Subj : Re: Remember To : Matt Bedynek From : Janis Kracht Date : Thu Aug 23 2001 03:21 pm Hi Matt, > So who is/are the person(s) directly responsible for it now? If anyone could be called responsible for it, it would be the NAB in my opinion, since it was initially a NAB vehicle. Since the NAB created the file echo, I would say that the one party responsible for it would be the NAB. When the Z1B was created, the NAB had no problem with the release of ZIB information files in the file echo - but that doesn't mean that anyone but the NAB has any right to change the type of data that is released in it. The NAB was simply cooperating with the Z1B so that echomail could continue to flow unhampered, and people connected to both backbone distributions could continue to get lists of echotag names. Since the two backbones had different means of adding echomail areas, it then became necessary to include other related information files, like faq's, and such. You can see that this cooperation extended to the WW backbone as well, as they also release their information files in the BACKBONE file echo. >>> things and all...lets create two versions of BACKBONE. >> No, I don't see this happening... > We already have some using their weight to exact control on others. At this > point I would be shocked that it did not happen. If it happens so what.. then there will be two information file echos in the list of file echo tag names . It's not such a horror. I'd rather it didn't happen as I think there's enough confusion now with the information presented to people in the network. >> I'm clear here, I'm speaking of the BACKBONE.* files, the various >> FAQ files, and others of the like. >> Not routing files which do not belong in this file echo. > Are you going to work to prevent them from hatching it? Prevent them? I don't see a way to do that nor would I care to. I've been working to stop them to no avail but through discussion. Would you like me to add up the number of netmail and echomail correspondance to Dale and David regarding creating their own fdn? >> The information in the IRNRoute file is of no interest to a >> number of people. > Thats the only point I'm tring to make here. :) > Each group wants their way and > are tring to unilaterally decide how everyone else recieves traffic to the > point of filtering it. If you are refering Ross here, he is moving the file to an area so that his downlinks are not continually annoyed at the file's presence. He let me know he was doing it. It doesn't bother me as long as the file gets out, and his downlinks are aware of what he is doing (they are). It works for them. That's all that counts. If he were deleting the file file, or renaming it, or changing it in some way, that would be different. If David, Dale or someone in authority in the Z1B doesn't create a new fdn for this list by this weekend, I may do the same. > Again I'll state that the IRN chart should have its own area but it certainly > won't kill me to recieve it in BACKBONE. If the Z1B feels its an information > file for them then so be it. See, that is you, and that's ok - but your downlinks some day may not feel the same way as you do. They may get irritated at this file continually appearing in the BACKBONE file echo and you may decide to also move the file to another area. >However I would make _one_ suggestion to both the NAB and Z1B. Why not archiv >a serialized version of all your information files into a single file released > weekly much like the WWB has done it. Traffic reduced...problem solved. An archive would be a pain for those using it I would think. The WWB releases separate files (BACKBONE.WW, etc...). Not sure I follow you here :) Take care, Janis --- BBBS/LiI v4.01 Flag-3 * Origin: Prism bbs (1:2320/38) .