Hello, All.

I'm sitting here reading various conversations around the echos, some of which I've participated in, some that I haven't.

There is a range of topics involved, and I'm not going tp get into specifics here. Most of them, if you get to the heart of it pretty much break down to people trying something different. And other people not liking it.

That's perfectly fine. Not everyone is going to like the same things that everyone else likes. We're human beings. We all have our own opinions and our own preferences. We aren't cardboard cut outs of each other.

But what I'm not understanding is people's resistance to something new here.

The Fidonet community, and the wider BBS world, has always been to me a group of people who celebrated new things.

New software, new hardware, new technology, new program languages, someone somewhere would try it, and see if it could be adapted for our community. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. But ordinarily people gave it a chance to see how it worked out, offering suggestions they thought might make it better.

Now it seems that people are more stuck in the idea that new is a bad thing. You try something new, or even express an idea of something new, people's reaction is "why?"

It's like people think something new will somehow invalidate almost 40 years of BBS history. Instead, I would hope that they could see that it's a celebration of that history, and showing that it is still relevant in the modern world, and very much still has something to offer.

--
Best regards!
Posted using Hotdoged on Android
--- Hotdoged/2.13.5/Android
* Origin: Houston, TX (2:240/1120.976)

On 15 Nov 20 11:40:55, Charles Pierson said the following to All:

But what I'm not understanding is people's resistance to something new her

The Fidonet community, and the wider BBS world, has always been to me a

gro

of people who celebrated new things.

Fidonet Sysops tend to celebrate new things when they are directly beneficial to Fidonet on its own merit and technical ability. Fidonet Sysops do not celebrate things which potentially take away that unique close-knit nature.

When its a new communications protocol like BinkD or mobile app like
Hotdoged or software that directly benefits Fidonet/BBS'ing ie. Mystic and Synchronet, it is most certainly celebrated and embraced.

When its a questionable Internet platform like Telegram that does not directly benefit Fidonet aside from making moderators nervous about some hack job to allow the platform to exchange Echomail, its not celebrated as much.

Ask a veteran BBS Sysop why even have Echomail anymore when Usenet groups are more widely available with better features and arguably better software.

Nick

--- Renegade vY2Ka2
* Origin: Joey, do you like movies about gladiators? (1:229/426)

Hello, Nick Andre.
On 11/15/20 1:33 PM you wrote:

The Fidonet community, and the wider BBS world, has always been
to me a gro of people who celebrated new things.

Fidonet Sysops tend to celebrate new things when they are directly beneficial to Fidonet on its own merit and technical ability.
Fidonet Sysops do not celebrate things which potentially take
away that unique close-knit nature.

That's perfectly understandable. And not something I'm entirely in disagreement with.

When its a new communications protocol like BinkD or mobile app
like Hotdoged or software that directly benefits Fidonet/BBS'ing
ie. Mystic and Synchronet, it is most certainly celebrated and
embraced.

Generally speaking, I would agree. Although I have mentioned expanding mobile access in ways, such as QWK or similar offline readers, or even a potential BBS package in places, and at best, I've seen indifference, usually it's more common to be asked why I would want such a thing.
A few people have commented on potential issues technically, but not many.

When its a questionable Internet platform like Telegram that does
not directly benefit Fidonet aside from making moderators nervous
about some hack job to allow the platform to exchange Echomail,
its not celebrated as much.

From what I understand, it's discussed with the moderator and their approval is given before any echo is linked, as is Fidonet policy.

There are admins on the Telegram side to keep out the spammers/junk posters.

It's a way to be able to participate in some echos while you aren't at your primary system. Potentially, it could allow people to see Fidonet for what it can offer, introducing them to the community, while educating them on more standard BBS style software and how to use it.

By the way, my original message wasn't specifically only about Telegram.

Ask a veteran BBS Sysop why even have Echomail anymore when Usenet
groups are more widely available with better features and arguably
better software.

I've always preferred echomail to Usenet, although the systems that offer nntp feeds of Fidonet or othernets are convenient.

In the particular case for Telegram, I can see upsides and downsides for it. I've made cases both ways about different ideas involved with it.

I'm not even considering replacing anything. I'm saying some people had an idea to supplement their Echomail access. They are trying it out. If it works, and doesn't hurt regular Echomail operations, where is the harm?
If it doesn't work, it will fade to a memory like other things have before.

--
Best regards!
Posted using Hotdoged on Android
--- Hotdoged/2.13.5/Android
* Origin: Houston, TX (1:229/426.67)

On 15 Nov 20 13:35:23, Charles Pierson said the following to Nick Andre:

Generally speaking, I would agree. Although I have mentioned expanding

mobi

access in ways, such as QWK or similar offline readers, or even a

potential

BBS package in places, and at best, I've seen indifference, usually it's

mo

common to be asked why I would want such a thing.

I'm not disagreeing but have yet to see anyone not embrace another QWK or BBS package. Most Sysops love tinkering with new BBS-related things. Every time a new version of Mystic, Synchronet or my mailer D'Bridge is published, Sysops just can't *wait* to get their hands on it.

But again, Fido Sysops are usually reluctant to have any Internet platform integrate with Fidonet. Doesn't matter if it has admins blocking spam or whatever. Some Sysops just don't like it. Some don't even like having Echomail being made available on someone's web server for Google searching. Theres just something about wanting to keep it close-knit and away from Internet platforms and search engines. And BBS Sysops *love* their setups. They find something and stick with. You will pry D'Bridge and Renegade from my cold dead hands.

I know you didn't mention Telegram but its kindof the same reason why we don't use NNTP for Echomail distribution or distributed DNS or XML-formatted
nodelist segments or embedded graphics and links in messages or whatever
bright ideas are mentioned every few years or so in this echo and elsewhere.

Its also why UTF-8 is a disaster and even getting an idea as to whats "standard" in Fidonet requires a lot of digging around a mess of FTSC documents. As a Fido developer I can tell you its not easy writing Fido software. Kludges and tacked-on illogical crap like MSGID/REPLY nonsense, abandonware being used by many Sysops that strips Seen-by lines and generally a bunch of bandaids upon bandaids to keep it going. Thats to say nothing about the upcoming 2038 date problem.

