pozar@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Pozar) (07/05/89)
Volume 6, Number 27 3 July 1989
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| _ |
| / \ |
| /|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 will be rejected which is properly attributed and legally
acceptable. We will publish every responsible submission
received.
Table of Contents
1. EDITORIAL ................................................ 1
2. ARTICLES ................................................. 3
Computer Literacy ........................................ 3
FidoCon '89 Update ....................................... 6
A network constitution? .................................. 8
Thoughts on the Nodelist (Revisited) ..................... 11
Multiple Nets in a Single Geographic Area ................ 18
More of My Opinions if Anyone Cares ...................... 21
SDNet/Works! UPDATE ...................................... 25
And we thought the mud-slinging presidential campaign w .. 28
A Short Story, With a Moral .............................. 29
And more!
FidoNews 6-27 Page 1 3 Jul 1989
=================================================================
EDITORIAL
=================================================================
This is getting ridiculous.
Frankly, at this point I could care less who the good guys and
bad guys are. My suspicion is that both sides are at fault. But
this apparent attempt to bury FidoNews in POLICY squabbles has
gone far enough.
To date I have printed nearly everything that has been sent on
the topic(s) in question, because of our open policy. The only
items I haven't printed were sent to the Publications committee
for review in one case, and exceeding the MAKENEWS limit in
another. (The long article will be published after PubComm looks
at it)
The result: some very HEAVY FidoNews editions.
Has anyone benefitted from this? Answer: No.
Is this serving the public interest? Answer: No.
So what can be done about this? Change the Editorial Policy? I
think not. I've spent some time thinking about it and I don't
believe that any policy can be drafted that will properly curb
abuse of the FidoNews forum without causing severe damage to the
usefulness of FidoNews to the community at large. And I'm not so
certain that devising long-winded policy documents accomplishes
much more in this network than usurping the normal role of
everyone's manners and good judgement, and putting all that into
the hands of others (however well-intentioned they might be).
So we're down to ASKING. PLEASE, DON'T SEND US SO MUCH MATERIAL
ABOUT POLICY SQUABBLES. If you feel strongly about publishing
something about some local issue, try to keep it down to one or
two concise articles. The current ratio of anywhere from 4 to 6
articles or more per dispute is just too much. If there really
are issues that we can all see, one well-written article should
be able to make them apparent. All you accomplish by sending in
20K of text a week is getting everyone pissed off at YOU.
I still intend to print what I receive as long as it passes
scrutiny for possible legal problems by me or the Pubs committee
(this isn't new, this is the policy we have been operating under)
but I would like some cooperation from certain combatants in
America's Heartland and elsewhere to help keep FidoNews on track.
There are important political issues facing the network. We need
a forum that enjoys wide readership in order to discuss them.
Spending too much time in a local Wisconsin dispute will drive
the Louisiana or Luxembourg reader away. I'm not taking sides
here. I'm just telling it like it is. PLEASE give this some
consideration.
FidoNews 6-27 Page 2 3 Jul 1989
As always, thanks for shopping K-Mart, er, reading FidoNews ...
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 6-27 Page 3 3 Jul 1989
=================================================================
ARTICLES
=================================================================
Claude F. Witherspoon
Fido 1:288/525
Home of KidsNews
Computer Literacy to be Top National Priority
Its that time of year again. Computer Learning Month will be upon
us before we know it. With that in mind, we at KidsNews would
like to share the following information in hopes to make this
year even better than last year:
COMPUTER LITERACY TO BE TOP NATIONAL PRIORITY FOR NEW
INDUSTRY-SUPPORTED FOUNDATION
PALO ALTO, Calif. (Feb. 13, 1989) -- In a bi-partisan effort to
address the nation's eroding educational levels, the Computer
Learning Foundation (CLF) today announced plans for a year round
campaign to promote computer literacy in North America. Supported
by major software publishing companies, as well as Apple and IBM,
CLF expects to recieve up to $1 million in funding this year.
The announcement coincides with predictions of a national
technologigal decline touched off by last week's release of an
Educational Testing Service study that showed 13-year-old U.S.
students scoring the lowest in an international comparison of
mathmatics and science skills. Earlier, a National Research
Council study reported that American students were being *left
behind* by a mathematics teaching system that set its
expectations too low.
The establishment of the non-profit Computer Learning Foundation
will extend the annual industry-sponsored Computer Learning Month
(CLM) public education campaign in October to a year-round
initiative. Last year's program reached more than 60 million
people and was the catalyst for nearly 3,000 computer literacy
events in schools and cities throughout the U.S. and Canada.
"With increasing concern over the high school drop-out rate, poor
student performance levels and the erosion of the country's
competitive edge, the importance of having an educated and
computer-literate population has emerged as a top national
priority as we experience a quantum leap in technological
development," said Sally Bowman, director of CLF.
Predictions by Forcasting International indicate that by the year
2010 every job in America will require some form of information
technology skills.
"Our number one goal os to motivate more effective uses of
technology in schools, homes and businesses by raising public
recognition of what is really possible with computers. In 1989,
FidoNews 6-27 Page 4 3 Jul 1989
we are building a broader coalition of partners to reach out to
children, adults and teachers from every socioeconomic background
and help to increase computer compfort and confidence around the
country. Computer literacy goes well beyond Silicon Valley: is is
the nation's future."
In 1989, for the first time, sponsorship of Computer Learning
Foundation activities will be open to organizations outside the
computer industry. Through joint promotional tie-ins with
mass-marketers of consumer products, CLF expects to extend its
"You Won't Believe What You'll Achieve!" message nationwide.
Industry sponsorship of CLM activities reached an all-time high
in 1988, up 300 percent from 1987. The 1988 coalition of support
included 61 software and computer industry members, 52 U.S. State
Departments of Education and Canadian Ministries of Education,
and 21 national non-profit organizations.
CLF 1989 programs, using the theme "You Won't Believe What You'll
Achieve!," will offer a variety of programs and materials
designed to reach millions of children, adults and educators in
the U.S. and Canada. Books that address computers and careers,
school lesson plans for all age ranges and educational levels,
and more will be published and distributed by CLF in the coming
year. Last year alone, CLM distributed millions of books, posters
and materials as part of its efforts to increase "computer
confidence" amoung all age groups. This year, in addition to its
books, CLF will also distribute posters and Computer Learning
Month event kits to schools and community groups to support their
efforts in increasing computer literacy.
CLF contest for individuals and educators prompted more than
100,000 entries last year during CLM. In 1989, CLF contests will
focus on effective uses of the computer at school and home, as
well as development of teacher training materials. Traveling art
exhibits featuring creative work done by school-aged children
using computers will be displayed at metropolitan libraries and
airports throughout the country. And, for the first time, CLF
will communicate its computer literacy messages via a nationally
syndicated television series entitled SOFTVIEW. The CLF series,
which begins airing in late February, will be produced in
conjunction with the Central Education Network (CEN) and is aimed
at increasing elementary and secondary school educators'
understanding and use of computers in the classroom. The weekly
programs will feature "hands-on" lesson plans that have
effectively incorporated computers and traditional materials, as
well as creative computing ideas for the classroom.
Published with permission of the Computer Learning Foundation
(CLF), Palo Alto, Calif.
I have initiated a National Computer Learning Month echo
available on Fido 1:288/525 by request. If you are interested in
carrying the echo which uses the name NCLM, please send a request
to Butch Witherspoon, Fido 1:288/525 (Continuous Mail (CM)), and
I will be happy to tie you into the echo and send it to your
FidoNews 6-27 Page 5 3 Jul 1989
system. You must be able to accept continuous Mail for this
request. This offer is good for the U.S. only until someone
offeres to gateway the echo to other regions. I would like to see
the echo carried on the Backbone if folks are interested enough.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 6-27 Page 6 3 Jul 1989
Les Kooyman
FidoCon Program Chairperson
1:204/501
FidoCon '89 Update: Dateline Silicon Valley
Planning for FidoCon continues at what is beginning to seem like
a hectic pace. As we get closer and closer to the actual date of
the convention, I'm sure we'll look back on this as our relaxed
time!
We've been successful enough at attracting speakers that current-
ly we're planning on 12 rather than 8 sessions. The conference is
still single-track, that is, only one session will be going on
att a time.
