Subj : Re: Bad behaviour not wanted.
To   : Ward Dossche
From : Dan Clough
Date : Wed Nov 09 2022 06:51 pm

-=> Ward Dossche wrote to Dan Clough <=-

 DC> I think that a sysop-only echo is sysop-only for both read and write.  I
 DC> guess the one who could/should answer this is the ECHO MODERATOR.

 WD> There is no such thing as a sysop-only echo ... the moderator may
 WD> name it so, but it's meaningless.

It doesn't have to be that way.  All it takes is proper configuration by 
sysops, and reasonable enforcement.

 WD> Way way back in time when animals still could talk I decided to
 WD> keep ENET.SYSOP closed but quickly discovered that in Fidonet
 WD> there will always be at least one participant who'll send it to a
 WD> person whom does not qualify per the rules.

Sure, that's a possibility, but it doesn't mean you/we can't try.  It 
would come very close to keeping it "sysop-only".

 WD> I stopped worrying about that and accepted the reality that no
 WD> echo is restricted. You have a secret to tell? Don't use
 WD> echomail, send netmail ... crash.

I realize that, and point out that it's got NOTHING to do with secrets.  
There are just some times when it might be good for sysops (only) to 
discuss issues related to BBSing / echos / whatever.  What's the harm in 
that?



.... All hope abandon, ye who enter messages here.
=== MultiMail/Linux v0.52
--- SBBSecho 3.15-Linux
 * Origin: Palantir * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL * (1:123/115)

.