Every couple of years, someone such as yourself will ponder here or
elsewhere why new ideas are often rejected or why its difficult to attract newcomers. Simple answer is if Sysops want the Internet, they use the
Internet. Sysops love their software, its personal to them.

And Fido software itself is just too "techie" for the average person. To get a node number, a newcomer must agree to a slew of things in Policy 4. You try explaining that to a non-techie person, about mailers and editors and nodelists. Not happening my friend.

Nick

--- Renegade vY2Ka2
* Origin: Joey, do you like movies about gladiators? (1:229/426)

Hi, Nick!

15 ��� 20 13:33, Nick Andre -> Charles Pierson:

When its a questionable Internet platform like Telegram that does not directly benefit Fidonet aside from making moderators nervous about
some hack job to allow the platform to exchange Echomail, its not celebrated as much.

What hacker attacks from telegrams are you talking about?
Today there are two _open_ groups in telegrams corresponding to two Fido echo conferences, and in none of them anything like this happens. I'm not saying that black and white lists will be added in the near future.

Have nice nights.
Stas Mishchenkov.

--- �� �� �� ����, ���騭 � ��ᥭ, ⠪ �yp���� � y�p��!
* Origin: Lame Users Breeding. Simferopol, Crimea. (2:460/5858)

On 16 Nov 20 00:00:08, Stas Mishchenkov said the following to Nick Andre:

When its a questionable Internet platform like Telegram that does not directly benefit Fidonet aside from making moderators nervous about some hack job to allow the platform to exchange Echomail, its not celebrated as much.

What hacker attacks from telegrams are you talking about?
Today there are two _open_ groups in telegrams corresponding to two Fido

ec

conferences, and in none of them anything like this happens. I'm not

saying

that black and white lists will be added in the near future.

I didn't say hacker attempts. Read again. I said that the Telegram integration is a hack job to make it work. Its not reinventing anything or even remotely innovative and adds yet more kludge nonsense to messages, makes moderators nervous and has people Netmailing me about this "Telegram bullshit" even though I do not control Echomail or belong to any star-system.

Read carefully what I wrote to Charles. Write a Fido mailer and convince the need for a serious change in the process for applying that a non-techie can understand and get theire head around. *THAT* is the "future of Fido". Not Telegram or any integration with an existing Internet platform.

Nick

--- Renegade vY2Ka2
* Origin: Joey, do you like movies about gladiators? (1:229/426)

Hello, Nick Andre.
On 11/15/20 3:37 PM you wrote:

On 15 Nov 20 13:35:23, Charles Pierson said the following to Nick
Andre:

Generally speaking, I would agree. Although I have mentioned
expanding mobi access in ways, such as QWK or similar offline
readers, or even a potential BBS package in places, and at best,
I've seen indifference, usually it's mo common to be asked why I
would want such a thing.

I'm not disagreeing but have yet to see anyone not embrace another
QWK or BBS

( NA> package. Most Sysops love tinkering with new BBS-related things. Every time a

new version of Mystic, Synchronet or my mailer D'Bridge is
published, Sysops just can't *wait* to get their hands on it.

I'm pretty certain that if I was to be able to manage any of that, there would be at least some interest. That's not really the problem though.

Well, it is in that I don't have the capability right now myself. That can be rectified though, given time. There are even "short cuts" in software that's source code is available is out there that could be used as a template or guide, if not ported over directly, then adjusting to work with the user interface.


I've even considered ideas like using existing software in a DOSBOX environment, but I can't figure out how to get that environment to see the WiFi connection.

It's as I said, more a lack of interest, or even worse, "Yes it's possible, but why?" Or perhaps I just haven't found the right audience.

But again, Fido Sysops are usually reluctant to have any Internet platform integrate with Fidonet. Doesn't matter if it has admins
blocking spam or whatever. Some Sysops just don't like it. Some
don't even like having Echomail being made available on someone's
web server for Google searching. Theres just something about
wanting to keep it close-knit and away from Internet platforms and
search engines. And BBS Sysops *love* their setups. They find
something and stick with. You will pry D'Bridge and Renegade from
my cold dead hands.

All of that is true.

But Fidonet can be found on search engines. And echomail can be found in internet archives.

I'm not suggesting that anything fundamentally changes what Fidonet or the BBS community is. I wouldn't ever want it to be another Facebook or Twitter or anything like that.

But it does have something to offer people. I've had better conversations on BBSes than anywhere else, even with people I don't agree with. It's something that's missing elsewhere. More people could do with that experience.

I know you didn't mention Telegram but its kindof the same reason
why we don't use NNTP for Echomail distribution or distributed DNS
or XML-formatted nodelist segments or embedded graphics and links
in messages or whatever bright ideas are mentioned every few years
or so in this echo and elsewhere.

I know there are questions about Telegram. And they should be asked and answered.

I also know there are people that don't like it and won't use it, and apparently some who won't participate in an echo linked to Telegram.

But right now, it's something some people are trying out. It might not work out. Stas might decide he doesn't want to work on it anymore. Or it might hang around in whatever Echos that moderators allow it to. Time will tell.

Its also why UTF-8 is a disaster and even getting an idea as to
whats "standard" in Fidonet requires a lot of digging around a
mess of FTSC documents. As a Fido developer I can tell you its
not easy writing Fido software. Kludges and tacked-on illogical
crap like MSGID/REPLY nonsense, abandonware being used by many
Sysops that strips Seen-by lines and generally a bunch of
bandaids upon bandaids to keep it going. Thats to say nothing
about the upcoming 2038 date problem.

This I understand. Just watching a discussion on "standards" about UTC vs actual time zones, MSG ID, and the like don't help the migraine for sure.

Every couple of years, someone such as yourself will ponder here
or elsewhere why new ideas are often rejected or why its
difficult to attract newcomers. Simple answer is if Sysops want
the Internet, they use the Internet. Sysops love their software,
its personal to them.

I wouldn't want to take anything away. I don't think anyone wants that.

I think that's where part of the issues come from.

It is entirely possible for there to be new software or technology to exist and work side by side with what exists.

BBS and Fidonet software has survived the internet Y2K and more. I've heard mention of 2038 but I'm not sure what that is exactly, but it will survive that too.