The current program listing for Fidocon '89 is as follows:
1: Tim Pozar on UFGATE
2: Vince Perriello and Bob Hartman on BinkleyTerm
3: Bob Hartman on Bix processing of FidoNet echomail
4: Phil Becker on TBBS
5: Tom Jennings on Fido
6: Chuck Forsberg on Zmodem and protocols
7: Mort Sternheim on FidoNet and IFNA
8: Chris Irwin/Joaquim Homrighausen on D'Bridge/Front Door
9: Rick Heming on Wildcat BBS software
10: OPEN
11: OPEN
12: OPEN
We'll be announcing the times and dates of the sessions in July,
in case you want to plan on attending a subset of the full con-
ference.
I would be remiss if I did not emphasize that the deadline for
discount registration is quickly approaching (July 15th). Both
the registration fee for the Convention itself and the hotel
discount rate increase on that date. The FidoCon registration
will increase from $60 to $75, and the discount hotel registra-
tion will END, meaning that you will pay full price for your
hotel room. So get those registrations in, folks! Please see the
registration form in this issue of FidoNews for details on the
way to proceed to take advantage of our discount offers. We'll
accept your registration for FidoCon after July 15 at the $60
rate if you netmail your registration form to 1:1/89 (the offi-
cial FidoCon '89 node) by midnight Pacific Time on July 15, and
(this is IMPORTANT) your hard copy confirmation and fees reach us
within 72 hours of that netmail reservation. This is important
both for payments by credit card or check. You cannot, however,
guarantee the discount hotel rate through netmail to 1/1:89, this
must be done as described in the registration form.
We've also arranged for discount automobile rentals through Alamo
Rent-a-Car. To take advantage of this discount, you need to call
Alamo at 1-800-327-9633 and request an automobile at the conven-
FidoNews 6-27 Page 7 3 Jul 1989
tion rate. Mention FidoCon '89 and the dates of the conference at
the time you request the convention rate. You must make your
reservation no later than 30 days prior to the event, which means
you would need to reserve your car by July 24th. All of the
following rates include automatic transmission, air conditioning
and radio. All of the discount rates include unlimited free
mileage.
Economy car (example: Geo Metro) $32 day/$109 week.
Compact car (example: Chevy Cavalier) $34 day/$120 week.
Midsize car (example: Pontiac Grand Am) $36 day/$135 week.
Standard car (example: Buick Regal) $38 day/$165 week.
Luxury car (example: Buick LeSabre) $40 day/$239 week.
Remember that you really don't have to rent a car in the San
Francisco Bay area if you don't want to, public transportation is
quite good. However, if you are interested in seeing as much as
possible of the area and making a real vacation of it, you should
consider a car, and these rates strike me as being very good.
That's all for the moment... see you in San Jose!
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 6-27 Page 8 3 Jul 1989
A network constitution?
I know it may sound kinda funny...but do we need such a
thing? I'm beginning to think that it might not be such a bad
idea to help us improve and expand our network. I have been
reading some of the echos floating around and the FIDOnet news
letters and it is beginning to get pretty hostile. Anyway after
some thought and discussion with other sysops I drafted the
following document as a proposed "constitution" for a logical
network called FREEnet. Such a net would include all sysops
whether they are in a organized network or not.
Now you are probably saying why? What good would this do
me the regular BBS sysop? Wouldn't this just be another layer
of stuff I would have to put up with! Well here in short and
sweet are some of the reasons that such a collective body can
be a benefit to you.
1) It would allow each member more democratic input into
the hows, whys, and whats of how the networks are run.
2) A collective body could exert influence on the
legislative bodies of state and federal governments.
Issues like the FCC's rate setting for long distance
telecommunication products/services.
3) Representation in national/international standards
meetings. Where things like X.400 are right now being
put on paper. The future of ISDN and how that will
impact Email and networking.
4) A collective force that can influence the computer
equipment producers and software vendors.
There are a lot more reasons than I have listed above and
I'm sure there are some that may or may not agree with the
ones I've listed. But I hope that we can somehow get together
as a group and tap some of the great potential we already have
as sysops. To get this thing started we need people willing
to function as a "constitutional congress" and designate
a legislative working group for each of the 50 states and
each over-seas country.
I hope I have sparked some interest in this idea....
Please contact me with your comments, thoughts, suggestions...
anything that you feel like saying on this constitutional
organization.
David Winters
The "Drifting Sysop"
MCImail: 328-8890
Telex: 6503288890
CIS: 73327,1075
Fido: 281/10 (route to 777/1)
DDN/Arpa: sac.23bms-do@e.isi.edu
FidoNews 6-27 Page 9 3 Jul 1989
FREEnet Constitution
9 June 1989
PREAMBLE:
The rights and interests of computer hobbyists around the
world are diverse and ever changing. As each ventures to learn
and grow the need to communicate with their peers is a necessity
that fosters this expanding interest in the field. This
communication should be easy and agreeable with minimal
interference from outside organizations. The RIGHT of these
individuals to explore as they will must be protected and
nurtured as a fundamental goal. To this end the following
constitution is dedicated and drafted for those who hold to this
basic purpose.
ARTICLES of CONSTITUTION:
1. This constitution shall be a document used as a foundation for
all members participating in FREEnet and as a guide for
operations. It is ratified by each individual member's decision
to participate. As a guide it is not the absolute...but a living
changing document.
2. Each member of the network has the right to one vote on any
issue that concerns this network, its operation, or this
constitution and amendments. A member is an individual that has
identified themselves as a willing participant to FREEnet and
this constitution.
3. All operations of FREEnet will be in accordance with the laws
of the sovereign state in which the member resides. Any actions
which conflict with these local laws...the local law will take
precedence over the network constitution and amendments.
4. Any operations or subjects not addressed in these articles or
amendments are retained to the members and shall not be abridged
without their consent and approval.
5. There will be elected by simple majority a president and vice-
president, who shall function as the executives for FREEnet. They
retain the office for one year and have the power to appoint
individuals as assistants as needed. All assistants will be
confirmed by the legislative congress. The president will
represent the FREEnet and its members on all matters not retained
to the members or the congress. The vice-president will perform
tasks assigned by the president. The president also retains the
right of the VETO on legislation written by the congress.
6. The congress shall consist of members elected by majority in
their area of operation. Each 50 members shall have one
representative in the FREEnet congress. The area should consist
of members who are closely located geographically. In remote
areas of 5 or more there may be elected a representative upon
approval of the judicial council. The representatives will retain
FidoNews 6-27 Page 10 3 Jul 1989
office for one year. The congress has the power to put forth new
legislation that effects the operation of FREEnet.
7. The judicial council will consist of 12 members selected by
the president and approved by the congress. Each judge will
retain their office for two years. The judicial council will
arbitrate questions about operations with reference to this
constitution. The council has the power of REVISION for all
legislation where conflicts arise with this constitution and
amendments. The council will rule on matters between members,
members and the FREEnet organization, and non-member
organizations and FREEnet. The council may appoint sub-councils
to performs judicial tasks as assigned.
8. No member may hold more than one office in FREEnet.
9. Amendments to this constitution may be enacted by: a 3/4
majority of congress or by vote of 90 percent of the members.
Legislation may be introduced by any congress representative or
by a petition of 500 members. Introduced legislation must be
approved by a 3/4 majority of congress
10. The act of impeachment for any member, congress
representative, or president requires the vote of 90 percent of
congress and a majority of the judicial council.
WE THE FOLLOWING SIGN THIS DOCUMENT IN GOOD FAITH AND WITH THE
HOPE THAT IT WILL FOSTER EACH MEMBERS BEST INTEREST.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 6-27 Page 11 3 Jul 1989
Jack Decker
(Formerly?) Fidonet 1:154/8
LCRnet 77:1011/8
THOUGHTS ON THE NODELIST (REVISITED)
This may well be my last Fidonews article as a member of
Fidonet. In a scant few hours, the new Fidonet nodelist will be
issued, and our Net will no longer exist as far as Fidonet is
concerned (although we are still quite alive and well, thank
you).
This particular cloud may indeed have a golden lining, however.
It has caused us to give some really serious thought to the
matter of the nodelist, and as a result, the "Official Public
Computer Network" Nodelist is now in production. The current
OPCNLIST and OPCNDIFF are requestable from 154/970, and that's
also where you can send your Net's nodelist segment if you'd
like to be included in the OPCN nodelist. The only problem, of
course, is that by the time you read this, 154/970 will no
longer be in the Fidonet nodelist, unless something pretty
miraculous happens between now and then. Never fear, at the
end of this article I'll give you enough information to
temporarily plug a subset of Net 154 into your private nodelist
long enough to file request a copy of the OPCN nodelist
(assuming you can't find a distribution point nearer to you).
