PE>>> Basically, there's not many people left here, and in addition,
PE>>> those two echos may effectively be cut when I "go internet".
PE>>> But then, maybe some of those people will start polling me
PE>>> also, for the "internet side", in which case they will be
PE>>> back.

BL>> What does this mean?

PE>> I thought that was a good explanation (even on rereading).

BL> I still don't know what it means (even on rereading). Do you intend
BL> to cut LOCUSER and AVTECH? 

No, I won't be making any cuts.  Others who don't call with the UUCP
software will be doing the cutting.

BL> How will I communicate with the AVTechers
BL> if I stay with you? 

There is never any guarantee of this, even in fidonet.  You do not know
whether or not (for instance) Rod Gasson's hub stops doing the Adelaide to
Sydney link, and thus Rod's cut off.  It's then up to Rod whether or not he
polls someone in Sydney to fix the break.

Just like it's up to  whether or not they poll me with
UUCP or not.

BL> Do you intend to link yourself back into AVT on Fido?

As far as I'll be concerned, *I* will be the source of alt.avtech.  You
have to then ask, "who will be linking into alt.avtech".  The
short answer is that I have no idea.  BTW, my plan is to link into
alt.c.programming (actually comp.lang.c) etc, so there should be heaps of
mail from me.

BL> Could you make it clear what this "new" net means? Will it carry
BL> existing Fido echoes like AVT or not?

Yes, any that you want, that you think aren't serviced by internet
newsgroups, or even if they are, and you want to create your own anyway,
will be defined.  alt.locsysop, alt.locuser and alt.avtech will all be
defined, and presumably have messages from you and me in them.  I also
believe John T will be collecting them.  It's all anarchy, Bob, I have no
idea what will really happen.

BL> Personally, I don't give a shit how I get mail, and I would prefer
BL> to go Internet-technology now... as long as I can keep talking to the
BL> original AVTechers. 

There is certainly no restriction on that, but I have no idea whether they
will or won't be connected, one way or the other.

BL> I agree that Fido is a dying technology, but if
BL> you make a *sudden* break to create a new net with its own echoes on
BL> new software, you will end up talking to yourself. 

That's why I was smart enough to come up with a plan to hook into the
existing internet newsgroups, so that you don't start from scratch, you
have more mail than you can shake a stick at, and then you can add your own
(not known to the internet) echos, like alt.locuser.

BL> If LOCUSER is cut,
BL> most of us will switch to the original Fido-AVT... just to keep
BL> continuity.

What's your definition of LOCUSER being cut?

BL>> I thought your idea was to set up an alternate net with you as
BL>> the hub... trading internet-type packets so we can either poll
BL>> you or an ISP direct for LOCUSER (or maybe AVT-reborn)?

PE>> That is mostly correct. Although you won't necessarily have the
PE>> option of polling an ISP for LOCUSER, you may need to poll me,
PE>> or John T, or someone else in the "new net". It's only the
PE>> existing newsgroups (such as comp.lang.c) which you can choose
PE>> either way. 

BL> The is the big hole in your logic, Paul. You *have* to make either
BL> AVT or LOCUSER (or equivalent) available in one UNIVERSAL technology
BL> (either Fido or the Internet) PLUS your new net, or we will lose most

I do not have the ability to get a new newsgroup made available on all ISPs
in the country.

BL> of the punters. There has to be a way to get AVT or LOCUSER separate
BL> from the new net, so that those who do not want to join your new net
BL> can still keep talking. 

Anyone who doesn't want to join the new net basically has no guaranteed way
of getting the echos.  The same as anyone who doesn't join fidonet will
usually be hard up getting fidonet mail.  That's how new nets work!  The
difference is, there's no restriction on people joining the new net, but
there is restriction on people joining fidonet.

BL> I mean, why would anyone in Tassie want to
BL> call *you*, when they can call their local Fido or ISP? Isn't that the

To get alt.locuser?  Like they did already for years?

BL> idea behind the new net: local hubs linked by the internet interstate
BL> and internationally?

Yes, I expect that we will find the internet a useful way to transfer mail
interstate + overseas.  BTW, that's how the fido links are done now
already.  But in the end, you still have two fidonet nodes on either end of
the ISP link.

BL> My intention is to continue talking to the original AVTechers. I can
BL> do that through LOCUSER in the short term, but if you cut LOCUSER I
BL> have to go back to AVT... on Fido.

You will have to ask the people currently getting LOCUSER, whether they
plan to get alt.locuser, one way or the other.  I don't think anyone can be
sure what they're doing until we've got the technology working though. I'm
still working on getting the newgroups at the moment.  It's almost there,
but not quite.

BL> I thought your intention was to upload LOCUSER and a few Fido echoes
BL> to the Internet, basically free or for a nominal charge in your spare
BL> ISP time. Can't you upload to an ISP? 

I can't make my ISP carry it as a newsgroup, but what I can do is mail the
feed to someone else.  Who would you like me to mail it to?

BL> I understand that AVT would be
BL> called something different on the Internet, but isn't it possible to
BL> carry existing Fido echoes on the Internet? 

Sort of.  E.g. NET_DEV is not an echo "on the internet", but the
AUST->US link is done over the internet.

PE>> I won't cut you. I will require you to change software though.

BL> I expect that in the short-term.

BL> Will you be running straight Internet ISP standards, or Fido, or
BL> PE-standards, or what? 

Straight Internet ISP standards.  Hopefully straight out of the box, no
tweaking or anything.

BL> From the little I understand so far, it seems
BL> that each ISP has its own standard: its own handshake, its own
BL> UNIX-wank way to call up mail, even its own compression and zmodem!

I don't think that's true, otherwise you couldn't simply install
"taylor UUCP" and start running it.  It would instead be
"pick up  UUCP, install that, and let me know how you
go".  It doesn't work like that, Taylor UUCP is just one
implementation (one that comes with source).

BL> Me too... I've read everything on your board, and everything I can
BL> get off the PCUG, and it's as clear as mud.

Have you got the latest RFC's from me?

PE>> You may need to use someone else's software in the short term
PE>> though. Even I'm doing that. I'll replace it once I have a
PE>> running system.
PE>> I'll see if I can get the specs for you.

BL> I *love* RFC-822... a 100K file, to describe a header! The average
BL> novel is only 500K. Uni-wankers are absolutely fabulous.

:-)  BFN.  Paul.
@EOT:

---