pozar@hoptoad.uucp (Tim Pozar) (06/30/89)
Volume 6, Number 26 26 June 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 ................................................. 2
Policy 4: FidoNet now a Nazi Dictatorship? ............... 2
The Old Frog's Almanac - TopicX on the job! .............. 7
National Teachers Training Competition ................... 12
Official report on Eurocon III ........................... 14
FidoNet Policy -- Why Bother? ............................ 24
A View From Outside? ..................................... 26
Universal Mayhem Gains Strength .......................... 28
Stepping Lightly through the Hornet's Nest ............... 31
Proposal for a Public Nodelist ........................... 37
And more!
FidoNews 6-26 Page 1 26 Jun 1989
=================================================================
EDITORIAL
=================================================================
I wanted to write an editorial this week. I sat down and wrote
about half of one. Then I decided that it wouldn't make a damned
bit of difference and deleted the text.
You people going around calling others jerks should consider that
it's all a matter of perspective who the heroes and villains are
in this network. How about giving FidoNet some thought for a
change?
Nahhhhh.
Phooey!
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 6-26 Page 2 26 Jun 1989
=================================================================
ARTICLES
=================================================================
FidoNet hits ANOTHER New Low!
by Phil Buonomo, 1:107/583 (at least until the RC's read this)
(By the way, this may be some sort of record! TWO "New Lows" in
a month!)
Well, I do believe the world may be coming to an end.
I actually AGREE with Jim Grubs on something! ;-)
This past week, many of you received a number of messages
protesting the institution of Policy 4 by the RC's. These
messages were HOST ROUTED by Jim Grubs. This is commonly called
a 'bombing run', and for those unfamiliar with it, is considered
'impolite', the theory being that if you're going to send out
several hundred messages, you shouldn't make the routing points
pay for distribution of your note, it should go on YOUR dime.
This has happened in the past, particularly in Net 107, where
there are over 200 nodes. What usually happens is the offending
party (usually ignorant of this rule) gets a couple of nastygrams
from NC's and RC's, and promises not to do it again.
Sometimes a Policy Complaint is filed, and the node promises not
to do it again.
End of discussion.
Unfortunately, Jim Grubs was unaware of this 'gentlemens
agreement' and routed his messages, which contained serious
questions regarding Policy 4 and the RC's alleged grab for power.
Hal DuPrie rightfully filed a policy complaint, though I expect
he too, thought JG would be told not to do it again, that JG
would apologize, and that would be the end of it.
This sparked a discussion between Jim Grubs and Steve Bonine, the
RC of Jim's region. Jim admitted that he was unfamiliar with
said 'bombing run' rules. Unfortunately, in that discussion,
Grubs questioned the legitimacy of Policy 4, and implied that it
was illegal in nature, and would not be followed.
Steve Bonine then removed him from this week's nodelist.
That action is patently ridiculous, and for those who know him in
his region, patently Bonine. (I invite others in his region to
corroborate this. Perhaps the Net who's NC was almost removed
for not bowing down to his demands concerning nodelist entries
BEFORE the deadline will step forward.)
Mere statements made in the heat of the moment should not be
actionable. It is the ACTION that should be considered illegal,
and for Bonine to remove Jim Grubs because he disagrees with
FidoNews 6-26 Page 3 26 Jun 1989
Policy 4 is ABSURD in the EXTREME.
What's next? Randy Bush is to be excommunicated because he
published anti-Policy 4 articles? Watch out, Randy!
From FNEWS622:
Date: 15 May 89 10:04:16
From: Randy Bush of 105/6
To: David Dodell 1/0
Subj: Formal Objection to Proposed Method of Policy-4
Ratification
David,
I hereby file a formal objection to and complaint about the
method by which you, the IC/ZC and the RCs, are attempting to
put a new FidoNet policy, Policy-4, in place.
You have unilaterally declared that it will be ratified by a
procedure described for the first time within the document
itself, and not by the procedure(s) in place now, before the
document is accepted.
Policies 1 through 3 were adopted by a consensus of the net as a
whole, and P3 was subsequently (though irrevelantly, IMHO)
ratified by IFNA. At the time Policy-3 was adopted, it was
assumed that time would require new policy, and the the new
policy would be adopted by means similar to that of Policies
1-3.
If and only if Policy-4 is accepted, then the procedure outlined
in Policy-4 is appropriate for adopting a Policy-5 or whatever.
But, there is absolutely no grounds under current FidoNet policy
and procedures for Policy-4 to be adopted by just the *Cs.
I formally object, and deny your right to use such procedures,
and deny the validity of any policy purportedly adopted by such
a means.
randy (with apologies for being a stickler as usual)
Well, speaking from 1:107/583 (for now, anyway), this is Phil
Buonomo (who has also called Jim Grubs a "no good bastard" in the
past, but hates to see ANYBODY get the shaft from the
establishment) forwarding this discussion to you, directly from
Jim Grubs:
* Forwarded from 1:234/1, Private Node - No Trespassing,
Sylvania OH
* Originally to Steve Bonine, 1:115/777
* Forwarded by Jim Grubs, 1011/1, 13:44 6/22
> cc: Pete White
> David Dodell
> Jim Dunmyer
FidoNews 6-26 Page 4 26 Jun 1989
>
>>cc: Pete White <R16C>, David Dodell, Steve Bonine, Jim Dunmyer
>> Jim,
>> I have all the information regarding the Policy Complaint
>> filed by Hal DuPrie at 101/0. I feel the complaint is
>> fully justified as the `bombing run' has always been
>> considered `exceedingly annoying'.
>JG> I already conceded in my messages to Mr. Dunmyer that I was
>JG> in error about my interpretation of the meaning of the
>JG> rules on bombing runs. As to the comment about Mr.
>JG> Duprie's attitude on demcocracy, that is my interpretation
>JG> of his words and actions. I'm entitled to my opinion, which
>JG> remains unchanged.
>JG> The question which remains unanswered is the legitimacy of
>JG> Policy 4. You can neither excommunicate nor canonize
>JG> under a policy document that was not legally adopted.
>JG> The rules under which it was adopted were made up
>JG> unilaterally as the process went along. Furthermore, I was
>JG> not a part of the process. The *C's can enter into all
>JG> the agreements among themselves they want to. They can't
>JG> force people who were not a party to that agreement to
>JG> comply with it. I could organize a bunch of sysops and
>JG> 'pass' Policy 7-requiring the *C's to wear mirrored
>JG> eyeshades and carry nerf bats, too. So, what? Do as you
>JG> wish. You will anyway.
>JG> 73 de Jim Grubs, W8GRT
> I am accepting the above message as an affirmation of your
> desire to terminate your relationship with FidoNet, since you
> do not wish to observe FidoNet policy. I will remove your
> nodelist entry, effective immediately. Thank you for your
> past contributions to FidoNet, many of which have been
> positive. Should you have a change of heart, and decide that
> you are willing to be bound by FidoNet policy, please re-apply
> for a node number.
I am willing to observe and comply with Fidonet policy. What I
deny is that Policy 4 IS Fidonet policy. It was not adopted
legally. You are attempting to make it "legal" by bludgeoning
all dissenters. It is THAT attempt that I repudiate. If you have
Policy 4 ratified by a referendum of ALL Fidonet sysops, you'll
have my full suport. Until then, forget it.
73 de Jim Grubs, W8GRT
----------
* Forwarded from 1:234/100, EchoMaster, Temperance MI
* Originally from Jim Dunmeyer, 1:234/0
* Originally to Jim Grubs, 1:234/1
* Forwarded by Jim Grubs, 1011/1, 13:47 6/22
Jim,
I have just spoken with Steve Bonine on the phone, and he
verified that he has in fact removed your node number from this
FidoNews 6-26 Page 5 26 Jun 1989
week's NODELIST. This was not due in any way to your views on
democracy or anything else, only your statement that you do not
feel bound in any way by POLICY.
There is no choice for me but to follow through on this. As of
tomorrow AM, you will not be in the nodelist; in the meantime all
other signs of your existance here are being removed
(distribution list, AREAFIX password, AREAS.BBS, etc.) It
saddens me greatly to have to do this, as I feel as Steve does:
you have made contributions to the Net, but as a member, you
must agree to abide by policy. There are mechanisms in place to
change Policy, but negativity won't do the job, and in the
meantime, what you see is what we have to work with.
If you change your mind on agreeing with Policy, please FREQ
NODEREQ3.ARC from here and follow the Doc's.
Thanks, and sorry... <<Jim>> *
----------
* Forwarded from 1:234/1, Private Node - No Trespassing,
Sylvania OH
* Originally to Jim Dunmyer, 1:234/100
* Forwarded by Jim Grubs, 1011/1, 13:48 6/22
I regard Policy 4 as having been illegally adopted. It therefore
is NOT Fidonet policy. If it was, I would abide by it. Steve is
trying to browbeat people into swearing allegience to it as a
means for getting around the fact it was illegally adopted. Does
that sound right to you?
73 de Jim Grubs, W8GRT
----------
* Forwarded from 1:234/1, Private Node - No Trespassing,
Sylvania OH
* Originally to David Dodell, 1:114/15
* Forwarded by Jim Grubs, 1011/1, 13:45 6/22
From one point of view I would be willing to be "purged" because
I know the resulting anger would contribute to bringing Steve
Bonine down. He's been like a rampaging Cossack trampling the
peasants under his horse's hooves from the very beginning of his
appointment. It's not just me. He can't get along with anyone.
He likes to exercise power for its own sake.
Instead I choose to fight back. I appeal his arbitrary and
capricious decision to you. He cannot hold me or anyone to
account for violations against a Fidonet Policy that that does
not exist. Because it was illegally adopted, Policy 4 is NOT
Fidonet policy. If it was I would abide by it.
I said it before and I say it again: before the summer is over,
David, Bonine will have blundered you into another Freenet
rebellion. You can disagree all you want to about the logic of
Policy 4, etc. If it is not what people want, it will never
FidoNews 6-26 Page 6 26 Jun 1989
succeed. Fidonet consists of BBS'es and their sysops. What THEY
want is the only thing that counts - even if they don't want
what you or Steve think they SHOULD want. Anything else is
classic tail wagging the dog. (Pun intended.)
I am personally willing to accept as a compromise an announcement
that within two or three weeks there will be a sysop referendum
to ratify Policy 4. I will never accept being bullied into
pretending to agree with an illegal document that makes no
meaningful provisions for democratic control by sysops over
THEIR network.
73 de Jim Grubs, W8GRT
--------------
Well, that about says it all. If you're as outraged as I am,
please put your feelings to keyboard and let David Dodell, Steve
Bonine, and the other RC's know that you're not going to let them
push you around. If you like, you can use my following message:
To: David Dodell, 1/0
From: Phil Buonomo, 1:107/583
Subject: Objection!
cc: Steve Bonine
Sir,
I most strenuously object to the removal of Jim Grubs from the
FidoNet nodelist. There are many legitimate concerns among
FidoNet sysops regarding the adoption of Policy 4, and the flat
out elimination of those voicing such concerns teters on the
brink of Brown Shirt tactics of early Nazi Germany. While Jim
Grubs has always been vocal in nature, and annoying at times, it
is patently WRONG to remove someone from the nodelist for voicing
opinion in a non-excessively annoying manner.
It is actions such as these that have spurred the creation of
alternate Networks, such as AlterNet, in the past. The sysops of
FidoNet will NOT condone these heavy handed tactics, and if you
allow them to continue, it will be the downfall of yourselves,
and FidoNet as a viable entity.
With FidoNet's best interests at heart,
Philip J. Buonomo
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 6-26 Page 7 26 Jun 1989
TopicX Topical Extraction System
The last time I ran a series on my extraction process for The Old
Frog's Almanac, I described how Sirius, EGREP, and my packer all
worked together to produce an enormous variety of topical files.
These files (there are now over 1300 of them) required a lot of
system time, enormous amounts of drive space, and untold hours of
work to maintain....
The series of articles I entered here resulted in a wave of file
requests from all over North America, and just about every
country in Zone 2. ALMANAC.LZH, which contained all the sample
batch files, Sirius scripts, and a few related files, was soon
distributed world-wide as more sysops decided to begin their own
extraction systems.
One sysop who found himself "hooked" by the extraction system
became more and more frustrated at both the complexity of the
process and the time required to complete it. Scott Dudley, an
Ontario (Canada) programmer, decided to write a single utility
which would do the entire job in a single pass, and TopicX was
born.
