Subj : Dog 'n' pony To : Dale Ross From : Michael Grant Date : Thu May 10 2001 01:52 pm Hello Dale. 10 May 01 06:49, you wrote to me: DR>>> We follow standards. Do you understand what that means? >> >> Squish, Jam, Gecho, Fastecho and many other tossers are quite >> capable of tossing messages with no MSGID, and in fact can totally >> ignore the MSGID kludge. Do you understand what *that* means? DR> I certainly do know what that means. You are referring of course to DR> your message that had a malformed MSGID. Not a message missing a DR> MSGID. Yes Squish tossed that message and it passed through my system. DR> Yes I informed you of the problem. To which you went ballistic. You missed the point... what it means is that a valid MSGID is *no longer* a requirement for participation in and message movement within Fidonet, as the large majority of Fidonet mail tossers have evolved to the point where they *no longer require* a valid MSGID. So long as there are Fidonet editors being developed that still use a MSGID kludge, it still can be a useful tool for dupe detection and message linking, but it is not a REQUIREMENT. Fidonet software has been developed and used in this network that has proven to be useful to sysops and capable of generating and moving messages without the use of a MSGID kludge, and it has been proven that such software can co-exist with existing Fidonet software in use without causing any major problems. To then complain about and hold up persons mail because of a missing or invalid MSGID is irresponsible and causes frustration for the base level sysops, and in some cases, may even drive them away from Fidonet. DR>>> What if the sysop that has to deal with all the crap gets DR>>> discouraged and leaves Fidonet for good? What gives you or DR>>> anyone else the right to come up with a new message format that DR>>> does not follow any standard AND is not compatabile with the DR>>> network you are a part of? >> Did I say I wanted to come up with a new message format? DR> You implied as much, yes. Wrong. You ASSumed that's what I meant. >> No. What I said was, if a message format exists that is proving >> popular, Fidonet ought to try and integrate itself into that format. DR>>> You are going to force everyone to follow what you want? >> Not at all; just encourage people to make allowances for new >> possibilities. DR> Some people cannot make allowances. Anything new must make allowances DR> for the old. Dale Ross certainly can't make allowances, can he? >> It /is/ possible to do that, and still meet the needs of those who >> do not use newer formats. DR> This is a DIFFERENT tune you are singing now. But that is good because DR> the first people that should be considered are those that are and have DR> been doing FidoNet. This has been my view all along; if you haven't seen it, it's because you just see what you want to see. I do the best I can to accomodate the needs of *all* who link with me, regardless of whether they want to use older software and POTS, or if they want to use something newer and ISP communication. If a downlink using older software and POTS wants to communicate with another of my downlinks who's using Internet technology and gating software, it's not for me to interfere and decide for the first downlink that he can't recieve the second downlink's messages. If that first downlink has a problem with the second downlink's messages, I can offer assistance; or he can decide to run a filter or to de-link an echo, or he can complain to that second link, or to the echo's moderator. It is entirely *his* decision to make though, and not mine to make for him in any way. DR>>> This is FidoNet, if you want other specifications then join a DR>>> network that has specifications you like. >> Tell me Dale... does the original Fidonet nodelist meet the >> specifications of today's nodelist? DR> Note something very important here, specification. Our nodelist DR> follows a published specification. Are the present specifications the same as the specifications of the original nodelist? Will your nodelist compiler compile the original nodelist? >> Standards and specifications change. If you resist that change, you >> kill the network. DR> A key here, specification. That would be a FTSC one to boot. Did you not read where I said the specifications are behind the times? Check my article in the Fidonews, my views on the FTSC are clearly stated there. DR>>> Really? Please do explain how you can develop a new message DR>>> format and then a sysop running software that is no longer DR>>> developed is going handle this new format. >> >> The formats are old already, Dale; they're only new in the eyes of >> Fidonet. The programmers have already made allowances for them; it's >> only the standards that are behind. If Fido compatible software is >> being actively developed that can handle new formats, then we ought >> to allow Fidonet members to /use/ those formats. DR> ONLY if they follow a FTSC specification. To the LETTER? Ya voilt! Heil FTSC!! Bend one rule, GTF outta Fido! Does that suit you better, Dale? DR>>> Then that sysop needs to either move on or work with