Subj : Re: FidoWeb To : mark lewis From : Wilfred van Velzen Date : Tue Jul 28 2026 09:21 pm Hi mark, On 2026-07-28 08:04:08, you wrote to me: ELS>>> Is there a minimum and maximum number of links allowed in the ELS>>> NADS/FidoWeb setting up? WV>> With 1 link you are not following the fidoweb concept. With 2 it depends WV>> on who you have linked to. But the minimum number of links is 2. ml> you keep leaving out the key fundamental aspect of the "web"... that aspect ml> being "more than one link per echo"... going by what you wrote, having one ml> link for echoA and one link for echoB follows the concept... You are right of course, and it was what I meant, but didn't write down clearly... ml> but that's how all echos were once distributed back when making long ml> distance and/or international phone calls cost $$$... Indeed, before the internet, most or all links were cost driven. So a branch system made more sense... And it took a trigger (the fidonews coupe), to make people realize the branch system wasn't necessary anymore, and a mesh system made much more sense. ml> having more than one link for an echo is key... especially when those ml> two links are connected to each other in a triangle fashion... more ml> than 2 links in one echo becomes a "fully connected polygon" with some ml> legs being longer than others... A fully connected polygon (where every node is connected to every other node connected to an area), isn't what you want. The seenby's would become quite big. ;-) And there wouldn't be any dupes. And you want some dupes, to have redundancy... ml> that's what the various "backbone star hubs" in the various backbones ml> did from the beginning... it is no different other than there now ml> being many ad hoc polygons for some echos... ml> all in all, the web opened people's eyes in the same manner that satellite ml> distribution opened people's eyes... Indeed. ml> both showed that each system can connect to any other system they have ml> an agreement with and exchange mail... many thought the "branches of a ml> tree" distribution flow was "forced" when it never was... It was "forced" by cost. ml> people chose to use those distribution branches to keep their phone ml> bills at a manageable level... this also meant they agreed to whatever ml> restrictions may have been in place in that distribution system... Because there wasn't much choice. ml> some did not agree and found their own links for the echos they were ml> interested in... sure, they had a larger phone bill but they got what they ml> wanted when and how they wanted it... eg: some systems made only one or two ml> calls to their feed per day... others called on-demand at any time... this ml> made some feeds faster than others but this carried that additional $$$ cost, ml> too... You could do that for a few areas, but doing it the way it is done now, would have cost way too much... Bye, Wilfred. --- FMail-lnx64 2.3.4.1-B20260520 * Origin: FMail development HQ (2:280/464) .