pozar@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Pozar) (01/11/90)
Volume 7, Number 2 8 January 1990
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| _ |
| / \ |
| /|oo \ |
| - FidoNews - (_| /_) |
| _`@/_ \ _ |
| International | | \ \\ |
| FidoNet Association | (*) | \ )) |
| Newsletter ______ |__U__| / \// |
| / FIDO \ _//|| _\ / |
| (________) (_/(_|(____/ |
| (jm) |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Editor in Chief: Vince Perriello
Editors Emeritii: Dale Lovell
Thom Henderson
Chief Procrastinator Emeritus: Tom Jennings
FidoNews is published weekly by the International FidoNet
Association as its official newsletter. You are encouraged to
submit articles for publication in FidoNews. Article submission
standards are contained in the file ARTSPEC.DOC, available from
node 1:1/1. 1:1/1 is a Continuous Mail system, available for
network mail 24 hours a day.
Copyright 1989 by the International FidoNet Association. All
rights reserved. Duplication and/or distribution permitted for
noncommercial purposes only. For use in other circumstances,
please contact IFNA at (314) 576-4067. IFNA may also be contacted
at PO Box 41143, St. Louis, MO 63141.
Fido and FidoNet are registered trademarks of Tom Jennings of
Fido Software, 164 Shipley Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94107 and
are used with permission.
We don't necessarily agree with the contents of every article
published here. Most of these materials are unsolicited. No
article submitted by a FidoNet SysOp will be rejected if it is
properly attributed and legally acceptable. We will publish
every responsible submission received.
Table of Contents
1. ARTICLES ................................................. 1
Urgent News about Ben Baker .............................. 1
Help Others Have a Happy Holiday Season! ................. 2
CIMN DISKzine ............................................ 3
SIGnet and Other Networks ................................ 12
2. LATEST VERSIONS .......................................... 14
Latest Software Versions ................................. 14
3. NOTICES .................................................. 17
The Interrupt Stack ...................................... 17
Special Meeting of the IFNA Board ........................ 17
FidoNews 7-02 Page 1 8 Jan 1990
=================================================================
ARTICLES
=================================================================
Forwarded from the Alliance DUKES Conference by
Phil Buonomo, 1:107/583@FidoNet 520/583@AlterNet 9:807/1@PNet
Originally by Karl Schinke, Archduke of the ISA
Well, We have bad news and We have good news.
First, the bad news.
While on a windjammer cruise of the West Indies, The Grand
Wizard, Sir Ben Baker, was stricken with a heart attack.
Fortunately, the vessel was in harbor at St. Barts, and Sir Ben
was whisked to the small hospital there, and in short order to
the Island of Guadalupe to a larger hospital.
Now the good news.
Sir Ben was discharged from the hospital this morning, and is
resting comfortably in a hotel on Guadalupe.
We tracked him down, brushing the rust off Our French language.
Many thanks to the staff at the hospital for putting up with Our
"fractured French". We spoke with him, and he sounds well and
in good spirit. Lady Nora is with him, and they are remaining
on the island for a while until he's gained enough strength to
return.
Our best wishes for speedy recovery go out to him, as We are
sure do yours. We will speak with him again in a few days, keep
you posted.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 7-02 Page 2 8 Jan 1990
Thinking about Others During the Holidays
Phil Buonomo, 1:107/583@FidoNet 520/583@AlterNet 9:807/1@PNet
During this holiday season, many of us would like to be in a
position to help others, but are just too busy, or can't make
enough time to do the things we'd like. Here is a very simple
way that YOU can help someone NOW, and all it'll cost you is a
postage stamp.
Don't throw away your used Christmas/Chanuka cards. They mean a
lot to the children of St. Jude's Ranch for Children in Boulder
City, NV. They have a card-recycling program and would love to
have your cards.
Please take advantage of this simple way of helping others.
Most people throw their used cards in the trash. To the
children of St. Jude's, thats the same as throwing money away.