I heard from Scott soon after he began working on TopicX - he
sent me a note (which amounted to the sum total of what passed
as TopicX "documentation") explaining what he was working on,
and asked me if I would help him test it. I wrote back and
said "sure," but didn't hear from Scott again until late January,
when he sent me the first beta copy, along with an extensively
documented configuration file, and wished me luck.
By the time I began testing TopicX, I had expanded the Almanac's
extraction system to the point where it was taking 90 minutes a
day to complete, so I was ready for anything that promised (as
TopicX did) to speed things up. I was (might as well be honest -
it WAS a raw beta system) unwilling (hell, I was downright
scared) to let TopicX run unattended, as the Sirius/EGREP system
did, so I began by assigning a single message area to the new
program, and running it manually whenever I had the time. When
problems crept up, I'd send Scott a note, he'd fix them, send me
another copy, and the cycle would begin again. On the 12th. of
June, TopicX V1.0, the end result of four and a half months of
testing, was released. By then, Sirius and EGREP had been
retired, and TopicX was doing the entire job.....
.....in 15 minutes instead of 90!
Got your attention? Good....now I'll explain the GOOD stuff :-)
One problem with the Sirius/EGREP system, as nice as it was, is
that I could never figure out a way to put the "working" archives
into the directories where they would eventually end up. Instead,
they collected in a work area for an entire month, and were then
moved manually (using Fido-Fam) to wherever they belonged. Since
there were usually about 300 of them by the end of the month, I
could kiss the better part of one day a month goodbye while I sat
FidoNews 6-26 Page 8 26 Jun 1989
here moving those damned files around.
TopicX puts them wherever I want them, so I don't have to move
diddly-squat...
I also had to edit the EGREP batch file every month, in order to
change the month designator, and, although it only took a few
seconds, I often forgot, and ended up collecting January's mail
into December's topical archives.
TopicX permits me to use variables in the output file names, so I
don't have to worry about editing in new date specs at the
beginning of the month.
TopicX uses a single configuration file for the entire job - it's
a standard ASCII file, so it's simple to set up and easy to edit.
It lets you designate whether or not you want blank lines
stripped out, use a custom dividing line between messages (if you
want one), designate your favorite packer, assign macros, use
UNIX-style pattern-matching tricks, archive or not archive the
text files, and so many other features that I am not going to
attempt to list them all.
The program runs pretty well under DESQview, although it hangs
sometimes in my 340k window - (Scott doesn't know that yet, but I
suspect he'll have it fixed a day or two after he reads this :-
)), and early versions couldn't handle large configuration files.
Scott fixed that problem by adding a memory management feature
which lets you designate how much RAM to reserve for message
processing, and I can now run my 36K TopicX.Cfg file without any
problems. He also added a pre-compile to speed things up, which
further reduced processing time....
I could go on all night about TopicX - I LOVE it - but I won't.
It's a dandy piece of software engineering, the docs are more
precise and easier to understand than most, and the sample
configuration file which comes with the release version is so
well done that many of you will be able to set up an extraction
system without ever reading the docs. So, rather than carry on
for another two pages, I'll just tell you to use the magic word
TOPICX and get started. It's available from 1:153/20 (HST),
1:153/194 (2400), 1:250/814 (2400) (AKA 7:483/202), and
1:250/810. My HST now uses European guard tones, so come and get
it, no matter where you are - you'll love it too!
TopicX is shareware, and the unregistered version won't run from
a batch file, but it's a full-featured version that'll maintain
both NetMail and EchoMail areas flawlessly, and it's only US$15
to register in any case - a helluva deal for anyone with message
management problems!
Ken McVay, SysOp TOPX_100.LZH
The Old Frog's Almanac (153/20, 153/194) 62223 Bytes
Nanaimo, British Columbia, CANADA ("TOPICX")
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 6-26 Page 9 26 Jun 1989
Chuck Allen, 1:129/41
In his FidoNews 6-25 editorial, Vince Perriello commented:
Quote: Vince Perriello
Isn't there anyone else in Zone 1 who has something to say?
These guys are so prolific they're putting you all to shame ...
End Quote
You're right Vince. Quite a few people have something to say,
many hold their peace in fear. I know my hand has been stayed
by the desire of the RC structure to meddle in the affairs of
FidoNews. They aren't content to wreck havoc only within
FidoNet.
My net (129) knows I have taken a dim view of Policy 4, a
document written by small minded and mean spirited men who are
morally and ethically bankrupt. I am proud that net 129 was one
of the nets voting "NO". I am ashamed the "NO" vote was decided
by a tiny minority of sysops in 129 who expressed an opinion.
The vast majority kept silent (didn't care?).
I'll take this opportunity to comment on Tom Jenning's brief
article in FidoNews 6-25
Quote: Tom Jennings
Since I see my name is getting dragged into this, I thought I'd
respond on the subject of Zone 2's autonomy, which is really an
issue of control.
First of all, no one need worry about trademark abuse; I am in
contact with all parties involved, and there is nothing to worry
about. Things will be settled to everyones benefit and
satisfaction. No further discussion is needed on this matter.
End Quote
Sounds good to me. Maybe we can get on to more important things
like discussing the alleged skid marks in the IC's undershorts.
Quote: Tom Jennings
It is none of our business how Zone 2 (or any other zone) runs
their network(s), other than how they interface to us, just as
it is no business to net 125 how net XYZ runs theirs, unless it
somehow physically affects our operation. If they have different
criteria for joining a network, what business is it of ours? To
meddle ahead of time "in case they do something awful", is
silly; they are no more (or less) likely to do something stupid
than we in Zone 1 are. Europe is not just the U.S.-only-
different; it is a totally different environment, socially,
technically, legally and politically. Europe is none of our damn
FidoNews 6-26 Page 10 26 Jun 1989
business.
End Quote
Tom, I agree wholeheartedly. How do you suggest we rid
ourselves of leadership hell bent on exercising control? You've
pointed out the problem, how about proposing a solution?
Quote: Tom Jennings
Zone 1 is not the police force of the world. Have we not learned
our lessons from other arenas? We do not "have" a unified world-
wide network, nor is such a thing even desirable. What we do
have is a number of cooperative networks, that can cooperate in
a world-wide networking effort. This is a critical difference.
End Quote
Geez Tom, you don't pull any punches, do you? You're going to
be lucky if on of the myriad *Cs doesn't file a formal policy
complaint against you for embracing that sort of concept. Rumor
has it the *C structure is advising China on how to suppress the
movement toward democracy, their having great experience
squashing dissent in FIdoNet.
Quote: Tom Jennings
Unfortunately, meddlers and control freaks will not give up
until everything not exactly like themselves is squashed or
controlled. Or they are in turn removed. We have a growing
bureaucracy in our Zone 1 that wants to reorganize us from being
a bottom-up network, where sysops choose their net hosts and
other /0's, and determine how to run their own BBS, nets and
lives, to one (according to POLICY4) where the existing
bureaucracy picks their own region and net hosts. Bureaucrats
always tell us, if they can control this one more thing, then
all the problems will be solved.
End Quote
Now you've gone and done it. By fingering the problem, it looks
like you are a malcontent and should be dealt with under policy
4 before you can do any substantial damage to the control
freaks, er, the ZC and his mindless minions, the RCs.
Don't you know the hundreds and thousands of hours they've spent
seeking ways to force us into the mold? Don't you appreciate
the massive effort they've exerted to control us for our own
good? What are you, an ingrate or what?
Quote: Tom Jennings
Our network has never run smoothly, and I propose that it will
*never* run smoothly; this is good, not bad. It means we're
alive, only dead rigid bureaucracies are pure order. (Or pretend
they are.) Excessive order is not good for any organism. It
FidoNews 6-26 Page 11 26 Jun 1989
stifles creativity and free expression. Let's take a hint from
history, OK?
End Quote
Ok, sounds good to me.
Now, how do we reach the average sysop who doesn't care and
isn't interested in "net politics"? How do we reach the sysop
who has no concern beyond when the next echomail archive
arrives? How can we open the eyes and minds of people who have
no desire to exercise freedom and creativity?
Damn, Tom, you talk a good fight. But you have to know the
control freaks are going to blow you off and the average sysop
has no idea of what you're talking about.
Why not simply make a statement like "Policy 4 sucks and the ZC
and his appointed automatons should be removed and replaced with
people more interested in administrating than in ruling."? Why
not say Steve Bonine is an ass for causing Jack Decker grief by
rigidly imposing the "geography rule" for the sake of the rule
as versus the application of reason and common sense in
administering Policy guidelines?
What am I saying? Get some guts Tom, set aside the rhetoric and
lead the revolution.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 6-26 Page 12 26 Jun 1989
Claude F. Witherspoon
Fido 1:288/525
Home of KidsNews
National Teachers Training Competition
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:
CLF TAKES LEAD IN SUPPORT OF COMPUTER CLASSROOM TRAINING;
SPONSORS NATIONAL TEACHER TRAINING COMPETITION
Palo Alto, Calif., (April 4, 1989) -- The Computer Learning
Foundation (CLF), a non-profit organization dedicated to
advancing computer literacy, today announced sponsorship of a
national teacher training competition as part of its new
television series entitled School Vision, which focuses on the
integration of technology into elementary and secondary classroom
curricula. School Vision airs weekly on public broadcast stations
around the country and in Canada.
"CLF is dedicated to acting as a central clearinghouse for
teacher training ideas and providing teachers with support and
ideas on how computers can be used more effectively in the
classroom," said Sally Bowman, CLF director. "As part of our new
School Vision broadcast, the Foundation will be able to showcase
exemplary training programs, which in turn will help seed
additional ideas and increased enthusiasm for teaching with
computers."
According to the U.S. Department of Education, there are nearly 3
million elementary and secondary school educators and
administrators in the United States. A 1988 study commissioned by
the House Committee on Education and Labor of the U.S. Congress
entitled "Power On" was conducted by the Office of Technology
Assessment (OTA) and indicated that "only one-third of all K-12
teachers have had as much as 10 hours of computer training."
Additionally, the study noted that much of that training time has
been dedicated to instructing teachers about how computers work,
not how to teach and integrate them into the classroom curricula.
As the number of computers in schools increases annually -- the
installed base is expected to increase 100 percent from 3 million
in 1987 to nearly 6 million by 1990 -- the need for teachers to
have more computer training and support on how to integrate
technology into their classrooms becomes evem more critical. To
facilitate these efforts, CLF is taking the lead by sponsoring a
national teacher training competition. Many of the program and
computer learning ideas submitted to the foundation as part of
its 1989 competition will be made available to educators
throughout North America through CLF's School Vision broadcasts
and through lesson plan publications.
Recognition will be given to top teacher training programs
FidoNews 6-26 Page 13 26 Jun 1989
developed for early childhood education, special education,
curriculum integration (combining social studies, foreign
laguages, writing, art/music, math, science), and the "at risk"
population. The grand prize winning entry in CLF's competition,
which is open to individuals and organizations in the U.S. and
Canada, will receive three computer systems. One system will be
awarded to the individual who developes the winning training
module/program; one system to the school or organization that
acts as host of the training program; and one system to the
individual or organization that videotapes the presentation. In
addition, second prize winning entries will receive software
programs for the teacher training program developer and host
school. Top entries will be aired on CLF's School Vision program.
To request official entry forms and rules, individuals should
write to: Teacher Training Competition, Computer Learning
Foundation, P.O. Box 60400, Palo Alto, Calif., 94306-0400. All
entries must be postmarked by September 1, 1989.
School Vision is broadcast via local PBS stations, with dates and
times varying depending on location. Parents and educators are
encouraged to contact their local public broadcast station
program managers and ask that the School Vision broadcasts be
picked up, via satellite, from the Central Education Network for
local viewing. Spearheading the development and production of the
weekly School Vision programs is a coalition of industry and
educational organizations, including the Central Education
Network (CEN), Software Communications Services (SCS) and the
CLF. The School Vision video briefings will be presented through
WCET, Cincinnati and the Ohio Network Broadcasting Network
Commission.
The Computer Learning Foundation sponsors Computer Learning Month
programs each October. The non-profit organization, based in Palo
Alto, Calif., is supported by leading software publishers and
computer manufacturers, including IBM, as well as 52 U.S. State
Departments of Education and Canadian Ministries of Education,
and more than 20 national non-profit organizations.
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
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 6-26 Page 14 26 Jun 1989
Peter Janssens
Fidonet 2:512/1
Official Report on Eurocon III.
------------------------------
The following items have been addressed at Eurocon III:
A) Resignation of ZC2, Henk Wevers (2:500/1).
B) Appointment / election of new ZC2.
C) Cost and quality of echomail.
D) Opinion on IFNA, by Randy Bush (1:105/6).
E) Proposed Fidonet Policy 4.06.
F) Foundation of European Fidonet Organisation; EFO.
A) Resignation of ZC2, Henk Wevers (2:500/1).
--------------------------------------------
In 1988, at Eurocon II, Henk Wevers already announced that he
would resign as ZC2. This announcement was repeated in ENET.SYSOP
(Zone 2 sysop conference) a few months ago.
Before Henk addressed the nomination procedure for his replacement
he explained some developments in the past year.
Henk Wevers visited Fidocon in August 1988 whwre he agreed with
the Zone 1 sysops, including the ZC1, that Fidonet would need
major Policies for each Zone with an overall Policy for the
Fidonet world.
At that time Zone 1 was ruled by Policy 3 whereas Zone 2 already
had adopted Policy 4E, being an adjusted Policy 4 draft from Ben
Baker, dated Feb 7, 1988.
To his disapppointment the Zone 1 *C's did not hold the agreement
upright when Fidocon was finished and came with a proposal for an
elaborate new world Policy without consideration for the different
needs that each Zone would have for such a Policy.
As an example Henk explained that in Zone 1 geographically
overlapping nets do not exist and are disallowed by the proposed
Policy whereas nearly every Region in Zone 2 _does_ have
overlapping nets.
Henk tried several times to find support against the proposal at
the Zone 2 RC's. However, he got no feedback and finally decided
to finish the ongoing discussion with the Zone 1 *C's about the
proposal.
This discussion has been very demanding for him and the outcome
strengthened him in his decision to resign as ZC2.
B) Appointment / election of new ZC2.
------------------------------------
As mentioned above Henk Wevers has asked for candidates for the
position of ZC2 in ENET.SYSOP. Three sysops responded to his
appeal and presented themselves as candidates.
FidoNews 6-26 Page 15 26 Jun 1989
They were: Werner Cappel (2:515/30), Ron Dwight (2:515/1) and Nik
Middleton (2:252/114).
Two weeks before the start of Eurocon III Henk wrote a crash
netmail to each candidate with a request to explain their
qualifications for being a ZC2 as well as the programme they had.
He received only one reply from Ron Dwight.
Henk also noted that Ron was the only candidate who was present at
Eurocon III.
This formed a strong feeling amongst everyone present that Ron was
to be considered the only serious candidate for the job.
Henk ended his speech here and Louis van Geel stood up and
expressed the gratitude towards Henk Wevers on behalf of all Zone
2 participants for having done an outstanding job as co-founder of
European Fidonet and ZC2.
Ron Dwight was then asked to present his goals and targets if he
would be nominated the new ZC2.
He explained that his "mission" and prime goal as a ZC2 would be
to establish democracy in Zone 2 and as a part of this he would
work towards official elections of NC's, RC's and the post of ZC
before Eurocon IV.
This would include a new Zone 2 Policy which should be approved /
voted upon by all of the Zone 2 sysops.
The chairman of the meeting (me ;-) then explained that Ron and
David Dodell (1:1/0, the IC) have had several netmail discussions
in the recent past and that he considered it highly unlikely that
David would appoint Ron Dwight as ZC2.
(Note: Under current Policy the ZC is appointed by the IC,
normally upon advice of the resigning ZC)
It was noted that that an election for a new ZC2 would be contrary
to Policy. It might even lead to the conclusion that Zone 2 would
be segregating from Fidonet.
The participants then expressed the feeling that they _do_ want to
cooperate and coexist with the other Zones in Fidonet. However, it
was unanimously voted that the new ZC2 should be elected at
Eurocon III.
Consequently an election was held.
The question was: Do we want Ron Dwight as new ZC2?
The results of the election was:
90% voted "Yes", 7% voted "No" and 3% votes were invalid.
After this election Ron Dwight was installed as new ZC2.
The meeting asked him to contact David Dodell to explain that the
Zone 2 sysops desire to cooperate with the other Zones in Fidonet
and that desintegration of Fidonet is not the case.
FidoNews 6-26 Page 16 26 Jun 1989
David Dodell should also be asked to confirm the results of the
election and officially appoint Ron Dwight as new ZC2.
(Note: This has now been confirmed and Ron is installed officially
as ZC2)
C) Cost and quality of echomail.
-------------------------------
Dieter Soltau (ZEC2) explained how echomail is financed in
Germany. Every node pays a mandatory fee of ECU 4 per month to
cover the cost of the backbone including a fully operational
backup node.
The backup node takes over from the backbone as soon as the system
goes down (i.e. when Dieter leaves home for more than one day ;-).
Joaquim Homrighausen (1:135/20) then talked about how TAP (Trans
Atlantic Project) started in summer 1987 with only one or two
Swedish conferences and through the time grew to a full echomail
Zonegate currently exchanging over 45 conferences between Zone 1
and Zone 2. The cost of TAP amounts to some ECU 15.000 against
total (voluntary) contributions of some ECU 1.300.
Both speakers agreed that the main problems of echomail
distribution are caused by the political power implied and the
lack of organisation. Especially the latter increases cost and
decreases the willingness of sysops to participate in the
financing of echomail distribution.
Dieter was asked to make a start on issues like cost-control,
mapping of conferences and exchange of information.
However, Dieter noted that several REC's never replied to his
requests but that he will continue to stimulate the cooperation of
REC's and NEC's.
The session was concluded with Dieter's announcement that he will
try to develop an echolist system suitable for Zone 2.
D) Opinion on IFNA, by Randy Bush (1:105/6).
-------------------------------------------
Title: Why IFNA failed, why "Othernets" failed,
why Fidonet is succeeding.
The original goal to establish IFNA was to save Ben Baker from Tax
impact on donations received to support the Fidonet
administration.
Randy expressed that the goal has not been achieved as IFNA does
not pay any of the cost of Fidonet administration, e.g. cost of
IC, Nodelist and Fidonews distribution, Zonegates, etcetera.
Apart from this, IFNA has not even met any of the secondary goals
like helping to administer or promote Fidonet. They haven't even
been able to publish financial reports or Board minutes.
FidoNews 6-26 Page 17 26 Jun 1989
He concluded that IFNA has done nothing else for Fidonet but taken
our time and money.
Reasons for failure are numerous, like having too much attention
for bylaws and procedures and not enough for the needs and
services of the sysops, having too much attention for only 2%
flamers, general secrecy on their work, no public appreciation for
workers, etc.
Though this caused a lot of sysops to ask for a nodenumber in
"Othernets" only 5% of them actually left Fidonet (the percentage
is based on listed phonenumbers).
The flaming in "Othernets" is just as bad as in Fidonet and no new
developments of ideas, technology or services have been
established.
Randy concluded that Fidonet is succeeding, maybe in spite of
itself.
This conclusion is based on the following observations in Fidonet:
- Continuing growth of population,
- Technical growth,
- Establishment of reliable links to other networks like UUCP,
ARPAnet and Internet,
- Wider social coverage in echomail.
He finalized his speech with a warning that there still are
problems, such as the centralisation of powers, the growth of
rules and regulations and the increasing cost to be a sysop.
E) Proposed Fidonet Policy 4.06.
-------------------------------
There were a lot of comments against the proposal. I will try to
summarize some of the main issues here:
- No provisions are made for contradictions with local
legislation.
- NC's are appointed by the RC's. RC's are appointed by the ZC's.
ZC's are then "selected" by the RC's. The IC is "selected" amongst
and by the ZC's.
There is no consistency in this appointment / "selection" system.
Fidonet has always been a community carried by all sysops in the
net. There is no need to change this to a top down structure.
As a matter of fact, sysops are very well capable of electing or
appointing the *C system.
Voluntary cooperation and communication is what keeps the
(amateur-) Fidonet going.
It is preferred that the IC is not one of the ZC's.
The first objective of a ZC should be to cover the interests of
his own Zone whereas the IC's first objective is to safeguard
Fidonet as a whole.
- (par. 1.3.6)
As already noted by Don Daniels at Eurocon II the situation in
Zone 2 is very different from the situation in Zone 1.
FidoNews 6-26 Page 18 26 Jun 1989
The commercial sector often supports Fidonet in Europe and it is
perhaps inappropriate to be so harsh with them.
- (par. 2.1.7)
How long is it required to keep mail / echomail packets? How large
may they become before the sysop has the right to delete them?
- (par. 2.1.8)
Using today's high speed modem technology the transfer of echomail
during ZMH needn't be a problem. However, instead of prohibition
it should be discouraged.
- (par. 3.4)
This is in direct contradiction with the previously stated
"selection" of IC amongst ZC's.
- (par. 3.7)
This is not considered a right but a duty!
- (chapter 4)
The chapter enforces that the NC should also have node 0 in the
net and that he should be the sysop of the (mail-) distributing
system.
However, coordinating a net is in itself not a technical function.
The chapter should therefor be restated that the NC 'need' not
perform the duties but he should ensure that the duties are
performed.
i.e. The NC does not have to be the Host and the Host does not
have to be the NC. This is working very smoothly in many Zone 2
nets at the present time.
- The proposal disallows geographical overlapping networks mainly
based on the cost structure enforced by telephone companies in
Zone 1. Network boundaries are to be defined by "area's of
convenient telephone calling".
The cost structure in other Zones is very different from the
situation in Zone 1.
This would cause a total reorganisation of Zone 2 resulting in a
huge increase of the number of networks.
(Like in France; currently three networks with only four different
phonenumbers in the total Region. Imagina what would happen in
Region 28 with over 250 nodes and 50 phone area's)
- The Policy will be voted upon by the *C structure.
The is neither a precedent for this procedure nor is it defined by
current Policy.
As stated before, Fidonet has always been rules by a consensus of
all sysops and this should not be changed.
In our democratic society, everyone gets to vote.
F) Foundation of European Fidonet Organisation; EFO.
---------------------------------------------------
At Eurocon II the desire to form a European Fidonet Organisation
was already expressed. An advisory committee was formed to
investigate the possibilities for such an organisation and
FidoNews 6-26 Page 19 26 Jun 1989
eventually to propose a concept.
However, due to the distances and the amount of people invloved
this attempt failed.
The Eurocon III Organisation Committee asked Henk Wevers for
advice on this matter and together we invited Bob Gonsalves,
Chairman of the IFNA International Affairs Committee and a
professional lawyer, to take over the job of investigation and to
setup some discussion points for Eurocon III.
He presided the EFO discussions held at Eurocon III.
Conclusions of the first discusiion rounds were:
- We want an independent, non commercial, non profit European
Fidonet Organisation.
- The goals of the organisation are:
1) Ownership of the copyright on the Zone 2 Nodelist.
The nodelist has previously been commercially abused.
To protect sysops from future misuse there has to be a legal
entity which holds the copyright on the Zone 2 nodelist, similar
to the IFNA copyright on the world Fidonet nodelist.
2) Coverage of cost involved for the ZC2 operations.
Zone 2 wants a democratically elected ZC. Without financial
support this may lead to prevent less wealthy but otherwise
qualified sysop to candidate for the job.
3) Representation of Zone 2 at other legal entities.
If a sysop would repsent himself at e.g. the European Committee
they would require legal statutes of the organisation he would
represent.
The representation includes especially the promotion of the (Zone
2) Fidonet network with national and European governments, such as
the European Committee, organisations like the CCITT, as well as
the mass media and European (local) telephone companies.
The board of the organisation should be internationally oriented
while it should be formed bottom up by means of democratic
election(s).
The original thought was to set up a mandatory fee to be paid by
each node but after some discussion the general feeling was that
this may be considered too negative. It would seem as if a node
should pay a fee to obtain (or keep!) it's nodenumber which is not
the intention of the fee.
It was therefor decided that the fee (being ECU 4 per node) should
be paid by the net and the NC's should be free to organize the
collection of the funds in an appropriate manner. The RC's would
act as collecting points for their independent nodes.
Administrative nodenumbers, such as RC, NC and HUB should not be
included in the calculations.
Final decision was to take the phonenumbers in the nodelist as the
basis for the calculations.
FidoNews 6-26 Page 20 26 Jun 1989
With the above requirements as a basis four people, being John
Caulfeild, Louis van Geel, Bob Gonsalves and Esa Laitinen, sat
together on Saturday evening to formulate the starting points for
EFO.
The next day they presented their "draft paper" and after some
(however emotional ;-) discussions the paper was adjusted and all
participants agreed upon the following document:
<quote>
Draft Paper on the European Fidonet Organisation
There will be founded an international, independent, non-
commercial, non-profit organisation in Europe of electronic mail
system operators networking by electronic means to the public
switched telephone system.
The name of this organisation shall be decided upon later, but
will, depending on the legal structure to be chosen, either be
European Fidonet Association (EFA), or European Fidonet
Organisation (EFO).
The Board of Directors of this organisation will be elected or
appointed in a democratic manner in that way, that the
participants in Zone 2 of the worldwide Fidonet will elect a Board
of Representatives, consisting of a representative chosen
following the well established rules of democracy, per Region.
The Board of Directors will consist of three members as a minimum
and five members as a maximum. The officers will be elected or
appointed for a period of two years, which means that every year
the half less one or the half plus one of the officers will
change.
The members of the Board of Directors will elect between
themselves a President, a Secretary and a Treasurer.
Every year the financial records will be checked by an external
auditor. His report on the verification of the records will be
published.
The secretary of the Board of Directors will keep minutes of the
minutes of the meetings of the Board of Directors which minutes
will also be published.
The Articles of Association or Foundation will be drafted under
the law of the Kingdom of the Netherlands untill such time that an
appropriate Code of European Law will be in existence.
The main goal of the organisation will be the support of Zone 2 of
the worldwide Fidonet.
The sub-goals of the organisation will be the ownership of the
copyright on the Zone 2 nodelist, the representation of the sysops
in negotiations, the public relations functions especially with
regard to the promotion of the Fidonet network with national and
FidoNews 6-26 Page 21 26 Jun 1989
European governments as well as with the mass media and European
PTT's, the financing of the expenses of the organisation and as
far as possible financing the expenses of the Zone Coordinator of
Zone 2 of Fidonet.
The sysops attending the Eurocon III conference will appoint a
Steering Committee of five members with a mandate to proceed with
the drafting of the Articles of Association or Foundation and with
the setting up of the elections for the Board of Representatives
for the year 1990.
The members of the Steering Committee will pay their personal
expenses and the Dutch computer organisations PCC and HCC will be
requested to assist in prefinancing the organisational expenses
for the first year.
There has to be paid by the nets in Zone 2 a mandatory fee of ECU
4, on the basis of the number of nodes in the net, for each true
entry in the nodelist.
<end of quote>
The following people have been appointed to the Steering
Committee:
John Caulfeild (2:256/27), Bob Gonsalves (*), Ulf Jungjohann
(2:246/1), Esa Laitinen (2:515/801) and Sacha Vogt (2:310/5).
(*) can be contacted via 2:500/10.
The progress of their work will be continually published and
discussed in ENET.SYSOP.
Ron Dwight agreed to cooperate with the Steering Committee.
The goal of the Steering Committee is to draft Articles of
Association (or Foundation) with full consent of the sysops of
Zone 2 which will be presented before Eurocon IV.
At Eurocon IV these drafts will be finally approved.
Ron Dwight adds the following:
Some of the proposals for the formation and operation of EFA/EFO
are somewhat contraversial. Before any organisation is created
which will force the Fidonet Zone 2 sysop to pay a fee which may
be repugent to them, a referendum will be initiated to decide if
we should proceed or not. In other words, no fee will be charged
to any sysop in Zone 2 before a European organisation has a
mandate to do so from a clear majority of the sysops of Zone 2.
== Epilogue ==
--------------
This is the end of the official report.
However, I will now abuse the circumstances to write a few
personal notes. If you mind this: STOP READING!
First of all I wish to state that it was a very rewarding job to
be a member of the Eurocon III Organisation Committee.
Our prime goal was to organise a Zone 2 Fidonet Conference in
which all interested Zone 2 sysops would participate.
FidoNews 6-26 Page 22 26 Jun 1989
No more "Mainzcon" as opposition to "Eurocon".
We have succeeded and I believe YOU, the Zone 2 sysops, are the
true winners.
YOU were the ones that proved we can be one united Zone 2 and that
we all can live together in Zone 2, being members of a worldwide
amateur network.
Secondly, I wish to repeat the gratitude towards Henk Wevers.
Not only on behalf of the participants present at Eurocon III but
on behalf of the whole Zone 2.
As a ZC you have been like a father to the community and led us
through our adolescence. You have helped us to become a grown up
Zone in Fidonet, now fully able to participate in and contribute
to Fidonet.
Last but least <grin> I wish a lot of strength and patience to Ron
Dwight who has volunteered for the most unrewarding job in Zone 2
and who has stuck his neck out with his ambitious mission.
I have already seen the first flames fired at him, but remember:
The flamers are only 2% and there are 98% silent supporters out
there.
I hope you succeed on your quest to make Zone 2 fully democratic.
Credit where credit is due.
--------------------------
- Motel Eindhoven for making lunches and dinners a chaos.
- Hans Ligthelm for the enormous work he performed with great
enthousiasm in the organisation of Eurocon III.
- Henk Wevers for the advice he gave to the organisation
committee.
- Randy Bush for being a true Zonegate in interfacing the needs
and desires of all Zones at Eurocon III and for being a very
involved participant at Eurocon III.
- John Bone for the notes he made at Eurocon III,
and especially
- Vincent Veeger for the piles of notes he supplied me with and
the great support he gave me in writing this report.
Eurocon IV.
----------
Ron Dwight has asked the Organisation Committee to assist in the
decision where we should have Eurocon IV.
If there are people willing and able to organise Eurocon IV then
please send netmail to 2:512/1 before September 30, 1989.
Include arrangements you can make for the conference, travel, room
accomodation, etc.
FidoNews 6-26 Page 23 26 Jun 1989
Peter Janssens, 2:512/1,
Secretary of the Eurocon III Organisation Committee.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 6-26 Page 24 26 Jun 1989
Steve Bonine
115/777
FidoNet Policy -- Why Bother?
I have recently had two distressing experiences. One of them
involves the removal of a single system from the nodelist, and
the other involves the self-destruction of an entire local net.
Both of these cases are symptoms of a malady which seems to be
invading FidoNet -- a disease which has the potential to destroy
everything we have built over the years.
This sickness is a "take it or leave it" attitude regarding
FidoNet Policy. When you accept, or continue to accept, a
listing in the FidoNet nodelist, you bind yourself to FidoNet's
policy. A listing in the nodelist is not a privilege. It is a
right that you earn by meeting the minimum requirements of
policy: ZMH and not being excessively annoying.
I observed a message in the national sysop echo from Jim Grubs,
in which he stated that he was not bound by Policy4 because he
did not vote for it. This is a classic non sequitur. I am
sympathetic with Jim's desire for more democracy in FidoNet, but
refusing to abide by FidoNet's policy is not acceptable. I sent
netmail to Jim, asking him to reconsider. He refused, so I had
no choice but to remove his listing from the nodelist.
The other situation, which has been described at length in Fido-
News, involves net 154 in Milwaukee. When I sent netmail to Ted
Polczynski, the NC of net 154, asking that he place three systems
in the correct geographic net, the response I received was much
the same as that from Mr. Grubs. Ted insists that he has the
right to list any systems in net 154, without regard to the
systems' geographic location. Ted feels that this is in the best
interests of FidoNet. Unfortunately, this is contrary to current
policy, which specifically states that an NC cannot assign a node
to a system in an area which is covered by another net. Just
like Jim, Ted has repeatedly refused to make the simple statement
that he will be bound by current policy. However, in Ted's case,
an entire net suffers.
It would be much easier for me, in both of these cases, to simply
turn my back and ignore the situation. After all, this is a
hobby. Let's all just chill out and go with the flow.
Does my failure to enforce policy help FidoNet? No. If we are
going to have a policy, it must be enforced. It must be enforced
consistently. It is my responsibility to enforce the policy. My
choices are to enforce policy or to not be a part of the enforce-
ment structure; selective enforcement is not an option.
Without policy, what is left? I do not relish the idea of
FidoNet being reduced to nothing more than a list of bulletin
board systems, which is what the nodelist becomes if policy is
abandoned.
FidoNews 6-26 Page 25 26 Jun 1989
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 6-26 Page 26 26 Jun 1989
Stephen Maley
1:261/1014
A View From The Outside?
I would like to give all of you my view on what I see
when I look at all of the networks.
To give you a little background on myself, I have been
working in computerized communications for 10 years. The
technology that I work with on a daily basis varies from 75
baud(scary isn't it) to 90 Megabit fiber links in many different
configurations. So, as you can see, I bring to this subject a
background in a wide variety of communications technologies.
When I first joined my local network almost two years
ago, I was impressed with the possibilities of the technology
that makes the networks possible. The economy and efficiency of
the network as viewed from a technology standpoint were some of
the things that impressed me. The cooperation and assistance
from my Net Coordinator and a fellow Sysop gave me the insight
needed to join the network smoothly and without causing too many
problems for others in the net which made my introduction
painless.
My first active move was to read Policy 3. It gave the
glowing impression of a large number of sysops working together
to promote communications between themselves and between the
users of their systems. That the rules of the road were
cooperation and curtesy to all. I felt that these rules were
awfully lax for such a large organization but, they apparently
worked or the network would have suffered severe disruptions of
service that would have prevented it from growing as it has.
Well, over the last two years, after reading the echos of
the controlling organizations for the network and thousands of
messages in various echo forums, many of which should have gone
into the bit bucket. After seeing splits and fights and name
calling and unrestricted changes in software. I do not feel that
the networks will survive too much longer at this pace.
I guess that the strongest emotion that I feel is
disappointment. The majority do not seem to understand the
necessity of standards and controls to keep networks as large as
these functioning.
A hobby, yes, it is. But, it is based on technology that
requires the successful interaction of thousands of computers
operated by thousands of sysops scattered all over the world.
The need for controls, standards, managing bodies and technical
standards committees can not be ignored.
In order to promote the survival of this form of network
communication and to reduce many of the difficulties that all of
the networks are operating under, everyone needs to spend less
FidoNews 6-26 Page 27 26 Jun 1989
time trying to tear down the controls that are in place and spend
more time in trying to help those in positions of authority to
make knowledgeable decisions for the continued successful
operation of all of the networks.
From a technology standpoint, it would be relatively easy
to remove 90% of the problems, but, from a political stand point,
it may be impossible to correct any of them. The political
situation is of your own making, so you are the only ones who can
correct it.
If you feel that you have the knowledge and experience to
improve the operation of a network, use it for the betterment of
all of the networks.
If you are opposed to a technological standard or network
management policy, prepare a document that details the problem as
you see it. What the impact on the operation of the network is.
Then provide a detailed description of what you think a viable
solution to the problem is. Send the document to your Net
Coordinator and discuss it with him or her. After discussing and
refining it with your net coordinator, send it to your Regional
Coordinator and work with him or her. Use the structure that is
in place. It may not be exactly to your liking and you may not
like all of the persons in it, but you will be able to do more to
improve the network by working with the structure that is in
place than by trying to destroy it.
There are many talented people in all of the networks.
Many of them are constantly working to improve the technology
that makes these networks function. To those of you who have
developed new techniques, do not forget that your simple
improvement, introduced without proper checks and balances, could
render the network un-usable and that trying to force change
without proper controls not only reduces the effectiveness of the
advancement that you have made, but greatly reduces the overall
operational effectiveness of the network.
One day, I hope to be able to log-on to my net
coordinators system and read national sysop or one of the other
echos that is supposed to be a forum for effective communications
between all of us that make up the networks, and not have to stop
reading after the third message because of the frustration and
disappointment that I feel. Look at how everyone is acting and
think about how it looks from the outside. What is the
impression given when viewed by an interested public or corporate
organization.