And Fido software itself is just too "techie" for the average
person. To get a node number, a newcomer must agree to a slew of
things in Policy 4. You try explaining that to a non-techie
person, about mailers and editors and nodelists. Not happening my
friend.

I've been in and out of BBSes and Fidonet since the 80's. I'm still figuring some of that stuff out.

And I'd never suggest a new person try to set themselves up as a node.

--
Best regards!
Posted using Hotdoged on Android
--- Hotdoged/2.13.5/Android
* Origin: Houston, TX (1:229/426.67)

Charles Pierson wrote to All <=-

The Fidonet community, and the wider BBS world, has always been to me a group of people who celebrated new things.

New software, new hardware, new technology, new program languages,
someone somewhere would try it, and see if it could be adapted for our community. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. But ordinarily people gave it a chance to see how it worked out, offering suggestions they thought might make it better.

See my other echomail for my thoughts.

Now it seems that people are more stuck in the idea that new is a bad thing. You try something new, or even express an idea of something
new, people's reaction is "why?"

I think you're missing my point. New isn't bad, but there's a quality
to Fidonet messaging that is missing in the Telegram side.

It's like people think something new will somehow invalidate almost 40 years of BBS history. Instead, I would hope that they could see that
it's a celebration of that history, and showing that it is still
relevant in the modern world, and very much still has something to
offer.

I don't agree, and I like the idea of opening Fidonet messaging
through other means, like web interfaces and Telegram. I want to
see it done in a way that preserves the qualities that make Fidonet
messaging unique and it'll all be well. Otherwise, why bother?





... Change ambiguities to specifics
--- MultiMail/XT v0.52
* Origin: http://realitycheckbbs.org | tomorrow's retro tech (1:218/700)

Hi, Nick!

15 ��� 20 16:24, Nick Andre -> Stas Mishchenkov:

I didn't say hacker attempts. Read again. I said that the Telegram integration is a hack job to make it work.

I apologize for misunderstanding. English is not my native language.

Its not reinventing anything or even remotely innovative and adds yet more kludge nonsense to messages, makes moderators nervous and has
people Netmailing me about this "Telegram bullshit" even though I do
not control Echomail or belong to any star-system.

Read carefully what I wrote to Charles. Write a Fido mailer and convince the need for a serious change in the process for applying that a non-techie can understand and get theire head around. *THAT* is the "future of Fido". Not Telegram or any integration with an existing Internet platform.

In General, I have never said that this is something new or revolutionary. I just do what I was asked to do because I can.
If some of the sysops find it convenient and the moderator doesn't mind, then I see no reason not to do this.

Have nice nights.
Stas Mishchenkov.

--- "��⮬" - ���⥫쭠� �ଠ "�������".
* Origin: Lame Users Breeding. Simferopol, Crimea. (2:460/5858)

Hello, Kurt Weiske.
On 11/16/20 10:12 AM you wrote:

New software, new hardware, new technology, new program
languages, someone somewhere would try it, and see if it could be
adapted for our community. Sometimes it works, sometimes it
doesn't. But ordinarily people gave it a chance to see how it
worked out, offering suggestions they thought might make it
better.

See my other echomail for my thoughts.

I have and have replied to it.

Now it seems that people are more stuck in the idea that new is a
bad thing. You try something new, or even express an idea of
something new, people's reaction is "why?"

I think you're missing my point. New isn't bad, but there's a
quality to Fidonet messaging that is missing in the Telegram
side.

My message wasn't pointed towards anyone in particular, or even specifically about Telegram.
I totally understand your point. I've pointed out things that are different between the two, and I think Stas is doing a decent job of implementing things into his bot to address them as he is able to.

There are, unfortunately some differences between the two technologies that simply can't be addressed.

Ultimately, it will come down to a matter of can they be close enough, and can those ultilizing Telegram do so in the spirit of Fidonet messages.

It's like people think something new will somehow invalidate
almost 40 years of BBS history. Instead, I would hope that they
could see that it's a celebration of that history, and showing
that it is still relevant in the modern world, and very much
still has something to offer.

I don't agree, and I like the idea of opening Fidonet messaging
through other means, like web interfaces and Telegram. I want to
see it done in a way that preserves the qualities that make
Fidonet messaging unique and it'll all be well. Otherwise, why
bother?

I agree. And hopefully Telegram can get there.

I would hope that much of what you see in messages that doesn't meet that is simply people trying features out, and what doesn't work for Fidonet will go away.


--
Best regards!
Posted using Hotdoged on Android
--- Hotdoged/2.13.5/Android
* Origin: Houston, TX (1:153/757.26)

On 16 Nov 20 13:21:50, Charles Pierson said the following to Kurt Weiske:

I would hope that much of what you see in messages that doesn't meet that simply people trying features out, and what doesn't work for Fidonet will 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

--- Renegade vY2Ka2
* Origin: Joey, do you like movies about gladiators? (1:229/426)

Hello, Nick Andre.
On 11/16/20 3:11 PM you wrote:

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 not directly responsible for anything involved with the project, other than testing the functionality and making suggestions for improvements when I notice things.

That being said, honestly, as I understand it, August or Stas are contacting the moderators to receive permission to connect any echos to Telegram prior to doing so, as is required according to their ELIST entries. If the users of these echos have any issues with this, it should be taken up with the echo moderators involved.

I will say that in hind site, even with moderator approval, going live with linking the echos with Telegram without informing the existing Fido users of the fact prior, and explaining what it is, how it works, privacy information, etc. beforehand likely wasn't the best way to move forward.

As Z1C, honestly I'm not entirely familiar with how the heirarchy works, I would guess you either direct the questions to the moderators involved, or Fidonet policy makers make a ruling on the matter.



--
Best regards!
Posted using Hotdoged on Android
--- Hotdoged/2.13.5/Android
* Origin: Houston, TX (1:229/426.67)

On 16 Nov 20 15:09:05, Charles Pierson said the following to Nick Andre:

I will say that in hind site, even with moderator approval, going live

with

linking the echos with Telegram without informing the existing Fido users the fact prior, and explaining what it is, how it works, privacy

informatio

etc. beforehand likely wasn't the best way to move forward.

