Editorial

Echomail Saga
By Frank Vest

I asked a simple question in an echo. It was in innocence and I thought it would be answered simply and over with. Not in Fidonet. :-))

The subject was about how the distribution systems in Zone 1 work in regards to how they "mesh" with each other, the hierarchy, "Who's Who", and such.

Up to the point that I dropped the conversation, it has been fairly civil in that echo on the subject. I'd like to thank the participants for that and also thank the Moderators for allowing the conversation to happen in the echo, which is, BTW, not really `on topic' for that echo.

I've had thoughts for some time about the distribution systems in Zone 1. There are two or three, dependant on how you look at it. So, I asked the following questions;

"Real question to me is: Why does Fidonet Zone 1 need a tier??... better yet, why does Fidonet Zone 1 need three distribution systems."

Answer: Terminology. Different systems call their members by different terms... IE: Tier1, 2 ... ZHub, RHub ....

"Another real question to me is why are there three separate lists of echos for Fidonet in Zone 1? Why not have one official list and all carry it?"

The common answer, from all sides, to this question seems to be, `Zone 1 doesn't need multiple distribution systems for echomail' and `politics'.

I have been in this conversation via the echo and via Netmail. Some feared that I was receiving one side of a story and believing that side only. Far from it. I was gathering information in the only way I know how or can. I ask questions and read answers.

As this plays out.... from my point of view....

There are three echomail distribution systems in Zone 1. Some discount one of those because it carries a lot of multi-lingual echos. I can't discount that since, 1.) It carries much the same echos as the other Z1 distribution systems, 2.) What does language differences have to do with distribution?

It is mentioned that the distribution systems, while separate, have "bridge" Node(s) that may or may not be part of each system but act as a connection between the systems.

To me, that is a weak place in the echomail distribution. since a break there will kill echomail for one half to one third of Z1 depending on the number of Nodes linked to each distribution system and such.

It is mentioned that Fidonet is a network.

Duh... Yes. :)

As such, there are tiers in the network. Some are above others in some fashion due to how the network is set up. The "rank" in this setup is strictly technical and has nothing to do with power. Ok... let's look at that.

Fidonet, I believe, is a peer to peer network. All Nodes in this Fidonet network can connect to every other Node equally. I'm not saying that each Node does or has to connect to every other Node, only that they can connect to each other where and if desired. That's a peer to peer?

When things such as top level and other titles are inserted into this peer to peer network, it becomes something else. The "equal" goes away and there is a "power" based on who can connect to who for what reason and where do these connections fit into the "rank" of the system. Then, there are divisions due to technical situations. One hub feeds this side and one hub feeds that side due to the demand. It is now a "Client/Server" system. It can still be peer to peer in the respect that anyone can connect to anyone else for one or all echos, but there is a change that takes place.

I'm not a network technician and I don't know a lot about networks or some other things. What I do see, however, is how the above plays out in the real world with people.

Take Fidonet and set it up as a peer to peer. Then add people to operate the systems on this peer to peer network. Now, add in some people that decide to set up a distribution system and make a "client/server" system for the network to increase efficiency. Remember that this can be and still is a peer to peer network in the respect that each Node can connect to any other Node. In fact, the people that set up the "client/server" system are peers to one another in some respects.

Good idea and it can work. The problem comes in when you start dealing with the "human" factor. Put personalities into play and other human things and we end up with problems. One doesn't like another and a word is said that doesn't set well and there is a disagreement between two hubs about something and the next thing we know, there is a split. Now we have two distribution systems doing the same thing separately. How do they interact? A bridge system that can and will work with both.

Time passes and there is another disagreement, another split and another bridge. More time and more disagreements and more bridges and so forth.

This may not sound like a real problem until you realize that these bridges are stacking up on top of each other, the distribution systems are stacking up and the weight is growing. Given time, there will be one distribution system for each Node. In other words, each Node will be it's own distribution system and will bridge to every other Node. Can you say Peer to Peer? You should... That's what we end up with. :-)

Ok, so what's so bad about this? The trouble that is caused in getting from point A to point A. Huh?!? "Point A to Point A"?!? Yes. We have gone nowhere and caused/had a lot of trouble in the process.

Depending on how this happens to play out, we could go from point A to -point A. If every Node ends up as its own distribution system and bridge because of some disagreements and all the distribution systems refuse to cooperate with each other and the bridges, which are the distribution systems which are the Nodes, refuse to cooperate with each other, the Fidonet peer to peer network dies.

Take a look around. See anything familiar?

I'm not saying that multiple distribution systems are wrong. I'm just saying:

Forget about the top level, mesh this and that, titles and such.

Look at the Elist. Find the echos that are listed as distributed via Fidonet.

Forget about the multi language stuff. If it's not in your language and you don't want it, don't subscribe to it.

Check for "private" echos. IE: Regional, administrative and such.

In case there is a question if the echo is "private" or admin. or such, ask the Moderator.

Check with the Moderators to find out if they wish to have their echo listed and distributed via fidonet.na

---= Rules =---

1. If the echo is listed as a Fidonet echo and the Moderator wants it distributed, by gum!, it's distributed. Period.
2. If a person feeding someone doesn't want to carry an echo, get it from somewhere else.
3. No power allowed. No Titles allowed.
4. If other distribution systems wish to continue operation, fine. Go for it.
5. If some want to charge for service, no problem. If some want to pay for service, no problem. Just don't bitch about the service to anyone except the person or "distribution system" you pay to.
6. This is a hobby. There are no guarantees given, implied or expressed.
7. Drop the politics!

---= End of Rules =---

Regards,

Frank Vest, Fidonews Editor