Please take a moment to take those cards off the wall, put them
in an envelope, and send them in. You'll feel better!
So do some good, please, and help others have a happy holiday!
Send your used cards to:
St. Jude's Ranch for Children
PO Box 1426-AL
Boulder City, Nev. 89005-1426
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 7-02 Page 3 8 Jan 1990
It has been brought to my attention I failed to provide a
Net/Node Number for the Article about the Computer Information
Monthly News Magazine, which will be here after refered to as a
DISKzine. So I would like to let all of you know the Node # is
301/1. The program is now FReq in both ARC and ZIP under the
title of CIMN.ARC or CIMN.ZIP each month. This will preclude
requestors from having to remember which month they would like
to have. It will also be available in the previous mentioned
versions of CIMN-V##.ARC OR CIMN-V##.ZIP for those who will
be interested in back issues.
Jake Hargrove
301/1
High Mesa Ranger's BBS
Los Lunas, NM 87031
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 7-02 Page 4 8 Jan 1990
*What the Hell is THIS!!!!!
Jerry Hindle 1:123/7 (just a user there)
I believe that those of you who wrote this document need a
little education in the finer art of politics. The main reason I
say this is enumerated below on a paragraph by paragraph basis.
I have cut the first part of the original article off as in it
there was nothing that really matters since it was mostly
definitions and such. What is left is what I am making comments
on.
*****************************************************************
GATEWAY POLICY DOCUMENT
Duplicate Message
-----------------
Because of the technology employed by some FidoNet
Conference Mail distribution systems, improper routing
information or topology can cause multiple copies of the same
message text to be delivered to FidoNet systems. A duplicate
message is defined as any message arriving at a FidoNet node
whose message body (the text entered by the human originator of
the message) is identical to the message body of a previously
received message. Messages manually forwarded to another
recipient are not considered duplicates for the purposes of this
document.
END OF QUOTED SECTION
*****************************************************************
While I agree that duplicates are a major headache in echomail, I
do not see why you seem to think that FidoNet is free of dupes. A
look at the backbone systems logs will show that this is far from
true. While you say here that it is up to the other network to
keep duplicate messages from entering Fidonet, what is Fidonet
going to do to keep dupes from entering the other network (which
is a more realistic threat in my view)??????
*****************************************************************
GATEWAY POLICY DOCUMENT
Section 3 - Administrative Guidelines
=====================================
This section is intended to outline the administrative
framework under which Other Networks may connect to FidoNet.
FidoNet reserves the right to reject any Other Network Gateway
application for any reason.
FidoNews 7-02 Page 5 8 Jan 1990
END OF QUOTED SECTION
*****************************************************************
And just who died and appointed you the ruler of the universe???
Hummm I for one have no desire to connect to FidoNet for echomail
(in fact I do not carry a FidoNet address simply because FidoNet
"decided" that independent nodes had no reason for existence and
my node number was "abolished". You want me to agree to this crap
simply so you can talk to me, ha, I can already send mail to any
node within fidonet and I don't even need a fidonet address for
that. If you wanna reply I suggest you figure out a way to connect
to us without all this legalize mumbo-jumbo. Remember we are a
HOBBY network and if it takes this to run a hobby then I want no
part of it.
*****************************************************************
GATEWAY POLICY DOCUMENT
3.1 - Other Network Connectivity to FidoNet Through "MultiNets"
---------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNet may elect to seek and obtain connectivity to various
multinet host facilities for the purposes of communicating with a
wide range of Other Networks. Any Other Network that desires to
communicate with FidoNet may elect to facilitate such
communication via the multinet. However, FidoNet reserves the
right to refuse to deliver incoming message traffic arriving via
such an arrangement based upon the guidelines set forth in this
document.
END OF QUOTED SECTION
*****************************************************************
Does this mean what I think it means......ie you want more then
one gateway to any particular network. Well then the reverse is
true, the other network should have the right to "turn down" this
request if they feel it is not necessary.
