|From||Lee Lofaso||2:203/2.0||Date Write||2018-09-16 03:13:00|
|To||Nick Andre||0:0/0.0||Date Arrived||2018-09-16 04:20:20|
|Subj||NAB vs FidoWeb|
DG>I'm new here (well new back here after a break of a couple
DG>What's Fidoweb and NAB? I've seen it talked about the last
NA>The North American Backbone (NAB) is the traditional tree-topology
NA>distribution comprising of a few "star systems" control distribution
NA>and assignment of Echomail areas.
NA>The FidoWeb is a peering/meshing model where any number of nodes
NA>are free to connect to any other node for redundancy, eliminating
Since the North American Backbone (NAB) is redundant and no longer
needed or necessary, why it is still around? Especially since it has
been effectively replaced by the FidoWeb, which enables all sysops
(and probationary sysops) from around the world (regardless of zone)
to do so with no intermediaries?
Since no private echolist has any official status in FidoNet, why
does Zone 1 continue to use Ben Ritchey's private echolist as if it
was the official echolist of everything?
This is the Fidonews Echo. Area tag: FIDONEWS
The Fidonews editor, as listed in the nodelist and in the banner of
the most recent issue of the Fidonews weekly publication, is the
permanent moderator of this echo.
Fidonews Editor, 2:2/2, Moderator
Please note the origin of the FIDONEWS echo. The same one
that I am posting this message in.
Compare that with your vaunted "echolist" that is maintained
by Ben Ritchey. Note the inaccuracies. Specifically the entry
for the FIDONEWS echo, the moderator listed, and the origin.
But hey. Since no private echolist has any official status
in FidoNet, folks can play with the echolist(s) of their choice
and do with them what they will.
Isn't that right? Please correct me if I am wrong.
As for me, I'll just create my own. With pencil and paper.
That way I will not have to worry about a computer crash.
This message has been approved by Lee Lofaso.
Pork. The One You Love.
* Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)