I think the nicest compliment that we've received so far came,
believe it or not, from an RC (not ours!), who said "Nice idea
- perhaps what FidoNet was SUPPOSED to have been....." This
is, in fact, exactly what we're hoping for... to cut away all
the political crap and return Fidonet (or at least, computer
networking) to what it was originally intended to be.
We have made one change in the way we're doing things. We now
support the Fidonet style usage of the CM flag, that is, CM is
no longer assumed to be the default condition. While we still
feel that it would make more sense for CM to be the default
(since the majority of nodes are now CM), we also recognize
that it creates a hardship for NC's to have to make two
separate nodelists (one for Fidonet, and the other for the OPCN
nodelist). So, you can now send the same Net nodelist to both.
You still have the option of creating a nodelist just for the
OPCN nodelist (since we do support some additional nodelist
flags that Fidonet doesn't), but you don't HAVE to if you don't
want to.
Another reason you may wish to create a separate nodelist for
the OPCN nodelist is that the OPCN nodelist allows you a lot
more freedom to list all the nodes in your net. If you have
private nodes, or nodes that are outside your local calling
area that you haven't been listing for fear of bringing down
the wrath of the Fidonet *C's upon you, feel free to list these
nodes in the OPCN nodelist. The OPCN nodelist is in no way
affiliated with Fidonet. When you list your Net in the OPCN
nodelist, think of it as though you're actually listing a
FidoNews 6-27 Page 12 3 Jul 1989
private Net that just happens to use the same Net number as
your Fidonet Net, but that need not contain exactly the same
list of nodes as your net in Fidonet.
If you're an NC, we would like to invite you to have your Net
listed in the OPCN nodelist. You may use the same Net number
that you are now using in Fidonet (or in any other Network, so
long as it does not conflict with an existing Fidonet Net
number), so you need not alter your system's control files.
Send your net's nodelist updates (under the filename NET.xxx,
where the "xxx" is your net number) to George Kasica (the OPCN
nodelist compiler) at 154/970. (NOTE: Should you have a four
digit Net number, please use the filename xxxx.NET when you
send your nodelist segment in to 154/970). For those who'd
like more involvement in this project, we'll be forming a
"Nodelist Distribution Network" to assist in the distribution
of the OPCN nodelist, and to assist in the gathering of
nodelist segments from individual Nets. For more information
on the OPCN nodelist and/or the Nodelist Distribution Network,
please send netmail to George.
You might be asking why you would want your net listed in the
OPCN nodelist. There are several reasons, but here are a few
of the main points:
1) We've deliberately tried to make the OPCN nodelist as
non-political as possible. You do not have to agree with
anyone else's philosophy as to how a network should be operated
in order to be in the OPCN nodelist. Nor do you have to give
up any existing affiliation with Fidonet or AnyOtherNet in
order to be listed in the OPCN nodelist. You should consider
listing your net with us, if for no other reason than that we
could be a valuable "second source" listing of Fidonet
compatible nodes in the event that anything ever happens to
disrupt publication of the Fidonet nodelist.
2) We allow you to list ALL the nodes in your Net. No need to
"hide" certain nodes for fear that someone might complain that
they're on the wrong side of a geographic boundary.
3) If you are now listing certain nodes that are really full,
operational BBS's in a Point Net because they don't quite meet
certain technical standards, they can be listed as private,
unlisted nodes in the OPCN nodelist. We don't get our noses
out of joint because you have private, unlisted nodes in your
net. And as long as the Net's NC can connect with the private,
unlisted node to exchange mail, it's nobody's business if
anyone else can (since all inbound mail to such nodes will be
host-routed anyway).
4) If you're now listing certain nodes as "private, unlisted"
because you don't want your RC to know where they're really
located, you can list the phone number and location in the OPCN
nodelist (as far as the Fidonet people are concerned, these
nodes don't exist, because they're not in their nodelist!). We
don't care where your nodes are located. If you or they are
FidoNews 6-27 Page 13 3 Jul 1989
willing to bear the expense to connect with each other, it's
none of our business.
At this point, I can just hear some folks screaming that we
will increase the size of our nodelist by allowing private
nodes to be listed indiscriminately. Well, in the first place,
we don't have a size problem yet! But in the second place,
part of the blame for that problem can be laid on the shoulders
of the original designers of Fidonet software.
You see, the original designers opted to go with what might be
termed a "fully coupled" nodelist. Simply speaking, this means
that some pieces of software (Opus, for example) will not allow
you to send netmail to a net/node that is not listed in the
nodelist. This prevents a user from sending mail to a
non-existent node, BUT, it also means that all private nodes
must be listed in the nodelist, or users of software that
checks the nodelist for a valid address will not be able to
send mail to such private nodes.
Unfortunately, it soon got to the point where SOME people
started screaming about the size of the nodelist, and decided
that most private nodes had to go. But to where? That's about
the time the whole concept of "points" and "point nets" were
developed. So now, users of systems that check the nodelist
can now send messages to non-existent points. What have we
gained? The net is no longer "fully coupled", since point
addresses cannot be checked for validity, but we have added an
extra layer of complexity.
The Fidonet philosophy in cases like this seems to be to add
more software complexity. We in effect took a system that was
functioning very well using only nets and nodes, and added
"Points" and "Zones" which are essentially KLUDGES. To fully
support either of these extensions adds additional complexity
and software problems that can reach out to bite sysops in the
most unexpected ways. I feel it would have been much better,
and much simpler from a technical standpoint, to abandon the
idea of the "fully coupled" nodelist and to simply route any
traffic for "unknown" nodes to the appropriate net host. In
this way, "private, unlisted" nodes would not have to be in the
nodelist, and we could have done without the "Point" kludge.
To give you just one example of how these kludges can really
screw up a system... I have a point off of my system, so I run
ReMapper to remap netmail to his system. I also have a node
number in LCRnet, which uses Zone 77. Just today, I discovered
that if anyone sent me netmail at 77:1011/8, and the sender was
running a fully "zone aware" system that put in the ^AINTL
kludge line, ReMapper would happily readdress such messages and
send them off to non-existent node 1/77!
If those systems now operating as "Points" instead had "real"
net node numbers (albeit private, unlisted ones), netmail and
echomail routing to those systems would be a snap.
Unfortunately, because there's still some "fully coupled"
FidoNews 6-27 Page 14 3 Jul 1989
software out there, such private, unlisted nodes would have to
be listed in the international nodelist to be accessible to
everyone in the net. If we could move away from the idea of
the "fully coupled" network (which no longer exists anyway,
when points are considered), then such private, unlisted nodes
would only have to appear in the NC's nodelist, not the big one
that gets sent around to everyone.
Zones used as gateways to "other" nets are also a kludge, and
you can blame the Fidonet *C structure for that one. When
Alternet first started out, they asked that a group of Net
numbers be reserved for Alternet nodes. This would have made
things much simpler for everyone, Unfortunately, small minds
decreed that Fidonet had a God-given right to all possible net
number combinations, so Alternet was forced to resort to the
Zone kludge. The small minds are still at work... Alternet
first used Zone 4, and the *C's said they needed that for South
America (they wouldn't have DREAMED of just skipping Zone 4 and
using Zone 5). So then Alternet changed over to using Zone 7.
Now the Fidonet nodelist lists nodes 1/5, 1/6, and 1/7 as
"future Zonegates", effectively telling the Alternet folks that
they aren't authorized to use Zone 7, either. But when
penguins and polar bears start using computers, Fidonet will be
ready for them!
Now the Fidonet hierarchy wants other networks to use something
called "domains", the implementation of which will require
additional software and will make life that much harder for
sysops, as well as making it totally impossible for users of
most older software to send messages to those in other
networks. My guess is that most sysops will NOT run "domain"
software. The idea of adding yet another layer of complexity
onto Zones, Nets, Nodes, and Points is probably just too much
for the "average sysop" to stomach.
(By the way, when you dial a 1-800- call, do you know how the
phone company knows which long distance carrier to route it to?
Simple... they look at the first three digits of the exchange,
that is, the three digits following the "1-800-". For example,
if you dial "1-800-222-xxxx", the call is handled by AT&T. If
you dial "1-800-950-xxxx", it goes via MCI. And if it's
"1-800-877-xxxx", it goes by U.S. Sprint. Aren't you glad the
folks who are making decrees on how "alternate' networks must
interface with Fidonet aren't working for the phone company?)