Its really rubbing some Sysops the wrong way, having them find out that their messages are crossing over to some Internet platform they've never heard of nor feel comfortable with. This to me is no different than a Sysop who
just decides to makes everything available on a Web BBS.

I do not understand why all of this wasn't done either in seperate dedicated echoes for this purpose or an entire Othernet. It appears no thought at all was given as to how the Sysop would feel about it.

This is not the "future" for Fido and I hope it stops soon. This is a perfect example of how not to do something and why new ideas are most often rejected.

Nick

--- Renegade vY2Ka2
* Origin: Joey, do you like movies about gladiators? (1:229/426)

Hello, Nick Andre.
On 11/16/20 4:27 PM you wrote:

Its really rubbing some Sysops the wrong way, having them find out
that their messages are crossing over to some Internet platform
they've never heard of nor feel comfortable with. This to me is
no different than a Sysop who just decides to makes everything
available on a Web BBS.

Any sort of change, or something new, is always going to have people that don't like it. It's a natural part of the cycle.


Telegram-Fido is as far as I can tell, following Fidonet Policy. It has a distinct Node, and is receiving Moderator permission before linking to any Echo.

Could it have been handled differently? Of course. Either the Echo Moderators, or August, who is the primary person promoting this effort, could have made announcements explaining what it is and answering questions before turning the echo on.

I do not understand why all of this wasn't done either in seperate dedicated echoes for this purpose or an entire Othernet. It
appears no thought at all was given as to how the Sysop would
feel about it.

In this instance, yes, Telegram is a web based interface. But according to their own privacy policy, only people that are in the chat group have access to the contents of that group.

The groups, and the bot that acts as a gateway/mailer/tosser, act in the same manner as a NODE or POINT.

As I said above, it has done everything according to Policy as far as I am aware.

As far as I am aware, Sysop's are free to carry or not carry any echo they wish. I haven't seen anything stating otherwise. Nor have I seen anything about Echo Areas requiring Sysops to approve anything that Echo's moderator does within Policy.


I'm not trying to be belligerent nor argumentative, I'm simply trying to explain things to the best of my understanding.

I don't stand to benefit either way with this thing. It's something that I saw people putting together, and I think it has potential.

This is not the "future" for Fido and I hope it stops soon. This
is a perfect example of how not to do something and why new ideas
are most often rejected.

I have said before, I agree the introduction of new echos could have been done differently.

People have questions, and I'm trying to answer them to the best of my ability, as I am made aware of them.

I'm by no means an expert on Fidonet nor Telegram, but I'm trying hard to get the best understanding I can of it all to hopefully get a general understanding of things all around.

I'm happy to try and answer any questions anyone has.

I wouldn't suggest contacting me by Netmail on my point to Your system Nick, as I still haven't figured out why it's going to my user account on your BBS instead of my point address. But I'll answer from there as well, it just might be a little slower replying.

Nick --- Renegade vY2Ka2 * Origin: Joey, do you like movies about gladiators? (1:229/426)

--
Best regards!
Posted using Hotdoged on Android
--- Hotdoged/2.13.5/Android
* Origin: Houston, TX (1:229/426.67)

Hi, Nick!

16 ��� 20 15:11, Nick Andre -> Charles Pierson:

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 am greatly surprised by the examples you have given.
Why don't these sysops, before disturbing the ZC, first contact the sysop of the node from which the Telegram messages enter the network, with the moderator of the echo conference, the message of which can be read in Telegram?
Is knowledge with the Policy not obligatory in zone 1 to obtain a node number? Among other things, for some reason, such sysops are not embarrassed by the presence of a WEB BBS that provides open access to messages from Fido echo conferences to anyone who wants to, nor does it bother the indexing, storage and provision of free access to anyone who wants such messages by the servers Googl, Yandex and the like.

PS: I allow this post of mine to be quoted or used in full when answering such requests.

Have nice nights.
Stas Mishchenkov.

--- ������ - �� ����� ������ ��쪨 � �ᯮ�������, �� ���� ������ �㯨��
* Origin: Lame Users Breeding. Simferopol, Crimea. (2:460/5858)

Hi, Nick!

16 ��� 20 16:27, Nick Andre -> Charles Pierson:

Its really rubbing some Sysops the wrong way, having them find out
that their messages are crossing over to some Internet platform
they've never heard of nor feel comfortable with.

These sysops can always contact the BBS sysop or complain to his network coordinator.

This to me is no different than a Sysop who just decides to makes everything available on a Web BBS.

And this is completely fair, it seems to me.

I do not understand why all of this wasn't done either in seperate dedicated echoes for this purpose or an entire Othernet.

Such echo conferences also exist. It all started with them.

This is not the "future" for Fido and I hope it stops soon.

It's hard to argue with that. Moreover, from the very beginning it was not positioned as the future of Fido. This is just one of the possibilities, looking attractive or not attractive...

This is a perfect example of how not to do something and why new
ideas are most often rejected.

One can argue with this, but I think that everyone will still have his opinion.

Have nice nights.
Stas Mishchenkov.

--- ���訩 ᮡ�ᥤ��� �� ⮫쪮 �����⥫쭮 ��蠥�, �� � ���६� ��������.
* Origin: Lame Users Breeding. Simferopol, Crimea. (2:460/5858)

Hi, Charles!

16 ��� 20 15:09, Charles Pierson -> Nick Andre:

As Z1C, honestly I'm not entirely familiar with how the heirarchy
works, I would guess you either direct the questions to the moderators involved, or Fidonet policy makers make a ruling on the matter.

https://brorabbit.g0x.ru/files/policy4.txt
1.2.5 Zones and Zone Coordinators

A zone is a large geographic area containing many regions, covering one or
more countries and/or continents.

The Zone Coordinator compiles the nodelists from all of the regions in the zone, and creates the master nodelist and difference file, which is then distributed over FidoNet in the zone. A Zone Coordinator does not perform message-forwarding services for any nodes in the zone.

Zone Coordinators are selected by the Regional Coordinators in that zone.

Have nice nights.
Stas Mishchenkov.

