PE> REASON for these do-your-own nets to start up.  Fidonet is 
PE> absolutely adequate.  Any echo being carried by another-net 
PE> could be just as easily carried by the same people within 
PE> fidonet.

AWL> P4:
AWL> - require legal/technical responsibility for all messages

 PE> So?

I don't want that problem, look at the Prodigy case in the US. P4 is just
as bad (garth has been vindicated)...

AWL> - bans echo of encrypted messages (through normal channels)

 PE> Only via netmail.  Use echomail, which is what we were 
 PE> discussing.

I've seen it applied to echomail. I believe this is one of the areas where
echomail is treated as "just another type" of netmail under P4...

AWL> - requires ZMH mailer

 PE> Yes, this requires people to be more technically serious.  
 PE> Just become a point if you don't like that.  So what?

I can go ZMH on a second line tomorrow, except I can't afford it. I can
overcome the purely technical problems by rebuilding the garden shed,
connecting power and phone, and hiring someone for an hour every day or two
to deal with mail problems when I'm too crook. Should only set me back
about $4k upfront plus about $1kpa for wages...

AWL> Fido-in-general
AWL> - nets defined geographically

 PE> Big whoop.

I'm looking at that from the viewpoint of mailmoving in geographically
complex OtherNets...

AWL> There are a few largish ones, PODS AmigaNet etc, but they 
AWL> have nothing like the coverage of FidoNet... So Rod's go 
AWL> start your own line fall flat...

PE> He was talking about starting your own fidonetinternet 
PE> gateway if you don't like the way Michael is operating his.  

AWL> He was talking about setting up an OtherNet so I could have 
AWL> rules like nodenumber=phonenumber and no ZMH etc...

 PE> So, why don't you start up your own wanknet then if you 
 PE> hate fidonet so much.  All the people who agree that 
 PE> fidonet's rules are bad will be rushing in droves to your 
 PE> new net.

If I had say $20k plus $10kpa, I'd do so. In order to coimpete with
Fight-o-net I'd need to be able to offer as wide a hub structure, as many
and varied echos and a whole bunch of other stuff which keeps people using
Fido in spite of problems with the assortment of loonies who seem to infest
Fido like fleas...

AWL> A gateway that would cost you "a few k a year" would 
AWL> probably cost me 10 times as much. Also that is a recurring 
AWL> cost, our 10k is probably going to be reusable (with a 
AWL> little luck we should get full costs (if not we can survive 
AWL> the experience))

 PE> If you're not willing to shell out the $ to run your own 
 PE> gateway, you've got no right to dictate how others run 
 PE> theirs.  And actually, I made a mistake, it should only cost 
 PE> about $400/year at present internet traffic mail rates.  
 PE> BFN.  Paul.

That's what it would cost *you* where you live. We don't have the luxury of
cheap access to the Internet here. Anyway, MB wasn't running *his* gateway,
he was running FidoNet's Z3 gateway... Not the same thing at all...

...Alex.
(Pagan & Proud)

---