We refuse to play these sort of politically-motivated games
with the OPCN nodelist, and intend to just list nets in North
America under Zone 11, nets in Europe under Zone 12, and so on,
regardless of what "network" the net is affiliated with. So,
sysops who use the OPCN nodelist won't have to try to figure
out if someone is in Fidonet, Alternet, Eggnet, LCRnet or
WhatEverNet. If they have the net/node number, and if the NC
of that net has permitted it to be listed in the OPCN nodelist,
they just type it in as if it were in their own net. No
Zonegating to "other" nets, no multiple outbound areas to
maintain, no worries about whether all your software is "fully
FidoNews 6-27 Page 15 3 Jul 1989
Zone-Aware" (it most likely isn't), and much less complexity
all around.
Before I close, I'd like to share with you part of a netmail
message I received from Carl Linden in response to my first
nodelist article. It makes some very interesting observations,
I think:
I read your article with interest, Jack, and couldn't
agree more.
However: . . .
The IFNA Nodelist already provides what you are
advocating. Following is an excerpt from the latest
Nodelist:
[Note that this is the text that appears at the front of the
Fidonet nodelist, reformatted to fit Fidonews:]
FidoNet Nodelist for Friday, June 16, 1989 -- Day
number 167 : 04941
Copyright 1989, International FidoNet Association
(IFNA), Missouri Corporation. All rights reserved.
NOTICE: This compilation is the property of IFNA as
its created work. This work includes certain
individual portions provided to IFNA by operators of
Fido and FidoNet Bulletin Boards. IFNA has the right
to create and distribute these Nodelists based, in
part, on rights granted to it by those originating
such portions. Other than the rights granted IFNA,
those creating and maintaining the portions retain
all residual rights in and to each's individual
portion.
IFNA grants unlimited duplication and/or distribution
for noncommercial purposes only and reserves all
other rights, including, but not limited to, any
commercial publication, distribution, republication
or redistribution in any way of all or any part of
the NodeList, except those nodes that are now or
hereafter registered in this NodeList shall be and
hereby are licensed to utilize this NodeList only in
the technical operation of those nodes. Any
distribution authorized herein may include recovery
of reasonable, actual costs of duplication and/or
dissemination.
No one is granted any other right to any use, sale,
duplication or distribution of this compilation for
any commercial purpose.....
[Mr. Linden continues:]
FidoNews 6-27 Page 16 3 Jul 1989
IFNA enjoys special tax status by being a corporation
for the good of the general public. IFNA cannot
restrict its services to only its own members,
members of FIDOnet, or any other organization. If
they do their preferred tax status is in jeopardy.
So, the bottom line is that we already have a public
nodelist. Being listed in the nodelist is not at the
pleasure of the *C's, or anyone else, it is required
for IFNA to keep its preferred tax status.
Ex-communication is currently used as a disciplinary
measure by the *C structure if the *C does not like
the views expressed by the "offender". This is a
violation of our right to Free Speech. But,
enforcing that is at best expensive & time consuming.
A much better approach would be to challenge IFNA's
preferred tax status if IFNA does live up to its
purpose to serve the general public.
For now I am not going to publicize this message in
any of the echoes, but you are free to do so as a
comment on your FIDOnews article.
Now, I'm not holding my breath until the IFNA nodelist begins
to fulfill its role as a truly "public" nodelist. We'll be
happy to do it if the IFNA doesn't want to. But, there are a
couple of points worthy of notice here. First, the Fidonet
copyright notice grants specific permission for others to use
it for non-commercial purposes. So, we COULD take the Fidonet
nodelist and merge it into the OPCN nodelist (which could
probably be described as "militantly non-commercial", to
paraphrase Wynn Wagner) and issue a truly combined nodelist if
we wanted to. I would personally prefer not to do things that
way, but apparently we wouldn't be violating anyone's copyright
if we did!
Second, regarding the recent expulsion of Net 154 from the
nodelist by a Fidonet RC... the NC of Net 154 happens to be a
member of the IFNA Board of Directors. The IFNA claims
ownership of the nodelist in the prologue to the nodelist.
Doesn't it seem a bit ironic that a member of the IFNA Board of
Directors (and his entire net) can be kicked out of the IFNA's
nodelist by an RC who is not (to my knowledge) even in the
IFNA, or at least not on the IFNA's Board of Directors?
But the real question is, does the IFNA have the right, as a
tax-exempt organization that is supposed to be serving the
public, to ONLY accept nodelist segments provided to them by
Fidonet *C's?
If the IFNA is obligated to serve the public interest, and to
specifically avoid furthering the goals of one particular
private organization, such as Fidonet (and particularly, the
RC/ZC/IC structure of Fidonet), then can they legally allow a
small group of individuals (the *C's) to decide who will and
FidoNews 6-27 Page 17 3 Jul 1989
who will not be allowed to be in the Fidonet nodelist? By
giving the *C structure control of who can and cannot be in the
IFNA nodelist (based entirely on their private interpretation
of Fidonet Policy documents), isn't the IFNA nodelist is being
used to further the goals of a specific parochial group,
namely, the Fidonet Coordinators at and above the RC level?
Doesn't this violate the provisions of the IFNA's tax-exempt
status?
These questions are ones that I'm sure we will be asking in the
weeks ahead!
I promised to provide an abbreviated Net 154 nodelist that you
can plug into your private nodelist long enough to get a
message to us. This is it. Just use a text editor or word
processor to clean it up and connect the two halves of each
line. If you're an NC, I hope you'll use this to send your
Net's nodelist to 154/970, for inclusion in the OPCN nodelist!
Host,154,/\/\ilwaukee/\/\etro,Milwaukee_WI,
Ted_Polczynski,1-414-282-4181,9600,CM,HST
Pvt,8,Northern_Bytes,Sault_Ste_Marie_MI,
Jack_Decker,-Unpublished-,2400,
,970,Forecast_Office,West_Allis_WI,
George_Kasica,1-414-321-7872,9600,CM,HST
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 6-27 Page 18 3 Jul 1989
Steve Palm
Fidonet 1:154/8.2
LCRnet 77:1011/8.2
MULTIPLE NETS IN A SINGLE GEOGRAPHIC AREA
After reading the policy documents that hold FidoNet together,
and listening to some of the bickering going on in the
Echomail areas, I have come to some conclusions. Please bear
with me as I point out what I see as some obvious points, which
may have been overlooked from time to time by those whom it
might benefit the most at the time.
Geography is quite an issue. Yes, it affects just about every
aspect of the way your system interacts with others in FidoNet.
You cannot become part of a Net that is outside of your
predetermined Geographic area, unless you can prove beyond a
shadow of a doubt that it will be of benefit to *everyone* else
in FidoNet. Well, maybe it isn't that bad, but it sure seems
like it sometimes, doesn't it?
It appears that things have been set up so that a certain
Geographic area is covered by a specific Net. Indeed, this may
be the best way to approach this situation. However, is it
necessarily the best way to handle it in *all* cases? I would
think not...
Many people have been quick to point out different cases in
favor of multiple nets in a Geographic area, if needed. For
example, one person has repeatedly mentioned that Cellular
phone companies are allowed to co-exist in the same area. Yet,
that doesn't in any way shape or form make it any more
difficult for you to get your call through to someone, now does
it?
I was thinking on this, and thought that perhaps only having
one Net in an area *would* be ideal. I mean, after all, then
you know that everyone in that area is going to be going to
THAT net. If you needed to get ahold of them, you would know
exactly where to go ahead of time. There would be *no*
guesswork involved. And forget about those costly connections
too. One phone call to each area, and you won't have to worry
about some facet of that group not getting it.
I think we should even extend this idea a little further,
outside of FidoNet altogether. What about our broadcasters?
Surely you must realize what an awful tragedy we have fallen
into here! I mean, after all, the FCC will allow you to have
more than one FM, one AM, and one TV station in the same area!
That should be stopped immediately!
Consider advertising costs! A business will have to put
his/her advertisement on how many stations to cover the wide
range of people in their own area. And if a news bulletin
needs to be delivered, *all* of the stations must be notified
lest someone not hear about it. Can you see the terror that
FidoNews 6-27 Page 19 3 Jul 1989
lurks here? You might listen to station X, while station Y is
broadcasting just what you needed to know. You have just
missed it, and it will not be repeated. Wouldn't it be great
if you only *had* station Y to listen to? Then you wouldn't
have to worry!
I hope that by now you can see the stupidity of this argument.
