Hello Ulrich!

16 Oct 04 10:07, Ulrich Schroeter wrote to Vladimir Donskoy:

 VD>> For example I can to write about interpretation of this in our region
 VD>> (Z2R50): letters with destignation to PVT nodes (IP- or email-only,
 VD>> for example) are considered delivered to purpose node if these
 VD>> delivered to node's hub (or host if hub is absent). Delivery can be
 VD>> traced under ARQ receipts.

 US> this relates to your next paragraph ?

Yes, it is real trace for connecting with PVT-node (if direct is absent,
use routing). And it work even formal lawsuit (complains in FIDONET).

 US>>> With the nodelist listing you've accepted policy and that you're
 US>>> able that every other sysop in nodelist who sends netmails under
 US>>> the aspect of 2.1.6 can contact you directly to the
 US>>> system listed with given infos in the nodelist, at least at zmh.
 US>>> So that's the minimum requirement that policy part 2.1.6 can
 US>>> work.
 US>>> But remember, this doesn't relates directly to the Grant/Vlist
 US>>> case ...
 VD>>
 VD>> In our country it is incorrect: we have same phone networks (global
 VD>> territorially) without full connection between these! For example
 VD>> nodes with ISDN-phone can call POTS-nodes, but POTS-nodes can not
 VD>> call these (have not connectivity). But we have companies phone
 VD>> networks (for example - oil-companies) without connect to POTS (all
 VD>> calls transfer only to telephone girl who can connect the wanted
 VD>> party)... All companies nodes are PVT now, but what different between
 VD>> IP-nodes, in general?

 US> Yes, this the same as a POTS / IP incompatibility. I call it a layer
 US> incompatibility. The same result as no physical connectivity or
 US> only thru a gateway ...

Now in Zone2 all IP-only nodes are PVT-nodes, so calling to their is nonsence.
But all other nodes (which I wrote) are sample nodes, with phone number in
Nodelist, and may call from POTS-nodes (without succesfull result, of
cource).

 US> In the past 10 years fidonet evolution history, there are new deployments
 US> of connectivity i.e. FoIP that results in a true fidonet connectivity
 US> but where incompatible to the default connection option POTS as described
 US> by fts-0001. Deployments of "BBS" aware portals to gather
new fidonet
 US> members possible extent to a Web BBS or Telnet BBS cause the time has gone
 US> for the old style POTS BBS.

Yes, now count of old style BBS is very small (may be zero, I don't know it
near my area).

 US> So there are comparable connection options available and in use, but
 US> not reflected by the policy or fts-0001 document. So sysops using these
 US> new options aren't no longer fidonet members? i think they are.

FTS-0001 is real expired, no one of standart are acting for same years!
Last standarts are acting for 2 years, but fts-0001 (.16) from 1995!
So - FTS-0001 can not criteria for FIDONET members.

 VD>> There are term "The FidoNet organization of electronic
bulletin board
 VD>> systems". Have your node a BBS? :-) So - for this Policy need
 VD>> change... Or extend term "BBS" to "any
communication".

 US> This and the layer incompatibility of part of todays fidonet connectivity
 US> aren't reflected by policy nor fts-0001. So these parts needs extensions
 US> to the fts-0001.
 US> The technical solution to bring different layers together is a gateway
 US> like a zone gateway. There is a leak between common practice and
 US> fts-0001 definition and this leaves room for any quarreling ...

Yes. But revision must to be not only FTS, but all Policy.

Vladimir Donskoy.

--- GoldED+/W32 1.1.5-040321