I say, collapse all of the zones into one zone. We're small enough,
we're using IP for most message traffic and don't need a zone
structure.
Fidonet, properly structured, would make an active Othernet.
I say, collapse all of the zones into one zone. We're small enough, CN>KW> we're using IP for most message traffic and don't need a zone
structure.
I agree... as long as zone 2 is the chosen one. };-)
I don't think that changing the nodelist structure would make Fidonet echomail more active, rather the contrary.
I say, collapse all of the zones into one zone. We're small enough,
we're using IP for most message traffic and don't need a zone
structure.
Could the sysops in Z1 live under, for instance, a Russion ZC?
Could the sysops in Z1 live under, for instance, a Russion ZC?
Remember that there are 74 million Trumpsters in USA alone... 8-)
Could the sysops in Z1 live under, for instance, a Russion ZC?
Remember that there are 74 million Trumpsters in USA alone... 8-)
Could the sysops in Z1 live under, for instance, a Russian ZC?
Remember that there are 74 million Trumpsters in USA alone... 8-)
That's 1% of the world's population ...
Remember that there are 74 million Trumpsters in USA alone... 8-)
But not all of them are in Fidonet.
Carlos Navarro wrote to Kurt Weiske <=-
I say, collapse all of the zones into one zone. We're small enough,
we're using IP for most message traffic and don't need a zone
structure.
I agree... as long as zone 2 is the chosen one. };-)
Fidonet, properly structured, would make an active Othernet.
I don't think that changing the nodelist structure would make Fidonet echomail more active, rather the contrary.
Wilfred van Velzen wrote to Kurt Weiske <=-
Could the sysops in Z1 live under, for instance, a Russion ZC?
No, but removing the dead echoes and consolidating others would increase the ratio of messages to echoes. But, that's a thought for another day.
Could the sysops in Z1 live under, for instance, a Russion ZC?
As long as he/she followed the rules as set forth by the body of sysops.
How do you know that an echo is dead?. Maybe, your corner is not
connected to another corner, where the echo is alive and well.
Could the sysops in Z1 live under, for instance, a Russion ZC?
As long as he/she followed the rules as set forth by the body of sysops.
Ward Dossche wrote to Kurt Weiske <=-
Could the sysops in Z1 live under, for instance, a Russion ZC?
As long as he/she followed the rules as set forth by the body of sysops.
You do realize, I hope, that the majority of sysops 'are' Russian ... ? :-)
I don't see the hindrance that you mentioned.
What would be the biggest benefit?
You do realize, I hope, that the majority of sysops 'are'
Russian ... ? :-)
Hello Ward Dossche!
** On Monday 14.06.21 - 13:16, Ward Dossche wrote to Kurt Weiske:
But, can that be verified? It seems that the vast number of
telnettable (verifiable) bbses are in North America as per the Geographical Distribution pie chart here:
https://www.ipingthereforeiam.com/bbs/
I say, collapse all of the zones into one zone. We're small
enough, we're using IP for most message traffic and don't need a
zone structure.
I agree... as long as zone 2 is the chosen one. };-)
Of course... :)
Even said in jest, that sentiment is exactly why it wouldn't work.
Fidonet, properly structured, would make an active Othernet.
I don't think that changing the nodelist structure would make
Fidonet echomail more active, rather the contrary.
No, but removing the dead echoes and consolidating others would
increase the ratio of messages to echoes. But, that's a thought for another day.
I have a feeling that most sysops don't really care as long as echomail and
netmail flows. The main problem faced by most sysops is a lack of users.
Fidonet is pretty much set it and forget it if you do it properly. Personally, I don't care if there's 1 zone or 6 zones. I do care that my netmail will
reach Inner Mongolia :)
Carlos Navarro wrote to Kurt Weiske <=-
I agree... as long as zone 2 is the chosen one. };-)
Of course... :)
Even said in jest, that sentiment is exactly why it wouldn't work.
I was joking, of course.
What sentiment you mean?
Ok, so you agree that merging/changing zones is not -currently- a good idea.
As for the echos -- maybe, as long as /consolidating/ does not mean renaming active echos... };-)
If I now had a BBS (or another kind of user-interface) I would probably "hide" to users the dead echos, giving better visibility to those that
are more or less active.
David Drummond wrote to Nigel Reed <=-
Since you first became node listed how many netmails have you had the
urge to send to Inner Mongolia?
Even said in jest, that sentiment is exactly why it wouldn't
work.
I was joking, of course.
What sentiment you mean?
The last time I brought this up, the debate didn't get past whether to
use Zone 1 or Zone 2 as the number of Fidonet's zone in a unified structure.
Ok, so you agree that merging/changing zones is not -currently- a
good idea.
On the contrary, but I'm being naive. Removing the zone structure
wouldn't remove long-standing geographic feuds, which gets tiresome.
Those feuds would continue unabated.
But back to your zone merge suggestion. What would be gain from that change, other than having only one ZC? (be it Belgian, Canadian, Russian or whatever...)
What makes you think, that merging Zones is viable, in a network, where
merging nets seems almost impossible, although it is suggested in policy.
