Recently, the four of us ZC's privately discussed the need for an IC.
As per P4, sections 1.27 and 1.28, we carefully reviewed the options and selected Ward Dossche by unanimous vote.
Recently, the four of us ZC's privately discussed the need for an IC.? ? ? ? ?
As per P4, sections 1.27 and 1.28, we carefully reviewed the options and
selected Ward Dossche by unanimous vote.
ICRecently, the four of us ZC's privately discussed the need for an
optionsAs per P4, sections 1.27 and 1.28, we carefully reviewed the
selected Ward Dossche by unanimous vote.? ? ? ? ?
???
Hi! Tommi,an IC
On 25 Oct 2019, Tommi Koivula said the following to Oli...
TK> ??>> Recently, the four of us ZC's privately discussed the need for
TK> ??>> As per P4, sections 1.27 and 1.28, we carefully reviewed theoptions
TK> ??>> selected Ward Dossche by unanimous vote.
TK> O> ? ? ? ? ?
TK> ???
Weird indeed even in Mystic, which is pretty 'wild' for text effects.
It was ok in HotDogED. :) My reply seems not.
Also this Thunderbird shows the sign of the toilet bowl ok. :D
Recently, the four of us ZC's privately discussed the need
for an IC.
As per P4, sections 1.27 and 1.28, we carefully reviewed the
options and selected Ward Dossche by unanimous vote.
Cross-posted in FN_SYSOP, FIDONEWS, ENET.SYSOP and Z1C.
Nick
Why would a tor exit node block nntp / port 119?
I don't know. :)
I would not be surprized at all if someone were actually
attempting at silencing the troll.
In which case I would say: Good riddance.
\%/@rd
Recently, the four of us ZC's privately discussed the need for an IC.
As per P4, sections 1.27 and 1.28, we carefully reviewed the options and
selected Ward Dossche by unanimous vote.
? … ? … ?
It was ok in HotDogED. :) My reply seems not.
Also this Thunderbird shows the sign of the toilet bowl ok. :D
It originates in the Netherlands ...
Imagine that. Four sysops, meeting behind closed doors, to discuss
Imagine that. Four sysops, meeting behind closed doors, to discuss
Butt out, or become a sysop. If you're not a sysop, this is none of your business.
Butt out, or become a sysop. If you're not a sysop, this is none of your business.
? ? ? ? ?
???
Butt out, or become a sysop. If you're not a sysop, this is DH>none ofyour business.
Think of him as a fly on the wall. Nothing to see here. Simple.
Imagine that. Four sysops, meeting behind closed doors, to discuss
Butt out, or become a sysop. If you're not a sysop, this is none of your
business.
Well said.
Imagine that. Four sysops, meeting behind closed doors, to discuss
Butt out, or become a sysop.
If you're not a sysop, this is none of your business.
🤢 … 🚽 … 🤮
---
* Origin: (2:280/464.47)
The first two symbols rendered perfectly in TB 60.9.0.
Imagine that. Four sysops, meeting behind closed doors, todiscuss
Butt out, or become a sysop. If you're not a sysop, this is none
of your business.
Well said.
The first two symbols rendered perfectly in TB 60.9.0.With all due respect, until further notice this is still a text-based environment ...
With all due respect, until further notice this is still a text-based
environment ...
\%/@rd
With all due respect, until further notice this is still a text-based AA>WD>environment ...
s, seor! (U+1F44D)
text-basedThe first two symbols rendered perfectly in TB 60.9.0.With all due respect, until further notice this is still a
environment ...
And text can be translated to anything. Like toilet bowl.
The first two symbols rendered perfectly in TB 60.9.0.
With all due respect, until further notice this is still a text-based environment ...
With all due respect, until further notice this is still a
text-based environment ...
Maybe you can provide a list of Unicode characters that are not
acceptable in a "text-based environment".
Tommi,
That time of the year again when days are getting too short and too darktext-basedThe first two symbols rendered perfectly in TB 60.9.0.With all due respect, until further notice this is still a
environment ...And text can be translated to anything. Like toilet bowl.
\%/@rd
--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20180707🏜😄
* Origin: 🐕 (2:280/464.47)
That time of the year again when days are getting too short and toodark ?
No. Days are getting longer every day. And we do not mess with the clock tomorrow.
With all due respect, until further notice this is still a
text-based environment ...
Maybe you can provide a list of Unicode characters that are not
acceptable in a "text-based environment".
Like a clockwork ... on queue.
Don't teach tricks to a grey fox. Maybe you could start with using a
real name, and don't be a smartass now by using "Real Name" as your
real name.
Trust me, after 25 years I've seen it all here ...
I didn't expect anything else. Master of derailing conversations andrepeati
the same bullshit over and over again for decades. Do you ever get sick of
And who the fuck do you think you are to tell me that my name is not real? Even if I were using some alias, it's fine according to the rules of thisec
(which are ignored anyway or don't apply anymore).
Even if I were using some alias, it's fine according to the rules of
this ec (which are ignored anyway or don't apply anymore).
You are correct, in that the rules are ignored.
everI didn't expect anything else. Master of derailing conversations O>andrepeating the same bullshit over and over again for decades. O>Do you
get sick of i
What bullshit might that be? I keep hearing he's a liar and an asshole,
is there an archive of messages proving this that I can study?
rulesAnd who the fuck do you think you are to tell me that my name is O>notreal? Even if I were using some alias, it's fine according to O>the
of this ec (which are ignored anyway or don't apply O>anymore).
You are correct, in that the rules are ignored.
Trust me, after 25 years I've seen it all here ...
It's not that I'm trying to hide my identity. Everyone can use my fido address to look up my name.
Cheers,
the real Oli
Incorrect address '2:280/464.47'!
Incorrect address '2:280/464.47'!
Try sending netmail to that address. You may get an answer. ;)
A question was raised in this forum a few years ago -
Are points nodelisted sysops?
The general consensus among Fidonet sysops in all zones was "No."
The question I am asking is -
Who is a nodelisted sysop?
Do points qualify as such? What about folks who log on as "guests"
on a web-based browser? Do they also qualify as nodelisted sysops?
The only real qualification I could find anywhere was a test -
In order to become a nodelisted sysop, an individual must demonstrate
the ability to send and receive netmail.
That's it.
Nothing more, nothing less.
Now. Who, or what, should a send a netmail to?
On 26 Oct 19 22:11:04, Oli said the following to Ward Dossche:is
I didn't expect anything else. Master of derailing conversations and repeati
the same bullshit over and over again for decades. Do you ever get sick of i
What bullshit might that be? I keep hearing he's a liar and an asshole,
there an archive of messages proving this that I can study?
What bullshit might that be? I keep hearing he's a liar and an
asshole, is there an archive of messages proving this that I can
study?
Just read the recent Fidonews issue for one example.
But I guess your definition of bullshit is different than mine.
asshole,What bullshit might that be? I keep hearing he's a liar and an
thithere an archive of messages proving this that I can study?
Just read the recent Fidonews issue for one example. Instead of electing
guy as IC he should be removed as ZC (this is long overdue). He did morehar
than good to Fidonet. But I guess your definition of bullshit is different than mine.
What bullshit might that be? I keep hearing he's a liar and an
asshole, is there an archive of messages proving this that I can
study?
Just read the recent Fidonews issue for one example.
You are not replying to Nick ... just circumventing the question.
Your initial statement preceded that article of Michiel, which is 2
years old, and largely bypassed. So where is your material?
But I guess your definition of bullshit is different than mine.
Actually, Nick is very well versed in the bullshit-ology.
Ever since then in varrying degrees he is pissed. I'm not surprised at thetiming of the article in Fidonews. Poor Michiel. It's behaviour of someone getting ready to leave and trying to slam really loud with the door, then blame someone else ... dozens have preceded him.
I think Oli is refering to Michiel's Fidonews article in the current Fidonews. Perhaps you haven't read it yet.
It was simple, direct and on point.
It was simple, direct and on point.
It was bullshit ...
cherry-picking putting it into a proper sequence with enough
seasoning ...
My mother always used to say "With the right kind of seasoning and a
sauce you can even make a turd taste delicious" ...
something wrong with the other person, who isEver since then in varrying degrees he is pissed. I'm not surprised at the timing of the article in Fidonews. Poor
Michiel. It's behaviour of someone getting ready to leave and trying to slam really loud with the door, then blame
someone else ... dozens have preceded him.
q.e.d.
Of course it's never the fault of the almighty ZC2. There is always
obviously emotionally unstable ...
I wonder what was the excuse this time not to process mail for 3 days...
It is not him, it is not The Most Perfect Software, it is not his ISP (binkd was running).
My mother always used to say "With the right kind of seasoning and a
sauce you can even make a turd taste delicious" ...
I wonder what was the excuse this time not to process mail for 3
days... It is not him, it is not The Most Perfect Software, it is not
his ISP (binkd was running).
On Nov 05, 2019 06:13pm, Tommi Koivula wrote to Oli:
I wonder what was the excuse this time not to process mail for 3
days... It is not him, it is not The Most Perfect Software, it is not
his ISP (binkd was running).
Tommi, it is a hobby, we all have another life, shit happens :)
Tommi, it is a hobby, we all have another life, shit happens :)
Or is it running a fully fledged FTN operated node, properly following
the original standard and neglecting all the recent shite that the FTSC
has added because it's not setting the standard, it's just documenting what's going on?
backTommi, it is a hobby, we all have another life, shit happens :)
Of course it is an hobby. But that is not an excuse for not making any
plans. It *is* possible to run a fidonet system without being behind the keyborad all the time, you know.
Of course it is an hobby. But that is not an excuse for not making any backup plans. It *is* possible to run a fidonet system without being behind the keyborad all the time, you know.
Tommi, it is a hobby, we all have another life, shit happens :)
What's the hobby to you, then?
Is it just to be able to read and write FTN mail?
Or is it running a fully fledged FTN operated node, properly
following the original standard and neglecting all the recent shite
that the FTSC has added because it's not setting the standard, it's
just documenting what's going on?
Ward Dossche wrote to Bjrn Felten <=-
Or is it running a fully fledged FTN operated node, properly following
the original standard and neglecting all the recent shite that the FTSC has added because it's not setting the standard, it's just documenting what's going on?