*****************************************************************
GATEWAY POLICY DOCUMENT
An Example:
FidoNet is now gated into Internet via UUCP. It has agreed
to the terms and conditions necessary for membership in and
connectivity to the Internet multi-network "umbrella". One
obvious method for achieving connectivity to FidoNet (and a whole
host of other wide area networks) is for the Other Network to
apply to Internet for a gateway. Under this scenario, the Other
Network is bound by the terms and conditions of Internet just as
FidoNet is. In this peer relationship, the terms and conditions
stated in this document are used by FidoNet to determine if Other
Network message traffic arriving at a FidoNet/Internet gateway
FidoNews 7-02 Page 6 8 Jan 1990
will be accepted into FidoNet.
END OF QUOTED SECTION
*****************************************************************
I don't see where FidoNet made UUCP sign an agreement to these
rules....and I bet UUCP would tell FidoNet where to leap if you
tried it too. In fact UUCP told FidoNet that if they wanted to
tie in that FidoNet had to abide by "their" rules. I do not see
FidoNet mandating the seenby,origin,addressing stuff to UUCP....
why not????? Also if the message meets UUCP standards and FidoNet
has agreed to accept those standards, then what gives Fidonet the
right to refuse the message(s)?
*****************************************************************
GATEWAY POLICY DOCUMENT
3.2 - Connectivity Only Through Mutually Recognized Gateways
------------------------------------------------------------
While FidoNet has no desire to inhibit experimentation or
connectivity between consenting systems it must maintain the
technical and administrative integrity of its network.
Henceforth, FidoNet will not permit non-FidoNet addresses to
appear in any addressing or routing control fields (Some current
examples include: the "From" or "To" address fields, the "*
Origin" lines, the "seen-by" fields, and the "^APath" fields.) of
any netmail or echomail messages traveling on any portion of
FidoNet's wide area network. This restriction applies to all
present and future FidoNet nodes. FidoNet nodes who wish to
participate in Other Networks may do so but must insure that all
message traffic transmitted to other FidoNet systems contain only
valid FidoNet addresses in the addressing and routing control
fields. The FidoNet coordinators will enforce this requirement
and are authorized by the International Coordinator to take
whatever action may be necessary to prevent non-FidoNet addresses
from entering Fidonet, including without limitation, referring
the offending nodes to this document and to the InterNetwork
Coordinator for information on how to establish proper Gateways.
The sole exception to this requirement is set forth in the
following paragraph:
The exchange of message traffic, on an experimental or
private and closely controlled basis, between an Other Network
and a system or systems that happen to be members of FidoNet is
permitted and encouraged if such message traffic is confined to
the consenting FidoNet systems and is not allowed to travel on or
to any portion of FidoNet's wide area network that has not
previously consented to carry such traffic and if such
connectivity does not prohibit the FidoNet system(s) from
fulfilling the technical and policy requirements necessary for
membership in FidoNet. FidoNet requests that the INC be informed
of such arrangements so that any unintentional "leakage" of Other
Network message traffic into FidoNet's wide area network may be
FidoNews 7-02 Page 7 8 Jan 1990
rapidly isolated and corrected.
The exchange of message traffic between any Other Network
and FidoNet on any basis other than the one mentioned in the
paragraph above shall only be done through mutually recognized
and proper Gateways meeting the requirements set forth in this
document.
END OF QUOTED SECTION
*****************************************************************
AHA! Here's the real "meat" of the whole thing. Echomail control
fields. I can understand the TO:/FROM: fields needing changing.
In fact they are routinely changed by the echomail processors from
one node to the next. I might also be convinced that the ^APATH
line might need to be pruned back to just the gateway system. I DO
NOT HOWEVER SEE ANY NEED TO STRIP THE SEENBYS DOWN since they are
not used by anyone other then humans. They are not used in any form
of addressing. They are used to control dupes by some of the echo-
mail processors however and should be left alone so they can do
what they were intended to do....specifically control dupes. I
"might" also see where an Origin Line might need changing, BUT ONLY
the Net Node number in the () needs changing nothing else. From the
looks and reading of the above paragraph it appears as though
FidoNet is scared to admit that "other networks" even exist (we do)
and that by "sticking your collective heads in the sand" FidoNet
can "make them go away (we won't).
