FIDONet policies

>If a user sends a "private message", the user has no control over the number
>of intermediate systems through which that message is routed.  A sysop who
>sends a message to another sysop can control this aspect by sending the
>message direct to the recipient's system, thus guaranteeing that only the
>recipient or another individual to whom that sysop has given authorization
>can read the message.  Thus, a sysop may have different expectations than a
>casual user.

translated: we have a hierarchy of rights. sysop-gods have a right and
expectation to private mail. the user-peons have neither.

>Disclosing or in any way using information contained in private netmail
>traffic not addressed to you or written by you is considered annoying
>behavior, unless the traffic has been released by the author or the recipient
>as a part of a formal policy complaint.

"annoying behavior" -- what a cute PC euphemism. who's the idiot
academic who came up with that? try "moral & ethical bankruptcy" instead.

>As far as I can tell, the ability (perhaps the right) to fuss around in
>other folks' business and other folks' mail is one of the factors (along
>with the ability to create and enforce any number of rules and regulations)
>which makes people think it's fun to run a BBS.

the "paternal paranoia instinct". ask wells or kleinpaste for a lecture on it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To find out more about the anon service, send mail to help@anon.penet.fi.
Due to the double-blind, any mail replies to this message will be anonymized,
and an anonymous id will be allocated automatically. You have been warned.
Please report any problems, inappropriate use etc. to admin@anon.penet.fi.

In article <9310010728.AA15983@anon.penet.fi> you write:
> >If a user sends a "private message", the user has no control over the number
> >of intermediate systems through which that message is routed.  A sysop who
> >sends a message to another sysop can control this aspect by sending the
> >message direct to the recipient's system, thus guaranteeing that only the
> >recipient or another individual to whom that sysop has given authorization
> >can read the message.  Thus, a sysop may have different expectations than a
> >casual user.
> 
> translated: we have a hierarchy of rights. sysop-gods have a right and
> expectation to private mail. the user-peons have neither.

Translated back to the real world:  The sysop can always choose to pay
for a direct connect to deliver mail items directly from his machine to
the target machine, rather than route mail through intermediate systems.

That priveledge, (and this is the important bit, so I'll shout) AND THE
COST of providing such a facility may or may not be extended to customers
of the system.

FIDONet is, in general, payed for out of the pockets of ordinary folks.

A typical BBS system is owned by an ordinary folk (bad singular), who
owns the system. It's their system, they make the rules (what internet
folks call "Acceptable Use Policy") that customers of the service have
to abide by.

If the Sysop wants his stand alone BBS to join an network (ANY NETWORK),
then their system has to abide by the Acceptable Use Policy of that network.

If a customer of a service doesn't like a service (any service), he
can:
    (a) put up and shut up
    (b) go to somewhere that does provide satisfaction
    (c) start his own service on the basis there is a market opportunity

The bottom line of communications is: someone has to pay for it.

You're sitting out there, shouting from an anonymous remailer, access to
which somebody else probably paid for anyway, about things of which you
have little comprehension.  If you feel FIDONet policy is wrong, and you
want to do something about it, get involved.  Otherwise, don't use
FIDOnet, and don't just winge.

(Never thought I'd have to get into this kind of discussion in a high
quality mailing list like this one.  Please note none of the above is
intended as a statement of support for FIDOnet politics, which are as
<fill in your choice of description here> as internet politics...)

----------------------------------------+------------------------------------
David Buckley of Electric Solutions Ltd | Email: dbuckley@cix.compulink.co.uk
 Services to the Computing,Electronics  |        dbuckley@esl-hub.demon.co.uk
  and Entertainment industries.         |        2:254/90@fidonet
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------