Hello Alan,

If one wants to promote something, others must be invited.
Not thrown out, or forbidden to enter.  That is why making
general chat echoes accessible to all is a service, never
a disservice.

                   -=begin quote=-

AI>>Correction. I meant disservice.

DD>How is it doing a disservice to Fidonet when allowing
DD>more people to communicate via the network?

The fact that you run an nntpd server with fido echoes
available is something that I see as a good thing for the
network.

I do the same thing although I am running a BBS as opposed
to an nntpd server.  I wouldn't say that one was better than
the other.

It's good that users can access the fidonet echo areas by
either means.

The disservice I am pointing out is that you give read
access to the sysop echoes. I'm not telling you what buttons
to press in your setup just stating that I see that as a
disservice.

                  -=end quote=-

A small handful of sysops calling general chat echoes "sysop
only" echoes does not change the fact that they are general chat
echoes.  Limiting access to echoes is anti-democratic, especially
in regards to general chat echoes such as FN_SYSOP and FIDO_SYSOP.
If that group decides to limit access to one echo, they can do
the same with another echo.  And another.  And another.  Until
the only echoes that remain are those inhabited by those very
same sysops.

And what a small FidoWorld that would be.  More like a dead
FidoWorld.  Or one with so little life left in it that it might
as well be dead.

If FidoNet is to survive, and remain relevant in today's world,
it needs both sysops and users.  Limiting access is an act of
Fidocide (FidoNet suicide).  Is that what you want?  Is that what
the other sysops in FidoNet want?  Most sysops would be truly
aghast at such an idea.  Or so I would think.

How about we all try a little experiment.  Show the world
how easy it is to set up an nntp server and access FidoNet.
And then do like Sir Paul McCartney said - Let `Em In.

--Lee

--- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb