I would hope that much of what you see in messages that doesn't meet thati
simply people trying features out, and what doesn't work for Fidonet willg
away.
As ZC1 although I do not regulate Echomail, I am nonetheless receiving some
Netmail thats beginning to have a familiar theme:
- "What is this stupid Telegram bullshit? Who was the genius behind
this?"
- "I do not want my messages crossing over to Telegram servers"
- "I did not agree to Telegram's ToS nor even sign up for an account"
- "How do I opt out of this? Can you please do something about it?"
I'm curious to hear suggestions as to how I should respond to these.
Nick
As ZC1 although I do not regulate Echomail, I am nonetheless receiving some Netmail thats beginning to have a familiar theme:
- "What is this stupid Telegram bullshit? Who was the genius behind this?"- "I do not want my messages crossing over to Telegram servers"
- "I did not agree to Telegram's ToS nor even sign up for an account"
- "How do I opt out of this? Can you please do something about it?"
I'm curious to hear suggestions as to how I should respond to these.
I'm curious to hear suggestions as to how I should respond to these.
Are they gating netmail by any chance?
Not that I know of, but its not sitting well with some. Just the idea
that youcan post something in Fido and its ending up on some weird Internet platform they've never heard of.
I do not understand why dedicated echoes were not set up for this
purpose or even a whole seperate Othernet.
If people are concerned about Telegram's TOS, they should contact the moderators of the echo(s) in question and voice theur complaints. If the moderator fails to take action, vote him/her out!
I can understand gating echos to other nets using the same technology and a but as much as I think most of the winers on Fidonet suck, I don't they we should infect the rest of the world with their suckiness.
I hereby approve of region 12 infecting the rest of the network with 27 newnets; provided I get 27 lovely Oshawa girlfriends each with 27 sock puppets.
I hereby approve of region 12 infecting the rest of the network with 27 newnets; provided I get 27 lovely Oshawa girlfriends each with 27 sock puppets.
Sorry bud, the ZC is a glorified phonebook publisher according to P4, it's RC's sole discretion if a new net is formed in a Region. So I'm putting my foot down and we will have 27 new nets in the region.
Are they gating netmail by any chance?
I hereby approve of region 12 infecting the rest of the network with 2 newnets; provided I get 27 lovely Oshawa girlfriends each with 27 sock puppets.
I could provide some Barton Street Lovelies if the dirty 'shwas fall throug
I could provide some Barton Street Lovelies if the dirty 'shwas fall through.
So what you're saying.... is that I won't get the sock puppets.
I've played with it a little bit, you can send/receive netmail via Telegramusing the TGID on the Telegram side.
So what you're saying.... is that I won't get the sock puppets.
Correct. More importantly, how has this discussion moved to the Z1C echo?
Its an infection. Better run Norton.
This echo is suppose to be an echo where we contact the great supreme phone book guy and that is you so why the fuck not.
Then I looked into this company out of NY that supposedly markets a virtual-dialup-modem product. As in, virtualizes the connection and
likely involved some sort of hackjob Astricks thing. They said a sales
rep would reach back with at least three others CC'd on the email
thread. Anytime you have that amount of people on a thread I knew they likely wanted an obsceneamount of money for it.
If it's the same outfit I'm thinking of out of Buffalo then they only suppo Fax connections.
I have my own asterisk server and the best I can seem to get somewhat stabl is 1200 which work about 75% of the time.
Pretty sure it was. I'd have to copy-n-paste from my bookmarks but
please excuse me for being momentarily lazy at the moment. Why just fax,
I wonder.
Something to do with the error correction that the faxing protocol has buil it. Remember, faxing ITU standards came well after the typical data standar
Speaking of phones, to answer your recent pondering question about
modems and Voip in Scinet, if I understood it to be a ponder, is yes - I had my BBS dialup line on Magicjack for a short time, then a Grandstream HT502. Wasnever able to achieve any stable connections beyond 2400 baud.
I had pretty good luck using voip.ms and Cisco SPA112 ATA. I was able to d in and connect at around 36,400. There was a bit of line noise now & then it still worked.
- "What is this stupid Telegram bullshit? Who was the genius behind this?"
- "I do not want my messages crossing over to Telegram servers"
- "I did not agree to Telegram's ToS nor even sign up for an account"
- "How do I opt out of this? Can you please do something about it?"
I'm curious to hear suggestions as to how I should respond to these.
Personally, I don't like it. What happens on Fidonet should stay in Fidonet
While Telegraph may add traffic, it's not encouraging people to connect to bulletin boards.
Agreed also. The thing is, is that if a Sysop doesn't like this
Telegram
stuff, he/she must complain to the moderator. Its opting-out of
something that
now by default opts everyone in... unless one is techie enough to
read an
Elist or something that clearly states the echo is being gated.
