Is there a centralized place that has the rules for each echo FidoNet carri
I remember this being an issue in the '90s, specifically not knowing which echoes allowed aliases and which didn't.
I remember this being an issue in the '90s, specifically not knowing
which echoes allowed aliases and which didn't.
General InquiryI got tired of trying to figure out which echoes did and didn't allow
Is there a centralized place that has the rules for each echo FidoNet carries?
I remember this being an issue in the '90s, specifically not knowing
which echoes allowed aliases and which didn't.
If there isn't, I'd be more than happy to compile that, if only I
knew exactly where to look.
RS
... Famous last words: "I'll be there in just a minute, honey."
--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A48 (Windows/32)
* Origin: The Arena BBS · netasylum.com:2323 (1:226/44)
Well, Randall Schad, as you may have seen by now, not even the Z1C (yes, that's the guy who just told you that Fidonet is so small and insignificant it doesn't matter anymore) abides by the real name rule.
Once upon a time, every echo distributed on the Fidonet had to abide
by the real name rule. Local echoes were, of course, exempt from this rule.
Well, Randall Schad, as you may have seen by now, not even the Z1C (yes that's the guy who just told you that Fidonet is so small and insignificant doesn't matter anymore) abides by the real name rule.
Björn Felten wrote to Reverend Shaft <=-
Well, Randall Schad, as you may have seen by now, not even the Z1C (yes, that's the guy who just told you that Fidonet is so small and insignificant it doesn't matter anymore) abides by the real name rule.
Once upon a time, every echo distributed on the Fidonet had to abide
by the real name rule. Local echoes were, of course, exempt from this rule.
General Inquiry
Is there a centralized place that has the rules for each echo FidoNet carries?
I remember this being an issue in the '90s, specifically not knowing
which echoes allowed aliases and which didn't.
If there isn't, I'd be more than happy to compile that, if only I knew exactly where to look.
Look at file area ECHOLIST and the monthly (and sometimes daily if an
new echo added) for the files :
ELSTyymm.ZIP for the monthly issued around 1/2 of the month, where yy = year, mm = month.
I send these out to around 30 different systems.
Much as the Lee Lefasshole sock-puppet becomes when you make your inevitable
grand departure once and for all.
Atreyu
--- Renegade vY2Ka2
* Origin: Joey, do you like movies about gladiators? (1:229/426)
And this, my old fido-friends, is what'll become of Fidonet if the Z1C ( anonymous poster here, with a broken editor) will have, if his wishes come trough.
It's been a long time. I could have sworn there were groups that allowed aliases, but could be quite obviously mistaken there.
Once upon a time, every echo distributed on the Fidonet had to
abide by the real name rule.
Kurt Weiske wrote to Björn Felten <=-
Björn Felten wrote to Reverend Shaft <=-
Well, Randall Schad, as you may have seen by now, not even the Z1C (yes, that's the guy who just told you that Fidonet is so small and insignificant it doesn't matter anymore) abides by the real name rule.
That's quite a stretch.
Once upon a time, every echo distributed on the Fidonet had to abide
by the real name rule. Local echoes were, of course, exempt from this rule.
I've seen echoes that allow aliases/handles/whathaveyou, as long as
you included your real name in your signature.
The arguments for "real names" are many and suspect at best, unless
you're checking government-issued IDs or otherwise confirming
identity.
And who would trust a BBS sysop to store that information safely and
securely? The argument that "real names" begets good behavior online don't
account for the fact that most "real names" aren't confirmed, and that
people can be assholes without hiding behind an alias. We've certainly
seen our share of them on Fidonet and elsewhere online.
The arguments for "real names" are many and suspect at best,
Mike Powell wrote to Kurt Weiske <=-
The arguments for "real names" are many and suspect at best,
Mine are real names because you cannot trust users not to create sock-puppet users and, in at least one case, you cannot even trust
sysops not to.
I remember this being an issue in the '90s, specifically not knowing
which echoes allowed aliases and which didn't.
Well, Randall Schad, as you may have seen by now, not even the Z1C (yes, that's the guy who just told you that Fidonet is so small and insignificant
it doesn't matter anymore) abides by the real name rule.
Once upon a time, every echo distributed on the Fidonet had to abide by the
real name rule. Local echoes were, of course, exempt from this rule.
General Inquiry
Is there a centralized place that has the rules for each echo FidoNet carries?
I remember this being an issue in the '90s, specifically not knowing which echoes allowed aliases and which didn't.
If there isn't, I'd be more than happy to compile that, if only I knew exactly where to look.
Well, Randall Schad, as you may have seen by now, not even theZ1C
(yes, that's the guy who just told you that Fidonet is so small andrule.
insignificant it doesn't matter anymore) abides by the real name
That's quite a stretch.
Once upon a time, every echo distributed on the Fidonet had to abide
by the real name rule. Local echoes were, of course, exempt from this
rule.
I've seen echoes that allow aliases/handles/whathaveyou, as long as you included your real name in your signature.
The arguments for "real names" are many and suspect at best, unless
you're checking government-issued IDs or otherwise confirming identity.
And who would trust a BBS sysop to store that information safely and securely?
The argument that "real names" begets good behavior online don't
account for the fact that most "real names" aren't confirmed, and that people can be assholes without hiding behind an alias. We've certainly seen our share of them on Fidonet and elsewhere online.
Look at file area ECHOLIST and the monthly (and sometimes daily if an new echo added) for the files :
ELSTyymm.ZIP for the monthly issued around 1/2 of the month, where yy = year, mm = month.
All rules stored in folder rules.
Archive also contains current copies of ELIST.RPT, ELIST.NA and for ALL fido
echos BACKBONE.NA and BACKBONE.RPT.
Vincent
Elist maintainer.
Look at file area ECHOLIST and the monthly (and sometimes daily if an
new echo added) for the files :
ELSTyymm.ZIP for the monthly issued around 1/2 of the month, whereyy =
year, mm = month.
I send these out to around 30 different systems.
Brilliant. Thanks, Vincent. Very much appreciated.
(I didn't think such a simple question would generate such a stir. Yikes!)
It's been a long time. I could have sworn there were groups that allowed
aliases, but could be quite obviously mistaken there.
There are some, DOOM, COFFEE_KLATCH, MUSIC and other I forget now.
None of the areas I moderate require real name although real name are fine too.
Once upon a time, every echo distributed on the Fidonet had to
abide by the real name rule.
Which is most likely not compatible with the requirements of the GDPR in the
EU these days.
Well, Randall Schad, as you may have seen by now, not even the Z1C
(yes, that's the guy who just told you that Fidonet is so small and
insignificant it doesn't matter anymore) abides by the real name rule.
That's quite a stretch.
Indeed it is.
In fact, it's an absolute lie, as that's not what was
said, at all. Standard procedure for Lee^H^H^H Beeeeorn.
Once upon a time, every echo distributed on the Fidonet had to abide
by the real name rule. Local echoes were, of course, exempt from this
rule.
I've seen echoes that allow aliases/handles/whathaveyou, as long as
you included your real name in your signature.
I have seen that too.
The arguments for "real names" are many and suspect at best, unless
you're checking government-issued IDs or otherwise confirming
identity.
And who would trust a BBS sysop to store that information safely andKthat W>people can be assholes without hiding behind an alias. We've certainly
securely? The argument that "real names" begets good behavior online
don't account for the fact that most "real names" aren't confirmed, and
seen our share of them on Fidonet and elsewhere online.
All good points.
Another point here is that since most users/posters these days are also Sysops, it's just a matter of cross-checking the Origin Line/Node number to
the nodelist to get the "real name".
I'm assuming that "most" sysop names in the nodelist are real, I know.
The arguments for "real names" are many and suspect at best,
Mine are real names because you cannot trust users not to create sock-puppet users and, in at least one case, you cannot even trust sysops not to.
The arguments for "real names" are many and suspect at best,
Mine are real names because you cannot trust users not to create
sock-puppet users and, in at least one case, you cannot even trust
sysops not to.
How do you verify them?
Hello RS,
Look at file area ECHOLIST and the monthly (and sometimes daily
if an new echo added) for the files :
ELSTyymm.ZIP for the monthly issued around 1/2 of the month,
where
yy =
year, mm = month.
I send these out to around 30 different systems.
Brilliant. Thanks, Vincent. Very much appreciated.
There is no official elist or echolist in Fidonet.
(I didn't think such a simple question would generate such a
stir. Yikes!)
Meaningless files and other junk (spam) are abundant on the internet.
For Life,
Lee
--
Fox News Slogan - Rich people paying rich people
to tell middle class people to blame poor people.
There is no official elist or echolist in Fidonet.
There has been since the 90's using BACKBONE.NA.
The fact that you never used it is just down to you.
It is time for Fidonet to do the same. Apologize to users and allow
all to play on the same field.
There is no official elist or echolist in Fidonet.
There has been since the 90's using BACKBONE.NA.
The fact that you never used it is just down to you.
"Lee" isn't a sysop, just the alter ego of one.
The arguments for "real names" are many and suspect at best,
Mine are real names because you cannot trust users not to create
sock-puppet users and, in at least one case, you cannot even trust
sysops not to.
How do you verify them?
It is time for Fidonet to do the same. Apologize to users and allow
all to play on the same field.
Good luck with that, Fidonet is a collective of Sysops which can't agree on
a few simple changes so it will never happen.
Like many others I don't see a problem with using an alias
but when I brought up a few years back there was resistance so the idea died
a death.
Fidonet Policy is now selective, maybe one day common sense will come into play.
Look at file area ECHOLIST and the monthly (and sometimes daily
if an new echo added) for the files :
ELSTyymm.ZIP for the monthly issued around 1/2 of the month,
where
yy =
year, mm = month.
I send these out to around 30 different systems.
Brilliant. Thanks, Vincent. Very much appreciated.
There is no official elist or echolist in Fidonet.
There has been since the 90's using BACKBONE.NA.
The fact that you never used it is just down to you.
I took over the Elist system fron Ben Rickley after he died
but he maintained that with his bbs that used mystic and while the basic source was available the needed various scripts / command files where not.
In which event and as I used mbse I have written my own copy of Elist to do
the same
and in addition many other functions including supporting the Elist
system as well as the BACKBONE elements.
That is issued monthly with an infrequent version daily if a major change is
done during the month that affects rules or the description or a new echo added.
For all of these functions it is run fully automatically with the required files sent out as an archive in both cases.
This is useful for echo hosts and hubs so that can rule you out as a need.
"Lee" isn't a sysop, just the alter ego of one.
The issue is the use of "real names only" in Fidonet.
Do keep up.
"Lee" isn't a sysop, just the alter ego of one.
The issue is the use of "real names only" in Fidonet.
Do keep up.
The point would be that a new or returning sysop should not take advice about echo rules from someone who doesn't know what they are talking about.
So please explain why so many Sysops have a fetish about "real"
names?
Then why do you support the idea that Sysops should force others
to abide by "real names only" rules in Fidonet? Since, by your own admission, "Sysops can't agree on a few simple changes ..."
Fidonet has no policy in regards to what names folks want to call themselves - anywhere on this planet or in this universe.
Lee Lofaso wrote to Mike Powell <=-about.
Hello Mike,
"Lee" isn't a sysop, just the alter ego of one.
The issue is the use of "real names only" in Fidonet.
Do keep up.
The point would be that a new or returning sysop should not take advice about echo rules from someone who doesn't know what they are talking
We all realize you haven't got a clue as to what you are talking
about. Is there anything else you would like to share?
Why does nobody do anything about this?
Ward Dossche wrote to Dan Clough <=-
Why does nobody do anything about this?
Do "what" about it?
Why don't 'you' do something about it but someone else has to?
Do "what" about it?
I thought that was obvious, but - stop that system from allowing a non-sysop to post in a sysop-only echo area. Yes, I know about the "fidoweb" and the inability to do a "feed cut" as in the old days, but there are other things. Somebody (not me) that he might listen to when asked about this. Somebody like *YOU*. Somebody who knows him, and is
his ZC, and has the authority to 'officially' ask him to stop doing it.
"Lee" isn't a sysop, just the alter ego of one.
The issue is the use of "real names only" in Fidonet.
Do keep up.
The point would be that a new or returning sysop should not take advice
about echo rules from someone who doesn't know what they are talking
about.
We all realize you haven't got a clue as to what you are talking
about. Is there anything else you would like to share?
Why is this fucktard even allowed to post in this echo?
He's NOT a FidoNet sysop.
Being the sockpuppet of a wanker in Sweden doesn't meet that requirement.
Why is that Swedish system allowed to continue accessing this echo after all
the repeated examples of this bullshit? Why does nobody do anything about this?
So please explain why so many Sysops have a fetish about "real"
names?
Each Sysop speaks for themselves.
Then why do you support the idea that Sysops should force others
to abide by "real names only" rules in Fidonet? Since, by your own
admission, "Sysops can't agree on a few simple changes ..."
I don't support or force users to use real names,
I actually suggest users to log onto my system using an alias.
What other Sysops do is nothing to do with me.
Fidonet has no policy in regards to what names folks want to call
themselves - anywhere on this planet or in this universe.
Yep your right,
however Moderators of some Fidonet echos request that a user use a Real Name
(Echo Rule),
many light years ago, a Moderator could request a user who refused to use a
real name could have access to that removed and it used to happen.
There is no chance of this happening any longer for this and
or most any other reason.
Yet most online forums have rules and if a user doesn't follow then the Moderator can cut off write access.
So it is up to each Sysop to decide if a user on their system can use an alias.
Ward Dossche wrote to Dan Clough <=-
Dan,
Do "what" about it?
I thought that was obvious, but - stop that system from allowing a non-sysop to post in a sysop-only echo area. Yes, I know about the "fidoweb" and the inability to do a "feed cut" as in the old days, but there are other things. Somebody (not me) that he might listen to when asked about this. Somebody like *YOU*. Somebody who knows him, and is his ZC, and has the authority to 'officially' ask him to stop doing it.
For ages I have been bombarded by messages predominantly from Z1-origin (yes, Janis, you too) that echomail was something entirely out of the scope of P4, that the *C-structure had nothing to do with it and should stay away from it.
Efforts to get some kind of echomail-policy off the ground were also effeciently torpedoed to smithereens.
And know you desire me to deal with an echomail-issue based on my P4-status? Really?
Let me tell you something, *Cs have no power, they can do nothing more than manage a nodelist segment hoping that what they get from below is decent and equally hoping one level up there's someone that knows how
to handle that. These talents are becoming very rare in Fidonet these days.
I do not intend to go policing echomail, it wouldn't work anyway. I learned that the hard way barely a few months into my first stint as a
ZC and I dropped the idea altogether.
Also I'm a firm believer in freedom of speech, that doesn't mean
insulting someone is OK. Bjorn is not a wanker, and neither are you. So pls cut the vocabulary.
The person "Lee Lofaso", whether real or fake, does not bother me, does not impress me, does not interest me, does not annoy me ... because I figured out in order to be annoyed, you need to want to be annoyed.
There are a lot more important things to deal with than a self-declared ghost spreading AI-khrap.
Really, you need to sit down and carefully consider what freedom of
speech really is, because if someone cannot go beyond your self-imposed borders, then you are no advocate of it.
There's no reason to deal with Bjorn, I'm certain he is a nice human
being trying to deal with the kind of miseries of life that some here cannot even begin to grasp.
I hope in a few weeks or months I'll be able to hop to Sweden, have a
few drinks with Bjorn and publish a long overdue photo of him and I sharing a beer. Just like I went to eat pizza with Janis. breakfasted
with Pablo Kleinman, dined with Ron Dwight, shared beers with Basilis Tsapas (I think), went to see Bob Bashe who all figured at some time I
was an incompetent demon ...
Freedom of speech, Dan, and friendships. There are people who can't mutually stand each other's guts, but I like 'm all. Some Russian
sysops I'd love to meet (and teach m how to drink beer), also go to Ukraine, go to the Crimea and drink some of their wines (and the destilates, so I'm told)...
Some advice: why not try to learn from Bjorn, he has stuff to give and
is very generous. I'm sure you are too...
He's NOT a FidoNet sysop.
Would you love me any more if I was?
Let's look at this from a different angle. Is it really an
echomail-issue? Or is it a Sysop/NC/RC issue where a Sysop is allowing access to an area designated for Sysops only, to a non-Sysop? Section
9.9 of P4 states that "echomail is simply a different flavor of netmail, and is therefore covered by Policy." So maybe this is a case of a Sysop having his system mis-configured *knowingly*, and allowing behavior that annoys other FidoNet Sysops. See P4 section 1.2.1.1 and section 2.1.3.
He's NOT a FidoNet sysop.
Would you love me any more if I was?
"If I 'were'?"
The issue is the use of "real names only" in Fidonet.
Do keep up.
The point would be that a new or returning sysop should not take advice about echo rules from someone who doesn't know what they are talking about.