The FTSC cannot set a standard if there's no tool for
enforcing it.
Am I mistaken?
Bjrn Felten wrote to Dan Clough <=-
Am I mistaken?
No, you are absolutely correct. Unfortunately for Fidonet...
With the FTSC as the legislative branch and the *C structure
as the executive branch we could almost have a democratic
network. All we then would need was a working *CC as the judicial
branch.
What do we have now? The *C structure as a monarchy (or perhaps dictatorship?)? The FTSC as "court recorders"? And the *CC as an imaginary friend?
With the FTSC as the legislative branch and the *C structure as the executive branch we could almost have a democratic network. All we then would need was a working *CC as the judicial branch.
So if a *CC were to decide you need to boot the troll, you would
actually listen?
One of the 4 big banks in Australia recently went down and theircustomers
were no able to make transactions or withdraw money from an ATM, there plan A to Z failed.
Am I mistaken?
No, you are absolutely correct. Unfortunately for Fidonet...
With the FTSC as the legislative branch and the *C structure as the executive branch we could almost have a democratic network. All we then would need was a working *CC as the judicial branch.
So if a *CC were to decide you need to boot the troll, you would
actually listen?
That's not a technical issue.
You're bringing a new element into the equation ... your previous
message does not mention "technical".
But how do you enforce anything? We only have a virtual presence.
You're bringing a new element into the equation ... your previous
message does not mention "technical".
What part of FTSC did you miss?
A question was raised in this forum a few years ago -
Are points nodelisted sysops?
The general consensus among Fidonet sysops in all zones was "No."
The question I am asking is -
Who is a nodelisted sysop?
Any SYSOP who is LISTED in the NODElist.
Do points qualify as such? What about folks who log on as "guests"
on a web-based browser? Do they also qualify as nodelisted sysops?
Nope - not unless they are LISTed in the NODElist.
The only real qualification I could find anywhere was a test -
In order to become a nodelisted sysop, an individual must LL>demonstratethe ability to send and receive netmail.
That is how one applies to be nodelisted.
That's it.
Nothing more, nothing less.
And to actually become LISTed in the NODElist. Until then one has merely applied.
number).Now. Who, or what, should a send a netmail to?
All fully explained in Policy4 (no, I cannot quote the para/verse
I think Oli is refering to Michiel's Fidonews article in the current
Fidonews. Perhaps you haven't read it yet.
It was simple, direct and on point.
It was bullshit ... cherry-picking putting it into a proper sequence with enough seasoning ...
My mother always used to say "With the right kind of seasoning and asauce
you can even make a turd taste delicious" ...
You understand perfectly well what I'm saying.
But how do you enforce anything? We only have a virtual presence.
The nodelist is a powerful tool.
You understand perfectly well what I'm saying.
No.
The question I am asking is -
Who is a nodelisted sysop?
Any SYSOP who is LISTED in the NODElist.
And what, pray tell, are the qualifications to become listed
in the nodelist? Where can I find these "qualifications"?
Do points qualify as such? What about folks who log on as "guests"
on a web-based browser? Do they also qualify as nodelisted sysops?
Nope - not unless they are LISTed in the NODElist.
Again, what are the qualifications? Do you know? Do you even
have the foggiest idea?
How many lists are there?
Can I list myself on my own private list? Would that work?
Four zones, thousands of individual lists, and only god knows how manymaster nodelists ...
Nothing more, nothing less.
And to actually become LISTed in the NODElist. Until then one has merely
applied.
That is not what P4 says.
The only thing it states is for an individual to demonstrate
the ability to send and receive netmail. Section 2.2
Nodelist clerks take things from there, as the individual
has already done his/her part.
Points do not have to apply to become nodelisted. And yet they
are considered as being sysops. Even if they do not have a clue
as to how to send/receive netmail.
Ward Dossche has affirmed this, even before he staked his own
claim of being IC. I'll take his word for it, as every individual
has his own definition as to what constitutes a sysop.
And then there are those who use other means to access Fidonet,
without ever having to bother with being a point. Even without
actually being listed in the nodelist, they are considered as
being sysops. Why is that?
Perhaps there are no real qualifications. Except for the want
to call oneself a sysop.
Now. Who, or what, should a send a netmail to?
All fully explained in Policy4 (no, I cannot quote the para/versenumber).
Section 2.2 hardly explains anything at all pertaining to how
to obtain a node. Nothing specific, or mandatory.
When was this? I haven't noticed any outages ...
What do we have now? The *C structure as a monarchy (or perhaps
dictatorship?)? The FTSC as "court recorders"? And the *CC as an
imaginary friend?
LOL! Spot on! 8-)
Am I mistaken?
No, you are absolutely correct. Unfortunately for Fidonet...
With the FTSC as the legislative branch and the *C structure as
the executive branch we could almost have a democratic network.
All we then would need was a working *CC as the judicial branch.
Am I mistaken?
No, you are absolutely correct. Unfortunately for Fidonet...
With the FTSC as the legislative branch and the *C structure
as the executive branch we could almost have a democratic
network. All we then would need was a working *CC as the judicial
branch.
Seems like a sensible structure.
What do we have now? The *C structure as a monarchy (or perhaps dictatorship?)? The FTSC as "court recorders"? And the *CC as an imaginary friend?
where in Fido its required for me to have backup plans.
where in Fido its required for me to have backup plans.
It is not about requirements, it is about common sense and the desire to deliver mail to the destination as soon as possible.
Someone in Zone 1 sends a netmail to me thru your system. You try to send message to 2:2/0 which is down for a week.
What does your system do?
Does it try any other route, like 2:20/0 or 2:221/0?
It is not about requirements, it is about common sense and the desire NA>TK> to deliver mail to the destination as soon as possible.
Thank you for the explanation, Captain Obvious. I just got my node number
It is not about requirements, it is about common sense and the
desire to deliver mail to the destination as soon as possible.
Thank you for the explanation, Captain Obvious. I just got my node
number
Pls forgive Tommi, it happens every year when the days get shorter
during the cold season and there are more dark hours than others...
The question I am asking is -
Who is a nodelisted sysop?
Any SYSOP who is LISTED in the NODElist.
And what, pray tell, are the qualifications to become listed
in the nodelist? Where can I find these "qualifications"?
This is like pulling teeth. It is laid out very explicitly on Pol4.
Do points qualify as such? What about folks who log on as "guests"
on a web-based browser? Do they also qualify as nodelisted sysops?
Nope - not unless they are LISTed in the NODElist.
Again, what are the qualifications? Do you know? Do you even
have the foggiest idea?
I used to know it verbatim when I was getting listed ... in the mid-80's. must admit that the memories are a little foggy these days.
How many lists are there?
One for each zone.
FidonetCan I list myself on my own private list? Would that work?
Nope. To be a nodelisted Fidonet node one needs to be listed in the
nodelist.
Four zones, thousands of individual lists, and only god knows LL>how manymaster nodelists ...
Four.
[...]
Nothing more, nothing less.
And to actually become LISTed in the NODElist. Until then one hasmerely applied.
That is not what P4 says.
The only thing it states is for an individual to demonstrate
the ability to send and receive netmail. Section 2.2
Using FTN...
Nodelist clerks take things from there, as the individual
has already done his/her part.
P4 says that you must demonstrate that skill by sending a netmail to a NC and be able to receive one back.
youPoints do not have to apply to become nodelisted. And yet they
are considered as being sysops. Even if they do not have a clue
as to how to send/receive netmail.
A Sysop is a System Operator. If you operate your home computer system
are a SysOp - but not necessarily a nodelisted one.
A point is a private arrangement between a point and a host - nothing officially to do with Fidonet. To Fidonet they are but users on/of the host's system.
Ward Dossche has affirmed this, even before he staked his own
claim of being IC. I'll take his word for it, as every individual
has his own definition as to what constitutes a sysop.
And then there are those who use other means to access Fidonet,
without ever having to bother with being a point. Even without
actually being listed in the nodelist, they are considered as
being sysops. Why is that?
Could it be that they Operate a System? Being a Sysop does not make one nodelisted.
Perhaps there are no real qualifications. Except for the want
to call oneself a sysop.
Yet to be nodelisted in Fidonet the SysOp must observe other technical requirements.
Now. Who, or what, should a send a netmail to?
All fully explained in Policy4 (no, I cannot quote the para/verse
number).
Section 2.2 hardly explains anything at all pertaining to how
to obtain a node. Nothing specific, or mandatory.
How to "obtain a node number" is the specific mandatory requirements.
<snip>
2.2 How to obtain a node number
You must first obtain a current nodelist so that you can send mail. Youdo
not need a node number to send mail, but you must have one in order for others to send mail to you.
The message you send must include at least the following information:
1) Your name.
2) Your voice telephone number
3) The name of your system.
4) The city and state where your system is located.
5) The phone number to be used when calling your system.
6) Your hours of operation, netmail and BBS.
7) The maximum baud rate you can support.
8) The type of mailer software and modem you are using.
Your coordinator may contact you for additional information.
All information submitted will be kept confidential and will not besupplied
to anyone except the person who assumes the coordinator position at the resignation of the current coordinator.
You must indicate that you have read, and agree to abide by, thisdocument
and all the current policies of FidoNet.
Please allow at least two weeks for a node number request to beprocessed.
If you send your request to a Regional Coordinator, it may forwarded tothe
appropriate Network Coordinator.
</snip>
I think the procedure is laid out quite clearly. Which bit/s are youhaving
difficulty understanding?
Someone in Zone 1 sends a netmail to me thru your system. You try to send
message to 2:2/0 which is down for a week.
What does your system do?
Simple... It waits until 2:2/0 comes on-line.
Pls forgive Tommi, it happens every year when the days get shorter duringthe cold season and there are more dark
hours than others...
zones have entered into a pact where everyThank you for the explanation, Captain Obvious. I just got my node
number
Pls forgive Tommi, it happens every year when the days get shorter
during the cold season and there are more dark hours than others...
It seems we have now entered a phase where the ZC's of the two largest
critisism from their underlings is quenched immidiately by presenting theunderling as a bored child. :(
Simple... It waits until 2:2/0 comes on-line.