It in no way shape or form helps out the community by allowing
only one station. In fact, it hurts it. There is no variety.
No way for the people to have their choice of what to listen
to.
Do you think FidoNet should be different? Sure it might make a
slight bit of change necessary. But, if FidoNet is for the
people, why shouldn't they be allowed a choice? I find it
difficult to believe that it would make it impossible for mail
to flow. Nets will still exist, so you will still have focal
points to send things to. It will still be disseminated from
there. You just won't have these stupid restrictions on where
a person must get their stuff from.
I am not making references here to say that FidoNet is entirely
bad. Obviously there are folks out there that feel parts of it
are in rough shape, but I don't think anyone thinks it is *ALL*
bad. If they did, they wouldn't bother to use compatible
software, now would they?
In just the same way that people are allowed to choose which
magazines to read, which radio stations to listen to, which
movies to see, and which television programs to watch, I think
that they should also be allowed to choose which Net to belong
to. I think this could even go a bit further... They should
be allowed to chose which NETWORK to belong to, and *NOT* be
penalized for it not being FidoNet.
I don't think that the Nodelist should be used as some sort of
tool that is held over your head. "If you don't jump when I
say so, you are CUT!" I know that it isn't supposed to be used
that way, but there are several instances where it is and has
been.
I ask you to seriously consider this. POLICY4 is now in
effect. Many people have said that it gives the upper echelon
more power than they previously had. If you want to see things
change in FidoNet, *NOW* is the time. Don't wait for POLICY5
to come out eliminating the common sysop's view altogether.
If you think that you are not affected by a certain person's
argument and/or troubles, then think again. How long will it
be before you are the one on the chopping block, but there will
be no one around to help you because everyone who might have
backed you up has already been killed?
Please, I ask you to seriously consider taking a stand to make
FidoNet not only a system *FOR* the people, but one that is run
*BY* the people. Where the people have real input, and their
FidoNews 6-27 Page 20 3 Jul 1989
concerns are carefully looked into. If something isn't going
to kill anyone, then why should you say "No." just because it
hasn't been done before?
I know that this will take a lot of hard work, and that a lot
of people are going to get involved. It will definitely get
worse before it gets any better. But, I think that it is
needed, and the sooner it happens the better.
Thank you for taking the time to listen to me. I would really
appreciate it if you would drop me a note letting me know how
you feel about this and related issues.
Steve Palm @ 154/8.2
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 6-27 Page 21 3 Jul 1989
More of My Opinions if Anyone Cares
by Daniel Tobias
1:380/7
Gee, the opinions on FidoNet policy expressed in FidoNews
are getting more and more vicious. I entered the FidoNet
policy debate in the hopes of trying to resolve some of the
venomous squabbles, but if anything, what I've written has
only excerbated them.
Some of the things I've seen in FidoNews 6-26 bring me close
to recanting some of my earlier opinions. In some earlier
articles, I've regarded the passage of POLICY4 as generally
a positive step, dismissed the allegations that the policy
document is illegitimate due to irregularities in its
ratification procedure, and stated that it should be
considered binding on all zones despite the apparent intent
of the Europeans to override it. I believe this in spite
many disagreements with the specific tenets of POLICY4; I
simply feel that members of a private, voluntary
organization who disagree with elements of its rules should
either work within the system to change the rules (while
obeying them until they are changed), or leave the
organization and join or start another that is more
philosophically compatible. While much in POLICY4 is not to
my liking, I generally felt it was livable until a better
POLICY5 can be devised.
However, FidoNews 6-26 gives me some pause. I see there
that a node was excommunicated due to a good-faith
disagreement as to the validity of POLICY4. I think this is
going overboard; so long as the node doesn't actually
violate the policy document, it shouldn't be kicked out due
to the philosophical opposition its sysop holds. He should
have been asked simply to apologize for the unintentional
violation (the bombing run), and asked to promise not to do
it again, but shouldn't have been excommunicated unless he
actually committed further POLICY4 violations. (And,
despite the authoritarian elements of POLICY4, there still
is very little that an individual node (other than a *C) can
do which is excommunicatable; there is little change from
POLICY3 in this regard. Most of the changes, rather, deal
with administrative things of little interest to the average
sysop.)
The same is true of the Europeans; I sincerely hope that my
earlier comments about Zone 2 policy don't help cause the
excommunication of any Zone 2 node for the "crime" of
claiming that POLICY4 does not apply to them (as wrong as I
feel this opinion to be); action, if any is taken at all,
should be only in response to an actual policy complaint
with regard to a specific violation (e.g., if a node is
asked to pay a mandatory charge and refuses). To the extent
my previous comments may have disagreed with this position,
I now recant them. The EuroCon report in the current
FidoNews seems to show the Europeans attempting to create
FidoNews 6-27 Page 22 3 Jul 1989
constructive activity in their zone, and bring about grass-
roots democracy, something which deserves commendation
rather than condemnation; if elements of their plan conflict
with POLICY4 I must regrettably opine that they are
technically invalid and would not stand up upon appeal if
challenged, but I hope the good elements of their plan can
be adopted into a new POLICY5.
Since the legitimacy of POLICY4 is under fire, I feel
pressed to explain further why I accept its validity. The
main objection of those who deny its validity is that the
sysops didn't get to vote on it; it was enacted unilaterally
by the *C's. The implication is that POLICY1 through
POLICY3 were directly adopted by the sysops. Actually, I
was a sysop at the time (1986) that POLICY3 was enacted, and
I don't recall getting a chance to vote on it. I'm kind of
vague by now as to just how it was adopted, but I think some
high-placed *C's drafted it and nobody objected to its
adoption (this being before the faction fights got going).
No explicit vote was taken, though. Regrettably, unanimous
consent is now impossible given the size and diversity of
the network. As for a universal sysop vote, that has only
been tried once, for the initial IFNA bylaws, and the result
(a vote in which a tiny minority of the sysops participated,
and numerous factions claimed to speak for the silent
majority) led to the beginning of the horrible factionalism
the net has had ever since, but didn't seem to have before
that. Given this, one can see some non-authoritarian
reasons why this method was not used this time. I think the
*C vote was a reasonable compromise, and many NCs (including
my own) took some effort to solicit net opinion on the
policy and involve all of us in the decision.
The "Lost Archives" section illustrates the decidedly non-
democratic manner in which major policy change has been made
in the past. What is probably the biggest FidoNet change
ever, the switch from a single node number to the net/node
addressing system, was enacted by gathering together
whichever FidoNet people happened to be in St. Louis at
the time and having them hammer out a system. Many of the
nodes out in the far reaches of the net weren't even aware
of the change until the last minute, let alone being allowed
to vote on it. However, it worked: the switch was made
without major hassle or argument, due to the spirit of
cooperation that pervaded FidoNet then. Anyway, the trend
was set that no democracy was explicitly needed to ensure
the "legitimacy" of change. To change this, a new POLICY
document will have to be passed giving explicit sysop
democracy; no such "voting rights" are expressed or implied
in any current or prior document. As it now stands, the
*C's can be considered the "officers" of FidoNet, and are
entitled to take whatever action they deem necessary in the
absence of a "constitution" giving specific limits on their
powers and granting specific political powers to the sysops
as a whole. To remedy this, policy change is needed, and
POLICY4 at least gives a specific mechanism by which it can
FidoNews 6-27 Page 23 3 Jul 1989
be amended, unlike the earlier policy documents.
Jennings stated in that "lost" archive that the change back
in 1985 was intended to promote "DECENTRALISM"; his (valid)
objection to current policy decisions is that they instead
promote centralism. (And, it is my position that this is
not new to POLICY4, but was implicit in all the POLICY
documents beginning at the time that Jennings stopped
writing them himself.) It is incumbent on FidoNet to adopt
a new policy more in line with the ideals of its founder,
promoting more liberty, decentralism, and democracy.
If this does not occur, I might find myself agreeing with
Jack Decker's plan for a completely nonpolitical nodelist.
Meanwhile, I hope the feuding factions can attempt to defuse
their rivalries. I really don't think many (if any) sysops
or *C's can be fairly characterized as "Nazis", as somebody
did in the last FidoNews. The "Aryan Nation" NeoNazis run
bulletin board systems, but none is in FidoNet. Tossing
around such names is demeaning. In my opinion, while many
sysops and *Cs have very strong opinions on net politics,
they are generally sincerely-held beliefs about what is best
for FidoNet, rather than a desire for tyrannical power over
others. Maybe a couple of real tyrants exist (and I'm not
positive who they are; the issue is clouded by all the
namecalling being flung back and forth), but they are vastly
outnumbered by those who simply want to do what is right.
