Subj : Third Party Updates To : Thom LaCosta From : Roy Witt Date : Wed Sep 06 2000 11:09 am Hello Thom. 06 Sep 00 10:46, you wrote to me: RW>> You mean the previous moderator's name. TL> Doesn't matter whose name....there have been instances of folks TL> submitting MOD UPD messages and listing moderators who were, in fact TL> not moderators, or not reachable, etc. I'm sure you're aware of some TL> of those instances. I can think of a few off the top of my head. TL>> Once that's done, it's pretty clear when a dead echo is re-boned, or TL>> re-named, or killed off that the person doing is is the moderator, TL>> not some third party. RW>> As a third party, I do all of this. I do it for someone who's not RW>> interested in learning the Z1 elist procedures, nor having to deal RW>> with either NA backbones. TL> I can only comment on the elist side of things...and that is from my TL> very specific viewpoint, any one who won't take the time to learn a TL> very simple proceedure is not fullfilling a very simple TL> responsibility. On the contrary, he's not interested in learning the procedure, just in safe guarding the echotag from would be updaters and echo thieves. Since it's a Z3 echo becoming available on the WWB at first and then the Z1B later, he didn't want to go through the hassle of learning the system when someone else who knew the system would volunteer to run interference for him. The responsibility of doing the moderating is still his job. Since I do updates for my own echos, what's one more email or netmail. RW>> All he cares about is whether his echo RW>> is boned and available in Z1, as well as protected from echo tag RW>> pirates. TL> He can't care that much if he has no interest in doing it himself. On the contrary, like I said above.. RW>> He had no objection to me putting myself in the moderator RW>> list and he get's his copy of the update (password included) RW>> everytime I do it. TL> If you're one of the moderators for the echo, then he can be as TL> irresponsible as he chooses. No he can't, because I don't choose to show up in the echo. I just do the updates. RW>> Seems to me this is going to be the only way RW>> around the 'no third party' rule. TL> Not really...all the moderator has to do is confirm that he/she wants TL> to use a third party updater. If they can't/won't do that, then it TL> would appear to me that either they're not active, or that the third TL> party update isn't what it appears to be. Wrong again. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. RW>>> This is getting sillier by the day... TL>> Sure is...and the silliness stems from folks distorting the TL>> expiration dates and accuracy of the echolist. RW>> How so? Echolist tag expiration is set by the robot when it RW>> receives a MOD UPD with the correct password. All other attempts RW>> are ignored, accept for the 'pirate' warning it sends to the RW>> elisted moderator. I proved that to myself this past weekend, RW>> doing some echo deletions. Reading the echolist updates posted in RW>> ECHOLIST, all one has to do is observe the line which tells us RW>> 'who' updated the tag. TL> The silliness comes from the fact that with a third party update TL> there is no assurance that the moderator listed is the actual TL> moderator, that the the moderator has the password, or receives the TL> confirmation message. Assurances can be in the form of a CC'd message to both moderator and elist keeper. You already get the CC'd email I send to New Zealand, so you have the assurances that the 1st MOR has the password. If you'd like, I'll CC you the confirmation message as I forward it to the MOR. .... If cows have horns, why do they moo instead of honk? --- Twit(t) Filter v2.1 (C) 2000 * Origin: ** Moderator - HAM-ECHO ** (1:10/22) .