I knew it. Stupid old-fashioned way.
Fidonet will never evolve with this kind of thinking.
It seems we have now entered a phase where the ZC's of the two largest zones have entered into a pact where every critisism from their
underlings is quenched immidiately by presenting the underling as a bored child. :(
On 08 Nov 19 19:43:36, Tommi Koivula said the following to Nick Andre:message
Simple... It waits until 2:2/0 comes on-line.
I knew it. Stupid old-fashioned way.
Fidonet will never evolve with this kind of thinking.
When you send routed Netmail, you are at the mercy of the systems the
is being routed through. The operators of each system usually do the bestthey
can to make sure shit works, but ***Sometimes in life Shit Happens***
Fidonet will never evolve with this kind of thinking.
can to make sure shit works, but ***Sometimes in life Shit Happens***
And as we know, "do the best they can" is not very much.
Can I list myself on my own private list? Would that work?
Nope. To be a nodelisted Fidonet node one needs to be listed in the Fidonet
nodelist.
Having an entry in the Fidonet nodelist does not make it accurate.
Four zones, thousands of individual lists, and only god knows how many
master nodelists ...
Four.
Plus one master nodelist.
The only thing it states is for an individual to demonstrate
the ability to send and receive netmail. Section 2.2
Using FTN...
And yet not all are required to show such expertise ...
Nodelist clerks take things from there, as the individual
has already done his/her part.
P4 says that you must demonstrate that skill by sending a netmail to a NC -
and be able to receive one back.
It is not dependent on what P4 says or does not say. The only thing
an individual needs to do in order to obtain a node is demonstrate the ability to send and receive netmail. Once that is done, nothing else
is required.
A Sysop is a System Operator. If you operate your home computer system you
are a SysOp - but not necessarily a nodelisted one.
Nodelist clerks keep and maintain a nodelist. Some are more
glorified than others, but all are just nodelist clerks regardless
of title.
Individual sysops who wish to do nothing more than play in Fidonet
without taking on any more responsibilities can do just that.
So why have distinctions at all between nodelisted sysops and sysops?
Why should nodelisted sysops have any more "rights" than other sysops?
A point is a private arrangement between a point and a host - nothing
officially to do with Fidonet. To Fidonet they are but users on/of the
host's system.
And yet points are considered as being nodelisted sysops.
Which negates the whole point of being a nodelisted sysop.
And then there are those who use other means to access Fidonet,
without ever having to bother with being a point. Even without
actually being listed in the nodelist, they are considered as
being sysops. Why is that?
Could it be that they Operate a System? Being a Sysop does not make one
nodelisted.
BBS-In-A-Box is or was an easy to use system. Any idiot with half
a brain could set it up in less than a day. And that was for those
who were slow.
Today things have dumbed down where folks can use an app on android.
Perhaps there are no real qualifications. Except for the want
to call oneself a sysop.
Yet to be nodelisted in Fidonet the SysOp must observe other technical
requirements.
That explains why Trump uses Twitter rather than Fidonet.
Now. Who, or what, should a send a netmail to?
All fully explained in Policy4 (no, I cannot quote the para/verse
number).
Section 2.2 hardly explains anything at all pertaining to how
to obtain a node. Nothing specific, or mandatory.
How to "obtain a node number" is the specific mandatory requirements.
Mandatory? I think not.
According to Janis Kracht (remember her?) nothing is required at all.
Just answer "Not Sure" and let her figure it all out for you.
http://www.filegate.net/zone1/bnbform.html
See how easy that is? Just fill in the blanks, and just
answer "Not Sure" when in doubt. It really is that simple.
<snip>
2.2 How to obtain a node number
Yep. That's the proper section. :)
You must first obtain a current nodelist so that you can send mail. You do
not need a node number to send mail, but you must have one in order for
others to send mail to you.
Let's see. There are four of them. Eenie, Meanie, Minie, Moe ...
[..]
The message you send must include at least the following information:
1) Your name.
Which can mean whatever name one wishes to go by.
2) Your voice telephone number
Optional, according to Janis Kracht.
3) The name of your system.
Optional, according to Janis Kracht.
4) The city and state where your system is located.
Optional, according to Janis Kracht.
5) The phone number to be used when calling your system.
Optional, according to Janis Kracht.
6) Your hours of operation, netmail and BBS.
Optional, according to Janis Kracht.
7) The maximum baud rate you can support.
Optional, according to Janis Kracht.
8) The type of mailer software and modem you are using.
Optional, according to Janis Kracht.
Your coordinator may contact you for additional information.
IOW, none of it matters, as "your coordinator" may contact you
for additional information. Whatever additional information that
might be.
All information submitted will be kept confidential and will not be supplied
to anyone except the person who assumes the coordinator position at the
resignation of the current coordinator.
And easily found online using google as your very best friend.
You must indicate that you have read, and agree to abide by, this document
and all the current policies of FidoNet.
Loyalty oath mandated by unsigned authors of P4, which was never passed/ratified by any zone.
Please allow at least two weeks for a node number request to be processed.
If you send your request to a Regional Coordinator, it may forwarded to the
appropriate Network Coordinator.
</snip>
Since the document itself is not valid, it has no legitimacy.
I think the procedure is laid out quite clearly. Which bit/s are you having
difficulty understanding?
It is unsigned. It has never been passed/ratified by any zone.
It was unanimously rejected in zone 2, the only zone where a vote
took place. That's for starters.
I knew it. Stupid old-fashioned way.
Fidonet will never evolve with this kind of thinking.
Nick Andre wrote to Tommi Koivula <=-
When you send routed Netmail, you are at the mercy of the systems the message is being routed through. The operators of each system usually
do the best they can to make sure shit works, but ***Sometimes in life Shit Happens***
There is a nifty high-tech concept called "Crash" which allows you to
send a Netmail without all of this unreliable horse and buggy routing nonsense.
David Drummond wrote to Lee Lofaso <=-
Nodelist clerks keep and maintain a nodelist. Some are more
glorified than others, but all are just nodelist clerks regardless
of title.
They are also the people who primarily get to decide whether or not you become nodelisted when you apply (buy crashing them the appropriate
data in a netmail).
If you do not fulfil the conditions the NC you apply to expects then
you will not get a node number assigns, nor included in the nodelist.
Pls forgive Tommi, it happens every year when the days get shorter duringthe cold season and there are more dark hours than others...
Nodelist clerks keep and maintain a nodelist. Some are more
glorified than others, but all are just nodelist clerks regardless
of title.
They are also the people who primarily get to decide whether or not you
become nodelisted when you apply (by crashing them the appropriate
data in a netmail).
If you do not fulfil the conditions the NC you apply to expects then
you will not get a node number assigns, nor included in the nodelist.
I can find nothing in P4, nor in my conversations with the outgoing R10C where I understood I was in a position to allow or deny properly formed requests for a node number in one of my nets (I'm also NC for several networks in my region)
Could you enlighten me?
On Fri, 8 Nov 2019 07:48:10 GMT
"Ward Dossche -> Nick Andre" <0@854.292.2> wrote:
Pls forgive Tommi, it happens every year when the days get shorter during the cold season and there are more dark
hours than others...
ward's usual bullshit
ward's usual bullshit
Yes.
Happens every time he realizes that he is wrong.
ward's usual bullshit
Yes. Happens every time he realizes that he is wrong.That's the prerogative of every white male of age 60 or more.
Just watch the present POTUS...
That's the prerogative of every white male of age 60 or more.
Just watch the present POTUS...
So, it's also your prerogative ... ;)
That's the prerogative of every white male of age 60 or more.
Just watch the present POTUS...
So, it's also your prerogative ... ;)BOC! It's been so more than a decade now.
BOC! It's been so more than a decade now.
Damn, I have to wait 9 years to gain this prerogative. :P
To your point, I set most mail to crash nowadays, since most destinations are at most one binkp hop away. Crashing mail does take some of the fun
out of it, though.
Nodelist clerks keep and maintain a nodelist. Some are more
glorified than others, but all are just nodelist clerks regardless
of title.
They are also the people who primarily get to decide whether or not you
become nodelisted when you apply (buy crashing them the appropriate
data in a netmail).
If you do not fulfil the conditions the NC you apply to expects then
you will not get a node number assigns, nor included in the nodelist.
I can find nothing in P4, nor in my conversations with the outgoing R10C where I understood I was in a position to allow or deny properly formed requests for a node number in one of my nets (I'm also NC for several networks in my region)
Could you enlighten me?
Since the terms of the agreement (P4) are impossible to fulfill
or too vague to understand, that makes the agreement (P4) voidable
in and of itself.
I can go both ways on crash versus routing. Routing netmail works, for
the most part, and I'm intrigued by the fact that it works at all.
To your point, I set most mail to crash nowadays, since most
destinations are at most one binkp hop away. Crashing mail does take
some of the fun out of it, though.
itSince the terms of the agreement (P4) are impossible to fulfill
or too vague to understand, that makes the agreement (P4) voidable
in and of itself.
Makes me wonder how the 30,000+ fido and ex fido sysops were able to do
and only YOU can't?
ward's usual bullshit
Yes.
Happens every time he realizes that he is wrong.
Hi Tommi,
On Nov 08, 2019 07:46pm, Tommi Koivula wrote to Nick Andre:
Fidonet will never evolve with this kind of thinking.What do you propose?
What do you propose?
That everyone should send netmail direct to its destination. Or to to
host of the destination. If these fail, then try some other route.
itSince the terms of the agreement (P4) are impossible to fulfill
or too vague to understand, that makes the agreement (P4) voidable
in and of itself.
Makes me wonder how the 30,000+ fido and ex fido sysops were able to do
and only YOU can't?
David tried to help and explain things to you in simple english, yet you still can't understand?
Looks like you will never be a Sysop.
A simple question:
Someone in Zone 1 sends a netmail to me thru your system. You try to
send to message to 2:2/0 which is down for a week.
What does your system do?
Does it try any other route, like 2:20/0 or 2:221/0?
On 2019 Nov 07 19:43:50, you wrote to Nick Andre:
A simple question:
Someone in Zone 1 sends a netmail to me thru your system. You try to
send to message to 2:2/0 which is down for a week.
