Hi Mark,

Saturday October 16 2004 13:15, you wrote to me:

 US>>>> From the past fidonet history (without ip capabilities) this
 US>>>> point was clear stated, that a node must be online at zmh to
 US>>>> receive netmail
 ml>>> period... stop right there... anything added to that is
 ml>>> interpretation and is not contained in policy...
 US>>>> from everybody who sends a directmail to a node who is
 US>>>> only zmh online ...
 ml>>> no... policy doesn't and never has stated "from
everybody..."
 ml>
 US>> if its so, policy paragraph 2.1.6 can never work.
 ml> sure it can... however, it requires more than one connection method
 ml> capability...

?-)

please explain ...

 US>> your interpretation contradicts policy paragraph 2.1.6,
 US>> that everybody sysops option is to send netmails DIRECT ...
 ml>
 ml> i fail to see any interpretation of plain english... anyway, here's
 ml> what 2.1.6 states...
 ml>
 ml> ===== quote =====
 ml>
 ml> 2.1.6  Private Netmail
 ml>
 ml> The word "private" should be used with great care, especially with
 ml> users of a BBS.  Some countries have laws which deal with "private
 ml> mail", and it should be made clear that the word
"private" does not
 ml> imply that no person other than the recipient can read messages.
 ml> Sysops who cannot provide this distinction should consider not
 ml> offering users the option of "private mail".
 ml>
 ml> If a user sends a "private message", the user has no
control over the
 ml> number of intermediate systems through which that message is routed.
 ml> A sysop who sends a message to another sysop can control this aspect
 ml> by sending the message direct to the recipient's system, thus
 ml> guaranteeing that only the recipient or another individual to whom
 ml> that sysop has given authorization can read the message.  Thus, a
 ml> sysop may have different expectations than a casual user.
 ml>
 ml> ===== quote =====
 ml>
 ml> the above states that users have no control over how the message
 ml> arrives at the destination.

if the sysop sends the netmail routed ...

 ml>  the above states that a sysop does...
 ml> however, the above does NOT state that the deliver mechanism must be
 ml> via POTS... it only states that the sysop _can_ control the number of
 ml> intermediate systems by sending the message(s) direct however it does
 ml> not state /how/ that is to be accomplished...

enabling the DIRECT bit sending a netmail as offered as option under 2.1.6
paragraph results in a clear procedure for any mailer to remove any
routing rules and replace it by a unambiguous direct delivery rule to the
destination aka - point to point without any gateway, host, hub routing...
and that leaves no room for interpretation ...

 ml> seems to me that that is very plain english ;)
 ml> )\/(ark
 ml>  $ Origin: (1:3634/12)

regards, uli   ;-)

---