--- �祭� �������� �������� � ��� ��� � ����.
* Origin: Lame Users Breeding. Simferopol, Crimea. (2:460/5858)

On 17 Nov 20 08:50:50, Stas Mishchenkov said the following to Nick Andre:

I am greatly surprised by the examples you have given.
Why don't these sysops, before disturbing the ZC, first contact the sysop the node from which the Telegram messages enter the network, with the moderator of the echo conference, the message of which can be read in

Teleg

Oh I know you are greatly surprised, because you do not see things the way I do or deal with Sysops about how personal Fido means to them. You appear to
be more interested in the tech:

Is knowledge with the Policy not obligatory in zone 1 to obtain a node num Among other things, for some reason, such sysops are not embarrassed by

the

presence of a WEB BBS that provides open access to messages from Fido echo conferences to anyone who wants to, nor does it bother the indexing,

storag

and provision of free access to anyone who wants such messages by the

serve

Googl, Yandex and the like.

Just because you have the technical ability to integrate with Telegram does not necessarily mean you should.

Let me ask you a question. What is the point of having Fidonet when theres Usenet groups with more features, arguably better distribution and software?

Nick

--- Renegade vY2Ka2
* Origin: Joey, do you like movies about gladiators? (1:229/426)

On 17 Nov 20 09:18:22, Stas Mishchenkov said the following to Nick Andre:

Its really rubbing some Sysops the wrong way, having them find out that their messages are crossing over to some Internet platform they've never heard of nor feel comfortable with.

These sysops can always contact the BBS sysop or complain to his network coordinator.

Then we have established clearly that you are more excited about the technical ability to do something rather than the impact it has on a Sysop.

Sysops now must take the time to "opt out" of your creation if we discover we are posting in an area that carries to this Internet platform most of us
have never heard about, because of your idea of convenience. Sysops now must complain to the moderators rather than being able to enjoy Fidonet for being Fidonet.

That is why it would have made more sense to keep this creation in its own dedicated echoes or even its own network entirely. It would have been respected much greater.

You can argue with me all you want; you know I'm right and just will not
admit that you went about the deployment of your creation in the wrong way.

Thanks to you, I'm now fielding complaints about something I don't even want to deal with. Thank you very much, a nice big round of applause for you.

Nick

--- Renegade vY2Ka2
* Origin: Joey, do you like movies about gladiators? (1:229/426)

Hi, Charles!

16 ��� 20 18:27, Charles Pierson -> Nick Andre:

Telegram-Fido is as far as I can tell, following Fidonet Policy. It
has a distinct Node, and is receiving Moderator permission before
linking to any Echo.

Would like to note.
1. Do many sysops of BBSs, especially WEB BBSs, ask the moderator for permission before sharing the echo conference?
2. Is it required at all to agree with anyone to provide access to echoconferences on the BBS?

Have nice nights.
Stas Mishchenkov.

--- �� 堫�� �� ⮫쪮 ���� ᫠���, �� � ᢨ���� ���⭠, 堫�쭠 � ���ୠ.
* Origin: Lame Users Breeding. Simferopol, Crimea. (2:460/5858)

Hello, Stas Mishchenkov.
On 11/17/20 3:46 PM you wrote:

Hi, Charles! 16 ��� 20 15:09, Charles Pierson -> Nick Andre:

As Z1C, honestly I'm not entirely familiar with how the heirarchy
works, I would guess you either direct the questions to the
moderators involved, or Fidonet policy makers make a ruling on
the matter.

https://brorabbit.g0x.ru/files/policy4.txt 1.2.5 Zones and Zone Coordinators

I did read up on the policy last night to help me in discussions.

It didn't help with understanding why the echo moderators, Net and Regional Coordinators, or you and August were bypassed in the concerns being expressed, or if they were contacted, they haven't seen the need to express them.



--
Best regards!
Posted using Hotdoged on Android
--- Hotdoged/2.13.5/Android
* Origin: Houston, Tx (2:221/6.21)

Stas Mishchenkov wrote to Nick Andre <=-

I am greatly surprised by the examples you have given.
Why don't these sysops, before disturbing the ZC, first contact the
sysop of the node from which the Telegram messages enter the network,
with the moderator of the echo conference, the message of which can be read in Telegram? Is knowledge with the Policy not obligatory in zone 1
to obtain a node number? Among other things, for some reason, such
sysops are not embarrassed by the presence of a WEB BBS that provides
open access to messages from Fido echo conferences to anyone who wants
to, nor does it bother the indexing, storage and provision of free
access to anyone who wants such messages by the servers Googl, Yandex
and the like.

PS: I allow this post of mine to be quoted or used in full when
answering such requests.

Could you respond to the points Nick brought up in his post?



... Find a safe part and use it as an anchor
--- MultiMail/XT v0.52
* Origin: http://realitycheckbbs.org | tomorrow's retro tech (1:218/700)

Stas Mishchenkov wrote to Charles Pierson <=-

Would like to note.
1. Do many sysops of BBSs, especially WEB BBSs, ask the moderator for permission before sharing the echo conference? 2. Is it required at all
to agree with anyone to provide access to echoconferences on the BBS?

We seem to have consensus that allowing guest access to Fidonet via
web forums is a bad idea. Not sure how that impacts the current
discussion, nor if it's relevant except to redirect attention away
from the discussion about Telegram.



... Find a safe part and use it as an anchor
--- MultiMail/XT v0.52
* Origin: http://realitycheckbbs.org | tomorrow's retro tech (1:218/700)

Charles Pierson wrote to Stas Mishchenkov <=-

It didn't help with understanding why the echo moderators, Net and Regional Coordinators, or you and August were bypassed in the concerns being expressed, or if they were contacted, they haven't seen the need
to express them.

Let's move on from how sysops expressed their concern and/or
dissatisfaction with Telegram integration and instead address the
concerns.


... Find a safe part and use it as an anchor
--- MultiMail/XT v0.52
* Origin: http://realitycheckbbs.org | tomorrow's retro tech (1:218/700)

Charles Pierson wrote to Nick Andre <=-

Any sort of change, or something new, is always going to have people
that don't like it. It's a natural part of the cycle.

That seems to miss the point. Nick and I aren't complaining about the
novelty of Telegram integration, but rather how it was rolled out.