Perhaps some of the well-meaning feuders can try to back off
a little bit from one another's throats, and accept that
there may be something to the other side's viewpoint.
In the case of the node excommunicated for refusing to
accept the validity of POLICY4, some give-and-take on the
part of both antagonists could lead to this sysop making a
productive contribution to future evolution of FidoNet
policy from the inside, instead of sniping at FidoNet from
the outside. The excommunicated sysop might think of
issuing a statement like: "While I still question the
validity of the POLICY4 document, and will use every legal
means at my disposal to cause it to be replaced by a more
desirable policy, I promise [under duress from threat of
excommunication] to refrain from violating any terms of this
POLICY document so long as I remain in the nodelist and
POLICY4 has not been replaced or overturned." And the *C's
involved should accept such a statement and reinstate the
node, despite the continuing disagreement as to the
legitimacy of POLICY4.
Regarding the case of the net refusing to abide by
geographical rules, if no great harm is done from allowing
out-of-area nodes in the net in question, the RC should
consider using the powers granted him by POLICY4 to allow
the exception to be made. This would not be undermining
POLICY in any way, since such exceptions are specifically
provided for. However, if he continues to refuse the
FidoNews 6-27 Page 24 3 Jul 1989
exemption, the net in question should back down (again, this
may be openly done under duress, with a clear indication
that this action is not agreeable to the net; the NC
shouldn't be forced to lose face by recanting his opinion
on the issue, so long as he yields in action), and then
begin working towards the loosening of the geographical
restrictions in a POLICY5 document so that the nodes may
legally be reinstated later.
In general, *C's should be reasonably tolerant and easygoing
befitting FidoNet's status as an amateur, hobbyist network.
There's no need to go eagerly looking for violations of the
letter of POLICY and come down hard on them, in the absence
of any complaint from parties involved. On the other hand,
sysops should recognize that POLICY4 is in fact the "law of
the land" in FidoNet, and should try to obey it, while
working to change the parts of which they disagree.
If the *C's wish to show that they are not really
authoritarians, they must tolerate a wide range of opinions
from the sysops and lower-level coordinators, including
opinions to the effect that the present policy document is
flawed and possibly illegitimate, so long as the ACTIONS of
these people do not violate policy. On their own part,
dissident elements should not become martyrs to their cause
by brazenly violating policy and inviting expulsion from the
net; they can work more productively towards reform if they
remain in FidoNet. If they instead feel that FidoNet is
beyond saving, they should quit it now and join a net they
like better, rather than starting counterproductive battles
and daring the *C structure to excommunicate them. If you
do leave, please don't use your position outside FidoNet as
a platform from which to continue factional squabbles within
FidoNet; leave the rest of us who have remained to try to
work out our own affairs, and devote your efforts to the
affairs of whatever network you have decided to join
instead. Maybe then we both can progress.
Anyway, the above is just my opinion, not necessarily
representative of anybody else's. I sincerely hope that I
have done more to ease the internal fights than to fan their
flames, but one never knows. Some of you may already be
raging mad about something I've said here or in an earlier
article. If so, please send me a message, explaining as
calmly as possible why you think I'm completely wrong; I'll
try to listen, and if you convince me, I won't be ashamed to
completely recant earlier positions which prove on second
thought to be invalid. Bye for now.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 6-27 Page 25 3 Jul 1989
Ray Kaliss
The SDN Project
Fido 1:141/840
SDNet/Works! UPDATE 07/01/89
It has been six months since SDNet/Works! launched the
Shareware Distribution Network. In that time, even under our
limited plans for growth, SDN has gained over 130 participating
hobby BBS systems in the U.S., Canada and in European Zone 2.
Starting out and remaining a non-profit and hobby adventure,
SDNet/Works! has attracted quality shareware authors to send in
disks for distribution. There are no fees of any kind involved
for authors or sysops.
Oopps, you missed something you say? ... "What is
SDNet/Works!?"
SDNet/Works! is a participation of hobby BBS sysops and
Shareware authors. Shareware programs are received clean,
complete and up to date, directly from the authors and
distributed to the participating sysop members by routing in
netmail. The transfers are done automatically by simple
utilities. Once at the participating system, it is held for 30
days in a special download only file area - there for users and
other sysops alike to grab. SDNet/Works! distribution is a way
of removing the sometimes hazards of the user uploads. It is a
way to keep up to date on shareware versions and releases.
SDNet/Works! participating BBS systems are "distribution
points" for the shareware programs. Because we use
distribution points, the network and membership is limited but
the "points" are available for other sysops to File-Request
from - or download.
Net members run a conglomeration or OPUS, Binkley, FrontDoor,
Dutchie, RBBS, Quickbbs, Wildcat!... you name it!
There are two reasons I write this short notice...
1. To get more systems interested in SDNet/Works! as a
continuation of the hobby adventure and spread SDNet/Works!'s
coverage by adding more distribution points.
2. To let sysops know there are official SDNet/Works!
participating BBSs nation wide in the U.S. - some in Canada and
a few in Europe... these systems are for you, all sysops. You
can log on to the nearest one and make arrangements to find out
what comes down the SDN pike every week, and arrange to make
File-Requests of SDN distributed software.
Along with every shareware program shipped out by SDNet/Works!,
there is an accompanying .SDA (Shareware Distribution Abstract)
file. The SDA is usually a two screen text description of the
program, sometime written for SDNet/Works! by the author,
FidoNews 6-27 Page 26 3 Jul 1989
sometime by net members.
All SDNet/Works! files, recognized by the (filename).SDN
extension, are compressed with NoGates PAK format. As soon as
PAK version 2.0 comes out, SDNet/Works! will be the first to
compress BBS posted programs in a "security envelope" that can
be verified as unchanged from its original packaging at the
SDNet/Works! Distribution Center BBS. Essentially this
"hacker proof seal" will be verifiable on SDNet/Works! files no
matter how far they are further spread from SDNet/Works!
distribution points. Our contribution in a further effort to
preserve safety and the clean hobby spirit in BBSland.
At every participating BBS there is usually posted a net
listing of the locations and numbers of distribution points,
with a file name of SDN_NET.xxx (xxx=update version).
It's about time you contacted an SDNet/Works! site and took
advantage of the newest service and adventure the hobby BBS
world has to offer.
* Project Management *
SYSOP/CONN! - The SDN Project - Information and Publications
- Ray Kaliss
FidoNet 1:/141/840 203-634-0370 (2400 Baud)
South Meriden, Connecticut USA
SDN Central Distribution - System Coordinator
- Charlie Smith
FidoNet 1:141/880 203-628-4644 (9600 HST)
Compu$erve 72417,375
Milldale, Connecticut USA
* Regional Management *
ZONE 1 - North America
Penguin Place Hanford, CA Don Barnes 1:205/2
Innovations BBS Chicago, IL Peter Hur 1:115:736
Channel 23 Orleans, ON, Canada, Chris Weisner 1:163/223
Dog's Breakfast Tom's River, NJ Mike Fuchs 1:266/71
Towne Crier Sys Alliance, NE Tony Mace 308-762-3360
The Hour Glass Tucson, AZ Lyn Borchert 1:300/12
Wilton Woods Wilton, CT John Alton 1:141/250
Hotline Data Langley, BC, Canada, Bryan Bucci 1:153/133
StarScan Montgomery, AL Tom Jones 1:375/1
American Fido Oklahoma City, OK John Knox 1:147/7
Total Chaos Jonesboro, AR Dave Mingus 1:389/1
ZONE 2 - Europe/Africa/Middle East
Zone Manager: Ernesto Hagmann PC-Info <SFNA>
Titterten, Switzerland 2:300/51
Clones Best Frd Dortmund, W Germany, T. Zumbrock 2:509/6
Quick BBS AXE Hilversum, Netherlands, V. Verhagen 2:512/27
OS-68K Gepard Bx Zuerich, Switzerland, A. Wyss 2:302/801
ZONE 7 - ALTERNET
FidoNews 6-27 Page 27 3 Jul 1989
Zone Manager: Ivan Schaffel
The Library - New Haven, CT, USA, 7:640/390
ZONE 8 - RBBSNet
Zone Manager: Terri Rossi
RTC BBS - Medford, NJ, USA 8:950/1
ZONE 9 - EGGNET
Zone Manager: Ken Shackelford
AtlGate - Woodstack, GA, USA, 99:9000/1
Please don't ask a distribution point, an SDNet/Works!
participant, to automatically send you new SDNet/Works! files,
he or she has enough to do and automatic forwarding to
non-SDNet/Works! participants is against our policy... but
distribution points that have File-Request capable software,
should have it set so you can either request a weekly FILES
listing or a local SDNet/Works! information echo in the local
nets it has been set up in. Then you can File-Request, or log
on and download clean hazard free shareware for your own board.