This particular returning sysop wishes he hadn't asked in the first
place. :)
This particular returning sysop wishes he hadn't asked in the first place. :)
I'm beyond flabbergasted that a simple request for clarification started such a flood of insults and posturing.
General Inquiry
Is there a centralized place that has the rules for each echo FidoNet carrie
I remember this being an issue in the '90s, specifically not knowing which echoes allowed aliases and which didn't.
If there isn't, I'd be more than happy to compile that, if only I knew exact where to look.
RS
... Famous last words: "I'll be there in just a minute, honey."
Reverend Shaft -> All skrev 2024-09-10 03:58:
I remember this being an issue in the '90s, specifically not knowing which echoes allowed aliases and which didn't.
Well, Randall Schad, as you may have seen by now, not even the Z1C (yes, that's the guy who just told you that Fidonet is so small and insignificant doesn't matter anymore) abides by the real name rule.
Once upon a time, every echo distributed on the Fidonet had to abide by t real name rule. Local echoes were, of course, exempt from this rule.
--
There will come a day when we have to answer for all our wrongs. Make sure y know the difference between right and wrong.
..
It's been a long time. I could have sworn there were groups that allowed aliases, but could be quite obviously mistaken there.
There are some, DOOM, COFFEE_KLATCH, MUSIC and other I forget now.
None of the areas I moderate require real name although real name are fine t
Hello Björn!
10 Sep 24 07:17, Björn Felten wrote to Reverend Shaft:
Once upon a time, every echo distributed on the Fidonet had to
abide by the real name rule.
Which is most likely not compatible with the requirements of the GDPR in the these days.
Regards,
Gerrit
... 9:13PM up 83 days, 14:26, 7 users, load averages: 0.79, 0.70, 0.58
Kurt Weiske wrote to Björn Felten <=-
Björn Felten wrote to Reverend Shaft <=-
Well, Randall Schad, as you may have seen by now, not even the Z1C (yes, that's the guy who just told you that Fidonet is so small and insignificant it doesn't matter anymore) abides by the real name rule.
That's quite a stretch.
Indeed it is. In fact, it's an absolute lie, as that's not what was
said, at all. Standard procedure for Lee^H^H^H Beeeeorn.
Once upon a time, every echo distributed on the Fidonet had to abide by the real name rule. Local echoes were, of course, exempt from this rule.
I've seen echoes that allow aliases/handles/whathaveyou, as long as you included your real name in your signature.
I have seen that too.
The arguments for "real names" are many and suspect at best, unless
you're checking government-issued IDs or otherwise confirming identity.
And who would trust a BBS sysop to store that information safely and
securely? The argument that "real names" begets good behavior online don't
account for the fact that most "real names" aren't confirmed, and that
people can be assholes without hiding behind an alias. We've certainly
seen our share of them on Fidonet and elsewhere online.
All good points. Another point here is that since most users/posters
these days are also Sysops, it's just a matter of cross-checking the
Origin Line/Node number to the nodelist to get the "real name". I'm assuming that "most" sysop names in the nodelist are real, I know.
... Gone crazy, be back later, please leave message.
=== MultiMail/Linux v0.52
Mike Powell wrote to Kurt Weiske <=-
The arguments for "real names" are many and suspect at best,
Mine are real names because you cannot trust users not to create sock-puppet users and, in at least one case, you cannot even trust sysops not to.
How do you verify them?
On Sep 12, 2024 08:43pm, Lee Lofaso wrote to Bj”rn Felten:
Hi Lee,
It is time for Fidonet to do the same. Apologize to users and allow
all to play on the same field.
Good luck with that, Fidonet is a collective of Sysops which can't agree on few simple changes so it will never happen.
Like many others I don't see a problem with using an alias but when I brough up a few years back there was resistance so the idea died a death.
Fidonet Policy is now selective, maybe one day common sense will come into play.
... Platinum Xpress & Wildcat!..... Nice!!!!
Hello Dan,
Let's look at this from a different angle. Is it really an echomail-issue? Or is it a Sysop/NC/RC issue where a Sysop is allowing access to an area designated for Sysops only, to a non-Sysop? Section 9.9 of P4 states that "echomail is simply a different flavor of netmail, and is therefore covered by Policy." So maybe this is a case of a Sysop having his system mis-configured *knowingly*, and allowing behavior that annoys other FidoNet Sysops. See P4 section 1.2.1.1 and section 2.1.3.
Hmmmmm ... correct.