*****************************************************************
GATEWAY POLICY DOCUMENT
3.4 - Application of FidoNet Administrative Policy
--------------------------------------------------
For the purposes of applying FidoNet policy, FidoNet will
view the entire Other Network as a single FidoNet "node" under
the control of the individual named as the "Administrative
Contact / Responsible Party" (or an authorized agent thereof) in
the administrative agreement outlined in paragraph 3.3 above.
All other systems and their users will be viewed by FidoNet as
users on the "responsible party's" node for the purposes of
FidoNet official policy application.
FidoNet holds the operator of a FidoNet node responsible
(from an administrative policy standpoint) for the actions of
that node's users, subordinate "point" systems, and the "point"
system's users. FidoNet views single or multiple Other Network
Gateways as a single "boss" node under the control of the
"responsible party" and will apply FidoNet official policy
accordingly. FidoNet reserves the right to sever links to one or
more of the Other Network's Gateways as its final remedy for
violations of administrative policy. (see the paragraph titled
"Points" in the "Overview" section and the paragraph titled
FidoNews 7-02 Page 8 8 Jan 1990
"Responsible for All Traffic Entering FidoNet Via the Node" in
the "Sysop Procedures" section of FidoNet's official policy
document, for further information).
END OF QUOTED SECTION
*************************************************************
Does the "internetwork coordinator" in FidoNet have the power
to remove from fidonet any node who refuses to abide by your
policy??? Nope...They can only file "policy complaints" and
even at that the past track record of Fidonet is such that
a policy complaint is fast becoming the local joke. Also if
a node in another network violates fidonet policy and is
removed where does the other network policy come into play?
What happens to a fidonet node that violates the policy in
the other network? Does that violation carry the same weight
as a violation of FidoNet policy even though there may be no
rule against it within FidoNet. If FidoNet truly wants to
be fair about all this then the same set of rules need to be
applied to both sides of the equation (even Algebra teachers
will tell you this).
***************************************************************
GATEWAY POLICY DOCUMENT
3.5 - Supported Message Types
-----------------------------
FidoNet will grant Gateway interconnection for the purposes
of exchanging messages of the type defined above as "Netmail" and
optionally for the purposes of exchanging messages of the type
defined above as "Echomail". FidoNet will not grant Gateway
interconnection for the purposes of exchanging "Echomail" only.
The ability to generate a private and personal "Netmail" reply to
an "Echomail" message is one of the basic facets of FidoNet and
cannot be compromised.
END OF QUOTED SECTION
*****************************************************************
This I agree completely with. EchoMail Only gateways are a true
waste of time. If they have room for processing echomail then
they have room for processing a few netmail messages too.....
FidoNews 7-02 Page 9 8 Jan 1990
*****************************************************************
GATEWAY POLICY DOCUMENT
3.6 - Acceptance Criteria (All Other Networks)
----------------------------------------------
The granting of Other Network Gateways into FidoNet is not
automatic nor is it based solely on the Other Network's ability
to demonstrate technical compliance with the objectives set forth
in section 4 below. Some other criteria include:
END OF QUOTED SECTION
*****************************************************************
Why are you limiting other networks. After all to get into FidoNet
to begin with all a node need do is sent a netmail message a be
able to recieve a reply. Why should you be any harsher on networks
since you stated earlier that the entire network would be treated
as a point net off of the gateway system.