Ray Kaliss
Project Manager
SDNet/Works!
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 6-27 Page 28 3 Jul 1989
Eric Asberry
The Outpost, 1:236/2 (219) 486-8208
"Us" versus "Them"?
Recently we have been inundated with numerous articles about
the slobbering hell-hound RC's we have, and the near martial law
status that our network is being run under. These have
inevitably been countered with articles portraying the "other"
side as hell raising rebels who simply want to upset the balance
and bring our net crumbling down to little more than chaos.
Enough, already. Which side am I on? Neither. POLICY4
definitely has its problem areas. We humans tend to be less
than perfect, so it is not surprising that a policy document
created by humans will probably be less than perfect, too.
However, generally speaking, POLICY4 is a pretty reasonable set
of guidelines for the net to follow. It DOES need some change;
for instance, the current system of selecting the *C structure is
pretty ridiculous.
But before classifying the entire *C structure as a bunch of
ruthless villians, I think that people should give a little more
thought as to all the things the *C structure is responsible for.
They really are not a bunch of power hungry "dictators" in my
experience. I just recently became NC for our small net, and our
RC (who has been called names aplenty) has been very helpful in
setting things up for the transition. If you think about it, the
*C's really do quite a bit for us. I tend to think some of them
are a little nuts, but I suppose they are no more nuts for doing
what they do than the average SYSOP is for using thousands of
dollars worth of equipment to entertain total strangers!
I think that the net's biggest problem is not POLICY4, not
the *C structure, and not even those "rebellious fools" who want
to "upset the balance" of things. No, the REAL problem we face
is the network's increasing failure to achieve its primary goal:
communication. Conversations can get pretty heated in echomail;
tempers flare, egos bulge and for the most part, nothing gets
solved. We need to remember that the guy sitting at the
computer hundreds of miles away is just as human as we are, and
deserves the same consideration we desire for ourselves. I
think it would do us a great deal of good to just remember the
"golden rule". It would solve a lot of our problems, or at
least make them easier to solve. Perhaps it's just wishful
thinking, but I for one am ready for the day when we can
concentrate on improving the net's technical operation instead
of bickering amongst each other. The "lost Fidonet archives"
have left me longing for the past...
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 6-27 Page 29 3 Jul 1989
Steve Palm
Fidonet 1:154/8.2
LCRnet 77:1011/8.2
A SHORT STORY, WITH A MORAL
Many years ago, Indian braves would go away in solitude to
prepare for manhood. One hiked into a beautiful valley, green
with trees, bright with flowers. There, as he looked up at the
surrounding mountains, he noticed one rugged peak, capped with
dazzling snow.
"I will test myself against that mountain," he thought. He put
on his buffalo hide shirt, threw his blanket over his
shoulders, and set off to climb the pinnacle.
When he reached the top, he stood on the rim of the world. He
could see forever, and his heart swelled with pride. Then he
heard a rustle at his feet. Looking down, he saw a snake.
Before he could move, the snake spoke.
"I am about to die," said the snake. "It is too cold for me up
here, and there is no food. Put me under your shirt and take
me down to the valley."
"No," said the youth. "I know your kind. You are a
rattlesnake. If I pick you up, you will bite and your bite
will kill me."
"Not so," said the snake. "I will treat you differently. If
you do this for me, I will not harm you."
The youth resisted a while, but this was a very persuasive
snake. At last the youth tucked it under his shirt and carried
it down to the valley. There he laid it down gently.
Suddenly, the snake coiled, rattled and leaped, biting him on
the leg.
"But you promised ---" cried the youth.
"You knew what I was when you picked me up," said the snake as
it slithered away.
------------------------ end of story ------------------------
Moral(s):
To people who might be tempted by things (i.e. drugs...),
remember the words of the snake: "You knew what I was when you
picked me up"
To those sysops of FidoNet: You knew what it was when you
agreed by policy to be in the NodeList.
I just wish those nasty (UPPER) *C people didn't have to be
such snakes...
FidoNews 6-27 Page 30 3 Jul 1989
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 6-27 Page 31 3 Jul 1989
Steve Bonine
115/777
The Facts Ma'am. Only the Facts.
Here are the simple facts concerning two current issues in
FidoNet. A great deal of smoke has been blown, in FidoNews and
other forums, in an attempt to "blow up" issues which are really
quite simple.
Net 154
--- ---
As Regional Coordinator, I received a netmail message from a
Network Coordinator pointing out that a system in net 154 was in
the geographic area covered by his net. Examination of the
nodelist segment for net 154 disclosed three systems which were
not within "Milwaukee Metro".
I sent netmail to Ted Polczynski, the NC of net 154, asking him
to arrange to move the affected systems to the correct net. This
is a routine matter which occurs from time to time; the message I
sent was worded the same as previous messages to other NC's.
Ted responded that he had the right to place any system in net
154, regardless of its geographic location. He explained that if
a sysop did not wish to be in the local net, then it was in the
best interest of FidoNet for that system to be listed in net 154.
My response was that this did not solve the problem -- why could
not the sysop obtain a listing in the correct net -- and thus was
not in the best interest of FidoNet.
Our opinions are moot, as Policy states "You may not assign a
node number to a node in an area covered by an existing network."
Repeated attempts by myself and David Dodell to obtain assurance
from Ted that he would abide by Policy resulted in responses
which did not address the question. Four words would have taken
care of this entire situation: "I will observe Policy."
Jim Grubs
--- -----
During the weekend of June 17, Jim Grubs conducted a bombing run.
When confronted by formal policy complaints, Jim's response was
that Policy4 did not apply to him, since he did not vote for it.
He made the same statement in the national SYSOP conference.
I sent Jim a netmail message, asking him to reconsider. He
refused. I then removed his nodelist entry.
The reason that I removed the entry, instead of letting the
Network Coordinator do it, was because of Mr. Grubs' threat to
use US Federal courts to protect his right to an entry in the
FidoNet nodelist. Although I feel that there is no grounds for
such a lawsuit, I did not wish to place Jim's NC in the position
FidoNews 6-27 Page 32 3 Jul 1989
of having to defend himself. Under normal circumstances, I would
not infringe upon the right of an NC to run the net, within the
bounds of Policy.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 6-27 Page 33 3 Jul 1989
=================================================================
LATEST VERSIONS
=================================================================
Latest Software Versions
Bulletin Board Software
Name Version Name Version Name Version
Fido 12m+* Phoenix 1.3 TBBS 2.1
Lynx 1.30 QuickBBS 2.03 TComm/TCommNet 3.4
Opus 1.03b+ RBBS 17.2A* TPBoard 5.2*
+ Netmail capable (does not require additional mailer software)
Network Node List Other
Mailers Version Utilities Version Utilities Version
BinkleyTerm 2.20 EditNL 4.00 ARC 6.02*
D'Bridge 1.18 MakeNL 2.12 ARCmail 2.0
Dutchie 2.90C ParseList 1.30 ConfMail 4.00
FrontDoor 2.0 Prune 1.40 EMM 2.02*
PRENM 1.47* XlatList 2.90 GROUP 2.10*
SEAdog 4.51* XlaxDiff 2.32 MSG 3.3*
XlaxNode 2.32 MSGED 1.99
TCOMMail 2.2*
TMail 1.11*
TPBNetEd 3.2*
UFGATE 1.03
XRS 2.2
* 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 6-27 Page 34 3 Jul 1989
=================================================================
NOTICES
=================================================================
The Interrupt Stack
9 Jul 1989
FidoNet's Zone 4 (Latin America) adopts 0800 GMT as new Zone
Mail Hour, replacing the North American 0900 GMT schedule.
15 Jul 1989
Start of the SAPMFC&LP (Second Annual Poor Man's FidoCon and
Lake Party) to be held at Silver Lake Park on Grapevine Lake
in Arlington, Texas. This started as an R19-only thing last
year, but we had so much fun, we decided to invite everybody!