In my opinion, from a network management and engineering
standpoint, all of the networks combined are primed for a massive
disruption of services if the individuals involved down to the
Sysop level do not start pulling together.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 6-26 Page 28 26 Jun 1989
Fredric L. Rice
Astro Net 1:103/503.3
There are some FidoNet SysOps on Earth who acquire a warm
glowing feeling by blowing friends and users into highly
radioactive gas and then gloating about it to any survivors
there may be.
To be fair, many users have treated their SysOps in kind but
such actions on the part of the user has never, to my
knowledge, led to the removal of the user in real life.
I speak, of course, of Universal Mayhem in FidoNet.
There are a little over seventy Universal Mayhem nodes around
the world running Mayhem as an Outside or Doors program; many
in Australia, Europe, Canada, and the States, as well as some
in India, China, and God knows where.
Several FidoNews articles have been posted about its progress
and bug removals and most of them have been "published",
(some were simply too long so they were E-Mailed out to all
known Mayhem nodes). If you haven' t seen any of these, I
offer a short description:
Universal Mayhem is a space shoot-em-up game that allows up
to 250 users on your system to build and command a ship and
base. By performing interstellar commerce, you acquire
capital with which to take over the universe. There are
obstacles, of course, such as the other players, but you can
always be assured that with some well placed alliance, you
have a chance to be the universes' Adolf. If you find things
are not going well and you have fought for and acquired all
parts of the Slaver Death Weapon, you can always trigger it
and win the whole puppy, (think before you pull the trigger).
The project was started over two years ago when FidoNet was
just starting to come apart. The political atmosphere was
just starting and the Alternate people were thinking about
making the break. I had been with FidoNet in the background
as a humble and invisible user for a few years and thought I
would try to make a program which would offer an avenue of
escape for SysOps and provide an arena in which they might
let off steam.
After a year of development, it went to Alpha testing here in
California for six months and was greeted with thirty or
forty regulars. After that time, general distribution took
place in the form of Version 1.00 and I am now at Version
1.3, (which will be mailed around the 17'th of June to all
known Mayhem sites; there is mail coming in all the time from
nodes that I don't have on my distribution list but have been
running for a few months).
Has the project worked? Is the objective of providing a
method of symbolic SysOp extermination realized? No, it
FidoNews 6-26 Page 29 26 Jun 1989
hasn't. The reason is mainly because of the bugs in the
original software which cause SysOps to remove it, the other
was due to the early versions disk space usage. Both of these
problems have been solved, with disk space usage dropped to
some 40 percent of what it was initially. Though the number
of active Mayhem nodes have increased over the last year, it
still isn't as widely dispersed as I would like.
Mayhem has always been distributed freely and supported
totally. It's a good thing I use the company phone lines or I
would have had my phone pulled by the central office long
ago. When new versions of Mayhem are released, they are
mailed directly from my California node to all known Mayhem
nodes. The non-backbone echo AREA:MAYHEM is also distributed
by my node in a mode where all known nodes are polled every
other night.
It's the Mayhem echo that was to provide the method of inter-
node communication between Mayhem sites. When you send a
subspace message in Mayhem, it builds a FidoNet message file
in your echo mail area. I usually see insults and promises of
revenge and other nicely evil comments. These get sent to all
other nodes in the echo conference automatically.
There are some things I am looking for and need:
o If you would like to get Universal Mayhem and be on my
distribution list, please contact me through Astro Net
103/503 in California at (714) 662-2294. I will mail
MAYHEM13.EXE which is a self-extracting archive containing
everything needed including a massive mind-boggling +200K
document file. If you just want the document to look it over
before deciding you want me to mail the whole thing, let me
know.
o If you would like to get in the MAYHEM echo, let me know so
I can add you to my list. I will poll every other day. If you
have questions or problems with Mayhem, I can call your
system and acquire access through my author back door to fix
it.
o I need a product review to be written by a Mayhem Node
SysOp or one of its users for submission in FidoNews. I
realize that normally product reviews are of a more serious
network-related product. Since we need only one, if you want
the assignment, please let me know so I can get back to you
to see if you know of the amount of work involved!
o It seems as though I will be working the month of August so
I will not be able to make it to the convention in the San
Jose area. If there are any exiting Mayhem Nodes going and
would like to hand out a couple hundred copies of Universal
Mayhem for me, let me know and I will mail you a box of a
hundred or so. Let me know what days you plan to be attending
so I can mail more than one box to several SysOps to cover
all days. Just hand them out to any SysOp you might see
FidoNews 6-26 Page 30 26 Jun 1989
stumbling down the sidewalk with a taco in hand. <???>
Fredric Rice
1:103/503.3
(714) 662-2294
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 6-26 Page 31 26 Jun 1989
Stepping Lightly through the Hornet's Nest
or: Comments and Replies to FidoNews 6-25
by Daniel Tobias
1:380/7
My FidoNews article on the European situation has brought
rise to a storm of controversy in FidoNews 6-25. Some of
those who I have managed to offend actually appear to be
philosophically on much the same wavelength as myself, so I
am attempting to make replies in a conciliatory tone rather
than escalating a battle of words. If some of my opinions
still disagree with your own, please consider this to be a
friendly disagreement rather than an acrimonious dispute; I
honestly have no big axe to grind or power-trip to ride, and
I don't attribute malice to the actions of anyone else, even
those with whom I may disagree from time to time. Let's
keep this hobby FUN, more than anything else!
Also, please note that the opinions I express are solely my
own, and are not by any means intended to be regarded as
anything else. In particular, European sysops should not
jump to any conclusion to the effect that I am speaking for
North America in general, just because I happen to live
here. It could be that 98% of American sysops disagree with
me; I didn't take a vote before I expressed my opinion.
With all that stated, let me proceed to comment on
everything in FidoNews 6-25 that I feel needs commenting on
(including those pieces addressed specifically to me, as
well as other items in this issue).
TO Vince Perriello RE Editorial:
It isn't necessary to expand the Current Versions page to
cover EVERY utility that any FidoNet sysop is using, but I'm
not sure, on the other hand, that you're justified in
excluding ALL non-SEA archivers. That might be construed as
favortism, regardless of whatever the true motive may be. I
think several other archivers (PKZIP and ZOO, for example)
are in sufficiently-wide use to justify inclusion. The
criterion should be the wideness of use within the network
as a whole; perhaps you should do a survey.
TO John Burden RE A European Response:
I apologize for depressing you. Actually, I agree fully
with your concerns. However, you're laboring under some
misconceptions: for instance, you use "IFNA" constantly in
a context that implies that it is the governing body of
FidoNet, while it is my impression from viewing recent
pronouncements of the BoD, as well as the thoroughly
IFNAless means that POLICY4 was enacted, that IFNA has
decided to divorce itself completely from a policymaking or
administrative role in FidoNet at any level. IFNA is now
FidoNews 6-26 Page 32 26 Jun 1989
regarding itself solely as a service organization aiding the
"greater FidoNet" consisting of all Fido-compatible nodes
regardless of net affiliation. They support FTSC, FidoCons,
and projects regarding use of BBSs by the handicapped, among
other things. IFNA's copyright notice still appears on the
nodelist and FidoNews, but they apparently have no intention
on actually regulating the network; this copyright situation
exists because FidoNet itself is not a legal entity capable
of registering a copyright.
Your statement that only 152 out of the thousands of nodes
voted for POLICY4 is misleading as a measure of apathy,
given that only *C's were allowed to vote at all.
I don't view Zone 2 as a "colony" of Zone 1, or vice versa;
rather, they are both sub-parts of the global FidoNet which
should be viewed as equally important (and the same is true
of zones 3 and 4). All of these zones must bear some
expense to carry the other portions of the nodelist;
admittedly, this is not very equal given the larger size of
the Zone 1 portion, but that doesn't mean that the cost to
Zone 1 of carrying the other zones is nonexistent. My point
is that the zones are all part of a whole, and hence are not
thoroughly autonomous, however much all (including myself)
might want local autonomy at the various levels. To give
one example, no net, region, or zone can unilaterally change
the format of its nodelist segment to something that is
incompatible with that of the others, without global
agreement.
Since you mention dissent within Europe over the proposed
"node tax," that confirms my statement that such a thing is
controversial, and should probably be given a vigorous
debate before it is imposed anywhere. I must note that I
DID NOT come out against this idea; I only stated, then and
now, that it is controversial and needs careful examination,
NOT that it should definitely be squelched. Right now,
POLICY4 states that zone and local policies may not impose
requirements on sysops other than additional mail hours, so
amendment would be required to permit mandatory fees at any
level. (This is a statement of fact with regard to current
policy, NOT a statement that I feel FidoNet SHOULD proscribe
[or prescribe] mandatory fees worldwide; I haven't made up
my mind on the latter position.)
TO Ron Dwight RE The European Situation, an informed
perspective:
See my comments to John Burden above.
Please note that my name is spelled with an "e", not an "a".
You got it right the first time, but somehow messed up in
later references.
I must also note that my comments were based on a FidoNews
FidoNews 6-26 Page 33 26 Jun 1989
article regarding European policy, not on the policy itself.
I have not seen the European policy, either POLICY-4E or any
new proposal, since I do not know where these documents may
be obtained in Zone 1. If you wish, you may send me these
documents so that I too may give "an informed perspective"
on them.
I apologize if any of my comments were based on an improper
reading of the situation based on incomplete information.
The tone of the earlier FidoNews article implied that Zone 2
had made POLICY-4E supercede both POLICY3 and POLICY4, had
unilaterally rejected POLICY4 for their territory, and were
in the process of imposing a "head tax" on their nodes
despite a prohibition of such a thing in POLICY4; if I'm
mistaken, I sincerely apologize.
As you state, POLICY4 was placed up for the acceptance or
rejection by the entire *C structure. It passed, despite
the negative votes of many Zone 2 coordinators. Hence, it
is now in effect throughout FidoNet. (This is a statement
of fact, not meant to imply agreement on my part with the
content of this policy document; as my other FidoNews
articles have shown, I have many disagreements which I wish
to address in a POLICY5 proposal.)
Later in your piece, you make the puzzling juxtaposition of
stating first that a mandatory fee has never been in effect
in Europe, and will not be placed into effect by your new
proposed policy; but at the same time you state that the
assembled sysops at EuroCon decided that such a fee should
be imposed, and you feel that such a thing is an important
positive step. So which is it? Is a European node fee in
the offing, or isn't it? (Please note, as I stated in my
comments to John Burden, that I am NOT at this time
supporting or opposing the idea of a mandatory fee, only
pointing out its controversial nature and its contravention
of current policy.)
I did not "spread rumors" regarding this node fee; I simply
responded to an earlier article on this subject (in FidoNews
6-22).
Thanks for "basically agree"ing with my conclusion; if what
you want is a minimal POLICYx document giving major autonomy
to the component parts, go ahead and draft such a document;
I might even support it. My point is ONLY that all zones of
FidoNet must, by definition, operate in accordance with the
POLICYx document presently in effect; that's all that
distinguishes a FidoNet subportion from one of AlterNet,
EggNet, or AnyOtherNet. This doesn't imply any specific
view regarding what POLICYx OUGHT TO say.
One closing comment regarding local autonomy vs. central
control: While on the whole, I feel that preservation of
individual liberty is best served by decentralization, this
is not inevitably true in all situations. Local authorities
FidoNews 6-26 Page 34 26 Jun 1989
can sometimes be as authoritarian as any central authority,
with the major difference being that it's usually easier to
escape the domain of a local tyrant than a global one.
However, with the geographical exclusivicity enforced rather
strictly by POLICY4 (e.g., a node can't join a network
outside his geographical region without permission of both
RCs involved), the possibility exists for some local
subsections of FidoNet to become tyrannies if granted
absolute autonomy. Perhaps the solution to this would be to
couple complete local autonomy with the complete abolition
of geographical exclusivicity; e.g., allow any NC, RC, or ZC
to admit any node he chooses, regardless of place of
residence. This would allow nodes to link into the network
in alternative manners to get around local leaders whom they
find disagreeable (or local fees and other requirements
they find burdensome), without requiring global action to be
taken against the offending coordinators. This would allow
for maximal individual liberty, at the cost of a bit of
anarchy which is likely to displease those who wish rigid
order for the entire network.
(Note that some of the proposals I've been kicking around in
this and other articles could appear to contradict one
another; this is because I AM in fact just "kicking around"
these ideas in the hope of hashing out an ideal structure
for the future of FidoNet. I have not solidified my
opinion; I'm open to all ideas.)