*****************************************************************
GATEWAY POLICY DOCUMENT
3.8 - Shared Echomail Conferences
---------------------------------
Echomail conferences shared between networks must be
registered with the appropriate FidoNet echomail coordinator. It
is the responsibility of the Other Network and its Echomail
source(s) within FidoNet to insure that proper topology is
observed between the FidoNet / Other Network Gateway(s) and that
duplicate echomail messages do not enter FidoNet. It cannot be
overemphasized that all message traffic emanating from a Gateway
must contain only valid FidoNet addresses in the message's
addressing and routing fields. Current examples include, without
limitation, the "from" and "to" addresses in the message header,
the *ORIGIN line address, the SEEN BY addresses and the ^APath
addresses.
END OF QUOTED SECTION
******************************************************************
Now this is pure bull, plain and simple. Dupes are more likely to
emenate from FidoNet to the other network then from the other net-
work back to FidoNet. Also as I stated earlier these "rules" are
for the most part an attempt by fidonet to "stick their head in
the sand" to make other networks "go away".
*****************************************************************
FidoNews 7-02 Page 10 8 Jan 1990
GATEWAY POLICY DOCUMENT
3.9 - Network Integrity
-----------------------
In the event that FidoNet determines that significant harm
is being caused to the technical or social integrity of its
network, it may immediately sever links between the Other Network
Gateway(s) and FidoNet. FidoNet will make all reasonable
attempts to contact the "Responsible Party" as soon as possible
(before the severing of links if possible) to inform the Other
Network of the problem and to work toward its resolution.
END OF QUOTED SECTION
*****************************************************************
Social integrity?????? I see that FidoNet has finally adopted
the "holier then thou" attitude officially. FidoNet could not be
socially harmed since in order for it to be "socially harmed" it
would first need to be social, which FidoNet, by simply writing
this "document" has proved it is not...
*****************************************************************
END OF COMMENTS END OF COMMENTS END OF COMMENTS
*****************************************************************
Well, that is all I have to say on this matter. I for one will be
the absolute first to veto any attempt to "gateway" to fidonet if
it is to be done under the above referenced document as it is
published in FidoNews Issue # 651. I feel that, as I stated, if
FidoNet wants to dictate the entire show....I DON'T NEED IT !!!
I think some serious thought should be given by FidoNet to write
a set of rules that are fair and equitable to BOTH sides of the
gateway(s) and not slanted so much toward this "it's my ball and
we will play by my rules" attitude that FidoNet seems to have
adopted of late. This is the end of the eightys....let's make it
the end of the "me generation" also.....OK?
Jerry Hindle
PS: for those who really wish to flame me personally I do have a
mail system up and running 24hrs a day. The phone number is:
1-901-683-5410 and it is 9600bps with an HST using SEAdog 4.51a
if you just wanna flame me in fidonews.....go ahead I really don't
care. I amy or may not read it. I will read any and all netmail and
if you are in zone 1 I will even reply via netmail, that is if your
system allows mail from "unlisted nodes". If your system does not
allow this feature then you miss out on half of the fun in this
HOBBY, mail from the unexpected. Bill Paul (sysop of the THINK
TANK 1:123/7 is simply acting as a system for fidonews to
contact me should they need to before publication of this article.
FidoNews 7-02 Page 11 8 Jan 1990
He is in no way responsible for this article or it's contents.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 7-02 Page 12 8 Jan 1990
Jamie Penner
FidoNet 1:153/169
SIGnet and Other Networks
-------------------------
(or: Are We Getting Squeezed Out?)
I've been seeing comments flying around like 'who owns the
echomail?', 'does anyone OWN the echomail?', 'does a gate have
to be authorized?', 'can the mail be ported out?', 'does policy
really mean what it says?'...
With the proposed InterNetwork GateWay Policy being currently
tossed about, these questions are flying fast and furious, and
they seem to be getting a little more furious.