What does your system do?
Does it try any other route, like 2:20/0 or 2:221/0?
that's hard to do with plain old BSO blackhole mailers...
dynamic mailers that qualify mail during different events handle it with ease and aplomb, though...
That everyone should send netmail direct to its destination. Or to to
host of the destination. If these fail, then try some other route.
Sending to IBN nodes costs nothing.
Some folks are born stupid.
Like I said, some folks are born stupid.
Now all I have to do is find the NC to send a netmail.
FidoNet Zone1 Region18
I think the NC is AWOL ...
If the NC is AWOL then you contact the RC. Everyone in Fido has a real
life
and may go away on holidays, but a period of two weeks before getting a reply is not uncommon.
Could you enlighten me?
There is nothing to be found in P4, since there is nothing there.
Not that it matters, since P4 is void (invalid from the get-go).
The phrase David D. used is "If you do not fulfill the conditions
the NC you apply to expects then you will not get a node number assigns, nor included in the nodelist."
Since the terms of the agreement (P4) are impossible to fulfill
or too vague to understand, that makes the agreement (P4) voidable
in and of itself.
Either way you look at it, P4 is cyberjunk.
Since P4 is unreliable, at best, to serve as a guideline as to
sending a "properly formed request" to obtain a node number, and
no NC seems to have a clue, how does one go about finding out
how to obtain a node number?
The steps laid out in Pol4 are simple to understand and DO work.
Are you actually interested in getting a node number/nodelisted, or do you just like hearing your own voice?
* It is the NC's duty/obligation to make the Nodelist available to me.
* It is the NC's duty/obligation to provide me with copies of the
FidoNet newsletter.
* It is the NC's duty/obligation to provide FidoNet information to me.
* It is the NC's duty/obligation to take me in and out of the Nodelist,
as appropriate.
* It is the NC's duty/obligation to promote FidoNet.
Promoting FidoNet is also a responsibility of all Sysops. But I take
it every Sysop already knows that.
Nothing about P4 in any of the above.
No loyalty oath or pledge allegiance anywhere to be found.
The basis of FidoNet is "anarchy". Tom Jennings liked to call it "cooperative anarchy" as his own way of saying things. While he liked
to think of himself as being the "founder" of FidoNet, it was really
more of a group effort, with himself playing only a minor role.
In order for me to obtain a node number, it is my understanding
that I need two things, and two things only -
1. I must ask for a FidoNet address VIA NETMAIL to whoever the hell
my NC is or might be.
2. I would have to reoeive that NC's response VIA NETMAIL (during
NetMail Hour) which will include my Node Number response.
See there? P4 is irrelevant! Just a piece of cyberjunk!
Now all I have to do is find the NC to send a netmail.
FidoNet Zone1 Region18
I think the NC is AWOL ...
Like I said, some folks are born stupid.
I know David is not Stupid.
lifeI think the NC is AWOL ...
If the NC is AWOL then you contact the RC. Everyone in Fido has a real
and may go away on holidays, but a period of two weeks before getting areply
is not uncommon.Lewis
So have you sent a netmail to your NC, if it's host 116 your not the only person to have contact issues with Danny.
Which ever host if you get no reply after two weeks then contact Mark
the RC, he will help you get nodelisted.
The steps laid out in Pol4 are simple to understand and DO work.
Are you actually interested in getting a node number/nodelisted, or do you
just like hearing your own voice?
Its more entertaining for the idiot to hide behind someone else's "free speech" system to troll you and others with his expert interpretations
of P4.
In certain cases I am used to deal with months even.
I know David is not Stupid.
He will need to install/configure some sort of mailer software to crash
a netmail to Danny, mark, whomever.
Now all I have to do is find the NC to send a netmail.
FidoNet Zone1 Region18
I think the NC is AWOL ...
lifeI think the NC is AWOL ...
If the NC is AWOL then you contact the RC. Everyone in Fido has a real
and may go away on holidays, but a period of two weeks before getting a reply is not uncommon.
So have you sent a netmail to your NC, if it's host 116 your not the
only person to have contact issues with Danny.
Which ever host if you get no reply after two weeks then contact Mark Lewis the RC, he will help you get nodelisted.
I know David is not Stupid.
Paul told me,
plus you left NZ which is a good indicator :)
broadcasts)He will need to install/configure some sort of mailer software to crash
a netmail to Danny, mark, whomever.
I tried to explain it in simple english (a bit like Radio America
but his coonass upbringing must confuse him as he can only comprehendsome
parts of P4.
Perhaps he could tell us who his NC is supposed to be and maybe someone could help him.
That is assuming he can install/configure some sort of mailer software.
Any fires near you?
his odd ideas.The basis of FidoNet is "anarchy". Tom Jennings liked to call it
"cooperative anarchy" as his own way of saying things. While he liked
to think of himself as being the "founder" of FidoNet, it was really
more of a group effort, with himself playing only a minor role.
Tom Jenning's model for Fidonet did not happen. Fidonet has moved beyond
Tom Jenning's model for Fidonet did not happen. Fidonet has movedbeyond his odd ideas.
You mean it became a network for dumb-asses who played stupid power
games? The P4 was always used as an excuse for the bullshit they were doing. Maybe Tom Jennings ideas were not that odd at all.
What would happen if we dumped P4 and got rid of the *Cs?
Are there any documents of the policies before 4.07? I joined Fidonet in 1993. At that time P4 was already in place.
You mean it became a network for dumb-asses who played stupid power
games?
I came here for a holiday in 1980. I haven't gone back yet, still on holiday.
Indeed - the software he chooses will determine who he can connect to
(no POTS at IONs).
As best as I can determine there's nothing closer than 150km. We have smoke haze in the air but I cannot smell it.
he needs to contact marC lewis, instead... not me ;)
Tom Jenning's model for Fidonet did not happen. Fidonet has moved
beyond his odd ideas.
You mean it became a network for dumb-asses who played stupid power
games? The P4 was always used as an excuse for the bullshit they were
doing. Maybe Tom Jennings ideas were not that odd at all.
His ideas did not survive mass exposure.
What would happen if we dumped P4 and got rid of the *Cs?
Who will allocate the node numbers and manage the net segs?
What common tech specs will they use?
As best as I can determine there's nothing closer than 150km. We
have smoke haze in the air but I cannot smell it.
Strange that whole state has been placed in a state of emergemcy.
What would happen if we dumped P4 and got rid of the *Cs?
Who will allocate the node numbers and manage the net segs?
Fine, we can keep the NCs, everything else can be automated without
the involvement of worshiped frogs.
What common tech specs will they use?The ones people agree to. I mean we already have a tech specs.
As best as I can determine there's nothing closer than 150km. We
have smoke haze in the air but I cannot smell it.
Strange that whole state has been placed in a state of emergemcy.
to any?What common tech specs will they use?
The ones people agree to. I mean we already have a tech specs.
Who keeps them maintained in a central library? Why should anyone agree
Fire-starting restrictions mostly. No campfires/bush BBQs. No rural owner burnoffs/firebreaks.
No smoke seen here, and I'm only just downhill from David's estate (~110kms).
Cheers,
Paul.
This message was posted twice, only the other had a letter t between
the above two sections.
Are there any documents of the policies before 4.07? I joined Fidonet in 1993. At that time P4 was already in place.
he needs to contact marC lewis, instead... not me ;)
Sorry my wrong.
history files, basically messages/interviews...Are there any documents of the policies before 4.07? I joined Fidonet in
1993. At that time P4 was already in place.
all four of the network policy documents are available as are several
Jennings ideas were not that odd at all. What would happen if we dumped P4 got rid of the *Cs?
As best as I can determine there's nothing closer than 150km. We have
smoke haze in the air but I cannot smell it.
Strange that whole state has been placed in a state of emergemcy.
His ideas did not survive mass exposure.
Not within Fidonet, but then there were other networks and people just left.
What would happen if we dumped P4 and got rid of the *Cs?
Who will allocate the node numbers and manage the net segs?
Fine, we can keep the NCs, everything else can be automated without the involvement of worshiped frogs.
What common tech specs will they use?
The ones people agree to. I mean we already have a tech specs.
Strange that whole state has been placed in a state of emergemcy.
Fire-starting restrictions mostly. No campfires/bush BBQs. No rural owner burnoffs/firebreaks.
No smoke seen here, and I'm only just downhill from David's estate (~110kms).
theFire-starting restrictions mostly. No campfires/bush BBQs. No rural
owner burnoffs/firebreaks.
Makes sense.
No smoke seen here, and I'm only just downhill from David's estate
(~110kms).
Cheers,
Paul.
This message was posted twice, only the other had a letter t between
above two sections.
Who keeps them maintained in a central library? Why should anyoneagree to any?
Because! Without any agreement, no communication. I'm also not sure how coordinators are responsible for any standardization (apart from Ward inventing useless nodelist flags that are not part of any central specification library)?
This message was posted twice, only the other had a letter t between
the above two sections.
My bad again. The underlying AI/scanning software keeps stealing posts when I'm fixing/editing. Oops.
yup... there was one in Z2... bedford, UK to be exact... unfortunately
the nodelist history site doesn't appear to have any nodelists from Z3 with their mark lewis in them...
Strange that whole state has been placed in a state of emergemcy.
The bushland around me is dryer than a camel's sand shoe.
hidingWhat common tech specs will they use?
The ones people agree to. I mean we already have a tech specs.
Who keeps them maintained in a central library? Why should anyone agreeto any?
Because! Without any agreement, no communication. I'm also not sure how coordinators are responsible for any standardization (apart from Ward inventing useless nodelist flags that are not part of any central specification library)? One of the essential specifications is still
between completely irrelevant proposals.
Tom Jenning's model for Fidonet did not happen. Fidonet has movedbeyond his odd ideas.
You mean it became a network for dumb-asses who played stupid power
games? The P4 was always used as an excuse for the bullshit they were
doing. Maybe Tom Jennings ideas were not that odd at all.
His ideas did not survive mass exposure.
techWhat would happen if we dumped P4 and got rid of the *Cs?
Who will allocate the node numbers and manage the net segs? What common
specs will they use?
Are there any documents of the policies before 4.07?