On 17 Nov 20 07:37, Nick Andre wrote to Nigel Reed:
Agreed also. The thing is, is that if a Sysop doesn't like this Telegram
stuff, he/she must complain to the moderator. Its opting-out of something that
now by default opts everyone in... unless one is techie enough to
read an
Elist or something that clearly states the echo is being gated.
Let's burn the Fido2Telegram gateway to the ground.
In case you were wondering, the following echos have already been added to Telegram. Now I've been told that they would get permission from the moderators first, so either the Moderators of the echos below have already said yes, or someone on the Telegram team is being less than truthful with us.
Now available via Telegram for your smartphone/tablet:
Re: Re: Telegram
By: Fred Riccio to All on Tue Nov 17 2020 06:15 pm
I've been told that they would get permission from the moderators
I was asked and I gave my permission.
Telegram is just another way for folks to access echoes.
Now available via Telegram for your smartphone/tablet:
I don't see a problem, am I missing something?
As a user of two of the echos you moderate, thank you for signing away my rights without even asking.
See you at the next moderator election!
What that line, copied from another echo, neglects to say is that those echos are on the web, and available to any device (or Bot) that supports HTTP!
Ever hear of privacy?
If you had polled the users you represent you would have heard other reasons NOT to give permission.
Netsurge wrote to Nick Andre <=-
Let's burn the Fido2Telegram gateway to the ground.
I was trying and succeeding in getting real traffic going on COFFEE_KLATSCH, and now it's swamped with Telegram messages.
Sure, some of them are content-ful, but the number of posts with an image link or otherwise low-ratio posts does more harm than good.
I think the moderators need to step up, and if they take issue with
it, change their echo listings to disallow gating.
It seems like a handful of moderators control the majority of the echoes, it might be worth reaching out to them to see what they think.
I don't see any gating in this case. Does it make a difference if someone i using telix or telegram, or https or telnet or something else? These messag are fidonet from start to finish. The rules of COFFEE_KLATSCH do disallow gating because I don't want any gates.
I don't see any gating in this case. Does it make a difference if
someone isusing telix or telegram, or https or telnet or something else? These messagesare fidonet from start to finish. The rules of COFFEE_KLATSCH do disallowgating because I don't want any gates.
The messages are NOT Fidonet start-to-finish on Telegram. The messages are being gated - yes, gated - from Stas's BBS to a commercial Internet platform with questionable terms-of-service, we don't know how the messages are stored, what privacy controls are in place, not to mention Telegram has been hacked before.
By allowing your echoes to be gated from that BBS to a commercial Internet platform, you are signing away the privacy of all the users exchanging conversation as nobody has a clue how Telegram is using that data nor did anyone agree to have their messages gated.
The fact that you as a moderator clearly overlooked this for convenience over privacy/preference of the users is very telling and I have now several Netmails from Sysops complaining about it, even though I'm not a part of the Nab or Elist or whatever.
Whats so hard to understand that Fidonet users prefer Fidonet messages to stay... on Fidonet?
Why couldn't this Telegram nonsense stay in its own dedicated chat echoes or its own dedicated net? I would of totally supported that.
To Nick's point, Telegram is storing these messages and in turn has full control of them to do as they see fit unlike something like fidonet messages being gated to say Usenet.
Re: Re: Telegram
By: Frank Linhares to Alan Ianson on Wed Nov 18 2020 06:16 pm
To Nick's point, Telegram is storing these messages and in turn has full control of them to do as they see fit unlike something like fidonet messages being gated to say Usenet.
If Telegram proves to be problematic I'll reconsider but I don't see a problem.
Since you seem to be one of the people most up on Telegram, how about telling me more about it? Who runs it, what is is, what does it cost, etc., etc.,
On 11-18-20 07:49, Fred Riccio <=-
spoke to Alan Ianson about Re: Telegram <=-
Telegram is just another way for folks to access echoes.
Now available via Telegram for your smartphone/tablet:
What that line, copied from another echo, neglects to say
is that those echos are on the web, and available to any
device (or Bot) that supports HTTP!
Re: Re: Telegram
By: Nick Andre to Alan Ianson on Wed Nov 18 2020 05:31 pm
The messages are NOT Fidonet start-to-finish on Telegram. The messages are >> being gated - yes, gated - from Stas's BBS to a commercial Internet
platform with questionable terms-of-service, we don't know how the
messages are stored, what privacy controls are in place, not to mention
Telegram has been hacked before.
Telegram is an interface to the message bases. When people read or write messages they do so in fidonet message areas.
It does happen that these are not Jam/Squish/*.MSG message bases on a system's >hard drive, they are stored and served on a telegram server in the middle. Doe
that harm us somehow?