Been there, done that (R20 - R23 -> R20) and it went without a glitch. Except of course that one of the hosts keep complaining about how I
handle the nodelist segment for R20... :-)
Merging nets means changing node numbers.
But back to your zone merge suggestion. What would be gain from
that change, other than having only one ZC? (be it Belgian,
Canadian, Russian or whatever...)
What makes you think, that merging Zones is viable, in a network,
where merging nets seems almost impossible, although it is suggested
in policy.
You see, the way it worked in the beginning was really simple.
First there was node number 1. Then there was node number 2 ...
Then, why are networks/regions neccessary?
You do realize, I hope, that the majority of sysops 'are' Russian
... ? :-)
I don't care what nationality the ZC is, as long as there's some semblance of rules followed. At the end of the day, this is just a hobby.
for the dumbfucks to rule over their little digital kingdom. fidonet was always about status and power and was killed by it ...
So what. It was never a problem to the previous RC28. Nor to the
previous ZC2. Even though it invalidated some payware licences.
Then, why are networks/regions neccessary?
for the dumbfucks to rule over their little digital kingdom. fidonet was always about status and power and was killed by it ...
So what. It was never a problem to the previous RC28. Nor to the
previous ZC2. Even though it invalidated some payware licences.
Ron Dwight ?
On 16/06/2021 08:20, 1124/5016 wrote:
I have a feeling that most sysops don't really care as long as echomail and
netmail flows. The main problem faced by most sysops is a lack of users.
Fidonet is pretty much set it and forget it if you do it properly. Personally, I don't care if there's 1 zone or 6 zones. I do care that my netmail will
reach Inner Mongolia :)
Since you first became node listed how many netmails have you had the urge to send to Inner Mongolia?
So what. It was never a problem to the previous RC28. Nor to the Kv>Kv>> previous ZC2. Even though it invalidated some payware licences.
Ron Dwight ?
And your friend Jan.
And your friend Jan.
The previous RC28 was someone else...
Carlos Navarro wrote to Kurt Weiske <=-
Can you remember when and in what echo was this discussed? I'd like to read that if I can find it somewhere.
Ok, so you agree that merging/changing zones is not -currently- a
good idea.
On the contrary, but I'm being naive. Removing the zone structure
wouldn't remove long-standing geographic feuds, which gets tiresome.
Those feuds would continue unabated.
I thought that was a thing of the past. AFAIK we don't have those in
zone 2 (though I don't know for sure).
But back to your zone merge suggestion. What would be gain from that change, other than having only one ZC? (be it Belgian, Canadian,
Russian or whatever...)
Carlos
--- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20180707
* Origin: Costa Blanca, Spain (2:341/234.1)
@TZUTC: -0700
@MSGID: 70543.fidonews@1:218/700 2536e5a8
@REPLY: 2:341/234.1 60cda374
@PID: Synchronet 3.19a-Win32 master/b81540481 May 18 2021 MSC 1928
@TID: SBBSecho 3.14-Win32 master/b81540481 May 18 2021 MSC 1928
@BBSID: REALITY
@CHRS: ASCII 1
Carlos Navarro wrote to Kurt Weiske <=-
Can you remember when and in what echo was this discussed? I'd
like to read that if I can find it somewhere.
It might have been this one.
Ok, so you agree that merging/changing zones is not -currently-
a good idea.
No, I think it's a good idea, but I think it's an uphill battle to implement.
I'd like to see a Fidonet with active nodes, a simpler structure reflective of the smaller size and lack of need for dialup to move
packets and an echolist where dead echoes are dropped or consolidated
into other echoes to create fewer echoes with more message traffic.
On the contrary, but I'm being naive. Removing the zone structure
wouldn't remove long-standing geographic feuds, which gets
tiresome. Those feuds would continue unabated.
I thought that was a thing of the past. AFAIK we don't have those
in zone 2 (though I don't know for sure).
There's still a lot of sniping between zones, maybe not so much within zones.
But back to your zone merge suggestion. What would be gain from
that change, other than having only one ZC? (be it Belgian,
Canadian, Russian or whatever...)
Carlos
--- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20180707
* Origin: Costa Blanca, Spain (2:341/234.1)
... Where are we? When are we? Is this now?
--- MultiMail/DOS v0.52
* Origin: http://realitycheckbbs.org | tomorrow's retro tech
(1:218/700)
SEEN-BY: 10/0 1 30/0 80/1 102/401 103/17 705 154/10 214/22 218/0 1 401
410
SEEN-BY: 218/501 700 720 802 810 830 840 850 860 221/1 6 229/426
240/12 1120
SEEN-BY: 240/1512 1634 1895 8001 8002 8005 261/38 280/464 5003 5555 282/464
SEEN-BY: 292/854 301/0 1 101 113 123 812 303/0 313/41 335/364 341/66
371/0 52
SEEN-BY: 380/5 382/147 712/848 920/1 2432/390 5020/1042 5058/104
@PATH: 218/700 301/1 240/1120 371/0
| Sysop: | Eric Oulashin |
|---|---|
| Location: | Beaverton, Oregon, USA |
| Users: | 91 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 00:28:02 |
| Calls: | 3,608 |
| Calls today: | 8 |
| Files: | 8,468 |
| Messages: | 337,093 |