I'll be looking forward to your formal complaint ... after you've figured it out.
And one day I'll be along for a beer or a coffee ... if I pass that way. Tha a promise too.
\%/@rd
I don't have a problem with an alias as long as it's polite. It's the rude ones I ban from my system if they try to make an account here.
Ward Dossche wrote to Dan Clough <=-
Let's look at this from a different angle. Is it really an echomail-issue? Or is it a Sysop/NC/RC issue where a Sysop is allowing access to an area designated for Sysops only, to a non-Sysop? Section
9.9 of P4 states that "echomail is simply a different flavor of netmail, and is therefore covered by Policy." So maybe this is a case of a Sysop having his system mis-configured *knowingly*, and allowing behavior that annoys other FidoNet Sysops. See P4 section 1.2.1.1 and section 2.1.3.
Hmmmmm ... correct.
I'll be looking forward to your formal complaint ... after you've
figured it out.
And one day I'll be along for a beer or a coffee ... if I pass that
way. That's a promise too.
Hello Reverend,
How do we know you are a sysop if you are not using the name as listed
in the nodelist?
There's probably a lot of fake names out there.
I'll be looking forward to your formal complaint ... after you've
figured it out.
Well, I won't be bothering, because..... well, let's just say the
"judge" is obviously biased. I mean, you two being buddies and all.
And one day I'll be along for a beer or a coffee ... if I pass that DC>WD> way. That's a promise too.
Sounds good.
How do we know you are a sysop if you are not using the name as
listed in the nodelist?
I mean, a supersleuth here already pieced together my incredibly
secret pseudonym...
This was changed as a result of the initial response. I presume that change was inadvertently reverted after making additions to message
bases.
I'll go take a look at that again now, because all Fido bases /should/
be set to disallow aliases.
The issue is the use of "real names only" in Fidonet.
Do keep up.
This particular returning sysop wishes he hadn't asked in the first place. :)
Mike, this is obviously not directed at you:
My thought, from my early days, was that FidoNet was a collection of people
who organized conversational and informational topics into categories, and -- either through reasonable moderator mandate or collective opinion of the
participants -- decided on rules of conduct. Those rules. of course, included the issue of real names or aliases.
I was a member of other networks that followed a similar system. It's a guideline for order and civility, akin to telling the kis to stop fighting or lose the toy, and asking guests to take their shoes off and not prop their feet up on the coffee table.
It's a group of hobbyists and enthusiasts, not a geopolitical government entity. Either you complied wth the rules or lost access to the echo (or the net, in severe cases). If you didn't like the rules, you started a new net.
I'm beyond flabbergasted that a simple request for clarification started such a flood of insults and posturing.
This particular returning sysop wishes he hadn't asked in the first
place. :)
ASIAN_LINK. Real names preferred but not required, but we ask'em to add a sig with a first name we can use. Me, i sig my handle.
All good points. Another point here is that since most users/posters
these days are also Sysops, it's just a matter of cross-checking the
Origin Line/Node number to the nodelist to get the "real name". I'm
assuming that "most" sysop names in the nodelist are real, I know.
Not always. As R13 i notified a long ago Z1C that we had a witness protection case. None cared but agreed it was reasonable.
There's probably a lot of fake names out there.
Bjorn, there were always a handful that didn't require it. That's why the elist had a spot for it.
He made an assumption. Assumptions do not prove theories. Your "confession" does not convince me either. It you actually were a user posing as a sysop you would say the same...
My usual response tp messages with an alias in the message header is the "next" key. I made an excaption for you as you do not appear a "lost case".
So I look forward to seeing your next message with a real name in the header.
Courts have ruled Germans must be allowed to sign up under
pseudonyms to comply with privacy law. Google has also done
the same, and apologized to users, stating "There are no
more restrictions on what name you can use."
So I look forward to seeing your next message with a real name in
the header.
Funny thing: the FS Mystic editor doesn't show you which name you're sending under, and I don't see an immediate way to edit it before composing OR sending. Kind of a trial by fire method.
How do we know you are a sysop if you are not using the name as
listed in the nodelist?
I mean, a supersleuth here already pieced together my incredibly
secret pseudonym...
MvdV> set to disallow aliases.This was changed as a result of the initial response. I presume that
change was inadvertently reverted after making additions to message
bases.
I'll go take a look at that again now, because all Fido bases /should/ be
And know you desire me to deal with an echomail-issue based on my
P4-status? Really?