About 8 months ago, I started a network called SIGnet. Its
basic purpose was to bring echomail in that the local FidoNet
network couldn't. It was created as a supplement to the
already existing FidoNet mail flow in my local area. The
concept of SIGnet quickly caught on and grew to be nearly 200
systems within a few months. The mail flow has been VERY
tightly controlled and never has there been a single complaint
about duplicate messages from us yet. When the year turned
over, I look at my report and saw that as the SIGnet
International GateHost, I had passed-on just over 100,000
echomail messages in less than 3 months. Out of that, my system
nabbed about 70 dupes. Not bad.
As I see things happening, our sources of echomail are going to
be drying up rather quickly unless EVERYONE in SIGnet has a
FidoNet number. Well, it just so happens that not everyone in
SIGnet wants one to be in FidoNet, or for that matter, sees a
need for the extra administrative or technical problems caused
by being multi-network.
I fail to see the problems with the current policy regarding
gating mail. Policy 4 (v4.07) states in 2.1.3 that a sysop is
responsible for all traffic entering FidoNet via the node.
What was wrong with this? If I choose to gate mail into
SIGnet from FidoNet and port mail back out, what is the big
problem?
A couple of days ago, I met with the local honchos of FidoNet in
my area to discuss this whole arrangement with echomail. It
turned out that we could better each other's arrangments by
cooperating with each other so long as I, as the gateway system,
conformed to policy. The meeting went well and everyone went
away happy and not feeling compromised.
FidoNews 7-02 Page 13 8 Jan 1990
It seems that this policy is a muscle-flex and will shake off
the 'other networks'. Why can't we face the fact that the
'other networks' are here stay and may not be politically
motivated? Some of us aren't! We can't FidoNet see (like
the locals here do) that some of the 'other networks' may be
able to better things and with cooperation, everyone is better
off?
Recently there were a couple of incidents whereas there was a
system in at least 5 different networks that was committing
questionable acts via his node numbers. Each network was
building a case against him and had no idea about the actions of
the other networks around him. I proposed at the time, that we
form a committee of the 'heads' of the 'other networks' to
address these issues and other inter-network issues. I have
gotten favourable response from nearly everyone. FidoNet
appears to want to go this one alone. IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE!
I am planning to continue with the forming of this committee,
with or without the involvement of FidoNet. I can only hope
that we can act together on this.
Is FidoNet's InterNetwork Policy really for the better of all
sysops or is FidoNet running with its tail between its legs?
Only time will tell. I hope that a vote comes to be on this
issue and that the sysops of FidoNet realize that you can catch
more flies with honey than with acid.
- Jamie Penner -
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 7-02 Page 14 8 Jan 1990
=================================================================
LATEST VERSIONS
=================================================================
Latest Software Versions
MS-DOS Systems
--------------
Bulletin Board Software
Name Version Name Version Name Version
Fido 12q+ Phoenix 1.3 TBBS 2.1
Lynx 1.30 QuickBBS 2.61* TComm/TCommNet 3.4
Kitten 2.16 RBBS 17.2B TPBoard 6.0
Opus 1.03b+ RBBSmail 17.2 Wildcat! 2.10*
Network Node List Other
Mailers Version Utilities Version Utilities Version
BinkleyTerm 2.30 EditNL 4.00 ARC 6.02
D'Bridge 1.30* MakeNL 2.20 ARCA06 2.20*
Dutchie 2.90C ParseList 1.30 ARCmail 2.0