I joined Fidonet in 1993.
At that time P4 was already in place.
It was in place when I joined in the mid/late 80s.
You mean it became a network for dumb-asses who played stupid power
games?
A god has no power if no-one worships them.
My bad again. The underlying AI/scanning software keeps stealing
posts when I'm fixing/editing. Oops.
You're worshipping the wrong net-god.
My editor is inclined to send the message before I get a chance to editit.
Not all of my weird writings were intentional.
The bushland around me is dryer than a camel's sand shoe.
If you need to bug out, head straight for this place. I have a river on three sides and a small city on the fourth side.
We must do everything in Cajun French!
That is the ticket for success!
His ideas did not survive mass exposure.
Tom Jennings has survived for decades without ever having a job.
Fidonet has survived for decades without ever having others telling
sysops (and participants) what to do.
What would happen if we dumped P4 and got rid of the *Cs?
Who will allocate the node numbers and manage the net segs? What common tech
specs will they use?
Ask your NC.
Are there any documents of the policies before 4.07?
Of course.
I joined Fidonet in 1993.
Thanks to the NC who provided Oli with a node number.
At that time P4 was already in place.
P4 is void, and has no standing. Individuals were never dependent
on P4 to be able to obtain a node number before or after P4.
It was in place when I joined in the mid/late 80s.
P4 was not even written until 1989. Furthermore, it has never been
"in place" since it was void from the beginning.
Got anything else to make up?
You mean it became a network for dumb-asses who played stupid power
games?
A god has no power if no-one worships them.
I do not worship P4.
I do not worship any other false gods either.
Who or what you worship is your own business.
My editor is inclined to send the message before I get a chance to edit it.
Not all of my weird writings were intentional.
Bugger. You're ruining my esteem for your messaging prowess. Stop.
* Origin: Hey! Pull my finger. (3:640/1384.125)
The bushland around me is dryer than a camel's sand shoe.
The bushland around me is dryer than a camel's sand shoe.
Don't know if it's true, but don't look into a camel's eyes.
yup... there was one in Z2... bedford, UK to be exact...
unfortunately the nodelist history site doesn't appear to have any
nodelists from Z3 with their mark lewis in them...
I've been here since the mid/late 80's - I don;t recall any Mark Lewis
in Z3.
Then again there were quite a few of us once, I don't suppose I'd
heard of them all.
Tom Jennings has survived for decades without ever having a job.
But his association with Fidonet ceased.
I joined Fidonet in 1993.
Thanks to the NC who provided Oli with a node number.
After Oli fulfilled enough of the procedures required of him
Tom Jennings has survived for decades without ever having a job.
But his association with Fidonet ceased.
He thinks otherwise.
I joined Fidonet in 1993.
Thanks to the NC who provided Oli with a node number.
After Oli fulfilled enough of the procedures required of him
That's a long time ago, now he's operating from a point-address.
I've been here since the mid/late 80's - I don't recall any Mark Lewis in Z3.
i remember him because i was surprised one day when i was reading my
mail and there was a message from "me" that wasn't actually from me... there was a few replies which were also flagged as being to me but
weren't because they were to another mark lewis... that's when i went
and looked closer at the original and saw it was from Z3... the memory
has remained with me after all these years ;)
I'm sure that if I'd communicated with another David Drummond I would have some memory of it too.
I'm sure that if I'd communicated with another David Drummond I would have
some memory of it too.
One David Drummond is bad enough 8-)
The main hindrance to Fidonet's success is actually agreeing on anythingat all...
Not his own node? Is he even nodelisted?
Not his own node? Is he even nodelisted?
One David Drummond is bad enough 8-)
Am I really that bad?
Like Nick Andre's system which is not able to produce a REPLY kludge? Or Ward Dossche's Editor that is incapable of adhering to any quoting
standard.
Have you ever tried masturbating?
Maybe it'll also provide you some relief ...
Like Nick Andre's system which is not able to produce a REPLY kludge? Or Ward Dossche's Editor that is incapable of adhering to any quoting standard.
Not his own node? Is he even nodelisted?
Nope.
The main hindrance to Fidonet's success is actually agreeing onanything at all...
Like Nick Andre's system which is not able to produce a REPLY kludge? Or Ward Dossche's Editor that is incapable of adhering to any quoting standard.
Not his own node? Is he even nodelisted?
Nope.
Then I wonder why he was bitching about Policy, it is of no relevance to him.
Like Nick Andre's system which is not able to produce a REPLY
kludge? Or Ward Dossche's Editor that is incapable of adhering to
any quoting standard.
What sort of problem does the above cause?
The missing REPLY kludge makes it harder to go back in a thread. That is annoying. What makes it even more annoying is that the originator claimsto
an eperienced software developer. I find it so annoying that I havedecided
not reply to the person in question. No REPLY kludge, no reply.
anythinThe main hindrance to Fidonet's success is actually agreeing on
at all...War
Like Nick Andre's system which is not able to produce a REPLY kludge? Or
Dossche's Editor that is incapable of adhering to any quoting standard.
One David Drummond is bad enough 8-)
Am I really that bad?
At least I've taken the trouble to become nodelisted unlike another "bad" person.
On 12 Nov 19 08:23:00, Oli said the following to David Drummond:
The main hindrance to Fidonet's success is actually agreeing on anythin
at all...
Like Nick Andre's system which is not able to produce a REPLY kludge? Or War
Dossche's Editor that is incapable of adhering to any quoting standard.
LOL!!!
You need a quoting standard to help understand the original poster?!?!?
I thought you didn't want any standards, P4 or *C's?
Is this an example of that "epic GoT-style fuckups" whining fromFidogazette?
What sort of problem does the above cause?
It seems too many people in fidonet are annoyed, yet nothing changes
and as I keep saying it's only a hobby, enjoy it while you can, just
be frustrated.
Have a nice day.
Especially when the TZUTC kludge is also missing.
That is actually a good idea.
Am I really that bad?
I see someone else already made the sheep joke... "bugger".
Were you ever put on Probation Status until you obtained your nodenumber?
Then I wonder why he was bitching about Policy, it is of no relevance to
him.
It's just fashionable to bitch against a *C ... after a while you grow used to it.
Like Nick Andre's system which is not able to produce a REPLY kludge? Or
Ward Dossche's Editor that is incapable of adhering to any quoting
standard.
What sort of problem does the above cause?
There is a lot of old and unsupported software still in use, people get attached to using certain software, what do you propose?
It seems too many people in fidonet are annoyed, yet nothing changes
and as I keep saying it's only a hobby, enjoy it while you can, just
be frustrated.
Odinn Srensen per FSP-1001. TWENTY TWOEspecially when the TZUTC kludge is also missing.
Indeed, that too is annoying. The TZUTC kludge was introduced in 1997 by
YEARS AGO! It was documented as a standard (FTS-4008) by the FTSC in2003. SIXTEEN YEARS ago! There is really no
excuse for not implementing it. It isn't rocket science. :(
What is the point of investing time and energy in documenting standardswhen people can just ignore them and get
away with "it is just a hobby"?
MvdV> Isn't it frustrating when the upper echelon [...]
He's just a nodelist clerk.
Oli wrote to Michiel van der Vlist <=-
What sort of problem does the above cause?
Especially when the TZUTC kludge is also missing.
What is the point of investing time and energy in documenting
standards when people can just ignore them and get away with "it
is just a hobby"?
Indeed.
This is just a hobby, and that's why everything should work better
than in the commercial world. ;)
numWere you ever put on Probation Status until you obtained your node
Nope. I'd had a Fido-compatible BBS running for some time when the localNC
contacted me inviting me to "sign up". I did, he assigned the number andth
was that. This was quite a while ago.
I thought you didn't want any standards, P4 or *C's?
Think harder.
On Nov 12, 2019 06:45pm, Tommi Koivula wrote to Michiel Van Der Vlist:
This is just a hobby, and that's why everything should work better than
in the commercial world. ;)
IMHO,
But it doesn't because there is no one in charge to settle differences
or disputes, to change things it requires a decision, in the commerical world decisions come from the top and are enforced, if you don't like
it you either shut up, resign or get fired.
In fidonet, it's a group management system with no head, rules which are diffcult to enforce and or solve disputes. It's close to being socialist system where everyone is doing the bare minimum and have long naps.
To change things, I assume it would have to start with an updated P4
but I have yet to see a P4 update proposal. Until that happens nothing
is going to change.
To change things, I assume it would have to start with an updated P4
but I have yet to see a P4 update proposal. Until that happens nothing
is going to change.
Somewhat the same situation here if I remember correctly...
it would of been
in '93 or '94. It was real easy to get a node number.
it would of been
Would _have_ been, you ignoramus. ('Of' in that context is meaningless.)
it would of been
Would _have_ been, you ignoramus. ('Of' in that context ismeaningless.)
I've always wondered where that abomination, seen quite a lot from people with less than average take on the English language, comes from.
If he's a Canuck, he even should speak his Queen's English, no? 8-)
It is very difficult in Fidonet to even get two people to agree to anything let alone a majority of nodelisted or even voters.
I've always wondered where that abomination, seen quite a lot from
people with less than average take on the English language, comes from.
I just looked at the P5 proposal from 2014...
I just looked at the P5 proposal from 2014...
There was a P5-proposal in 2014 ?
The FTSC job is documenting standards, not enforcement, it's up to you
to decide if you want to do it or not.
I may be wrong but I haven't seen anything from FTSC for a long while
or feedback to fidonet sysops on what's being worked on etc.
There is a process to change them, use it if they are so annoying.
It shouldn't be personal and no one should question your sanity.
{not directed spicifically to Bjorn}
I've always wondered where that abomination, seen quite a lot from
people with less than average take on the English language, comes from.
Allow me to cite the 10th law of Dossche on internet usage ...
"When someones starts correcting your spelling or grammar in an on-line discussion, it's like acknowledging defeat. You know you just won the argument"
Not his own node? Is he even nodelisted?
Am I even real? Maybe I only exists as a figment of imagination ...
procedureYou mean it became a network for dumb-asses who played stupid power
games?
A god has no power if no-one worships them.
I do not worship P4.
P4 is not a document to worship - it is a document that tells the
for becoming nodelisted.
