Hi Mark,

Thursday October 14 2004 15:00, you wrote to Vladimir Donskoy:

 MG>>> ignored by the coordinator structure. (FTS-0001 sessions
 MG>>> can be done over the internet, however.) What this means is
 MG>>> that a node who accepts routed netmail from their echomail
 MG>>> uplink during ZMH and from no one else is therefore still
 MG>>> in compliance with policy.
 MvdV>> Don't believe everything you read in this echo. What you read
 MvdV>> above is just the personal intrerpretation of mr. Grant. That
 MvdV>> interpretation is not shared by the majority of FidoNet.
 ml> don't believe everything you read from MvdV, either... the above quote
 ml> from him is also just an interpretation with regard to the quantity of
 ml> folk believing one thing or another...

this definition problem starts with the Grant/Vlist case earlier this
year and ends up on the impasse of 2 ICs ...

The complain result was NO answer to this point. it was the answer
of this special case Grant/Vlist, so the interpretation from whom
to accept netmail is further open ....

From the past fidonet history (without ip capabilities) this
point was clear stated, that a node must be online at zmh to receive
netmail from everybody who sends a directmail to a node who is only
zmh online ...

samples:
a) in the past i've visited cologne for a concert. i have only
 the name of the concert hall but no information how to find it and
i've searched for a hotel. so i've wrote a request mail to every
node in cologne sent it crash/direct (1994)
b) last year i've started a pointlist garbage collection to check that
bossnodes are online and that the listed boss segments are actual.
i've wrote a requestmail to about 120 nodes and started this
mail crash/direct (2003)
c) i have had a private issue about a private pc part selling
to send my street/address informations to the seller and the seller
has sent me crash/direct his account number ...  (1990)

In all 3 cases was the goal to send the netmails direct.
An option that is implemented in all mailers ...
in all 3 cases i sent the mails crash. in the case that a node
wasn't listed CM, it was outbound transfered at zmh ... DIRECT

this direction is given by the policy. see below:

....snip_on......................................................
2.1.4  Encryption and Review of Mail

FidoNet is an amateur system.  Our technology is such that the privacy of
messages cannot be guaranteed. ...

2.1.6  Private Netmail

...

If a user sends a "private message", the user has no control over
the number
of intermediate systems through which that message is routed.  A sysop who
sends a message to another sysop can control this aspect by sending the
message direct to the recipient's system, thus guaranteeing that only the
recipient or another individual to whom that sysop has given authorization
can read the message.  Thus, a sysop may have different expectations than a
casual user.
....snip_off.....................................................

So this part was associated with the zmh policy
that a node has to accept netmails from everybody who sends netmails
direct and this states clearly that this means not host routed
mechanisms.

The interpretation "accept netmails from host only" was born
in relation with ip only nodes, 'cause modem only nodes cannot
contact ip only nodes directly ... so directly has moved to
a more "indirect directly". Sending to the direct uplink of such
a node is like direct ...

This interpretation is a zone 1 interpretation.
This interpretation is not a zone 2 interpretation.
I haven't heard/read yet how zone 3, zone 4, zone 5 and zone 6
interpretes this.
The zcc/ic decision about the Grant/Vlist case was no decision
or statement of this interpretation (so reads to me).

With the nodelist listing you've accepted policy and that you're
able that every other sysop in nodelist who sends netmails under
the aspect of 2.1.6 can contact you directly to the
system listed with given infos in the nodelist, at least at zmh.
So that's the minimum requirement that policy part 2.1.6 can work.

But remember, this doesn't relates directly to the Grant/Vlist case ...

One word about the subject:

>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.

This is a clear direction given in the policy overview, that the sysops
of the node systems listed in the nodelist
are members of the fidonet organization. so points and users are
not members, only participants.



 ml> )\/(ark
 ml>  $ Origin: (1:3634/12)

regards, uli   ;-)

---