Hi, Ross!

19 May 04 18:06, Ross Cassell said to Alex Shakhaylo:

 AS>> Yep. But there was times when it was regarded this way
 AS>> everywhere. And nobody still explained a logic according to which
 AS>> ZMH should be mandatory but all the incoming sessions may be
 AS>> prevented. There is no logic in it.

 RC> If 2 people have such interaction problems that one is
 RC> abrasive/abusive to the other, then I see nothing wrong with the
 RC> "victim" to do what he can to prevent contact. Policy
complaints arent
 RC> the answer for everything..

Passwording out a session is not an answer either. Policy says that
fidonet node has to accept mail during ZMH. In case it doesn't want
to it should be either Pvt or point.

 RC>>> Its how the coordinator structure in Zone 2 has chosen to
 RC>>> interpret policy, that interpretation is not universal.

 AS>> No. It's a plain formal logic. Any other interpretation makes the
 AS>> Policy writers the brainless idiots who never heard of it (of a
 AS>> formal logic).

 RC> Its called "interpretation" we have already seen over the years how
 RC> people interpret policy, in most cases to fit an agenda.

I have no agenda with accepting mail. I accept it from any fidonet
node regardless of my attitude toward its sysop. I do not understand
in what way preventing direct access may help to anybody been annoyed
with the other person. Accepting mail is a technical thing, not social.

 RC>>> Can you explain to me how the ZCC is killing Fidonet?

 AS>> By its silly and unlogical decisions.

 RC> If your contention is that the ZCC is a "bad thing",
would you still
 RC> think so if they had ruled opposite from what they have? Lets see if
 RC> you can eat that cake?

If they hadn't created a precedent with passwording out I'd be happy.
I don't care who would be IC in this case.

Bye, Sinc, Alex

---