Hi Vladimir,

Friday October 15 2004 12:36, you wrote to me:

 VD>                           Hello Ulrich!
 VD> 15 Oct 04 07:30, Ulrich Schroeter wrote to Mark Lewis:
 US>> The interpretation "accept netmails from host only" was born
 US>> in relation with ip only nodes, 'cause modem only nodes cannot
 US>> contact ip only nodes directly ... so directly has moved to
 US>> a more "indirect directly". Sending to the direct
uplink of such
 US>> a node is like direct ...
 VD>
 US>> This interpretation is a zone 1 interpretation.
 US>> This interpretation is not a zone 2 interpretation.
 US>> I haven't heard/read yet how zone 3, zone 4, zone 5 and zone 6
 US>> interpretes this.
 US>> The zcc/ic decision about the Grant/Vlist case was no decision
 US>> or statement of this interpretation (so reads to me).
 VD>
 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.

this relates to your next paragraph ?

 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.
 VD>
 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 call
 VD> these (have not connectivity). But we have companies phone networks
 VD> (for example - oil-companies) without connect to POTS (all calls
 VD> transfer only to telephone girl who can connect the wanted party)...
 VD> All companies nodes are PVT now, but what different between IP-nodes,
 VD> in general?

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

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

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

 US>> One word about the subject:
 VD>
 >>> This document establishes the policy for sysops who are members of
 >>> the FidoNet organization of electronic bulletin board systems.
 >>> FidoNet is defined by a NodeList issued weekly by the
 >>> International Coordinator.
 VD>
 US>> This is a clear direction given in the policy overview, that the
 US>> sysops of the node systems listed in the nodelist are members of
 US>> the fidonet organization. so points and users are not members,
 US>> only participants.
 VD>
 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".

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


 VD> Vladimir Donskoy.

regards, uli   ;-)

---