I do not worship any other false gods either.
Are you sure?
Ypou seem to hold your own ego in very high esteem.
Who or what you worship is your own business.
I try not to worship, nor believe in anything.
Like Nick Andre's system which is not able to produce a REPLY kludge? Or
Ward Dossche's Editor that is incapable of adhering to any quoting
standard.
Have you ever tried masturbating?
Maybe it'll also provide you some relief ...
I just looked at the P5 proposal from 2014...
There was a P5-proposal in 2014 ?
we'reLike Nick Andre's system which is not able to produce a REPLY kludge? Or
Ward Dossche's Editor that is incapable of adhering to any quoting
standard.
What sort of problem does the above cause?
There is a lot of old and unsupported software still in use, people get
attached to using certain software, what do you propose?
More importantly will any of us sign up to his proposition? After all,
to have no documentation, and no nodelist clerks.
When it involves spelling or grammar, I have evolved a lot in a worldfilled
with young people, and adults, from the USA and at moments I get really worried by how they use language and their ability to come across with a meaning, interpretation or a statement and still make sense on the other side.
NCAm I really that bad?
I see someone else already made the sheep joke... "bugger".
I've seen them all :)
[...]
Were you ever put on Probation Status until you obtained your nodenumber?
Nope. I'd had a Fido-compatible BBS running for some time when the local
contacted me inviting me to "sign up". I did, he assigned the number and that was that. This was quite a while ago.
numWere you ever put on Probation Status until you obtained your node
Nope. I'd had a Fido-compatible BBS running for some time when thelocal NC
contacted me inviting me to "sign up". I did, he assigned the numberand th
was that. This was quite a while ago.
Somewhat the same situation here if I remember correctly... it would of been
in '93 or '94. It was real easy to get a node number.
I thought you didn't want any standards, P4 or *C's?
Think harder.
Nah I don't have to... When I became ZC1 - elected by a landslide
I immediately fixed both the nodelist and zone-war mess I inherited frommy
predecessor who you blindly worship in that silly Fidogazette echo. The flame fests in this echo and elsewhere stopped almost immediately over-night.
If all you have to whine about are kludge-lines, I'm doing a great job.
Some corrections.
To change things, I assume it would have to start with an updated P4
but I have yet to see a P4 update proposal. Until that happens nothing
is going to change.
it would of been
Would _have_ been, you ignoramus. ('Of' in that context ismeaningless.)
I've always wondered where that abomination, seen quite a lot from people with less than average take on the English language, comes from.
If he's a Canuck, he even should speak his Queen's English, no? 8-)
Somewhat the same situation here if I remember correctly...
it would of been
Would _have_ been, you ignoramus. ('Of' in that context is meaningless.) You've been too long exposed to foreigners who cannot speak the lingo, proper like.
in '93 or '94. It was real easy to get a node number.
Not really. In late '94 David's favourite NC at the time insisted that I had to formulate a 'direct' netmail application for nodelisting, using a ~/999 address. He would not accept an application from my point address off of my boss.
The really great things about standards is that everyone has one...
He's just a nodelist clerk.
guaranteeWe must do everything in Cajun French!
That is the ticket for success!
How would standardising on such a little used language for Fidonet
its success?
The main hindrance to Fidonet's success is actually agreeing on anythingat
all...
His ideas did not survive mass exposure.
Tom Jennings has survived for decades without ever having a job.
But his association with Fidonet ceased.
Fidonet has survived for decades without ever having others telling
sysops (and participants) what to do.
If we do NOT adhere to the technical specs our systems do not connect to each other.
What would happen if we dumped P4 and got rid of the *Cs?
techWho will allocate the node numbers and manage the net segs? What common
specs will they use?
Ask your NC.
Wasn't Oli's plan to dump him?
Are there any documents of the policies before 4.07?
Of course.
I joined Fidonet in 1993.
Thanks to the NC who provided Oli with a node number.
After Oli fulfilled enough of the procedures required of him
days.At that time P4 was already in place.
P4 is void, and has no standing. Individuals were never dependent
on P4 to be able to obtain a node number before or after P4.
Node numbers were assigned under some other agreed procedure in those
If people do not agree to meet on some common ground then communication doesn't take place.
laidIt was in place when I joined in the mid/late 80s.
P4 was not even written until 1989. Furthermore, it has never been
"in place" since it was void from the beginning.
Then it must have been an earlier version. I obtained a document which
out the procedure for obtaining a node number. I performed that procedure and I received a node number.
Got anything else to make up?
I do not claim that my memory of minor things that happened 30-something years ago to be perfect in the smallest detail.
I have a node number - do you?
We've told you how to obtain one but you keep bitching about thelegalities
of the procedure.
Until you agree to some procedure common to you and the person you're applying to very little progress to you node being listed is likely.
Have you ever tried masturbating?
I haven't found anything in P4 about that.
mail.Maybe it'll also provide you some relief ...
I guess you are doing it all the time while reading (your own) fidonet
haveI'm sure that if I'd communicated with another David Drummond I would
some memory of it too.
One David Drummond is bad enough 8-)
Am I really that bad?
At least I've taken the trouble to become nodelisted unlike another "bad" person.
Not his own node? Is he even nodelisted?
Nope.
Then I wonder why he was bitching about Policy, it is of no relevance to him.
I do not worship P4.
P4 is not a document to worship - it is a document that tells the procedure
for becoming nodelisted.
Who wrote it? Nobody knows. Who signed it? It is unsigned.
No document tells "the procedure" for doing anything.
Regardless of who wrote the document, or signed the document,
the document is interpreted by those who read it to mean
whatever the fuck they want it to mean. Which makes it
totally meaningless. Especially if nobody knows who wrote
it, and it is unsigned.
IOW, "the document" known as P4 is nothing but a piece
of cyberjunk, and worth even less.
And yet you, as a sysop, continue to worship it. For no reason
other than to worship it. But hey. It is your god, not mine.
I try not to worship, nor believe in anything.
You are only a figment of your own wild and overactive imagination.
More importantly will any of us sign up to his proposition? After all, we're
to have no documentation, and no nodelist clerks.
That's what NC's are for.
[...]
Were you ever put on Probation Status until you obtained your node number?
Nope. I'd had a Fido-compatible BBS running for some time when the local NC
contacted me inviting me to "sign up". I did, he assigned the number and
that was that. This was quite a while ago.
Exactly! P4 has absolutely nothing to do with it!
Somewhat the same situation here if I remember correctly... it would of been
in '93 or '94. It was real easy to get a node number.
See there? All David D. had to do was wait for the local NC to
contact him and that was that. Which is exactly what I have been
doing for many years/decades/centuries ...
I've always wondered where that abomination, seen quite a lot from
people with less than average take on the English language, comes from.
If he's a Canuck, he even should speak his Queen's English, no? 8-)
Every Canuck must pledge allegiance to his holy queen. Regardless
of her language.
Fidonet has survived for decades without ever having others telling
sysops (and participants) what to do.
If we do NOT adhere to the technical specs our systems do not connect to
each other.
Technical specs, according to the NC who assigns the node number.
Not by any particular document, especially one that is void.
Wasn't Oli's plan to dump the *Cs?
The individual who is applying for a node number gets to determine
which NC he/she wishes to send a netmail to. That is the way it works,
or is supposed to work.
I joined Fidonet in 1993.
Thanks to the NC who provided Oli with a node number.
After Oli fulfilled enough of the procedures required of him
By the NC.
The NC informs the applicant what is needed. That is all the
applicant needs to know. That's it. Nothing else matters.
If people do not agree to meet on some common ground then communication
doesn't take place.
If an NC is not competent to know what technical specs are required
to make things work, then guess what happens?
I have a node number - do you?
I'm getting there. Just taking me a bit of time. Only have one
paddle in my pirogue. But not to worry. I'll get there.
We've told you how to obtain one but you keep bitching about the legalities
of the procedure.
There are no legalities to worry about asking a NC what is needed
to obtain a node number.
Until you agree to some procedure common to you and the person you're
applying to very little progress to you node being listed is likely.
Find an NC.
Ask the NC for information how to obtain a node number.
Once the NC informs me of all information needed, then follow thebouncing ball.
Then I wonder why he was bitching about Policy, it is of no relevance to
him.
Since so-called "policy" is void, there is nothing about "policy"
to bitch about.
Now if you want to answer the question as to how
to obtain a node number ...
Every Canuck must pledge allegiance to his holy queen. Regardless
of her language.
No update needed, as the document itself was void.
Much better to start from scratch.
Hello Bjrn,
Every Canuck must pledge allegiance to his holy queen. Regardless
of her language.
totally meaningless. Especially if nobody knows who wrote
it, and it is unsigned.
David Drummond wrote to Lee Lofaso <=-
NC = nodelist Clerk. The proposition was to phase them out. Who would prospective nodes approach to get a number (and have it listed)?
NC = nodelist Clerk. The proposition was to phase them out. Who would
prospective nodes approach to get a number (and have it listed)?
The ZC or RC.
NC = nodelist Clerk. The proposition was to phase them out. Whowould
prospective nodes approach to get a number (and have it listed)?
The ZC or RC.
I read it, it does come down to choice.
Problem is there is so much old and unsupported software still being
used.
You have more chance of impeaching a ZC / IC than a US president as it only requires a majority. If the majority are silent and or either
don't care, and or disagree and or don't really know, in the end it's
in the hands of the RC's which are elected.
Can things be improved? Sure, but will they, highly unlikely?
Terry Roati wrote to Michiel Van Der Vlist <=-
Is it? I would hazard a guess and say the program most used to
transport mail and files is Internet Rex, it works but is now
unsupported.
Last I checked, it was Binkd first, followed by Argus/Taurus/Radius, and then everything else.
Is it?
I would hazard a guess and say the program most used to
transport mail and files is Internet Rex,
it works but is now unsupported. If a software works I don't see a problem.
In my case I can only use software that works with my Wildcat system,
why would I change? It's a hobby to enjoy.
IPv6 is very poorly supported in Australia at present, my provider
does not support it at this time.
I don't really see a use for at this
time unless it is fully supported by the provider, you may have other ideas which I am always open to :)
Terry Roati wrote to Kurt Weiske <=-
Last I checked, it was Binkd first, followed by Argus/Taurus/Radius, and then everything else.