Could it have been handled differently? Of course. Either the Echo Moderators, or August, who is the primary person promoting this effort, could have made announcements explaining what it is and answering questions before turning the echo on.

So where do we go from here?




--- MultiMail/XT v0.52
* Origin: http://realitycheckbbs.org | tomorrow's retro tech (1:218/700)

Nick Andre wrote to Charles Pierson <=-

- "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 think it's entirely up to the echo moderators to explicitly allow
or disallow gating to other networks/platforms, and for Fido users to
vote with their feet if they're dissatisfied with the moderator's
stance with regards to Telegram.




--- MultiMail/XT v0.52
* Origin: http://realitycheckbbs.org | tomorrow's retro tech (1:218/700)

Hello, Kurt Weiske.
On 11/17/20 9:28 AM you wrote:

Stas Mishchenkov wrote to Charles Pierson <=-

Would like to note. 1. Do many sysops of BBSs, especially WEB
BBSs, ask the moderator for permission before sharing the echo
conference? 2. Is it required at all to agree with anyone to
provide access to echoconferences on the BBS?

We seem to have consensus that allowing guest access to Fidonet
via web forums is a bad idea. Not sure how that impacts the
current discussion, nor if it's relevant except to redirect
attention away from the discussion about Telegram.

I don't know that anything allows guest access. At least not anything that I've run across.

Which is a good thing right?

--
Best regards!
Posted using Hotdoged on Android
--- Hotdoged/2.13.5/Android
* Origin: Houston, TX (1:153/757.26)

Hello, Kurt Weiske.
On 11/17/20 9:29 AM you wrote:

Charles Pierson wrote to Stas Mishchenkov <=-

It didn't help with understanding why the echo moderators, Net
and Regional Coordinators, or you and August were bypassed in the
concerns being expressed, or if they were contacted, they haven't
seen the need to express them.

Let's move on from how sysops expressed their concern and/or dissatisfaction with Telegram integration and instead address the concerns.

I'm willing to. I think that I might have at least touched on any that I'm aware of that I can answer, and have offered to answer any that are asked.

I might not have all of the answers, but I'm willing to find out what I'm not sure of.

--
Best regards!
Posted using Hotdoged on Android
--- Hotdoged/2.13.5/Android
* Origin: Houston, TX (1:153/757.26)

Hello, Kurt Weiske.
On 11/17/20 9:34 AM you wrote:

Charles Pierson wrote to Nick Andre <=-

Any sort of change, or something new, is always going to have
people that don't like it. It's a natural part of the cycle.

That seems to miss the point. Nick and I aren't complaining about
the novelty of Telegram integration, but rather how it was rolled
out.

It might be I've misunderstood things somewhat. I apologize for that.

Could it have been handled differently? Of course. Either the
Echo Moderators, or August, who is the primary person promoting
this effort, could have made announcements explaining what it is
and answering questions before turning the echo on.

So where do we go from here?

That's a very good question.

I had intended to write an article to submit to either Fidonews or Fidogazette, or both, to explain what this project was. Family health issues sidelined that, I simply couldn't focus on it like it needed.

That's still something I would like to see done. I'm just not sure how quickly I would be able to do so.

Currently, I think there are about 12 echos linked to Telegram. As I've stated previously, August or Stas have received moderator approval prior to the linking.

I definitely think that no more should be added right now.

For simplicities sake, I'm willing to take on responding to any questions people might have.

They can be asked here in this echo, or if people prefer, they can Netmail me @ 2:240/1120.976

I suggest that Net address simply because I see, to be having a small issue with netmail at other points.

With regards to privacy concerns, according to Telegrams Privacy policy, no one can read any messages in the groups except members of the group.

Is this a good start?

--
Best regards!
Posted using Hotdoged on Android
--- Hotdoged/2.13.5/Android
* Origin: Houston, TX (1:229/426.67)

1:153/757.26 5f043f8c
Hello, Kurt Weiske.
On 11/17/20 9:28 AM you wrote:

Stas Mishchenkov wrote to Charles Pierson <=-

Would like to note. 1. Do many sysops of BBSs, especially WEB
BBSs, ask the moderator for permission before sharing the echo
conference? 2. Is it required at all to agree with anyone to
provide access to echoconferences on the BBS?

We seem to have consensus that allowing guest access to Fidonet
via web forums is a bad idea. Not sure how that impacts the
current discussion, nor if it's relevant except to redirect attention away from the discussion about Telegram.

I don't know that anything allows guest access. At least not anything

that I've run across.

Which is a good thing right?

--
Best regards!
Posted using Hotdoged on Android

Take a look...
https://brorabbit.g0x.ru/pic/5fb56475.jpg




--- tg BBS v0.6.2
* Origin: Fido by Telegram BBS by Stas Mishchenkov (2:460/58)

BY: Charles Pierson(1:229/426.67)

I will say that in hind site, even with moderator approval, going live
with linking the echos with Telegram without informing the existing Fido users of the fact prior, and explaining what it is, how it works,
privacy information, etc. beforehand likely wasn't the best way to move forward.

Maybe a monthly FAQ about the interaction between the platforms might be helpful.


--- WWIV 5.6.0.3317
* Origin: Inland Utopia BBS * iutopia.duckdns.org:2023 (1:218/109)

BY: Nick Andre(1:229/426)

Usenet groups with more features, arguably better distribution and software?

Many usenet groups are not what they were in the past like 20-25 years ago.


--- WWIV 5.6.0.3319
* Origin: Inland Utopia BBS * iutopia.duckdns.org:2023 (1:218/109)

Hi, Charles!

18 ��� 20 11:51, Charles Pierson -> Kurt Weiske:

Currently, I think there are about 12 echos linked to Telegram.

For now it is 36...

Have nice nights.
Stas Mishchenkov.

--- ���᫠ ���窠 �窮 ��ਪ� � ��ࠧ�⥫쭮 ��ᬮ�५� �� �������.
* Origin: Lame Users Breeding. Simferopol, Crimea. (2:460/5858)

Hi Stas,

On 2020-11-20 09:39:28, you wrote to Charles Pierson:

Currently, I think there are about 12 echos linked to Telegram.

For now it is 36...

But I suppose most of them are russian-language ones?

Btw: How was the Telegram "gating" received in your part of the world? Any opposition like we see here?