FrontDoor 1.99b* Prune 1.40 ConfMail 4.00
PRENM 1.47 SysNL 3.01* EMM 2.02
SEAdog 4.51b XlatList 2.90 Gmail 2.01
XlaxDiff 2.32 GROUP 2.16
XlaxNode 2.32 GUS 1.30*
LHARC 1.13
MSG 4.0
MSGED 1.99
PK[UN]ZIP 1.02*
QM 1.0
QSORT 4.03
StarLink 1.01
TCOMMail 2.2
TMail 1.12
TPBNetEd 3.2
UFGATE 1.03
XRS 3.10
ZmailQ 1.10*
Macintosh
---------
Bulletin Board Software Network Mailers Other Utilities
Name Version Name Version Name Version
Red Ryder Host v2.1b3 Macpoint 0.91* MacArc 0.04
Mansion 7.12 Tabby 2.1 ArcMac 1.3
WWIV (Mac) 3.0 StuffIt 1.51
FidoNews 7-02 Page 15 8 Jan 1990
TImport 1.331
TExport 1.32
Timestamp 1.6
Tset 1.3
Timestart 1.1
Tally 1.1
Mehitabel 1.2
Archie 1.60
Jennifer 0.25b2g
Numberizer 1.5c
MessageEdit 1.0
Mantissa 1.0
PreStamp 2.01
R.PreStamp 2.01
Saphire 2.1t
Epistle II 1.01
Import 2.52
Export 2.54
Sundial 2.1
AreaFix 1.1
Probe 0.052
Terminator 1.1
TMM 4.0b
UNZIP 1.01*
Amiga
-----
Bulletin Board Software Network Mailers Other Utilities
Name Version Name Version Name Version
Paragon 2.00+* BinkleyTerm 1.00 AmigArc 0.23
TrapDoor 1.11 booz 1.01
WelMat 0.35* ConfMail 1.10
ChameleonEdit 0.10
Lharc 1.00*
ParseLst 1.30
PkAX 1.00
RMB 1.30
UNzip 0.86
Zoo 2.00
Atari ST
--------
Bulletin Board Software Network Mailer Other Utilities
Name Version Name Version Name Version
FIDOdoor/ST 1.5c* BinkleyTerm 1.03g3 ConfMail 1.00
Pandora BBS 2.41c The BOX 1.20 ParseList 1.30
QuickBBS/ST 0.40 ARC 6.02*
GS Point 0.61 LHARC 0.51
FidoNews 7-02 Page 16 8 Jan 1990
PKUNZIP 1.10
MSGED 1.96S
SRENUM 6.2
Trenum 0.10
OMMM 1.40
+ Netmail capable (does not require additional mailer software)
* Recently changed
Utility authors: Please help keep this list up to date by
reporting new versions to 1:1/1. It is not our intent to list
all utilities here, only those which verge on necessity.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 7-02 Page 17 8 Jan 1990
=================================================================
NOTICES
=================================================================
The Interrupt Stack
1 Feb 1990
Deadline for IFNA Policy and Bylaws election
5 Jun 1990
David Dodell's 33rd Birthday
5 Oct 1990
21st Anniversary of "Monty Python's Flying Circus"
If you have something which you would like to see on this
calendar, please send a message to FidoNet node 1:1/1.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Thom Henderson, c/o 1:107/528
Chairman, International FidoNet Association
Special Meeting of the IFNA Board
By my authority as Chairman of the Board of the International
FidoNet Association, Inc. under Bylaw 19 of the Association, and
in accordance with the wishes of the Board of Directors as
established by the Board Meeting concluded on 27 August 1989 and
the wishes of the membership as established by the referendum
concluded on 1 December 1989, I hereby call for a SPECIAL MEETING
of the Board of Directors to be held in Lyndhurst, New Jersey on
the 26th through the 28th of January 1990 for the purpose of
winding down the affairs of the International FidoNet Association,
Inc.
I hereby require that all chairmen of all IFNA committees submit
to the Secretary prior to that date their Final Reports on the
affairs of their committees. Each Final Report shall include
recommendations from the committee on how to conclude any ongoing
business of that committee and reccommendations on how to dispose
of any assets of the IFNA that are within the realm of
responsibility of that committee.
Motions to be made at this SPECIAL MEETING, in accordance with
Bylaw 20 of the Association, may ONLY deal with matters related to
the purpose of this meeting as stated herein. Further, in
accordance with Bylaw 22 of the Association all motions must be
received by me no later than 19 January 1990 in order to be
included on the agenda so that they may be distributed to the
Board members in advance.