Where did you get that info from?
it works but is now unsupported. If a software works I don't see a
problem.
So in a decade, you haven't got many sysyops to use it. Probably less
than 10% of Fidonet, that shows me it's not that important yet.
The IPv4 public address space "IS" exhausted. We're done with it. For a while, and I can't define the length of that 'while' but I see the end
of it approaching faster than I expected, it will work and then nodes
will vanish in private address space. In order for them to continue as
a node with bi-directional traffic, embracing IPv6 is a "must".
And I'm not talking 10 years, but way way sooner. The ones not going the IPv6-way will have point-style connectivity. Something like Oli's case I understand whose provider does not offer IPv6 yet and is now using non-public IPv4 address-space, he can call-out but can't be called, therefor he is a point. At least, that's how I read it.
It's not going to be a matter of free choice but something like the
gesses who are force-fed by Christmas.
Ward Dossche wrote to Terry Roati <=-
And I'm not talking 10 years, but way way sooner. The ones not going
the IPv6-way will have point-style connectivity. Something like Oli's
case I understand whose provider does not offer IPv6 yet and is now
using non-public IPv4 address-space, he can call-out but can't be
called, therefor he is a point. At least, that's how I read it.
On 11-20-19 19:06, Terry Roati wrote to Ward Dossche <=-
I know it's going to happen and soon, in Australia there are very few providers suppling IPv6, however when my provider does support IPv6 I
will make use of it.
On 11-20-19 07:12, Kurt Weiske wrote to Ward Dossche <=-
I would hate to be behind a private address space. That would go completely against the idea of a network of nodes and complete our transition to consumers of content instead of network nodes.
officiallyIPv6, however when my provider does support IPv6 I
will make use of it.
Yeah most are dragging their heels. Mine has been offering IPv6
since 2011 and ran a public trial before that.
Yeah most are dragging their heels. Mine has been offering IPv6 officially since 2011 and ran a public trial before that.
There hasn't been any mention of its introduction by iiNet up here.
They be awaiting the majority completion of NBN and/or intro of
5G.[shrug]
On 11-21-19 15:57, Paul Quinn wrote to Tony Langdon <=-
Yeah most are dragging their heels. Mine has been offering IPv6
officially
since 2011 and ran a public trial before that.
There hasn't been any mention of its introduction by iiNet up here.
They be awaiting the majority completion of NBN and/or intro of
5G.[shrug]
On 11-21-19 16:32, Terry Roati wrote to Tony Langdon <=-
On Nov 21, 2019 02:06pm, Tony Langdon wrote to Terry Roati:
Yeah most are dragging their heels. Mine has been offering IPv6 officially since 2011 and ran a public trial before that.
My provider is made up of 3 taken over providers who all sell under
their own brand, this happened some ago, as far as I know only one have some sort of IPv6 implentation.
While I have a fixed IPv4 it's enough for now, I have already a few
ideas for when I receive IPv6 and a block of IP's.
On 11-21-19 17:05, Terry Roati wrote to Paul Quinn <=-
On Nov 21, 2019 03:47pm, Paul Quinn wrote to Tony Langdon:
There hasn't been any mention of its introduction by iiNet up here.
They be awaiting the majority completion of NBN and/or intro of
5G.[shrug]
TPG are not talking about it yet Internode have IPv6, maybe they are testing the system.
I have a fixed IPv4 and a /56 with a static prefix. In addition, I
route a /29 from APANA to my LAN which is how the BBSs get their IPs.
That makes me somewhat unique in having native IPv6 and tunneled IPv4
for my BBSs. :)
thinkNo update needed, as the document itself was void.
Much better to start from scratch.
With your writing skills and vast knowledge and as you also seem to
you
know what's wrong with P4 and should be changed, you should write a new document and post it for review. Based on your messages it should be a piece
of cake or are you all talk and no action (NATO)?
Every Canuck must pledge allegiance to his holy queen. Regardless
of her language.
Unless he can speak French :)
totally meaningless. Especially if nobody knows who wrote
it, and it is unsigned.
WRONG, you do it all the time.
You don't who wrote the terms and conditions nor have signed any such documentit.
but have legally agreed to those terms and conditions by using various hardware or software. In some cases these terms and conditions are over a 100
pages and you would need to be an experienced lawyer to even understand
Apple, Google, Microsoft, Facebook etc are classic examples.
So in simple english (sorry I don't speak cajun) when you get a nodenumber
inabove
Fidonet you accept P4 whether you agree with it or not, just like the
cases.
Hint, hint, always read the small print.
Wow! I can be just like Donald Trump! But without the orange hair!
That's what got us to Louisiana. :)
Terms of use as approved by the owners of those companies.
There are no terms of use in Fidonet, as nobody signed the document,
and it has never been passed/ratified by any zone. Not that it
matters, since the document itself is void.
On 11-21-19 21:40, Terry Roati wrote to Tony Langdon <=-
On Nov 21, 2019 09:30pm, Tony Langdon wrote to Terry Roati:
I have a fixed IPv4 and a /56 with a static prefix. In addition, I
route a /29 from APANA to my LAN which is how the BBSs get their IPs.
That makes me somewhat unique in having native IPv6 and tunneled IPv4
for my BBSs. :)
I would hazard a guess that you have had setup for some time as your
setup would now be regarded as commerical.
Since I only moved back to Oz around 2 years ago I hadn't even heard of APANA, seems interesting, must read more on it.
Are you guys using a VPN to connect various systems?
I use APANA for my public IPs, which requires only a single VPN. On another net, I do use ZeroTier to securely connect to my uplink over a virtual LAN. This solution would also work for nodes stuck behind
CGNAT. Also, on the othernet, we're using IPv6 exclusively for
internal networking. The ISPs don't need to support IPv6, it works as long as the OS supports it (which is pretty much any modern OS).
Your probably right but that is not what Fidonet is about, it is about connecting BBS systems together to transport mail and files using a documented protocol.
Not in Fidonet, your probably right.
Your logs are snapshot, not a fact. Your guessing based on an
assumption, but your probably right.
it works but is now unsupported. If a software works I don't see
a problem.
Yet, I never had a problem with Internet Rex and I am getting the
complete backbone and filegate. If I had a problem then I would find another method.
If you were a Wildcat sysop you would understand.
Having innovators and new ideas is an important part of Fidonet but it doesn't dictate the future and never will. Maybe FSXNET is that
network or maybe you could start your own.
So in a decade, you haven't got many sysyops to use it. Probably less
than 10% of Fidonet, that shows me it's not that important yet.
I think that they'll kick the can down the road for some time more
with dynamic DHCP. I've kept the same IP address for as long as I've
kept my router on, but could imagine getting a little address space headroom by cutting the lease time down.
I would hate to be behind a private address space. That would go completely against the idea of a network of nodes and complete our transition to consumers of content instead of network nodes.
And interestingly, it seems Telstra mobiles get DS-Lite connections. Someone else pointed that out and it looks like that's the case on my Telstra mobile. )
Terms of use as approved by the owners of those companies.
There are no terms of use in Fidonet, as nobody signed the document,
and it has never been passed/ratified by any zone. Not that it
matters, since the document itself is void.
If you became nodelisted you agreed to P4,
you may NOT like it or follow it.
There is nothing to sign, as soon as you are nodelisted it is an
implied acceptance just like "Terms of Use".
P4 is NOT a law, it is a policy,
a guideline for the Fidonet network to operate.
P4 is the equivalent to terms of use as the explanation of an
ecceptance, but then english is not your first language.
you.Wow! I can be just like Donald Trump! But without the orange hair!
Unless your the leader of a terrorist group, then he might get rid of
Maybe some here think you might be one I but I doubt it.
NorthThat's what got us to Louisiana. :)
The great French Empire, only two pockets of French speakers left in
America which means your not really that relevant but then that's what's make
you guys different :)
If you became nodelisted you agreed to P4,
According to who? Give me a name.
On 11-22-19 20:31, Terry Roati wrote to Tony Langdon <=-
So APANA supplies you fixed public IPv4 addresses? If not why do you
need it other than the networking side of things?
Now have to look up ZeroTier next :)
Thanks for the info, it's appreciated.
On 11-23-19 14:37, Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Tony Langdon <=-
Is it really DS-Lite or is it IPv6 only with NAT64?
On 11-23-19 00:10, Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Terry Roati <=-
"Connecting BBS systems" is how it began. But the world has changed and so has Fidonet. Here in this part of the world where - contrary to
where Fidonet was born - local calls were never "free", Fidonet participants moved to participating as points, rather than users. Users became an almost extinct species in the second half of the ninetees.
I'd say the last Dutch user was spotted in the wild in 1996. With the users went the BBS. Look at the MO flags in the nodelist.
Yes, they've assigned me a /29 via the OpenVPN tunnel from their VPN server. :)
second half of the ninetees. I'd say the last Dutch user was
spotted in the wild in 1996. With the users went the BBS. Look
at the MO flags in the nodelist.
In Australia, local calls weren't free, but they were untimed, which
meand users tended to have long sessions, to get the most out of their calls as possible.
Offline mail was heavily used to save mail reading time, and the
terminal sessions were often used for browsing files, multiline chat
and door games. Then mail could be read after one's online time
expired. :)
Is it really DS-Lite or is it IPv6 only with NAT64?
The phone does get both an IPv4 and IPv6 address. The IPv6 is global,
the IPv4 is not public.
Have you actually installed any software to try?
I would like to have seen Lee become nodelisted, but have decided that
he probably never will be - he is just all talk and likes to stir.
I may have been accused of that myself over the millennia, but I am nodelisted and have been for quite a long time.
I didn't surrender my left nut, or any other body part, nor my first
born, and do not have to pay any tithes or such.
While Policy 4 could do with some technical updates, what is really
wrong with it that seems to have Lee's and Oli's underwear all bunched
up?
There are still a lot of Fidonet sysops who run a BBS and still get
users,
in my case I get (telnet & html) mainly users but nothing like before
when most BBS has a 1000+ callers.
What has changed in Fidonet, we still move echos and files, there are
some new protocols being used and the Fidoweb. Still moving A to B
etc.