Bye, Wilfred.

--- FMail-lnx64 2.1.0.18-B20170815
* Origin: FMail development HQ (2:280/464)

2:460/5858 5fb764c5
Hi, Charles!

18 ��� 20 11:51, Charles Pierson -> Kurt Weiske:

Currently, I think there are about 12 echos linked to Telegram.

For now it is 36...

Have nice nights.
Stas Mishchenkov.

What does that translate to in MB or GB per day or month on average?


--- tg BBS v0.6.2
* Origin: Fido by Telegram BBS by Stas Mishchenkov (2:460/58)

Hi, Wilfred!

20 ��� 20 09:51, Wilfred van Velzen -> Stas Mishchenkov:

Currently, I think there are about 12 echos linked to Telegram.

For now it is 36...

But I suppose most of them are russian-language ones?

I didn't count. I think there are more English speakers.

Btw: How was the Telegram "gating" received in your part of the
world?
Any opposition like we see here?

About the same. 1-2 sysops are nervous that their messages may appear on Telegram servers. 1-2 sysops are nervous about the inconsistency of the message format and communication style. The rest are happy to use it. Sometimes requests come to connect an echo conference to my Telegram BBS.

PS: Let's count...

LORAPVT.BIGFILES -1001417964485
LORAPVT.HORO -1001306017407
LORAPVT -367920550
# My local areas for personal usage

CRIMEA.TALK -1001426269798

PVT.ZONA -1001475402922
# Publik open group

HOBBIT.TEST -1001223938142
#local area for testing

FIDONET.UNOFICIAL -1001373803050
FIDONET.ONLINE -1001203354493
# two open areas

RU.SEX.SIMVOL -1001254830976 fileonly toUUE -dn
FUTURE4FIDO -1001231012163
DOS -1001185473479
COFFEE_KLATSCH -1001206383505
DOOM -1001232254932
DOORGAMES -1001447416576
ESSNASA -1001444430975
FIDO_UTIL -1001472792656
MOVIES -1001455266368
TAGLINES -1001363138878
TUXPOWER -1001152530816
UUE.DEVOCHKI -1001252602690 fileonly toUUE -dn
OBEC.PACTET -1001488143528
CHAT -1001256631918
SU.TOLKIEN -1001130922332
UPORTAL.SYTES.NET -1001468916746
RETAIL_HORROR -1001392980223
ASIAN_LINK -1001313913131
X-FILES -1001225305537
NZ_FIDONET -1001397868255
TYT.BCE.HACPEM -1001260395870 toUUE -dn
AUDIO -1001318135575
MUSIC -1001390192946
R46.CRISIS -422626092


Have nice nights.
Stas Mishchenkov.

--- ���� ��� �஢�७�� �楯� - ᪠���� ����, �� ���� ����.
* Origin: Lame Users Breeding. Simferopol, Crimea. (2:460/5858)

Hi, August!

20 ��� 20 16:44, August Abolins -> Stas Mishchenkov:

Currently, I think there are about 12 echos linked to Telegram.

For now it is 36...

What does that translate to in MB or GB per day or month on average?

I can't even imagine approximately. I didn't count.

Have nice nights.
Stas Mishchenkov.

--- ���訩 ᮡ�ᥤ��� �� ⮫쪮 �����⥫쭮 ��蠥�, �� � ���६� ��������.
* Origin: Lame Users Breeding. Simferopol, Crimea. (2:460/5858)

2:460/5858 5fb7db0e
Hi, August!

20 ��� 20 16:44, August Abolins -> Stas Mishchenkov:

Currently, I think there are about 12 echos linked to Telegram. SM>>

For now it is 36...

What does that translate to in MB or GB per day or month on average?

I can't even imagine approximately. I didn't count.

Have nice nights.
Stas Mishchenkov.

Considering that you also process some UUE groups based on the list you posted, I would imagine that it adds up.


--- tg BBS v0.6.2
* Origin: Fido by Telegram BBS by Stas Mishchenkov (2:460/58)

Hi, August!

20 ��� 20 18:15, August Abolins -> Stas Mishchenkov:

What does that translate to in MB or GB per day or month on

average?

I can't even imagine approximately. I didn't count.

Considering that you also process some UUE groups based on the list
you posted, I would imagine that it adds up.

Yes. And they are recoded in both directions, as you can see from the options. https://t.me/joinchat/H99gCEqpM0KXlCu2-Tl7Xg https://t.me/joinchat/H99gCErLM4ALx4kODjO9Ew
Warning! Erotic content.

Have nice nights.
Stas Mishchenkov.

--- - � �� �� ��樮���쭮��...? - ����-��. � ��? - ���. - � � ⠪?
* Origin: Lame Users Breeding. Simferopol, Crimea. (2:460/5858)

Hi, August!

20 ��� 20 18:40, Stas Mishchenkov -> August Abolins:

Considering that you also process some UUE groups based on the list
you posted, I would imagine that it adds up.

Yes. And they are recoded in both directions, as you can see from the options.
https://t.me/joinchat/H99gCEqpM0KXlCu2-Tl7Xg https://t.me/joinchat/H99gCErLM4ALx4kODjO9Ew
Warning! Erotic content.

BTW, it is very easy to send files UUEencoded to such echo conferences via the Telegram BBS. It is enough just to drag them with the mouse. ;)

Have nice nights.
Stas Mishchenkov.

--- ����� ���宣� �� ��ᮢ����, �� � ��襣� �� ࠧ���.
* Origin: Lame Users Breeding. Simferopol, Crimea. (2:460/5858)

2:460/5858 5fb7ebea
Hi, August!

20 ��� 20 18:40, Stas Mishchenkov -> August Abolins:

Considering that you also process some UUE groups based on the list AA>> you posted, I would imagine that it adds up.

Yes. And they are recoded in both directions, as you can see from the options.
https://t.me/joinchat/H99gCEqpM0KXlCu2-Tl7Xg https://t.me/joinchat/H99gCErLM4ALx4kODjO9Ew
Warning! Erotic content.

BTW, it is very easy to send files UUEencoded to such echo conferences

via the Telegram BBS. It is enough just to drag them with the mouse. ;)

Have nice nights.
Stas Mishchenkov.