FidoNews 7-02 Page 18 8 Jan 1990
Board members who will be attending should contact Irene Henderson
at 201-473-5153 as soon as possible to arrange room reservations
and travel arrangements.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 7-02 Page 19 8 Jan 1990
OFFICERS OF THE INTERNATIONAL FIDONET ASSOCIATION
Thom Henderson 1:107/528 Chairman of the Board
Les Kooyman 1:204/501 President
Fabian Gordon 1:107/323 Vice President
Bill Bolton 3:3/0 Vice President-Technical Coordinator
Kris Veitch 1:147/30 Secretary
Kris Veitch 1:147/30 Treasurer
IFNA COMMITTEE AND BOARD CHAIRS
Administration and Finance *
By-laws and Rules John Roberts 1:385/49
Executive Committee (Pres) Les Kooyman 1:204/501
International Affairs *
Membership Services Jim Vaughan 1:226/300
Nominations and Elections Steve Bonine 1:1/0
Public Affairs David Drexler 1:147/30.20
Publications Irene Henderson 1:107/9
Technical Standards Rick Moore 1:115/333
Ethics *
Security and Privacy *
Grievances *
* Position in abeyance pending reorganization
IFNA BOARD OF DIRECTORS
DIVISION AT-LARGE
10 Courtney Harris 1:102/732 Don Daniels 1:107/210
11 John Rafuse 1:12/900 Phil Buonomo 1:107/583
12 Bill Bolton 3:711/403 Mark Hawthorne 1:107/238
13 Fabian Gordon 1:107/323 Tom Jennings 1:125/111
14 Ken Kaplan 1:100/22 Irene Henderson 1:107/509
15 Kevin McNeil 1:128/45 Steve Jordan 1:206/2871
16 Ivan Schaffel 1:141/390 Robert Rudolph 1:261/628
17 Kathi Crockett 1:134/30 Dave Melnik 1:107/233
18 Andrew Adler 1:135/47 Jim Hruby 1:107/536
19 Kris Veitch 1:147/30 Burt Juda 1:107/528
2 Henk Wevers 2:500/1 Karl Schinke 1:107/516
3 Matt Whelan 3:54/99 John Roberts 1:147/14
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 7-02 Page 20 8 Jan 1990
__
The World's First / \
BBS Network /|oo \
* FidoNet * (_| /_)
_`@/_ \ _
| | \ \\
| (*) | \ ))
______ |__U__| / \//
/ Fido \ _//|| _\ /
(________) (_/(_|(____/ (tm)
Membership for the International FidoNet Association
Membership in IFNA is open to any individual or organization that
pays a specified annual membership fee. IFNA serves the
international FidoNet-compatible electronic mail community to
increase worldwide communications.
Member Name _______________________________ Date _______________
Address _________________________________________________________
City ____________________________________________________________
State ________________________________ Zip _____________________
Country _________________________________________________________
Home Phone (Voice) ______________________________________________
Work Phone (Voice) ______________________________________________
Zone:Net/Node Number ____________________________________________
BBS Name ________________________________________________________
BBS Phone Number ________________________________________________
Baud Rates Supported ____________________________________________
Board Restrictions ______________________________________________
Your Special Interests __________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
In what areas would you be willing to help in FidoNet? __________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
Send this membership form and a check or money order for $25 in
US Funds to:
International FidoNet Association
PO Box 41143
St Louis, Missouri 63141
USA
Thank you for your membership! Your participation will help to
insure the future of FidoNet.
Please NOTE that IFNA is a general not-for-profit organization
and Articles of Association and By-Laws were adopted by the
membership in January 1987. The second elected Board of Directors
was filled in August 1988. The IFNA Echomail Conference has been
established on FidoNet to assist the Board. We welcome your
input to this Conference.
FidoNews 7-02 Page 21 8 Jan 1990
-----------------------------------------------------------------
--
Tim Pozar Try also...
Internet: pozar@toad.com
Fido: 1:125/555
PaBell: (415) 788-3904
USNail: KKSF / 77 Maiden Lane / San Francisco CA 94108