By allowing your echoes to be gated from that BBS to a commercial Internet >> platform, you are signing away the privacy of all the users exchanging
conversation as nobody has a clue how Telegram is using that data nor did
anyone agree to have their messages gated.
Do we want privacy in echo areas? Do we have privacy now in echo areas?
I am not a telegram user myself but I'll try to sum it up for you the way I understand it.[,,,]
I personally, have no complaints.
The echos are Fidonet based as in that they use Fidonet as a distribution medium.
As Fidonet system operators and/or moderators we are able to know what path is used for distribution an what node/systems are involved.
When and if the echos are gated then we as moderators loose that ability.
I as a moderator clearly state in the echos that I moderate any and all gating of the echo(s) is not permitted without prior permission.
If I had an interest in using the "Telegram" distribution I would create echos for use in that transport medium.
While Telegraph may add traffic, it's not encouraging people to
connect to our bulletin boards.
As noted, we're all just nodelist maintainers here... :)
I don't see any gating in this case. Does it make a difference if
someone is using telix or telegram, or https or telnet or something
else? These messages are fidonet from start to finish. The rules of COFFEE_KLATSCH do disallow gating because I don't want any gates.
I was not expecting complaints and was surprised yesterday to read
Nick say he was getting complaints.
ummm, the name and the job of the telegram gateway is gating... isn't it?? ;)
it is specifically converting FTN formatted messages to telegram formatted messages and passing them over the telegram network... messages crossing the gateway into a FTN are converted to FTN format for further transmission... in fidonet, the moderators are the ones that determine what happens with and in their echos...
Users on the telegram side are reading and writing fidonet. No othernets or internets (aside from the technicalities) are involved. It is very much a f system Stas has/is putting together.
All messages gated from Stas's system are subject to the privacy/EULA/TOS of that commercial Internet service; and thats what is the valid complaint from some users and Sysops. Its gating. To a commercial platform. Period.
Q: How are you going to make money out of this?
We believe in fast and secure messaging that is also 100% free.
Pavel Durov, who shares our vision, supplied Telegram with a generous donat
I don't think we here in fidonet need to be concerned about telegram's TOS. are not using it. Users of telegram might. I couldn't find a TOS at telegram.org. A telegram user could answer this question better than me.
On 11-18-20 20:47, Alan Ianson <=-
spoke to Dallas Hinton about Telegram <=-
Telegram is a messaging application. It's largest market share is in
smart phones and tablets as far as I know although it can be used
on a PC as well and I think from a web site. It's a way to
send/recieve messages without a BBS, mailer or FTN
software. It's handy and convenient.
Any person who can access a web browser can send and receive messages without having a BBS, mailer or FTN software. That has been true for several decades. They do so by logging in as a user on a BBS that
runs that sort of service, e.g. Doc's Place.
Who is Pavel Durov. How do I contact him? Does he have a Fido address?
We don't need to be concerned about Usenet either, but users might.
I love your apparent total ignorance on this; you have clearly not researched this before agreeing to it. Again - Messages pass through a service users and Sysops have no idea how thats being manipulated or used. "Pavel" has a "vision" but I guarantee you he doesn't even know what Fido is.
How do you plan to moderate your echoes that pass through this wonderful gate?
Please explain to me the difference between gating to Telegram versus gating to Usenet? You mentioned before you don't like gating. Why does Telegram suddenly get a magical free pass?
As ZC1 although I do not regulate Echomail, I am nonetheless receiving some Netmail thats beginning to have a familiar theme:
- "What is this stupid Telegram bullshit? Who was the genius behind
this?" - "I do not want my messages crossing over to Telegram servers"
- "I did not agree to Telegram's ToS nor even sign up for an account"
- "How do I opt out of this? Can you please do something about it?"
I'm curious to hear suggestions as to how I should respond to these.
What that line, copied from another echo, neglects to say is that those echos are on the web, and available to any device (or Bot) that supports
I was trying and succeeding in getting real traffic going on
COFFEE_KLATSCH, and now it's swamped with Telegram messages. Sure,
some of them are content-ful, but the number of posts with an image
link or otherwise low-ratio posts does more harm than good.
I think the moderators need to step up, and if they take issue with
it, change their echo listings to disallow gating. It seems like a
handful of moderators control the majority of the echoes, it might be
worth reaching out to them to see what they think.
I don't think telegram is a commercial platform. This is a copy & paste from the FAQ at telegram.org.
I use and prefer a traditional BBS myself and I plan to keep my own BBS online. The thing with BBSing is that I need a desktop computer in front of me. If I was away from my computer but had a tablet with me I could
use telegram to read and reply to messages in fidonet.