But considering that Telegram has a maximum char count (was it about 2500?) don't the uue files break in the middle of a row?


--- tg BBS v0.6.2
* Origin: Fido by Telegram BBS by Stas Mishchenkov (2:460/58)

2:460/5858 5fb7ebea
Hi, August!

20 ��� 20 18:40, Stas Mishchenkov -> August Abolins:

Considering that you also process some UUE groups based on the list AA>> you posted, I would imagine that it adds up.

Yes. And they are recoded in both directions, as you can see from the options.
https://t.me/joinchat/H99gCEqpM0KXlCu2-Tl7Xg https://t.me/joinchat/H99gCErLM4ALx4kODjO9Ew
Warning! Erotic content.

BTW, it is very easy to send files UUEencoded to such echo conferences

via the Telegram BBS. It is enough just to drag them with the mouse. ;)

Have nice nights.
Stas Mishchenkov.

Oh NEVERMIND. I get it. You convert the UUE files to full files on your BBS and then they are available with a link using Telegram?


--- tg BBS v0.6.2
* Origin: Fido by Telegram BBS by Stas Mishchenkov (2:460/58)

Hello Stas!

** On Friday 20.11.20 - 17:56, Stas Mishchenkov wrote to Wilfred van Velzen:

RETAIL_HORROR -1001392980223

A reminder. This one needs to be removed.

--
../|ug

--- OpenXP 5.0.47
* Origin: Got mobile? FUTURE4FIDO = https://tinyurl.com/yx9z6d37 (2:221/1.58)

Hi Stas!

20 Nov 20 18:15, I wrote to you:

Considering that you also process some UUE groups based on the list
you posted, I would imagine that it adds up.

Further to that, you process any photo/file attachements and store them on your bbs too. That can certainly take considerable time as your system works through all that.


--- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20180707
* Origin: ----> Point Of VeleNo BBs (http://www.velenobbs.net)

On 16 Nov 2020, Charles Pierson said the following...

Ultimately, it will come down to a matter of can they be close enough,
and can those ultilizing Telegram do so in the spirit of Fidonet
messages.

I think that's probably the biggest issue for folks. I know I want to
continue to see discussions, etc. BBSes are by default a text based
interface. Too many stickers and pictures that nobody can see from the BBS
side tends to kill the discussion.

-=>Richard Miles<=-
-=>Captain Obvious<=-
-=>bbs.shadowscope.com<=-

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A46 2020/08/26 (Windows/32)
* Origin: Shadowscope BBS | shadowscope.noip.us | Temple, GA (1:3634/24)

Hello Richard!

** On Tuesday 17.11.20 - 15:25, Richard Miles wrote to Charles Pierson:

Ultimately, it will come down to a matter of can they be
close enough, and can those ultilizing Telegram do so in
the spirit of Fidonet messages.

I think that's probably the biggest issue for folks. I
know I want to continue to see discussions, etc. BBSes
are by default a text based interface. Too many stickers
and pictures that nobody can see from the BBS side tends
to kill the discussion.

I've moved my reply to this in FIDONET.TELEGRAM echo.


--
../|ug

--- OpenXP 5.0.47
* Origin: Got mobile? FUTURE4FIDO = https://tinyurl.com/yx9z6d37 (2:221/1.58)

Hello, Richard Miles.
On 11/17/20 3:25 PM you wrote:

On 16 Nov 2020, Charles Pierson said the following...

Ultimately, it will come down to a matter of can they be close
enough, and can those ultilizing Telegram do so in the spirit of
Fidonet messages.

I think that's probably the biggest issue for folks. I know I want
to continue to see discussions, etc. BBSes are by default a text
based interface. Too many stickers and pictures that nobody can
see from the BBS side tends to kill the discussion.

I can attach pictures to messages using HotdogEd Point system. It shows a weblink to the file server. But it is related to what I am talking about.

For example I've attached photos of plants I'm growing or planters I'm making from discarded items in HOME_N_GRDN.

Or if I post an article or a blurb about a book that interests me, I'll include the link to the source so that people can read it for themselves.

I wouldn't think there is a problem with that, or at least no one has said anything to me about it so far.

But I do understand about the photos/links with no context.



--
Best regards!
Posted using Hotdoged on Android
--- Hotdoged/2.13.5/Android
* Origin: Houston, TX (1:153/757.26)

1:153/757.26 3ed34e4d
Hello, Richard Miles.
On 11/17/20 3:25 PM you wrote:

On 16 Nov 2020, Charles Pierson said the following...

Ultimately, it will come down to a matter of can they be close
enough, and can those ultilizing Telegram do so in the spirit of CP>> Fidonet messages.

I think that's probably the biggest issue for folks. I know I want
to continue to see discussions, etc. BBSes are by default a text based interface. Too many stickers and pictures that nobody can
see from the BBS side tends to kill the discussion.

I can attach pictures to messages using HotdogEd Point system. It shows a

weblink to the file server. But it is related to what I am talking about.

For example I've attached photos of plants I'm growing or planters I'm

making from discarded items in HOME_N_GRDN.

Or if I post an article or a blurb about a book that interests me, I'll

include the link to the source so that people can read it for themselves.

I wouldn't think there is a problem with that, or at least no one has

said anything to me about it so far.

But I do understand about the photos/links with no context.

--
Best regards!
Posted using Hotdoged on Android

I do the same. I'll post links to stuff when I'm connected through my telnet client as well, so don't really see a difference there.


--- tg BBS v0.6.2
* Origin: Fido by Telegram BBS by Stas Mishchenkov (2:460/58)

Hi, August!

20 ��� 20 17:02, August Abolins -> Stas Mishchenkov:

Considering that you also process some UUE groups based on the list
you posted, I would imagine that it adds up.

Further to that, you process any photo/file attachements and store them

on

your bbs too. That can certainly take considerable time as your system works through all that.

The files are not large and their decoding does not take a lot of time and resources. There are not many such files.

Have nice nights.
Stas Mishchenkov.

--- ���� ��� �஢�७�� �楯� - ᪠���� ����, �� ���� ����.
* Origin: Lame Users Breeding. Simferopol, Crimea. (2:460/5858)