TO Les Kooyman RE FidoCon '89 Update: Dateline Silicon
Valley:
I tried sending in my reservation for FidoCon a few weeks
ago, and it was returned by the Post Office stamped
"Attempted: Not Known." I checked the address; I got the PO
Box and Zip Code correct, so I don't know why it was
undeliverable. Maybe the P.O. didn't recognize "FidoCon
'89" in the address instead of the full title "Silicon
Valley FidoCon '89". I'll try to send it again using the
full name, and cross my fingers it gets delivered.
I have sent a message to node 1/89 about this, and have yet
to receive a reply as of this writing (6/20/89).
TO Daniel Tobias RE Some More Comments:
Oops... that's me. I'm getting so carried away doing this
reply thing that I was just about to start picking an
argument with myself.
TO Jack Decker RE Thoughts on the Nodelist:
Interesting idea. However, how will you deal with duplicate
net numbers? Also, the use of your nodelist for echomail
FidoNews 6-26 Page 35 26 Jun 1989
could result in confusing SEEN-BY lines when the messages
are exported to systems on the VariousNets which are not
participants in your Public Nodelist.
TO Randy Bush RE An April Fool joke that wasn't:
Well, I guess FidoNet isn't the only network having internal
political conflicts.
TO Stuart Henderson RE UK-Modem.Art:
That UK bill has some very scary features, such as the
confiscation of anything construed by the government to be
related to computer crime (much like some of the "Zero
Tolerance" and RICO measures being taken in this country
with regard to drug offenders and sometimes pornographers).
However, I don't see any outright ban on BBSs in that law,
unless I read it incorrectly (my grasp of the British legal
system isn't very great). The intent is to ban
"unauthorized access" to computer systems, not to ban the
setting up of computer systems for legal purpose. Which
clause do you see as banning BBSs which do not engage in
illegal "hacking" or "phreaking"?
TO Tom Jennings RE European Autonomy and Domestic Meddlers:
Though I'm not explicitly named, I presume your article is
intended as a response to mine.
I sincerely apologize if I have in any way offended you;
since you're the founder of FidoNet, I value your opinion
highly.
I never said that Zone 1 should be the "police force of the
world"; I simply stated what was (to me) a self-evident fact
that FidoNet (ALL zones) was a network defined by its
adherence to whatever POLICYx document is currently in
effect. This is true regardless of whether POLICYx attempts
to impose all-encompassing control of every aspect of every
node's operations, or says nothing at all except that each
zone is completely autonomous. I expressed no opinion there
in favor of one or the other state of affairs, or anything
in between (though I have since made a number of more
specific statements as regards these areas).
Despite your (and my) wish that this be a "bottom-up network
where sysops choose their net hosts and other /O's", you
apparently failed to make this sufficiently clear at the
outset, or else POLICYx-making authority was somehow
wrenched out of your hands and taken over by people of
different philosophy. At any rate, to the best of my
knowledge (going back to when I first became interested in
FidoNet in 1985), the POLICYx document has always prescribed
FidoNews 6-26 Page 36 26 Jun 1989
a top-down structure completely lacking in democracy.
Hence, my advocacy of policy change, far from being an
unsavory move from a bottom-up status quo towards a
centralist, top-down structure, is in actuality a call for a
change from a top-down status quo to a bottom-up structure
which probably agrees with what you want.
Hence, we most likely have no reason to disagree at all, and
I would be most pleased to see your proposal regarding what
wording POLICY5 ought to have to bring about the structure
you would have liked to see FidoNet have from the start.
(I note that your 1985-era statement of FidoNet policy is in
the following FidoNews article; it is, as your views imply,
a non-authoritarian document with local nets being formed
spontaneously without top-down approval required, and no
such thing as "regions" to add entangling geographical
rules. However, by the time the rules became codified in
POLICY1, there was a fundamental change in the ordering
principle, probably not your doing; this created the
precedent for top-down control that has been followed ever
since. Perhaps you can shed some historical light on this.)
I see you'll be a speaker at the FidoCon; I'm planning on
attending, so I hope we can meet and discuss FidoNet history
and policy in a friendly manner.
* Whew * This article turned out to be much longer than I
expected. I hope I haven't bored anyone to death, and I
further hope that I have cleared up any misunderstandings my
earlier article may have caused, and haven't made any
enemies within what really ought to be a FRIENDLY network.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 6-26 Page 37 26 Jun 1989
Jack Decker
Fidonet 1:154/8 (but maybe not for long, if our RC has his way)
LCRnet 77:1011/8
PROPOSAL FOR A PUBLIC NODELIST
Last week, in my Fidonews article entitled "Thoughts on the
Nodelist", I proposed that there be a "public" nodelist in
which all Fidonet-compatible nodes could be listed. As I
explained, the Fidonet nodelist is not a public nodelist, but
rather a private nodelist of Fidonet members. In a situation
that is somewhat analogous to the chicken and the egg, I'm not
sure whether being in the nodelist makes you a member of
Fidonet, or being in Fidonet gives you the right to be in the
nodelist, but one way or the other, your nodelist listing and
your membership in Fidonet are inextricably linked. Should you
fall from the graces of Fidonet (and more and more Sysops are
finding themselves in this situation), you will lose your
nodelist listing.
This week I would like to present a somewhat more concrete
proposal for a "public" nodelist. I will call this nodelist
"The Official Public Computer Network Nodelist" for now
(although, as with anything here, I'm open to suggestions for a
better way of doing things), and offer some thoughts on what
this nodelist should be, and how it should be implemented:
1) The "prime directive" would be that this list is NOT to be
used for disciplinary or political purposes. A node is
presumed to have the right to be listed in the list (with the
approval of their Net Coordinator), unless proven otherwise.
2) There will be NO CHARGE for being listed in this nodelist,
nor for receiving nodelist updates (except for any telephone
toll charges you may incur in polling for this nodelist). This
might be considered "prime directive #2".
3) A "Nodelist Distribution Network" will be used to
distribute these nodelists. These will simply be people who
agree to poll once a week to get the nodediffs, and then make
them available for file request on their systems, or at their
option, deliver them to other Nets or nodes. The NDN members
may also assist with the collection and/or processing of
nodelist segments from individual nets.
4) The minimum standard for being listed in this nodelist is
that a node be able to complete a minimum Fidonet Standards
Committee FSC-0001 mail session with other nodes during the
appropriate mail handling period (which initially will be the
same as the Fidonet Zone Mail Hour). If it is discovered that
a particular type of software is incapable of completing such a
mail session, we reserve the right to place nodes utilizing
that software on "hold", or to drop them from the nodelist,
until the problem is resolved. This is a purely technical
standard, and may not be "selectively enforced" as a roundabout
way of using this nodelist for political purposes. In the
FidoNews 6-26 Page 38 26 Jun 1989
future, we may permit the use of nodelist flags to indicate a
variance from the minimum standard, or we may modify the
standard (these items are open for discussion). Private,
unlisted nodes are specifically exempted from this requirement,
since it is assumed that their Net Coordinator will know when
and how to pass mail to them (making it in effect a private
matter, HOWEVER, a Net Coordinator MAY enforce this requirement
against unlisted nodes in his network if there is good reason
to do so).
5) The purpose of the list would be to provide a common
"directory" for NETS, and for the nodes in those nets. This
statement has several implications:
a) One does not get dropped from a directory for bad
behaviour. There are other ways of dealing with "rogue" nodes,
such as using a password to prevent them from connecting with
your system.
b) The only people who may request that a node be removed from
the list are the operator of the node itself, and the Net
Coordinator for the net. If the Net Coordinator makes the
request, the node is perfectly free to be listed under another
Net, if the Coordinator of that Net will agree to take on that
node (one NC's "rotten apple" may be another NC's "star
Sysop").
c) Because the purpose of the list is to list NETS, no REGION
listings will be permitted (yes, that could be construed as a
political statement, but it's about as political as we intend
to get). ZONE listings (now used in current nodelists) and
POINT listings (now NOT used in current nodelists) are open to
discussion (if we do allow points to be listed, we may still
make available nodelists with points omitted, for those using
software that can't process the point listings and/or those who
have limited disk space).
d) Our intent is that no independent regional nodes be listed,
however, if we can be shown a persuasive reason to allow
independent nodes, we may consider allowing them in a specific
portion of the nodelist (except that if we use ZONES, they
would be listed under the proper ZONE).
e) A "Net" is defined as a group of three or more nodes, NOT
including private, unlisted nodes. Nodes with the same
telephone number count as only one node. A net that drops
below the three node figure will have 60 days to make
arrangements to become part of another net (or to increase
their node count). We reserve the right to make exceptions to
the minimum node count rule where unusual conditions exist.
Note that we are deliberately not using any geographical
considerations in our definition of a "Net".
6) There will be NO GEOGRAPHIC RESTRICTIONS on nets. A net
may accept and list nodes located anywhere! While in most
cases it will make sense for nets to be formed based on
FidoNews 6-26 Page 39 26 Jun 1989
geographic, calling area, or cost considerations, this is NOT
required. Our intent is to accept nodelist fragments from Net
Coordinators and process them as received, without getting
involved in passing judgement on whether listed nodes should or
should not be in that net.
7) If two (or more) different people claim to be Net
Coordinator for a given net, and both send us nodelist
fragments for that net, we will continue to use the fragments
provided by the previous NC (that is, the person who has
previously been sending us the nodelist fragments for that net)
unless and until it can be proven to our satisfaction that the
NC position has been transferred in a valid manner. However,
we cannot and will not be held liable for an incorrect decision
in this regard. If all else fails, we reserve the right to
conduct an independent poll of the members of that net, to
determine the majority choice of NC, but we are not REQUIRED to
take this action, and generally will not do so except in the
most extreme circumstances.
8) We will generally try to allow the use of all nodelist
flags currently used in other nets' nodelists, except where a
usage conflict exists between two nets, and then we will make a
determination as to which flags are allowed. We may also add
some additional approved flags from time to time. Generally we
will try not to restrict the use of nodelist flags
unnecessarily, unless the proliferation of nodelist flags
becomes a serious problem (even the phone company will
sometimes restrict the length and specificity of address that
you can put in the phone book!).
9) By sending a network's nodelist fragment to us, the Network
Coordinator or person sending the fragment certifies that a)
the nodelist fragment is in the Public Domain, OR b) any
copyright claimed on the nodelist fragment is held by the Net
sending the nodelist fragment, and that we are granted
permission to use this nodelist fragment.
10) For a limited time (through 9/30/89) we will reserve
current Fidonet Net numbers so that any current Fidonet net can
be listed under the same net number that they use in Fidonet.
After that date, net numbers will be assigned on a first come,
first served basis. Please note that current Fidonet nets do
NOT have to be listed under the same net number that they use
in Fidonet, nor does their configuration or Net Coordinator
need to be the same as is used in Fidonet (for example, they
may wish to add additional nodes that would not be acceptable
for geographic or other reasons under Fidonet policy). But,
prior to 9/30/89, we will only accept applications for Net
numbers currently in use in Fidonet from the Net Coordinators
of those Fidonet networks.
If, prior to the 9/30/89 cutoff date, a Fidonet Net Coordinator
indicates in some way that he does NOT wish to be listed in
this nodelist, but a number of nodes within his net DO wish to
be included, we will consider listing those nodes and allowing
FidoNews 6-26 Page 40 26 Jun 1989
one of those nodes to be placed in the nnn/0 position for the
purposes of this nodelist. Any node so placed in the nnn/0
position must be willing to forward any inbound routed netmail
to others in his net that are also listed in this nodelist (not
necessarily at his expense, however).
Please note that this reserving of Fidonet node numbers is
offered only as a courtesy to existing Fidonet networks, so
that they can be included in both nodelists with a minimum of
confusion among their nodes (that is, without the need for
nodes to have "dual identities"). However, Fidonet and the
Official Public Computer Network Nodelist are not to be thought
of as being in any way connected. If a net chooses to be
listed in both the Fidonet nodelist and the Official Public
Computer Network Nodelist, this should be thought of in a
manner somewhat analogous to two separate organizations that
just happen to have the same individuals in the same positions
on the board of directors. Legally, the organizations are
still separate and totally unrelated.
