Subj : Re: Dog 'n' pony To : Dale Ross From : Michael Grant Date : Fri May 11 2001 06:09 pm DR> DR>> I certainly do know what that means. You are referring of course to DR> DR>> your message that had a malformed MSGID. Not a message missing a DR> DR>> MSGID. Yes Squish tossed that message and it passed through my syste DR> DR>> Yes I informed you of the problem. To which you went ballistic. DR> > DR> > You missed the point... what it means is that a valid MSGID is *no longe DR> > requirement for participation in and message movement within Fidonet, DR> No longer? When was it ever a rquirement? It certainly seems to be a requirement in your books, as it's the subject of several of your "neat" traps. DR> DR>> ONLY if they follow a FTSC specification. DR> > To the LETTER? Ya voilt! Heil FTSC!! Bend one rule, GTF outta Fido! DR> > Does that suit you better, Dale? DR> DR> If you cannot live within this network then yes get the hell out of it. Cr DR> a new network that you can live in. Problem is that your new network would DR> fail miserably. Guess what, Dale? I *am* an administrator in another FTN network, and it's far from failing. In that network, we don't hold people's mail hostage to a set of outdated standards. DR> DR>> They should not be full FidoNet members. Why do they need to be DR> DR>> members? DR> > Because that will make them feel that they are a part of something, and DR> > cause them to try harder to promote it to others? DR> DR> It is not going to make a difference to them. Users as a whole never were DR> interested in "joining" FidoNet. In the prime time of FidoNet I had far mo DR> users than points. That was true with EVERY BBS in this Net. Probably true DR> with EVERY Net in FidoNet. Did you ask them? It's most likely they were afraid to inquire about it, as many sysops back then were either silent, or even downright discouraged many users from even trying to join Fidonet. I know something of this, as I was a user myself back then. In fact, a big argument ensued in this very net when a sysop tried to set me up as a point. It caused that sysop to quit Fidonet. DR> > What is "Fidonet compatible software", Dale? Ask ten different people in DR> > Fidonet that question, and you're likely to get ten different answers. DR> > Some say if you can't connect to a node via POTS, then that node is not DR> > running Fidonet compatible software. This is one of the issues the FTSC DR> >is presently working on addressing. DR> DR> For most of us I am certain that means the messages they send are in a for DR> that everyone in the network can receive. That is a hell of a stretch from DR> and where we were 10 years ago. I see no major problems of that nature with the programs that are being used today in Fidonet, and neither do the vast majority of other mail hubs in Fidonet. Why do you therefore feel the need to use a filter on the echomail? DR> > A sense of community; of in having their voices heard in what goes on in DR> > Fidonet. This is what makes Fidonet different from the Internet. To DR> > most Fidonet users, the present membership seems very much like an DR> > elitist group of techno-snobs Why does Fidonet need to be elitist? DR> DR> How long have you been around FidoNet? There you go, proving my point. A clear elitist attitude. While nodes are dropping like flies from the nodelist, you look down your nose at someone simply because they haven't been in Fidonet as long as you have. Dale, *IT DOESN'T MATTER* how long any member of this network has been around. Fidonet is lucky just to have anyone interested enough to still want to be a part of this network, especially when it means having to put up with all the elitist bullshit on a daily basis like you so readily display in spades with your attitude. DR> In the prime time of our network us were not that interested in actually DR> joining the network. What makes you think that things are any different DR> today? A shrinking nodelist means Fidonet has to think of some new ideas to attract members, as the old ideas are clearly proving unpopular. In the heyday of Fidonet, there were plenty of people wanting to join Fidonet; no so today, as the world has changed and Fidonet has proven less attractive than the alternatives. It's a matter of simple survival now. DR> DR>> HTTP is a client server technology. It is not suited for FidoNet DR> DR>> communications. DR> > DR> > So are BBSes. They've been accepted as suitable for Fidonet communicatio DR> from the start of this network. DR> DR> BBSes have not been accepted as suitable for FidoNet communications. The DR> mailer function of the BBS has been accepted. BBS editors are not sutible for Fidonet communications? What about those BBSes that have a built-in tosser? DR> In case you are not aware, t DR> function is both a client AND a server. HTTP is not well suited for that. DR> is. BBS software is a server. A terminal program is a client. Not too much difference. Why can't someone come up with a HTTP based BBS that can communicate effectively in Fidonet? DR> DR>> No that is not needed. If this new software cannot package mail into DR> DR>> an accept format then something is seriously wrong with the DR> DR>> programmers that write the software. DR> > DR> > And what if the programmers all abandon the *.PKT format? That day might DR> be far off; DR> DR> Yea right. I'd be willing to bet a few short years ago, you'd have gotten the same response as yours above from many sysops if you told them that programmers will abandon many of the BBS programs they were using. Now it getting rare to find a BBS package that is still being developed. I know this well, as I recently looked at many of the available packages, and discovered a lot of them are in fact abandoned. DR> > can you list exactly how many Fido-compatible mail tossers are still bei DR> actively developed? DR> DR> There are several. Squish is not. Jam is not. Fastecho is not. They're still being used, but they are not being developed. DR> > What does Fidonet do if no one wants to write such programs anymore? DR> We work with the old programs. Even though there are new programs being DR> written today, I am using Squish which has not been touched in years. And if Fidonet changes to the point where Squish will puke? DR> > Contemplate it's navel until it dwindles to a few stragglers running anc DR> software? DR> DR> That's right. I figured that'd be your view. DR> DR>> So use Irex. It will give you the best of both worlds without having DR> DR>> to modify existing FidoNet standards. DR> > This is a perfect example of how bending a little can help to promote DR> Fidonet and allow sysops to try new ideas. If you had decided at that DR> time to bend a little, Sean would not have gotten so upset to the point DR> where he contemplated removing his echos from the Z1B. Unfortunately, DR> there is very little bending in your narrow view Fidonet. DR> DR> No that is simply not true. It is because Janis stuck her big nose in wher DR> didn't belong. And you are wrong, his mail was not held. You admitted yourself that his mail /was/ held. You sir, are a liar. DR> Ever message that been sent that echo went through here. For a couple of DR> days mail was delay for about an hour, less time that it is delayed on DR> most systems in FidoNet And the reason was an immoral and irresponsible one; to censor the mail. DR> As to bending. If you want to call it that, I bent well befor DR> anything was mentioned in this echo. I had it resolved before Janis tried DR> stir things up in this echo. Get over it. You do not know what you are tal DR> about. You live on hearsay at best. Censoring is censoring, and that is what you did. It is still irresponsible and immoral to censor the echomail. The only thing with you that is bent is your egomaniacal attitude. --- Mystic BBS v1.07.2 (DOS) * Origin: MikE'S MaDHousE -- WelComE to the AsYluM! (1:134/11) .