I know there are now many sysops who don't run a BBS and just use the echos, they may as well be points.
I am all for that, get more users whether they be nodes or points.
I have been using it for some months, mainly to get some echos my main uplink doesn't get.
If your uplink was reliable and worked like designed you really don't
need the Fidoweb.
Your choice, mine is to still run a BBS like so many other Fidonet
sysops.
Yes, I live in the tropics :)
I am not against it, I am actually all for it and have ideas about how
I can make use of it but until my provider supports it I will stay
with IPv4.
While Policy 4 could do with some technical updates, what is really wrong it that seems to have Lee's and Oli's underwear all bunched up?
Its amusing to me that they both whine and troll about P4 but have no problems clicking "I accept" to the EULA's of all of the websites, software, OS that they use on a daily basis; and adhering to the acceptable-usage policy of their ISP's when they use the Internet to
whine and troll here.
There are still a lot of Fidonet sysops who run a BBS and still getusers,
inmost
my case I get (telnet & html) mainly users but nothing like before when
BBS has a 1000+ callers.some
What has changed in Fidonet, we still move echos and files, there are
new protocols being used and the Fidoweb. Still moving A to B etc.echos,
I know there are now many sysops who don't run a BBS and just use the
they may as well be points. I am all for that, get more users whetherthey
be
nodes or points.
Like I said you are probably right, but it hasn't changed Fidonet.
I have been using it for some months, mainly to get some echos my main uplinkreally
doesn't get. If your uplink was reliable and worked like designed you
don't need the Fidoweb.
Your choice, mine is to still run a BBS like so many other Fidonetsysops.
Of course it is growing, it is the future but not ncessary or readily available at this time for many.
Yes, I live in the tropics :)
I am not against it, I am actually all for it and have ideas about how I can make use of it but until my provider supports it I will stay withIPv4.
If you became nodelisted you agreed to P4,
According to who? Give me a name.
Everyone in the nodelist, else they wouldn't be in the nodelist, is that enough names.
The action of obtaining a node is the equivalent of a signature just like agreeing to terms and conditions, no signature.
Since your not a sysop and probably will never be, it matters little what you think or say.
If you became a sysop then you could perhaps be annoying but until thenno
one really cares what you think.
Have you actually installed any software to try?
If you became nodelisted you agreed to P4,
According to who? Give me a name.
Everyone in the nodelist, else they wouldn't be in the nodelist, is that enough names.
The action of obtaining a node is the equivalent of a signature just like agreeing to terms and conditions, no signature.
Why else wouldn't they get nodelisted.
Hello Terry,are
On Saturday November 23 2019 11:38, you wrote to me:
What has changed in Fidonet, we still move echos and files, there
some new protocols being used and the Fidoweb. Still moving A to B etc.
Lots of things have changed in Fidonet during your 15 years of absence. You apparently missed the Fidonews coup. It triggered the birth of the Fidoweb and with the Fidoweb Fidonet finally killed top down control of
Um.... Okay so just what is this "Fidoweb"?
And what was the "Fidonews coup"?
https://github.com/nafmo/fidoweb
One has nothing to do with FidoNet and the other hasn't had a patch in about 20 years - a period somewhat less than the period of time
spanning my absense here.
Fun days ahead when an NC receives a netmail.
More fun if an NC sends me a netmail in return. :)
The FidoWeb has removed the blinders of sysops who falsely believed FidoNet needed to have a rigid structure in order to survive.
The question of how to obtain a node is the issue. Not what
you may think matters to me or anybody else.
Why else wouldn't they get nodelisted.
Technical incompetence ?
We never had that "problem" here, we always paid for every second of online time. Offline reading (and points) saved online time and made it possible to have much more users. In most busy years there were over 100 calls per day in my bbs. :)
The fidoweb in short, is connecting with multiple links for the same
area to be sure you get all messages even if your "uplink" fails to deliver for some reason.
On Nov 25, 2019 05:33pm, Tommi Koivula wrote to Michiel van der Vlist:
We never had that "problem" here, we always paid for every second ofHow many nodes did you have?
online time. Offline reading (and points) saved online time and made it
possible to have much more users. In most busy years there were over 100
calls per day in my bbs. :)
3 modem lines: one isdn and one analog. ;)
On Nov 26, 2019 07:49am, Tommi Koivula wrote to Terry Roati:
3 modem lines: one isdn and one analog. ;)
At one stage phone lines were quite expensive in the Philippines but then prices came down which allowed me to 3 lines, one was voice during the day but online at night.
I would like to have seen Lee become nodelisted, but have decided that
he probably never will be - he is just all talk and likes to stir.
It seems he doesn't want any help so in that case pointless to try.
I may have been accused of that myself over the millennia, but I am
nodelisted and have been for quite a long time.
Gee, I must have missed a lot of fun when I was away those 15+ years.
I didn't surrender my left nut, or any other body part, nor my first
born, and do not have to pay any tithes or such.
No Kiwi would :)
While Policy 4 could do with some technical updates, what is really
wrong with it that seems to have Lee's and Oli's underwear all bunched
up?
Unless they give details, we will never know.
Fun days ahead when an NC receives a netmail.
More fun if an NC sends me a netmail in return. :)
If you don't get a reply from that NC then netmail or contact the RC.
The FidoWeb has removed the blinders of sysops who falsely believed
FidoNet needed to have a rigid structure in order to survive.
Explain how the Fidoweb works and solved which problems.
The question of how to obtain a node is the issue. Not what
you may think matters to me or anybody else.
Simple, follow P4, thousands have already done it.
There are still a lot of Fidonet sysops who run a BBS and still get
users,
in my case I get (telnet & html) mainly users but nothing like before
when most BBS has a 1000+ callers.
What has changed in Fidonet, we still move echos and files, there are
some new protocols being used and the Fidoweb. Still moving A to B
etc.
ofWhile Policy 4 could do with some technical updates, what is reallywrong w
it that seems to have Lee's and Oli's underwear all bunched up?
P4... Something belonging to a silly message hobby only a tiny fraction
thethat
world still uses anymore.
Its amusing to me that they both whine and troll about P4 but have no problems
clicking "I accept" to the EULA's of all of the websites, software, OS
they use on a daily basis; and adhering to the acceptable-usage policy of their ISP's when they use the Internet to whine and troll here.
Have you actually installed any software to try?
I would like to have seen Lee become nodelisted, but have decided that he probably never will be - he is just all talk and likes to stir.
I may have been accused of that myself over the millennia, but I am nodelisted and have been for quite a long time.
I didn't surrender my left nut, or any other body part, nor my firstborn,
and do not have to pay any tithes or such.
While Policy 4 could do with some technical updates, what is really wrong with it that seems to have Lee's and Oli's underwear all bunched up?
On 11-24-19 20:09, Terry Roati wrote to Tony Langdon <=-
On Nov 24, 2019 06:11pm, Tony Langdon wrote to Terry Roati:
Yes, they've assigned me a /29 via the OpenVPN tunnel from their VPN server. :)
How much overhead does the VPN add, I had a VPN between my house and Australia and and my house in the Philippines using two Draytek routers which worked quite well. Very handy when on holidays and to access
Aussie TV via a Broadway.
On 11-24-19 13:59, Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Tony Langdon <=-
The situation of untimed local calls at a fixed price for one call,
that is how it was in The Netherlands too. Until about 1985. Then the powers that be changed it to a metered rate. An official reason was
never given, but there were two main theories:
1) The coming of the BBS. Users made calls lasting hourm sometimes
days. I myself have been guilty of keeping the line open for a whole weekend. At the time the exchanges were designed to handle a maximum of
7 simultaneous calls per 100 subscribers. No dial tone fo #8.
2) Local areas overlapped. Big national comapnies created a web of
linkes local calls that were open 24/7 to have cheap "fixed private lines" to route their phone calls.
Offline mail was heavily used to save mail reading time, and the
terminal sessions were often used for browsing files, multiline chat
and door games. Then mail could be read after one's online time
expired. :)
Metered local calls is what killed the BBS here.
(I wrote a Fidonews article about that, but that was a long time ago..)
On 11-24-19 14:12, Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Tony Langdon <=-
That is what DS-Lite and IPv6 only with NAT64 have in common. But the technology is different. Here the mobile ISP's go for IPv6 only plus NAT64. With NAT64 the ISP moves some of the burden of making IPv4 only servers accesable, to the user. They had to wait with that for Old Android (pre4.3) and old iOs (pre-iOS12) phones to be phased out. The
new phones have build in CLAT to take care of the user side of NAT64.
I really liked ISDN. I had 4 telephone numbers; dedicated numbers for voice, fax and modem. And for ISDN Data of course. :)
The FidoWeb has removed the blinders of sysops who falsely believed
FidoNet needed to have a rigid structure in order to survive.
Explain how the Fidoweb works and solved which problems.
First I have to obtain a node ...
It is the NC's responsibility to inform the individual who wishes
to obtain a node how to do so. Not any document written by unknown persons.
MvdV> aboutYour probably right but that is not what Fidonet is about, it is
connecting BBS systems together to transport mail and files using a
documented protocol.
On Nov 26, 2019 06:25pm, Tommi Koivula wrote to Terry Roati:
I really liked ISDN. I had 4 telephone numbers; dedicated numbers for
voice, fax and modem. And for ISDN Data of course. :)
Was it an arm and a leg or quite reasonable then?
theThe FidoWeb has removed the blinders of sysops who falsely believed
FidoNet needed to have a rigid structure in order to survive.
Explain how the Fidoweb works and solved which problems.
First I have to obtain a node ...
Not according to your statement above, so do you know or don't you how
Fidoweb works?
It is the NC's responsibility to inform the individual who wishes
to obtain a node how to do so. Not any document written by unknown
persons.
Only once you have sent your NC a netmail, so far it seems you don't know how to send a netmail.
Ball is in your court.
I presume it will be up to me to demonstrate to an NC my ability
to send and receive a netmail.
Will do so after the holidays.
Or maybe between the holidays.
Once one is over, there is always another coming ...
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 368 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 40:30:04 |
| Calls: | 7,884 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 12,962 |
| Messages: | 5,787,382 |