Where possible, we will also try to list Nets that are part of
other (non-Fidonet) networks under their existing Net numbers,
except where such net numbers are already used by existing
Fidonet Nets. However, since we do not know the net numbers
currently in use by non-Fidonet nets, we would encourage those
who think that they may wish to be included in this nodelist to
at least let us know what their existing net number is, so that
we will not prematurely assign it to another network. Where
conflicts occur among existing non-Fidonet net numbers, we will
assign them on a first-come, first-served basis.
With the exception of Net numbers that are already in use by
other nets, we do not intend to assign Net numbers under 100
except in special situations.
11) At this point in time, we feel that IF Zones are utilized,
they should be used only for the original purpose of sending
mail between widely separated and distinct geographic areas
(e.g. continents). Therefore, if Zones are used, we will
usually place Nets as follows: all North American Nets will be
listed under Zone 1, all European Nets under Zone 2, all Asian,
Australian, and Pacific Rim Nets under Zone 3, and all South
American Nets under Zone 4. These territories may be modified
from time to time as conditions warrant. If a Net Coordinator
wishes to be listed under a different Zone, and can make the
necessary arrangements to receive any netmail from that Zone's
Zonegate(s) (if one exists, and at no cost to the Zonegate
operator), we will permit it (although we don't encourage it!).
Also, individual nodes within a net may be located ANYWHERE, so
long as the Net Coordinator will take them, since it is assumed
that any netmail destined for those nodes can be host routed.
Sysops that do not wish to place international calls should be
careful to make sure that their systems are programmed to
disallow such calls based on telephone number (e.g. something
other than "1" as the first digit in North America) and/or cost
of the call, rather than relying on the fact that all nodes in
FidoNews 6-26 Page 41 26 Jun 1989
a given Zone will be located in a particular geographic area
(we feel that most systems are configured in this manner
already).
Again, we don't encourage Nets to be listed in a different Zone
than the one in which they normally should be in. The only
reason we propose to allow it is so that Nets located in border
areas (e.g. Central America) could choose the Zone that is most
economical for them to affiliate with, OR so that Nets that can
be best serviced from another Zone via private circuits,
telephone tie-lines, etc. can be listed in the Zone from which
they receive their NetMail and Echomail. Because your Net will
not be deleted from the nodelist for political or disciplinary
reasons, you should not need to be listed in another Zone for
these reasons. Please try to exercise good judgement before
requesting to be placed in another zone, or consider having the
Net Coordinator (only) dual-listed in both Zones.
12) IF Zones are utilized, and IF someone wishes to be listed
as a Zonegate in this nodelist, they must agree to forward mail
to all systems listed in this nodelist that are geographically
located within their Zone. They are not required to forward
mail to Nets that are geographically located in another Zone
(see #11), unless that Net has a telephone number that is
geographically located within the zone (e.g. a "Foreign
Exchange" type line), or has notified the Zonegate to forward
netmail through another Net or Node that has a telephone number
within the Zone, or has agreed to poll the Zonegate
periodically to receive Zonegated netmail. A Zonegate may not
refuse to forward netmail to a system for disciplinary or
punitive reasons. A Zonegate may require a Net Coordinator to
poll the Zonegate if unusually large amounts of Netmail are
being received by a particular Net.
13) It should be kept in mind that this nodelist is simply a
directory listing compatible Nets, and the nodes in those Nets.
The primary responsibility for determining whether or not a
given node does or does not belong in this nodelist rests with
the Net Coordinator. In cases where we may be asked to remove
a Net or a Node, we will consider doing so ONLY for technical
reasons (e.g. the node's inability to communicate with other
Official Public Computer Network compatible systems), and then
only after consultation with the Network Coordinator.
14) We will initially try to resolve all disputes in a fair
and friendly manner. However, should there be a dispute that
is otherwise unresolvable, we reserve the right to put the
matter to a vote of Network Coordinators. A notification of
the dispute, and the time limits for voting, will be placed in
the nodelist comments for at least two consecutive weeks, with
the last notification at least two weeks before the votes are
due in. This procedure should only rarely be used, and only to
resolve disputes over technical matters. An example of a
matter that might be put to such a vote is whether a particular
mailer program is compatible enough to interface properly with
other nodes listed in this nodelist. WE WILL NOT ENTERTAIN
FidoNews 6-26 Page 42 26 Jun 1989
DISPUTES REGARDING DISCIPLINARY OR POLITICAL MATTERS.
15) If at some point the need is felt for a more formal method
of resolving disputes, or to otherwise amend this document, a
committee will be appointed to make recommendations for
amendment to this document. These recommendations will be
voted on by all Net Coordinators. Where possible, such
recommendations shall be considered on a "line item" basis, so
that votes are not taken for an entire package of changes on a
"take it or leave it" basis (although related items MAY be
grouped together). During this process, ALL suggestions from
Sysops and Net Coordinators shall be given serious
consideration, and no person's suggestions shall be dismissed
out of hand due to personality conflicts with members of the
committee. In no case may the "prime directive" stated in item
#1 be altered, nor may any cost or charge be instituted for
being listed in the nodelist. Any amendments to this document
must be made primarily for the purpose of resolving technical
problems and disputes, and NOT for the reason of giving any one
group of Sysops a dominant position over another group.
Also, it should be recognized that technology changes as time
passes, and nothing is gained by insisting on adherence to
outdated standards. Therefore, if there are good reasons to
modify the minimum standard for being listed in the nodelist,
and if such a change will not adversely affect the vast
majority of those listed, such modifications should not be
dismissed out of hand. At the same time, it should be the goal
that any changes in the minimum standards should not force any
existing nodes out of the nodelist, unless it's simply a matter
of those nodes stubbornly refusing to upgrade their software to
the latest versions. However, in NO case should any action be
taken that would force any Sysop to abandon a Public Domain (or
other zero-cost) software program in favor of a commercial
program (or a "shareware" type program that demands a
registration fee from all users).
[Editorial Note: I feel that I should make some statement
regarding the fact that I feel that the Fidonet Technical
Standards Committee is often far too unwilling to consider
proposals for new and innovative ideas that would save money
for all Sysops. If, heaven help us, we ever feel the need to
have a "Technical Standards Committee" to resolve issues
pertaining to the OPCN nodelist, it should be composed of
people who generally look at new ideas and proposals and ask
"why not?", instead of people who are so resistant to any
change that it takes them two years to act on a simple request
to allow some additional nodelist flags. It should also be
composed of people who realize that not all Sysops have money
to burn, and who believe that any ideas that would help save
money for Sysops should be given speedy and thorough
consideration. And above all, these must be people who would
not stoop to using "technical standards" as a smokescreen for
kicking people out of the nodelist for other reasons that have
nothing to do with the technical ability to send and receive
mail.]
FidoNews 6-26 Page 43 26 Jun 1989
16) Finally, it must again be emphasized that although this
nodelist is a directory of nodes that utilize software that is
also commonly used in Fidonet, this nodelist is not in any way
connected with Fidonet, or International FidoNet Association,
or their nodelist. We do not take nodelist fragments from the
Fidonet nodelist. All Net updates must be sent directly to us,
or to one of the Nodelist Distribution Nodes.
Final comments: In order to make this work, we have need for
people that are able to perform one or more of three different
jobs:
a) A person or persons that will actually compile the nodelist
each week, from nodelist fragments received from Net
Coordinators. This must be someone who is capable of doing
this job every week (or, perhaps, every two weeks) faithfully.
It must also be someone who is willing to try and learn how to
generate nodediffs, rather than simply issuing a complete full
nodelist each week. It would also be great if the completed
nodelist could be made available on a PC Pursuitable node, to
minimize expenses for those who have to poll for it. The
person currently maintaining the nodelist for one of the
"alternative" networks might be an ideal choice for this
position, provided that person has figured out how to generate
nodediffs.
b) People who are willing to be in the Nodelist Distribution
Network. This basically involves polling for the nodediffs on
a weekly basis, then making them available for file request on
your system. You may also be asked to help collect nodelist
fragments from individual Nets and pass them upwards. In no
case should this require more than one or two calls per week
(one to pass collected fragments upstream, and one to receive
the completed nodelist).
c) Net Coordinators who are willing to send their nodelist
fragments up for inclusion in the nodelist.
If anyone would like to volunteer for any of these positions,
please send netmail to me at 154/8, or to LCRnet node 1011/8.
I will hold this information for forwarding to whoever winds up
doing the job described under a) above. Please note that due
to the current situation between Net 154 and the Region 11 RC,
we may be out of the Fidonet nodelist shortly, so I would again
advise those who may wish to communicate with Net 154 nodes to
use a text editor to clip the listing for Net 154 from a
current Fidonet nodelist, so that you can place it in your
private nodelist if necessary, at least until we can get the
OPCN nodelist up and running.
APPENDIX
The following nodelist flags would initially be approved for
use in the OPCN nodelist. Note that there are a few minor
differences from the Fidonet nodelist, e.g. Continuous Mail is
considered the default condition rather than the exception,
FidoNews 6-26 Page 44 26 Jun 1989
although use of the CM flag is still permitted; the file
request flags should only be used by nodes that support file
requests 23 hours a day, not including mail hour (don't you
hate calling for a file request only to find that you've called
during a period when file requests aren't allowed?), and some
additional flags are allowed (in particular, flags that let you
indicate what types of compressed mail packets your board can
receive and process).
The following codes are used to define operating hours:
Code Meaning
DA Daily
WD Week days
WE Week ends
SU Sundays
SA Saturday
The following codes define special operating conditions:
Code Meaning
CM Accepts mail 24 hours per day (optional - the default)
NC Does NOT accept continuous mail (required where true)
MO Node does not accept human callers
The following codes define modem protocols supported:
Code Meaning
V21 CCITT V21 300 bps full duplex
V22 CCITT V22 1200 bps full duplex
V23 CCITT V23 1200/75 split baud rate view data mode
V29 CCITT V29 9600 bps half duplex
V32 CCITT V32 9600 bps full duplex
V33 CCITT V33
V34 CCITT V34
H96 Hayes V9600
HST USR Courier HST
MAX Microcom AX/96xx series
PEP Packet Ensemble Protocol (Telebit Trailblazer)
NOTE: Many V22 modems also support Bell 212
The following codes define type of error correction available.
A separate error correction code should not be used when the
error correction type can be determined by the modem flag. For
instance, a modem code of HST implies MNP.
Code Meaning
MNP Microcom Networking Protocol error correction
V42 LAP-M error correction w/fallback to MNP
FidoNews 6-26 Page 45 26 Jun 1989
The following codes define the type(s) of compression that may
be used on mail packets sent TO a node.
Code Meaning
MN No compression supported
MC:x[...x] Method of Compression. The letters following
the colon (which may be in any order) indicate
one or more of the following:
C = unCrushing supported (PAK) - implies unSquashing &
unCrunching also supported
S = unSquashing supported (PKUNPAK, PKXARC, newer versions
of ARCE) - implies unCrunching also supported
N = unCrunching NOT supported (not valid with C or S)
D = extraction of DWC packets supported
L = extraction of LHARC packets supported
R = extraction of PKZIP ("Reduced") packets supported
Z = extraction of ZOO packets supported
Limitations:
C implies unSquashing and unCrunching, so C and S should
NOT be used together
N implies unCrunching NOT supported, therefore it's not
valid in combination with either C or S. MN and MC:N
are equivalent.
If NONE of these flags are used, it implies that only
unCrunching is supported (this is the default).
The following codes define the dedicated mail periods
supported. They have the form "#nn" or !nn where nn is the UTC
hour the mail period begins, # indicates Bell 212
compatibility, and ! indicates incompatibility with Bell 212:
#02 European mail hour (02:30 - 03:30 UTC)
#09 North American mail hour (09:00 - 10:00 UTC)
#18 Western Pacific mail hour (18:00 - 19:00 UTC)
NOTE: When applicable, the mail period flags may
be strung together with no intervening commas, e.g.
"#02#09". Only mail hours other than that standard
within a node's zone should be given.
The following codes are used to facilitate netmail and echomail
routing:
Code Meaning
AKA:net[/node][|net[/node]|net[/node]...] Also Known As
AI:net[/node][|net[/node]|net[/node]...] Alternate Inbound
PC:city code[extra access digits] PC Pursuitable
SL:[reserved - to be defined] StarLinkable
FidoNews 6-26 Page 46 26 Jun 1989
A sample PC flag usage would be as follows:
PC:WIMIL Node accessible via PC Pursuit in Milwaukee
PC:ILCHI1815 Chicago area node in 815 area code that
requires "1-815" to be dialed in front of
number. Hyphens are ALWAYS omitted.