That's the biggest one for me. Personally I prefer to log in to my BBS and read and respond to messages there. Not a big fan of offline readers, etc. P{roblem with that is that I work so much it can be weeks at a time before I get a chance to get home and do that. This offers me a chance to read and respond when I am away from home.
Netsurge wrote:But how will they communicate?
On 17 Nov 20 07:37, Nick Andre wrote to Nigel Reed: NA> AgreedLuddites unite!
also. The thing is, is that if a Sysop doesn't like this NA>
Telegram NA> stuff, he/she must complain to the moderator. Its
opting-out of NA> something that NA> now by default opts
everyone in... unless one is techie enough to NA> read an NA>
Elist or something that clearly states the echo is being gated.
Let's burn the Fido2Telegram gateway to the ground.
I have a similar issue. I do use (and am posting this with) HotdogED, which works incredibly well for a mobile platform, but does take some work to get set up, and is not free. (but is quite cheap)I use and prefer a traditional BBS myself and I plan to keep myThat's the biggest one for me. Personally I prefer to log in to my
own BBS online. The thing with BBSing is that I need a desktop
computer in front of me. If I was away from my computer but had a
tablet with me I could use telegram to read and reply to messages
in fidonet.
BBS and read and respond to messages there. Not a big fan of
offline readers, etc. P{roblem with that is that I work so much it
can be weeks at a time before I get a chance to get home and do
that. This offers me a chance to read and respond when I am away
from home.
Hello Nick!
16 Nov 20 15:12, UUCP wrote to All:
As ZC1 although I do not regulate Echomail, I am nonetheless receiving some
Netmail thats beginning to have a familiar theme:
- "What is this stupid Telegram bullshit? Who was the genius behind this?"
- "I do not want my messages crossing over to Telegram servers"
- "I did not agree to Telegram's ToS nor even sign up for an account"
- "How do I opt out of this? Can you please do something about it?"
I'm curious to hear suggestions as to how I should respond to these.
Nick
Someone posted a laundry list of fido echos in the FIDOGAZETTE echo that wer recently made available via Telegram. I replied to that post with the quest "Have the moderators of those echos given permission to gate those echos?". haven't had a reply from the poster yet.
If people are concerned about Telegram's TOS, they should contact the moderators of the echo(s) in question and voice theur complaints. If the moderator fails to take action, vote him/her out!
FYI, I have contacted the author of the telegram/fido gateway by NetMail regarding non-compliance with FTS-0009 and he seems interestind in fixing things.
Re: Re: Telegram
By: Fred Riccio to All on Tue Nov 17 2020 06:15 pm
In case you were wondering, the following echos have already been added Telegram. Now I've been told that they would get permission from the moderators first, so either the Moderators of the echos below have alre said yes, or someone on the Telegram team is being less than truthful w us.
I was asked and I gave my permission.
Telegram is just another way for folks to access echoes.
Now available via Telegram for your smartphone/tablet:
I don't see a problem, am I missing something?
Ttyl :-),
Al
... Don't argue with he who buys ink by the gallon.
Hello Alan,
Re: Re: Telegram
By: Nick Andre to Alan Ianson on Wed Nov 18 2020 05:31 pm
The messages are NOT Fidonet start-to-finish on Telegram. The messages ar >> being gated - yes, gated - from Stas's BBS to a commercial Internet
platform with questionable terms-of-service, we don't know how the
messages are stored, what privacy controls are in place, not to mention >> Telegram has been hacked before.
Telegram is an interface to the message bases. When people read or write messages they do so in fidonet message areas.
It does happen that these are not Jam/Squish/*.MSG message bases on a syste >hard drive, they are stored and served on a telegram server in the middle.
that harm us somehow?
By allowing your echoes to be gated from that BBS to a commercial Interne >> platform, you are signing away the privacy of all the users exchanging
conversation as nobody has a clue how Telegram is using that data nor did >> anyone agree to have their messages gated.
Do we want privacy in echo areas? Do we have privacy now in echo areas?
The echos are Fidonet based as in that they use Fidonet as a distribution medium. As Fidonet system operators and/or moderators we are able to know wh path is used for distribution an what node/systems are involved. When and if the echos are gated then we as moderators loose that ability. I as a moderat clearly state in the echos that I moderate any and all gating of the echo(s) not permitted without prior permission.
If I had an interest in using the "Telegram" distribution I would create ech for use in that transport medium.
Jeff
| Sysop: | Gate Keeper |
|---|---|
| Location: | Shelby, NC |
| Users: | 719 |
| Nodes: | 20 (0 / 20) |
| Uptime: | 106:44:56 |
| Calls: | 9,251 |
| Calls today: | 30 |
| Files: | 5,288 |
| D/L today: |
14 files (13,499K bytes) |
| Messages: | 466,637 |