We'll have beer, food, beer, waterskiing, beer, horseshoes,
beer, volleyball, and of course beer. It's an overnighter,
so bring your sleeping bag and plan to camp out. Contact one
of the Furriers (Ron Bemis at 1:124/1113 or Dewey Thiessen at
1:130/24) for details and a fantastic ASCII map.
2 Aug 1989
Start of Galactic Hacker Party in Amsterdam, Holland. Contact
Rop Gonggrijp at 2:280/1 for details.
24 Aug 1989
Voyager 2 passes Neptune.
24 Aug 1989
FidoCon '89 starts at the Holiday Inn in San Jose,
California. Trade show, seminars, etc. Contact 1:1/89
for info.
5 Oct 1989
20th Anniversary of "Monty Python's Flying Circus"
11 Oct 1989
First International Modula-2 Conference at Bled, Yugoslavia
hosting Niklaus Wirth and the British Standards Institution.
Contact 1:106/8422 for more information.
11 Nov 1989
A new area code forms in northern Illinois at 12:01 am.
Chicago proper will remain area code 312; suburban areas
formerly served with that code will become area code 708.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 6-27 Page 35 3 Jul 1989
=================================================================
REPORTS
=================================================================
Nominations and Elections Committee
1:107/233 1:107/210
LAST CHANCE TO VOLUNTEER TO BE AN IFNA DIRECTOR!
Time is running out to send notice of your willingness to serve
the FidoNet community as a Director of IFNA. The Nominations and
Elections Committee will indicate the names of all members who
wish to appear on the upcoming ballot. Please send notice of
your interest immediately to the Committee at 1:107/210.
Some thoughts to consider relative to this follow.
WHAT IS IFNA NOW?
IFNA, now, is what you have made it. If that is not exactly what
you expect, then perhaps you should consider how much you have
done to make that happen. IFNA is staffed solely by volunteer
sysops. As such, all of them already are very busy trying to
maintain their systems, and meet the more pressing demands of
everyday life. The lack of extra time available to them shows in
the lack of results seen around the Net. But don't be fooled -
just because YOU may not see evidence of IFNA at work first-hand,
does not mean that it is not accomplishing things nor that others
are not being benefitted. Lots of behind-the-scenes work is
being done, information and services are being provided to many,
and plans - and dreams - are being formed for the future of
FidoNet.
If you believe in the future of FidoNet, and expect IFNA to do
more things to promote it, then perhaps you shouldn't sit there
expecting that someone else does it. This is your chance to
really see that it gets done the way you believe it should.
WHAT WILL IFNA BE IN THE FUTURE?
What you make it.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 6-27 Page 36 3 Jul 1989
OFFICERS OF THE INTERNATIONAL FIDONET ASSOCIATION
Mort Sternheim 1:321/109 Chairman of the Board
Bob Rudolph 1:261/628 President
Matt Whelan 3:3/1 Vice President
Bill Bolton 3:711/403 Vice President-Technical Coordinator
Linda Grennan 1:147/1 Secretary
Kris Veitch 1:147/30 Treasurer
IFNA COMMITTEE AND BOARD CHAIRS
Administration and Finance Mark Grennan 1:147/1
Board of Directors Mort Sternheim 1:321/109
Bylaws Don Daniels 1:107/210
Ethics Vic Hill 1:147/4
Executive Committee Bob Rudolph 1:261/628
International Affairs Rob Gonsalves 2:500/1
Membership Services David Drexler 1:147/47
Nominations & Elections David Melnick 1:107/233
Public Affairs David Drexler 1:147/47
Publications Rick Siegel 1:107/27
Security & Individual Rights Jim Cannell 1:143/21
Technical Standards Rick Moore 1:115/333
IFNA BOARD OF DIRECTORS
DIVISION AT-LARGE
10 Courtney Harris 1:102/732 Don Daniels 1:107/210
11 Bill Allbritten 1:11/301 Mort Sternheim 1:321/109
12 Bill Bolton 3:711/403 Mark Grennan 1:147/1
13 Irene Henderson 1:107/9 (vacant)
14 Ken Kaplan 1:100/22 Ted Polczyinski 1:154/5
15 Scott Miller 1:128/12 Matt Whelan 3:3/1
16 Ivan Schaffel 1:141/390 Robert Rudolph 1:261/628
17 Neal Curtin 1:343/1 Steve Jordan 1:206/2871
18 Andrew Adler 1:135/47 Kris Veitch 1:147/30
19 David Drexler 1:147/47 (vacant)
2 Henk Wevers 2:500/1 David Melnik 1:107/233
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 6-27 Page 37 3 Jul 1989
__
The World's First / \
BBS Network /|oo \
* FidoNet * (_| /_)
FidoCon '89 in San Jose, California _`@/_ \ _
at The Holiday Inn Park Plaza | | \ \\
August 24-27, 1989 | (*) | \ ))
______ |__U__| / \//
/ Fido \ _//|| _\ /
(________) (_/(_|(____/ (tm)
R E G I S T R A T I O N F O R M
Name: _______________________________________________________
Address: ____________________________________________________
City: _______________________ State: ____ Zip: ______________
Country: ____________________________________________________
Phone Numbers:
Day: ________________________________________________________
Evening: ____________________________________________________
Data: _______________________________________________________
Zone:Net/
Node.Point: ___________________________________________________
Your BBS Name: ________________________________________________
BBS Software: _____________________ Mailer: ___________________
Modem Brand: _____________________ Speed: ____________________
At what hotel will you be staying: ____________________________
Do you want an in room point? (Holiday Inn only) ______________
Are you a Sysop? _____________
Are you an IFNA Member? ______
Additional Guests: __________
(not attending conferences)
Do you have any special requirements? (Sign Language translation,
handicapped, etc.)
FidoNews 6-27 Page 38 3 Jul 1989
______________________________________________________
Comments: ______________________________________________________
______________________________________________________
______________________________________________________
Costs How Many? Cost
--------------------------- -------- -------
Conference fee $60 .................... ________ _______
($75.00 after July 15)
Friday Banquet $30.00 ................ ________ _______
======== =======
Totals ................................ ________ _______
You may pay by Check, Money Order, or Credit Card. Please send
no cash. All monies must be in U.S. Funds. Checks should be
made out to: "FidoCon '89"
This form should be completed and mailed to:
Silicon Valley FidoCon '89
PO Box 390770
Mountain View, CA 94039
You may register by Netmailing this completed form to 1:1/89 for
processing. Rename it to ZNNNXXXX.REG where Z is your Zone
number, N is your Net number, and X is your Node number. US Mail
confirmation is required within 72 hours to confirm your
registration.
If you are paying by credit card, please include the following
information. For your own security, do not route any message
with your credit card number on it. Crash it directly to 1:1/89.
Master Card _______ Visa ________
Credit Card Number _____________________________________________
Expiration Date ________________________________________________
Signature ______________________________________________________
No credit card registrations will be accepted without a valid
FidoNews 6-27 Page 39 3 Jul 1989
signature.
Rooms at the Holiday Inn may be reserved by calling the Hotel at
408-998-0400, and mentioning that you are with FidoCon. Rooms
are $60.00 per night double occupancy. Additional rollaways are
available for $10.00 per night. To obtain these rates you must
register before July 15.
The official FidoCon '89 airline is American Airlines. You can
receive either a 5% reduction in supersaver fares or a 40%
reduction in the regular day coach fare. San Jose is an American
Airlines hub with direct flights to most major cities. When
making reservations, you must call American's reservation number,
800-433-1790, and reference Star number S0289VM.
The official FidoCon '89 automobile rental agency is Alamo Rent a
Car. Rates are as described below. All rates include automatic
transmission, air conditioning, radio, and unlimited mileage.
Economy car (example: Geo Metro) $32 day/$109 week.
Compact car (example: Chevy Cavalier) $34 day/$120 week.
Midsize car (example: Pontiac Grand Am) $36 day/$135 week.
Standard car (example: Buick Regal) $38 day/$165 week.
Luxury car (example: Buick LeSabre) $40 day/$239 week.
To take advantage of this rate, call Alamo at 1-800-327-9633 and
request the convention rate. Mention FidoCon '89, the location
and dates.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 6-27 Page 40 3 Jul 1989
__
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.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
--
...sun!hoptoad!\ Tim Pozar
>fidogate!pozar Fido: 1:125/406
...lll-winken!/ PaBell: (415) 788-3904
USNail: KKSF / 77 Maiden Lane / San Francisco CA 94108