software DR>>> that follows FidoNet standards. If that sysop cannot deal with DR>>> FidoNet standards then that syops should join a Network that has DR>>> the standards he/she likes. >> Thank you for clarifying your position. it does not surprise me in >> the least. DR> It shouldn't surprise anyone. I am a big believer in FidoNet. If you DR> want the Internet then by all means move to the internet. FidoNet DR> exists for those that do not want/need the Internet. If you want to DR> marry the two then you have to consider FidoNet first and foremost. DR> This is after all FidoNet. Fidonet is many things to many people, and it is not by a long shot confined to your narrow view of it. >> That allow those persons in the mailing list to answer via Outlook >> Express, >> just like they would with any other mailing list? DR> Yes they do. And people can use Outlook Express for Newsgroups and DR> those are gated into FidoNet as well. >> That allow those persons to be full Fidonet members? DR> They should not be full FidoNet members. Why do they need to be DR> members? Because that will make them feel that they are a part of something, and will cause them to try harder to promote it to others? >> Do we slap them with; "No, you can't be a member because you can't >> do the phunny handshake", or do we open ourselves up to new >> possibilities? DR> Yes we do. If you want something else then join another Network. I see DR> no reason to list someone in the nodelist that I cannot reach with DR> Fidonet compatible software. What is "Fidonet compatible software", Dale? Ask ten different people in Fidonet that question, and you're likely to get ten different answers. Some say if you can't connect to a node via POTS, then that node is not running Fidonet compatible software. This is one of the issues the FTSC is presently working on addressing. DR> Why do they want to be in the nodelist DR> when being a user gives them all the access to FidoNet echoes they DR> want. What more do they need? A sense of community; of in having their voices heard in what goes on in Fidonet. This is what makes Fidonet different from the Internet. To most Fidonet users, the present membership seems very much like an elitist group of techno-snobs. Why does Fidonet need to be elitist? >> Those formats are being /used/ by Fidonet, but with the exception of >> a few programs using the BinkP protocal, to a large degree they are >> far from /integrated/ into Fidonet standards. BinkP nicely >> integrates TCP/IP into a Fidonet format. HTTP, however, is far from >> integrated into Fidonet, yet HTTP is probably the most popular form >> of computer communication today. DR> HTTP is a client server technology. It is not suited for FidoNet DR> communications. So are BBSes. They've been accepted as suitable for Fidonet communications from the start of this network. >> The many forms of e-mail transfers are also not integrated in any >> way with Fidonet. One cannot use an e-mail client to communicate in >> Fidonet without an additional program converting the messages. What >> is required is for Fidonet to bend a little so that programmers can >> create new software that can handle e-mail formats and at the same >> time make those messages compatible with Fidonet. DR> No that is not needed. If this new software cannot package mail into DR> an accept format then something is seriously wrong with the DR> programmers that write the software. And what if the programmers all abandon the *.PKT format? That day might not be far off; can you list exactly how many Fido-compatible mail tossers are still being actively developed? What does Fidonet do if no one wants to write such programs anymore? Contemplate it's navel until it dwindles to a few stragglers running ancient software? DR> We most certainly would allow someone that does SMTP only to be DR> listed in nodelist. They will however have to send *.pkts. If know DR> someone that needs this service have them contact me. We will list DR> them in our Net and there are two systems here that can handle the DR> connections. I can and do handle such connections myself; and I would certainly not send them your way, as you are known to filter echomail. I do no such thing. >> Programs such as Irex are a good example of this. DR> So use Irex. It will give you the best of both worlds without having DR> to modify existing FidoNet standards. I do run Irex. But Irex can do many things besides move *.PKT files. One of those things is gating newsgroups to Fidonet echos; I believe it was in fact Irex that Sean Rima was running to do that very thing, and it was because you were not satisfied with the format of those messages that Irex created that you decided to hold up his mail. This is a perfect example of how bending a little can help to promote Fidonet and allow sysops to try new ideas. If you had decided at that time to bend a little, Sean would not have gotten so upset to the point where he contemplated removing his echos from the Z1B. Unfortunately, there is very little bending in your narrow view of Fidonet. --- GoldED+/386 1.1.4.5 * Origin: MikE'S MaDHousE: WelComE To ThE AsYluM! (1:134/11) .