-=> kk4qbn wrote to Gamgee <=-

 kk>   Re: Re: Fwd: Girls got chip planted without them knowing it
 kk>   By: Gamgee to kk4qbn on Fri May 17 2024 07:49:00

 Ga> You don't have a good understanding of how modern echomail distribution
 Ga> happens.

 kk> ok, Maybe not FTN.. but truly.. FTN isn't "Modern".. it was never
 kk> meant to be intantanious. as far as I know. except for netmail.
 kk> and that was in a best case scenario "back in the day"

I didn't say FTN was modern.  But how it is distributed these days (modern 
times) is VERY different than it was back in the day.  Completely 
different, actually.  The reason for that is the "always on" connection of 
the internet, versus the need to dial up another system with a modem.

 Ga> When messages arrive at a hub, they are sent out to that hub's downlinks
 Ga> in a matter of seconds.  Yes, seconds.  There is ZERO chance that the NC
 Ga> (the correct "title") is going to catch/stop an offending message. ZERO.
 Ga> They come in, and immediately go back out to downlinks.  Even if the RC/NC
 Ga> was sitting at the computer with his hands on the keyboard, they could not
 Ga> stop the message from going downstream.

 kk> Ok, so your saying you have both you FTN and QWK networks set to
 kk> CRASH anytime something comes in?

No, I didn't say that, nor anything even remotely alluding to that.  What 
I was referring to was that I, as a FidoNet NC, have (most) of my 
downlinks set to "crash", and some of them set to "hold".  That choice is 
made by the downlink sysop, not me.  So, as echomail comes to me from the 
RC, it is immediately sent back out to most of my downlinks, and held for 
some downlinks to poll and get that way.  My point was that, even for the 
"hold" systems, it would take quite rapid (and painfully awkward) actions 
by me to "filter" out something that I thought was offensive, and would 
require me to be sitting there watching for it 24x7.  Obviously not gonna 
happen.  Another consideration here is that who am I do decide whether 
somebody else would find something offensive?  That's not my job.  As for 
QWK, I do not distribute that to any downlinks, I just get my DoveNet feed 
from VERT, by polling that system once an hour.

 kk> really does'nt seem like
 kk> something you would want to do with echomail.. maybe NETMAIL, but
 kk> not echomail..

I certainly would like it do be done with echomail.  By crashing back and 
forth upstream/downstream, echomail conversations that "back in the day" 
took a couple of days for each message exchange can now be done in 
minutes, and even approach real-time conversations.  Why not do that if 
the modern technology allows it?

 kk> Now I have been out of the BBS world since about
 kk> 2016 or so, so if there is another method besides FTN, and QWK.
 kk> then yeah.. I have no idea.. but for qwk networks, especially
 kk> with the traffic we get anymore, I'm not polling anymore than 4
 kk> times daily..

I poll VERT hourly, and I can assure you that some systems poll him more 
frequently than that.  Most of my Fido downlinks poll here hourly.  
Again... why not?  It takes 2 seconds and costs nothing.

 kk> and truthfully, I don't believe I will ever setup
 kk> another ftn network, lol I've been waiting close to two months to
 kk> hear back from someone on a qwk hub for a network that I have now
 kk> even forgot the name of because I've been waiting so long. I
 kk> don't really know about not having a good understanding of the
 kk> techonology I pretty much know how it works, even in todays
 kk> "modern" world.

Well that's your choice to not participate in FTNs, not sure why you would 
think that way, but OK.  For me personally, it's the main reason I run a 
BBS and participate in BBSing these days.  I check and read messages from 
my board several times a day.

 kk> just my opinion, and we all know about opinions,
 kk> modern echomail does'nt warrant instantanias transport. crash
 kk> your hub 15 times a day for 15 messages.. lol. If a sysop is'nt
 kk> doing that, they may every now and then catch a mistake, or spam
 kk> or something before it goes down stream.

Again, it's usually more than 15 times a day, and more messages than that 
per day.  It simply is not realistic to think that a sysop (RC/NC 
actually) is going to catch something before it goes onward.  Just can't 
happen that way.  Also again, the "ethical" question of censorship plays a 
part in this.

 kk> It was just an idea. it's not perfect.. nothing perfect. the best
 kk> that can happen really is just twitlisting..

That helps, until the spammer morphs to a new name.  The hard reality is 
that just like in email, there will occasionally be some spam that gets 
through.  Realistically there is no way to stop it all.  Idealistically 
doesn't count for anything here.

 Ga> LOL ... While some of the above is certainly true, "checking on their
 Ga> message bases" would have nothing to do with catching/stopping an
 Ga> offensive message.  It can't be done.

 kk> Ok.. if you say so..

I do say so, and I know I am correct.  Any other RC/NC will agree with me.


... Clones are people two.
--- MultiMail/Linux v0.52
 þ Synchronet þ Palantir BBS * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL