend to begin actually distributing mail using
 DS> this type of
 DS>   access, you need to institute some sort of limited
 DS> access, e.g.
 DS>   usernames and passwords.

 BF> I agree. That's the problem I'm working with right now.

  Good -- and that should be a top priority.  It needs to be solved
  before you open up the echos to prime time access.  Doesn't the
  program you are using have the ability to require a login ID and
  password?   I know that Shannon's NNTP at fidotel.com requires that.
 
 DS>   quite another thing to distribute messages in anything
 DS> other than
 DS>   fidonet FTN formats, with paths, seenbys etc.
 DS> included.

 BF> Of course! I myself have always been critical to some of the worst
 BF> results  from various gateway projects. With ugly quoting, loads of 
 BF> useless cludges, no proper 'To:' field, and so on.

   There are two parts to this.  One is the format and appearance of the
   messages.  The other is the distribution of messages.

   Your answer is discussing only one part, namely the appearance of the
   messages as you convert them from your NNTP format into fidonet
   format.  I see no problem with that aspect of what you are doing.

   The other equally important aspect is control of distribution.  It is
   essential to me that when you transmit messages to any other fidonet
   system that they be transmitted using a fidonet format that preserves
   the path and seen-by information.  They should not be transmitted to
   systems who are not part of fidonet, nor by methods which do not
   maintain the accountability afforded by the info contained in the
   path etc.

   Will you explicitly confirm that you will not distribute to any other
   site except via normal fidonet methods and that you will not
   distribute to non-fidonet systems?  To me, this is an absolutely
   critical requirement for any system that carries the echo I help
   moderate.


 BF> What makes this product so great is that it's very 
 BF> fidonettish, you have to look closely to see that it's not 
 BF> something posted from an "ordinary" fido editor.
 
 DS> I especially point this out since you have placed the
 DS>   echo I help moderate onto your system.

 BF> By now (I made a mistake in my batch file, which made the tossing
 BF> wait for  something that never could happen) you probably have seen 
 BF> both your two test msgs and my reply to them. If you think 
 BF> they look anything but great, I'll stop exporting from that 
 BF> newsgroup ASAP.

  I am satisfied with the appearance of the messages on the fidonet side
  of the house.   Permission for continued exporting from your system to
  other fidonet systems is contingent upon:
  a.  Your word that you will not distribute via other than fidonet
  protocols and
  b.  Your word that you are working on the access/password problem as a
  high priorty and
  c. You word that you stand ready to cut off the export immediately if
  someone causes a problem because of current lack of access control.

 
 DS> We also have a
 DS>   rule which requires real names -- something you would
 DS> have difficulty
 DS>   enforcing if you do not institute registered login
 DS> names and passwords
 DS>   like other BBSes do.

 BF> No arguments there. So far, all the kind people, that have tested
 BF> my  gateway, have had their news readers set up properly (save 
 BF> for the 'Organization:' field that actually ends up in the 
 BF> origin line! :) so, so far, it's OK. But before advertizing 
 BF> the gateway, I first must solve the log-in problem, there's 
 BF> no question about it.

                        dale (at) min (dot) net
                              (1:261/1466)


... Shipwrecked on Hesperus in Columbia, Maryland. 00:19:17, 29 Jun 2004
___ Blue Wave/DOS v2.30

--- Maximus/NT 3.01