AWL> No encrypted messages.

 RS> What the fuck is the point of encrypting messages on XTs ?

I'm the moderator, and I allow them.

AWL> Limited control over distribution.

 RS> Yes, if you are a control freak, maybe. Seems remarkably 
 RS> silly tho.

I don't want to be responsible (in an editorial sense) for any traffic. P4
requires it. Therefor XT_ETC is not now nor ever shall be a FidoNet Echo.
If someone ports it to FidoNet, they can deal with P4 liablility at the
gateway.

AWL> A requirement that I bow to P4 whenever it is invoked.

 RS> Nope, there is obviously nothing in that
 RS> that would be a problem for an XT echo.

As moderator of XT_ETC, I rule differently...

PE> BTW, what are you calling a "Fidonet Echo"?  Is LOCUSER a 
PE> fidonet echo?

AWL> Ask BillG. If he (as the primary link) says it is, it is.

 RS> Crap. Someone transporting an echo between two places 
 RS> doesnt own it Alex.

But they determine whether it is FidoNet, AmigaNet, LTUAENet or WankNet...

AWL> If not, then it isn't.
 RS> Ditto.
AWL> Likewise Dave and Tony can decide that it isn't,
 RS> Still crap.
AWL> (even if BillG says it is)
 RS> Gets sillier by the minute.

Buy declaring it to be ported to LTUAEnet, TMLnet, BikeNet or whatever.
Their problem then becomes one of P4 compliance for messages passing
through the netgate back to FidoNet...

AWL> they can gate it to LTUAE net or something.

 RS> Even thats arguable.

OK, RodSpeedNet then...

PE> What about FOURTH_REICH?

AWL> Your call...

 RS> As it is with LOCUSER

 RS> And participants in it arent members of an unincorporated 
 RS> association either.

But they could become one quite easily by adopting a set of rules, and
doing anything (related to those rules) acting towards a common purpose...
...Alex.
(Pagan & Proud)

---