Subj : alternate routing chart
To   : Michael Grant
From : David Calafrancesco
Date : Sat Apr 28 2001 05:10 pm

Michael Grant wrote in a message to David Calafrancesco:

DC> There is not now, nor would there ever be a legit reason to even
DC> experimen
DC> with a hatching config that forges node addresses in the control files. 
DC> Period. Let alone actually using it. There are people who use one
DC> distribu
DC> system, and some who use another. I receive the backbone files
DC> from all of
DC> distribution systems that make their files public. It is not up to an 
DC> appointed servant for the zone to make the decision of which
DC> systems have 
DC> right to receive a public document. It is a clear case of cronyism and a 
DC> blatant violation of P4.07. In fact 90% of the discretionary
DC> changes she h
DC> made on the routelist also smack of cronyism. It is no wonder that
DC> others 
DC> step forward to meet her challenge of producing an alternate list.
DC> Note th
DC> the alternate list doesn't discriminate or favor any one group or
DC> faction 
DC> another. 

 MG> And your proof that Foxy actually /meant/ to use that config to
 MG> hatch the routelist is...?

By it's very existance and the fact that it happened at all. Nobody goes to the 
trouble to 'experiment' with a forgery. That configuration had one purpose. 
Period. 

 MG> How about if Foxy was planning to make a new, different file that
 MG> she intended to distribute to only part of the membership? If she's
 MG> the author, she has the right to restrict distribution, doesn't
 MG> she?

No absolutely not. Not via a public file echo distribution system. Limiting 
distribution by forgery is not an option. Controlling the distrbution of a file 
by taking it off the file echo distribution system and distributing it 
privately is the option. Creating a private file echo that only goes to certain 
systems is a valid way. Again, by putting the file into the public distribution 
she relinquishes the right to decide who gets it. Also, by accepting a title 
purportedly to the benefit of all of the zone, she relinquishes the right to 
decide who can receive the fruits of that position. It would be akin to Janis 
putting your node number into the nodediff file because she didn't want you to 
get the that week's diff file. It was funny to see a node who doesn't even get 
that area inserted in the seen-bys. 

Would my forging your address in my messages to prevent you from seeing them be 
a valid use of the seenbys? The answer is no. It would be forgery plain and 
simple. 

 MG> The possibility very much exists that what you say is true, that
 MG> she did in fact do a malicious and inexcusible thing; I never
 MG> denied that fact and I  still don't. If it can be proven to me that
 MG> this is the case, I say she ought to resign, as that would be the
 MG> only honorable thing to do. I also feel regardless of whether it
 MG> was a mistake or was intentional, she ought to apologize to eveyone
 MG> who's node number appeared in the seen-by when it shouldn't have
 MG> been there.

That would certainly be the honorable thing to do. I'm not holding my breath 
though. 

 MG>  The existance of the possibility that what she did was malicious,
 MG> does not however, exclude /other/ possibilities from existing. The
 MG> facts are inconclusive, and thus I draw no conclusions at this time
 MG> based on the facts that have come out so far.

You are welcome to your interpretation. However, there is no possible excuse 
for even experimenting with a configuration that is based upon the use of 
forgery. 

Dave Calafrancesco, Team OS/2
dave@drakkar.org

.... They got the library at Alexandria, they're not getting mine! 
--- 
 * Origin: Druid's Grove BBS - (914)/876-2237 (1:2624/306)

.