herald.usask.ca.UUCP (Kevin Lowey,PHYS 56,3069664826,3062493232) (02/03/90)
From article <=B1HP+@rpi.edu>, by tale@cs.rpi.edu (David C Lawrence): For the people in the OS/2 newsgroup. I've posted this to explain what happens when off-topic messages appear in Fidonet. This is to reassure you that these problems ARE addressed and not just ignored. It is posted in response to a message in the Usenet NEWS.ADMIN newsgroup. Please do not reply to this in the OS/2 newsgroup and clutter it up, instead send private mail to me about it. The quoted message below was in response to a suggestion that FIDONET specific messages should have a "Distribution: Fidonet" tag added so that Fidonet specific messages are not passed on to the Usenet side. > I admittedly don't understand FidoNET that well, so I'll ask about this > -- how likely is it that someone who originates an article on FidoNET > will put some tag on it that says, "Don't make this go beyond the > FidoNET. Don't gateway it to USENET."? I'd say not very likely. It > seems that people on FidoNET echos view them in a very different light > from readers of USENET newsgroups. > Having FidoNET users put on distribution classifications which were > respected by FidoNET gateway sites probably won't happen. Having the > gateway sites add "Distribution: fidonet" would be equally ineffective. I'm sure many of the responsible Fidonet users would use such a system, if it were possible. Unfortunately, it simply is NOT possible for the existing gateway software (at least the UFgate software that I am familiar with) to add ANYTHING to the headers outside of what is built into UFGATE. First, the mail systems used to enter the messages don't even know of the gateway, let alone things like "Distribution" tags. There is no way for the user to enter the tag into their message at the source. Also, the software (UFGATE in my case) only puts in enough tags to make it fit the uucp mail standard (things like FROM, ORGANIZATION, etc.) but it does NOT have the ability to add other tags which are not built into UFGATE. There is no way to add the Distribution tag at the gateway. So the bottom line is it just ain't possible, even though I agree it would be a nice idea. As for off topic messages in the newsgroup, rest assured that FIDONET frowns on off-topic messages as much as Usenet. Perhaps even more because FIDONET is usually run from small systems that don't like large telephone bills caused by garbage. Each "echomail area" (newsgroup) in Fidonet has a moderator associated with it. Whenever off topic articles appear, the moderator sends private mail to the poster explaining that it isn't a good idea. If the messages persist, then the moderator sends mail to the sysop of the BBS telling him to remove echomail access for the individual. If the sysop does not comply, then the moderator can have that sysop's echomail access cut. In the case of gateways, this is even more secure, as both the moderator AND the gateway system (if they are different people) send private messages to the person abusing the system. I know that we have had a few problems in the gateway I have set up between the Fidonet OS/2 echomail area, and the comp.os.os2 newsgroup. However, this gateway has only been in effect for a week. Because of distribution delays, there are some people on Fidonet that don't even know the gateway exists yet. Given time, (the one month trial period in effect now) I'm sure the problem will decrease drastically. -- Kevin Lowey -- Gateway moderator for Fido OS/2 <==> comp.os.os2 gateway
rick@ofa123.FIDONET.ORG (Rick Ellis) (02/03/90)
In a message David C Lawrence writes: >I admittedly don't understand FidoNET that well, so I'll ask about this >-- how likely is it that someone who originates an article on FidoNET >will put some tag on it that says, "Don't make this go beyond the >FidoNET. Don't gateway it to USENET."? I'd say not very likely. It >seems that people on FidoNET echos view them in a very different light >from readers of USENET newsgroups. The biggest technical problem would be that FidoNet doesn't have any kind of distribution tags. >Having FidoNET users put on distribution classifications which were >respected by FidoNET gateway sites probably won't happen. At least not very often. FidoNet is mostly made up of public access BBS systems. No matter how hard you try to educate the users... -- Rick Ellis ...!{dhw68k,conexch}!ofa123!rick rick@ofa123.FIDONET.ORG 714 544-0934 2400/1200/300 [PCP: CASAN]
cks@white.toronto.edu (Chris Siebenmann) (02/06/90)
Ah, welcome to the wild and wooly world of Usenet<->something gateways. tlimonce@drunivac.drew.edu writes: [someone else complains about the cultural differences between Fidonet sites and mainstream Usenet people.] | If you gateway groups that already exist, just gateway them. One of the problems with connecting Fidonet and Usenet is a social one; Fidonet is a much more "interactive" and off-the-cuff place than Usenet people are used to. Fidonet users are prone to use a public message where Useneters would send email (often because users are charged for email but not public messages). Usenet readers often dislike having what they percieve as a horde of immature thoughtless people asking basic questions and chattering back and forth dumped into their nice, calm newsgroups. Fidonet people are undoubtedly annoyed at this bunch of stuck-up people who think that just because they have bigger systems they're better. The problem is compounded by the difficulties in getting email back and forth, and the volume of new users. Ultimately, there is no solution except education; someone has to change. Personally, I think it should be the Fidonet side; a good first pass would be to insist that without lots of though, Fidonet gateways create new conferences/echomail areas for Usenet groups and not gateway them into existing conferences. That way Fidonet people have a chance to realize that the cultures are differenct, and to adopt. | If you gateway it at multiple places just make sure | the Message-ID isn't lost. No body will complain. The last time I looked, Fidonet didn't have the idea of message-id; they prevent routing loops by very carefully controlling their network topology. Anyone gatewaying a Fidonet echomail area into Usenet and vice-versa should make VERY sure they're the only person doing this. [talks about the problems of gatewaying a newsgroup into a mailing list and then gatewaying the mailing list into another newsgroup.] | 1 -- Keeps the old Message-ID's: Then the messages won't | appear in both comp.os.vms AND bit.listserv.info-vax because | the Newsgroups: line doesn't include crossposting info (i.e. | the first message to arrive [b.l.i or c.o.v] actually gets | posted... the other gets JUNK'ed). The problem with this is that if you have a downstream feed that takes only comp.os.vms from you, they'll suddenly see maybe half the volume that should "really" be there. In the long run, the solution is to merge the mailing list and the newsgroup, and only have people on the mailing list who can't get the newsgroup. -- "I shall clasp my hands together and bow to the corners of the world." Number Ten Ox, "Bridge of Birds" cks@white.toronto.edu ...!{utgpu,utzoo,watmath}!utcsri!white!cks
geoffw@xenitec.on.ca (Geoffrey Welsh dialin account) (02/08/90)
In article <90Feb5.185126est.27351@snow.white.toronto.edu> cks@white.toronto.edu (Chris Siebenmann) writes: >| If you gateway it at multiple places just make sure >| the Message-ID isn't lost. No body will complain. > > The last time I looked, Fidonet didn't have the idea of message-id; >they prevent routing loops by very carefully controlling their network >topology. Anyone gatewaying a Fidonet echomail area into Usenet and >vice-versa should make VERY sure they're the only person doing this. That's not entirely true, but it's safest to assume that there's no limit to what gateways will do when munging mail. If the Net is interested (which I doubt), I'll give details on how FidoNet deals with duplicate messages... but it suffices to say that a mechanism does exist (and, ironically, it sometimes kills legit "first-run" postings copied from Usenet groups!). I presume that you are speaking on the subject of FidoNet because no one else here is... thanks! I will probably be jumping on anything that refers to Fido (even in passing) for the next while. UUCP: watmath!xenitec!zswamp!root | 602-66 Mooregate Crescent Internet: root@zswamp.fidonet.org | Kitchener, Ontario FidoNet: SYSOP, 1:221/171 | N2M 5E6 CANADA Data: (519) 742-8939 | (519) 741-9553
cyrill@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM (Cyro Lord) (02/14/90)
I wish to add to this that I haven't heard the real problem talked
about yet. We have a FIDO<>USENET gateway here and receive message
that will only work with uucp transfers. You can mail/send a message
with out 'lf' 'cr' or what ever from our site to a internet site without
a hands on problem. These messages must be downloaded to a pc, and broken
up into 80 character lines before being mailed as digests to/through
internet sites or overseas. UFgate doesn't address this problem and it
should. (Since the author of UFgate is on both nets, (FIDO and UNIX) he
should be aware of this problem. Let hope this can be fixed soon.
-Cyro
--
<---------------------------++++++++++++++++++----------------------------->
Cyro Lord Alpha Comm. Dev. Corp. - DOMAIN cyrill@scicom.alphacdc.com
UUCP {ncar,nbires,boulder,isis}!scicom!cyrill
Endeavor to Persevere - Chief Dan George