Subj : 1:10/345 To : David Calafrancesco From : Michael Grant Date : Wed Nov 28 2001 11:48 pm Hello David. 28 Nov 01 23:34, you wrote to me: DC>> If that was the case then many of the Z1B hubs would not have DC>> been removed without warning from their connections with the ZC DC>> a few months back. I don't recall you telling Janis that cutting DC>> those connections (all connections BTW) was morally repugnant. MG>> If you are talking about Matt's Filegate feed; Janis has told me MG>> a different story. Her system is overloaded, and she asked Matt MG>> to accept a feed from another Filegate hub, and he took it as MG>> a personal affront. I have seen firsthand evidence that her MG>> system /is/ overloaded, as I recently connected with her to hatch MG>> into the MYSTIC FDN and was told in no uncertain terms that I MG>> cannot recieve any fileechos from her system. Recently as well, MG>> her system has suffered a crash, and she was down for about a MG>> week or so. DC> Some facts about that as I understand them... Matt had offered to take DC> as many filegate feeds as Janis wanted to shift. He has bandwidth like DC> you wouldn't believe. He isn't running an ADSL or cablemodem DC> connection, but at least a DS3 possibly an OC3. He was accepted as a DC> connection, and then as soon as two major Z1B hubs shift their DC> connections to him he is cutoff at the knees. Despite his willingness DC> to take any number of secondary connections that Janis would need to DC> move, she shifted him to a 'hub' that had major issues with being able DC> to hub files for others. Those issues including not processing more DC> than once per day, not having automated areafix configured or any of DC> the other 'standard' interactions one expects from a major filegate DC> connection. According to the messages sent to Matt that Janis posted here, he was not treated unfairly. He does not have a right to connect to the top of the Filegate; no one does. You don't get preferential treatment just because you have more bandwidth than the next guy, or because you are part of an echomail moving organization. The Filegate is not an echomail system; it's not even properly a part of Fidonet. It has it's own policy and the Filegate coordinators make the decisions. DC> For Janis to shift Matt from a direct connection to one of the DC> slowest possible connections available astonishes me. If Matt was unhappy, why didn't he seek a connection with another Filegate hub? I have a connection with a lower hub, and my files arrive here promptly and regularly. I am very happy with that; and I don't at all see the need to get my files from the top. DC> Now, at the same time this was happening, we were faced with DC> several NAB hubs altering in-transit files so they no longer DC> propogated in their hatched file area. Huh? There /is/ no "NAB" in the Filegate. Read the Filegate policy, David. NAB and Z1B /do not apply/ to the Filegate. You're politicizing this because of ERNROUTE/IRNROUTE, I believe. You hatched it into the wrong file echo; a shared echo, and you never asked the others in that echo if they felt it belonged there or not, so you in effect spammed that fileecho. You do not have a god-given right to hatch into a Filegate fileecho just because you are a member of an echomail moving organization. The Filegate has it's own rules, which you must follow if you are going to participate in it, and part of those rules are respecting the individual rules of each FDN. You are allowed hatching priveleges because the /Filegate coordinators/ agree to allow it, and they can agree to disallow it at any time if you choose to ignore the Filegate rules. If you ask me; Janis should have long ago appointed a FDN coordinator for the BACKBONE fileecho, then this rankor over hatching rights wouldn't have happened, because no Z1B /or/ NAB hubs would have had hatching rights. I guess that's what you get for trying to cooperate with those organizations though; the invited guests go out of their way to insult the host in her very home. DC> At the same time, several other hubs were informed that they DC> would no longer be able to deliver routed netmail DC> to the ZC, as their secured sessions were locked down. Routed netmail has /nothing/ to do with the Filegate. DC> Our choices for a filegate feed were to use a NAB hub that DC> altered traffic, or a hub ill prepared for the task at hand. You had other choices; there are Filegate hubs that are not members of the NAB or the Z1B, and they are willing to take on new nodes. Again, you are painting the NAB vs Z1B thing on a organization that has absolutely /nothing/ to do with either of those echomail moving organizations. DC> An acceptable approach to an overloading condition would be to DC> distribute connections as widely as possible with as few hops as DC> needed between the 'source' of the information and the consumers of DC> that information. To concentrate all connections with a single group DC> of hubs unbalanced that equation. When we tried to remove ourselves DC> from the political practices of that group of HUBs interfering with DC> our filegate traffic we were thoroughly thwarted. You got miffed because Janis didn't do what you /demanded/ her to do. You are not Filegate coordinators, and you have no right to tell her or any other Filegate coordinator what to do with the Filegate. If you want to participate in the Filegate, you cooperate with the Filegate coordinators, otherwise disconnect yourselves from it and find your own way to