Let's look at this from a different angle.
Is it really an echomail-issue?
Or is it a Sysop/NC/RC issue where a Sysop is allowing access to an area designated for Sysops only, to a non-Sysop?
Section 9.9 of P4 states that "echomail is simply a different flavor of netmail, and is therefore covered by Policy."
So maybe this is a case of a Sysop having his system mis-configured *knowingly*, and allowing behavior that annoys other FidoNet Sysops. See P4 section 1.2.1.1 and section 2.1.3.
Also please re-read section 1.3.5, with particular attention to the word "persists".
The real question here is whether what I'm talking about is an echomail issue, or a policy/procedural issue. A Sysop is allowing unauthorized access to a Sysop-only area.
Also I'm a firm believer in freedom of speech, that doesn't mean
insulting someone is OK. Bjorn is not a wanker, and neither are you. So
pls cut the vocabulary.
I give as good as I get.
The person "Lee Lofaso", whether real or fake, does not bother me, does
not impress me, does not interest me, does not annoy me ... because I
figured out in order to be annoyed, you need to want to be annoyed.
There are a lot more important things to deal with than a self-declared
ghost spreading AI-khrap.
Not everyone is annoyed by the same things.
Really, you need to sit down and carefully consider what freedom of
speech really is, because if someone cannot go beyond your self-imposed
borders, then you are no advocate of it.
There's no reason to deal with Bjorn, I'm certain he is a nice human
being trying to deal with the kind of miseries of life that some here
cannot even begin to grasp.
Maybe he is a nice human in Real Life. In FidoNet he is not.
I hope in a few weeks or months I'll be able to hop to Sweden, have a
few drinks with Bjorn and publish a long overdue photo of him and I
sharing a beer. Just like I went to eat pizza with Janis. breakfasted
with Pablo Kleinman, dined with Ron Dwight, shared beers with Basilis
Tsapas (I think), went to see Bob Bashe who all figured at some time I
was an incompetent demon ...
I hope you get a chance to do that, too. I'd probably get along with
him too, over a beer and non-Fido conversation. Not really relevant to the discussion though.
Freedom of speech, Dan, and friendships. There are people who can't
mutually stand each other's guts, but I like 'm all. Some Russian
sysops I'd love to meet (and teach m how to drink beer), also go to
Ukraine, go to the Crimea and drink some of their wines (and the
destilates, so I'm told)...
Freedom of speech is also pretty much not relevant here.
That has to do with the powers of a Government over a country's citizens.
Not really what we're talking about.
Some advice: why not try to learn from Bjorn, he has stuff to give and
is very generous. I'm sure you are too...
I'm always willing to learn. The problem in this case is that the
person in question cannot put aside his biases and talk in a civil
manner, without politics, innuendo and "witty" barbs.
Courts have ruled Germans must be allowed to sign up under
pseudonyms to comply with privacy law. Google has also done
the same, and apologized to users, stating "There are no
more restrictions on what name you can use."
Just out of curiosity, where does that end?
Library card? Driving license? Doctor's office?
Can you just invent new personas at will for everything?
Funny thing: the FS Mystic editor doesn't show you which name you're sending under, and I don't see an immediate way to edit it before composing OR sending. Kind of a trial by fire method.
I'd really like to change that. Will have to peruse the docs when I get
a little more time.
Funny thing: the FS Mystic editor doesn't show you which name you're sending under, and I don't see an immediate way to edit it before composing OR sending. Kind of a trial by fire method.
I'd really like to change that. Will have to peruse the docs when I g a little more time.
You can. Take a look at MCI codes and you can add it wherever you see
fit, to your FS message editor's header. :)
Well, Randall Schad, as you may have seen by now, not even the Z1C(yes
that's the guy who just told you that Fidonet is so small andinsignificant
doesn't matter anymore) abides by the real name rule.
Much as the Lee Lefasshole sock-puppet becomes when you make your inevitable
grand departure once and for all.
Atreyu
Lookie what I found in a message by Michael Luko -
| Sysop: | Tetrazocine |
|---|---|
| Location: | Melbourne, VIC, Australia |
| Users: | 4 |
| Nodes: | 8 (0 / 8) |
| Uptime: | 58:48:59 |
| Calls: | 65 |
| Files: | 21,500 |
| Messages: | 73,554 |