HI Ross,

On Wed 2038-Feb-03 22:29, Ross Cassell (1:123/456) wrote to Richard Webb:

RC> Hello Richard!

 DD>> So what? If he posted into an echo in which he was banned then he
 DD>> was a bad boy in that echo. Not in this one - where, last time I
 DD>> checked, Dan Ceppa is the moderator - not you.

 RW> Good point.

RC> The catch is the last time he checked..

RC> Dan Ceppa hasnt posted since early autumn 09.

I note that as well, and HOpe DAn's alright.  I was thinking at first he
was a part of the glitch in the northwest.
I haven't really paid attention, except maybe to note that
the echolist was keeping echomail conferences listed.  Other than making
sure that it acknowledged my netmails keeping my echos updated I pay little
attention to the echolist, it's
acted sorta flaky, as in the robot has here of late a few
times .


 RW> he's not a nodelisted sysop, and he chose to respond to Ross here, and
 RW> implied pretty directly that ROss violated some rules of echomail
 RW> distribution.  Hence my questions to him.

RC> There is no rule for handling echomail suspensions, as far as how
RC> they are issued.

That's right, never has been.  There have been attempts to
promulgate some and have them accepted, but that hasn't
happened.

RC> Wayne wont respond to you if it means him issuing a mea culpa, too
RC> many times do we see users inventing rules for a network they are a
RC> guest of. 

Wouldn't know about your first point, but as to your second, would agree.

Anybody reading here can pick up back issues of the fidonews and look at
the various attempts to formulate echomail
policies, and in many cases the various documents themselves right in the
snooze.  None were given force of authority.


Regards,
           Richard
--- timEd 1.10.y2k+