distribute your files. You are not bound to accept files from a Hub you don't like, and you do not have a right to get your files from the top. DC>> Your inability to find fault with anyone but the Z1B or R12 is DC>> frankly morally repugnant to me, yet I let you stay in this DC>> echo and continue your ways because while you skirt the line, DC>> you don't cross it enough to generate moderator action. MG>> A simple search of the archives of several echos will turn up MG>> disagreements I have had with others you percieve that I side MG>> with. I've had public disagreements with Roy Witt, Andrea Santos, MG>> Ross Cassell, and even Jack Yates; but I do not let disagreements MG>> rule my mail moving practices, and I do not constantly attack the MG>> Z1B; in fact, I've been quite silent in this echo and in others MG>> on the Z1B for quite some time, and have even left Dale Ross MG>> alone until he came up with this latest bone-headed move. DC> By the same token I too have had disagreements with everyone on that DC> list, as well as agreements with everyone on that list. Your point is? You're contention that I have an "inability to find fault with anyone but the Z1B or R12" is clearly not true; so your statement to the effect that you find that in me morally repugnant does not follow as valid, since it does not apply to me. MG>> I had hoped that the Z1B's practices were improving of late, I MG>> had thought I'd percieved a willingness to re-build the bridges MG>> that had been burned in the past; and it may even suprise you to MG>> know that you'd earned a little respect from me for having a word MG>> with Todd Cochrane for his outburst; that's one reason I chose to MG>> abide by your message to me as moderator. It's too bad that MG>> you've now lost most of what you gained in my eyes by stooping to MG>> a personal attack against me. DC> Really? Finding your attitude morally repugnant, a term you coined and DC> used repeatedly, is a personal attack? The personal attack was the allegation that I have the inability to find fault in others besides the Z1B and R12. A false allegation which slanders myself; therefore a personal attack. DC> repugnant is discussing the issues. Attacking the person not the deed DC> or statement is a personal attack And this is what you did with your original message. DC>> Nowhere has Dale stated that the connection is severed. Nowhere DC>> has he stated that it would be cut solely for what has happened DC>> in this echo. DC>> There is a lot of history of animosity between Dale Ross and DC>> Ross Cassell. Lots of history. MG>> I know the history; I've been here all along; far longer than MG>> I've been posting in this particular echo. There's been wrong MG>> done on /both/ sides, but far more has been done on the Z1B side, MG>> IMO. DC> Really? Care to cite references please? MG>> perhaps if Z1B hubs hadn't encouraged the RC12 to sever a full MG>> echomail feed from Brenda Donovan, when she did nothing to MG>> deserve such treatment, and perhaps if you hadn't made false MG>> accusations suggesting that my REC would deny ERN services to MG>> nodes who didn't pay fees for an echomail feed, and perhaps if MG>> you hadn't so DC> I have no clue who your REC is now or was or whatever you are talking DC> about. You know who my REC is, and you knew who he was at that time. In fact, the Z1B demonizes him on a regular basis despite the fact that he rarely posts in here and rarely makes any attacks on the Z1B. Don't play dumb, David, it's unbecoming... DC> As for RC12 (whomever that might be... I'd have to go look it DC> up) Context, David; at the time it occured. You're trying to skirt the issue. DC> switching feeds... nodes do that all the time. Sometimes for DC> valid reasons, sometimes for no reason whatsoever. Sometimes for DC> reasons that are not apperent in public. The reasons were readily apparent, many of the attitudes of the Z1B hubs at the time were in fact displayed right here in this echo for all to see. DC> I can't recall advising anyone to link anywhere and certainly DC> don't recall advising RC12 one way or the other. Well maybe he just saw what you guys were posting in here about the NAB and believed it, even though it was based purely on slanderous lies... MG>> obviously politically aligned yourselves with R12, taking a MG>> "them vs. us" attitude and suggesting that /all/ NAB hubs are MG>> evil and untrustworthy, I would not feel this way. Look even at MG>> the recent slander of myself by Dale Ross, alluding that I MG>> would support packet ramming. Is it any wonder that I think MG>> that certain Z1B hubs let politics rule their mail moving MG>> practices, when they actually think that a mail mover would MG>> even want to /consider/ something like that? DC> Methinks you are painting with a broad brush. As for the packet DC> ramming thing, see a message from Dale Ross with dates and quotes. And see my response on it. It happened in FLAME, in full public view, and was not meant to be taken seriously. DC> Answer the questions raised there and then we can discuss DC> whether it was a slander or a misunderstanding of what exactly DC> you were advocating or encouraging. I advocated and encouraged nothing. I commented on things for a purpose of aquiring a file, and for sheer entertainment value. Nothing in FLAME is supposed to be taken seriously; that a Z1B hub would take it seriously just shows the level of his paranoia. --- GoldED/386 3.0.1-dam3 * Origin: MikE'S MaDHousE: WelComE To ThE AsYluM! (1:134/11) .