The following codes indicate the types of file/update requests
supported 23 hours per day (Mail Hour excepted).
Code Meaning
XA Bark and WaZOO file/update requests
XB Bark file/update requests, WaZOO file requests
XC Bark file requests, WaZOO file/update requests
XP Bark file/update requests
XR Bark and WaZOO file requests
XW WaZOO file requests
The following code defines user-specific values. If present,
this code MUST be the last code present in a nodelist entry.
Code Meaning
Ux..x A user-specified string, which may contain any
alphanumeric character except blanks. This string
may contain one to thirty-two characters of
information that may be used to add user-defined
data to a specific nodelist entry.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 6-26 Page 47 26 Jun 1989
Claude F. Witherspoon
Fido 1:288/525 (Home of KidsNews)
PUBLIC BROADCAST DELIVERS CLASSROOM COMPUTING IDEAS
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:
PALO ALTO, Calif., (March 7, 1989) -- The Computer Learning
Foundation (CLF), a non-profit organization dedicated to
advancing computer literacy, announced today its sponsorship of a
weekly public broadcast television series entitled School Vision
focusing on the integration of technology into elementary and
secondary classroom curricula.
"School Vision addresses the critical need of preparing our
teachers to more effectively integrate technology into every
child's learning experience," said Sally Bowman, CLF director.
"From special education to high school science and math teachers,
our educators face the challenge - and opportunity - of making
computers as critical as textbooks are to classroom learning. The
School Vision broadcasts will share ideas and provide ppractical
information for educators."
According to U.S. Department of Education, there are more than 45
million elementary and secondary students in schools in the
United States. For every 32 students, there is currently one
microcomputer available. As the number of computers in schools
increases - it is expected to nearly double by 1990 - educators
anticipate that computers will become as fundamental to learning
as text books and traditional visual aids. To prepare the
country's more than three million educators, the weekly School
Vision segments will show exiting examples of how technology has
been brought into the classroom learning environment.
The School Vision show will be broadcasts via local PBS stations,
with dates and times varying depending on location. Parents and
educators are encouraged to contact their local public broadcast
station program managers and ask that the School Vision
broadcasts be picked up, via satelitte, from the Central
Education Network for local viewing. All educators are invited to
send videotapes highlighting how computers are being used at
their schools. Schools submitting videos selected to air on
School Vision will receive free software programs courtesy of the
Computer Learning Foundation sponsors. All video submissions and
inquiries should be addressed to the Foundation at P.O. Box
60400, Palo Alto, Calif., 94306-0400.
CLF is also sponsoring a national teacher training competition
and plans to award developers of computer/teaching programs with
computer systems donated by CLF industry sponsors. Recognition
will be given to top teacher programs developed for the early
childhood education area, special education, curriculum
integration (combining social studies, foreign languages,
FidoNews 6-26 Page 48 26 Jun 1989
writing, art/music, math, science), and the "at risk" population.
Educators interested in receiving more information about the
teacher training competition should write to the Foundation at
P.O. Box 60007, Palo Alto, Calif., 94306-0007.
Spearheading the development and production of the weekly School
Vision programs is a coalition of industry and educational
organizations, including the Central Education Network (CEN),
Software Communications Services (SCS) and the CLF. The School
Vision video briefings will be presented through WCET, Cincinnati
and the Ohio Network Broadcasting Network Commission.
The Computer Learning Foundation sponsors Computer Learning Month
programs each October. The non-profit organization, based in Palo
Alto, Calif., is supported by leading software publishers and
computer manufacturers including, Apple, Commodore, IBM and
Tandy, as well as 52 U.S. State Departments of Education and
Canadian Ministries of Education, and more than 20 national
non-profit organizations.
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
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 6-26 Page 49 26 Jun 1989
---------------------------------------------------------------
SAPMFC&LP
---------------------------------------------------------------
Come one, come all, to the SECOND ANNUAL POOR MAN'S FIDOCON &
LAKE PARTY !!! Join us for the fun of it, July 14-16 1989, West
Towakani, Texas.
Nets 124 and 130 are pleased to announce the sequel to last
year's PMFC&LP, which was a smashing success! We hope to again
see our good friends from around Region 19 and all of FidoNet.
Admission is FREE TO ALL, with camping, fishing, and a
Texas-Style PARTY all included in the price! Bring the family!
WARNING! Any person found in possession of a computer (or any
device even remotely resembling a computer) at this event will
be summarily thrown into the lake, per PMFC&LP tradition.
Those in possession of floppy disks and/or DOS or programming
manuals may be subject to similar disciplinary action.
Map/Instructions/Info follows -- not meant for monitor display,
please print!
---------------------------Tear Here---------------------------
1989 Second Annual Poor Man's FidoCon & Lake Party
July 15-16, 1989
West Towakani, Texas
Hosted by Nets 124 and 130
===============================================================
NAVIGATIONAL HELP
===============================================================
From DALLAS:
Take I-30 EAST approximately 25 miles from downtown Dallas to
the junction with State Highway 205 (Exit 68, Milepost 69).
There is a large "76" Truck Stop at this exit.
Take Exit 68, and follow State Highway 205 SOUTH for 1/10 mile.
Make the FIRST LEFT (happens quickly) onto State Highway 276.
Follow State Highway 276 EAST for 19.5 miles until it dead ends
at the junction with State Highway 34 in the town of Quinlan,
Tx. (There will be a Dairy Queen right in front of you)
Turn RIGHT (South) onto State Highway 34 and proceed 1/2 mile
to the junction with State Highway 35 (traffic light).
Turn LEFT (East) onto State Highway 35 and proceed 7.1 miles to
the large "Anchor Inn" sign on the left. Directly across the
road on the RIGHT is the entrance to the campground. (Note for
FidoNews 6-26 Page 50 26 Jun 1989
late arrivals: Sign is well lighted)
Turn RIGHT just past the "Catfish Inn" Restaurant and follow
the gravel road (blacktop in places) back into the campground.
IMPORTANT!!! Please check in at the office upon arrival, as all
vehicles will require a pass/permit. Tell them you're with the
DFW Sysops Group.
Anchor Inn phone: (214) 447-2256
---------------------------------------------------------------
From POINTS EAST using I-30:
Take I-30 WEST to the junction with State Highway 34 at Canton,
Tx.
Take the State Highway 34 Exit and turn SOUTH onto State
Highway 34. Follow State Highway 34 for approximately 19 miles
into the town of Quinlan, Tx.
As you are coming into Quinlan, you will pass a large Dairy
Queen on the left. From the Dairy Queen, continue straight
ahead for 1/2 mile to the junction with State Highway 35
(traffic light).
Turn LEFT (East) onto State Highway 35 and follow the "From
Dallas" instructions listed above.
---------------------------------------------------------------
From POINTS EAST USING I-20:
Follow I-20 WEST to the junction of State Highway 34 at
Terrell, Tx.
Turn NORTH onto State Highway 34 and proceed approximately 17
miles to the junction of State Highway 35 (traffic light) in
the town of Quinlan, Tx.
Turn RIGHT (East) onto State Highway 35 and follow the "From
Dallas" instructions listed above.
---------------------------------------------------------------
From POINTS SOUTH:
Because I-20 and I-30 "merge" just east of Dallas, if you are
coming in via I-35, I-45, or U.S. 67 (or a similar route), your
best route is to get on I-20 and follow it EAST to the junction
with I-30, then take I-30 EAST and follow the "From Dallas"
instructions listed above.
---------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 6-26 Page 51 26 Jun 1989
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
The campground has a marina, store, tent sites, RV/trailer
sites, electric and water hookups, picnic tables, showers, and
sanitary facilities. It is located in the small town of West
Towakani, TX, with restauarants, stores, shops, gas, and
medical facilities within a 5 mile radius. Beer/Wine/Liquor
are available locally.
Full RV Hookups (water/electric/sewer/parking) will be
available to members of our group for $6.00 per night, which is
half the going rate. The RV spaces are about 200 yards from
the area we have reserved. RV parking (no hookups) is free to
members of our group.
We have reserved a large area right on the water, including a
real nice area for those who choose to pitch tents.
There are several picnic tables at the site we've reserved,
including several which are under a nice ramada near the water.
This ramada will likely become the "center" of activity.
There is no electricity available at the site, so bring lots of
batteries for your boom box.
Restrooms are less than 100 yards away.
There is no fresh water at the site, but it is available within
150 yards.
We've had a rainy year in North Texas -- bring plenty of insect
repellant!
The owners of the campground say that prior campers have
destroyed their BBQ grills -- they have new ones on order, but
they may not arrive by our party date. Anyone with a LARGE
grill, please let us hear from you, otherwise, a Hibachi/Weber
might be a good thing to bring...
The site we're using will allow the landing of most any boat...
For anyone unfamiliar with Texas' archaic "Blue Laws" -- hard
liquor cannot be purchased legally on Sunday, though beer is
available 7 days a week... (?!?!?) Also, liquor stores close by
law at 9:00 p.m. daily, Mon-Sat.
Beer can be purchased legally in many food/convenience stores 7
days per week until 2:00 a.m. daily.
For those who wish to help, the following items will be surely
be needed:
Friendly folks
Good will
Fellowship
Fresh water
FidoNews 6-26 Page 52 26 Jun 1989
Lawn/Beach Chairs
Ice
Charcoal/Propane
Coleman lanterns
Firewood
Paper supplies (Paper plates, Napkins, Paper towels, T.P.)
Condiments (Mustard, Catsup, Relish, Salt, Pepper)
Side dishes (Potato salad, Cole slaw, desserts)
Beer (Should this have been *first*?) :-)
First Aid Supplies
Dishwashing/Laundry soap
Duct Tape - It's hamster season in TX... Pa-Pa-Ooh-Maow-Maow!
PLEASE DRIVE CAREFULLY! REMEMBER -- DEAD SYSOPS DON'T READ
ECHOMAIL!
---------------------------Tear Here---------------------------
Last year's "First Annual Poor Man's FidoCon & Lake Party" was
a real blast, with folks from all over Region 19 in attendance
-- we're hoping this year's blowout will be even bigger and
better.
Families are encouraged to attend, so bring the spouse and
kids!
Hope to see you there!
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 6-26 Page 53 26 Jun 1989
=================================================================
COLUMNS
=================================================================
THE LOST FIDONET ARCHIVES
VOLUME FOUR
Compiled by various members of FidoNet
Edited by Vince Perriello
This is the fourth article in a series which reprints documents
of historical significance to FidoNet. This week we feature Tom
Jennings' second FidoNet History document, which added more
history and amended the "original policy", from August 1985.
Please note that most if not all of the FidoNet addresses, data
line phone numbers, and company names and/or addresses mentioned
in this or any of the other articles in this series are not to
be considered reliable for current use in locating something or
someone mentioned here. Refer to the current nodelist if you
want to try to find any of the above.
Following is the contents of FIDONET.DC2:
This is Part Two in the history of FidoNet. It turned out that
the original FIDOHIST.DOC (now called FIDOHIST.DC1, or just "Part
One") was useful, and many people read it. Unfortunately, by the
time everyone read it, it became totally obsolete. Oh well.
Here is Part Two.
FIDOHIST.DOC covered the early history of FidoNet, why it was
done, how it was done, and the reasons for the organization and
obscure rituals surrounding node numbers. If you havent read it
yet, I suggest you do now, because I'll probably refer to things
that won't make any sense otherwise.
The original FidoNet was organized very simply; each FidoNet
system (each node) had a number that served like a phone number,
uniquely identifying it. The NODELIST, generated by the folks in
St. Louis that had all FidoNet nodes in it, contains information
on all known FidoNet systems. Every system in FidoNet had a
current copy of the NODELIST, which served as the directory of
systems.
(In the interests of brevity I'm leaving out huge amounts of
information; I hope you have read FIODHIST.DOC by now ...)
FidoNet has been growing steadily since it started by accident in
May 84 or so. The node list continued to get out of hand; the
original FIDOHIST.DOC was written to try and help smooth things
out. It is impossible to overemphasize the amount of work
involved in keeping the node list accurate. Basically, the guys
in St. Louis were keeping track of hundreds of FidoNet systems
FidoNews 6-26 Page 54 26 Jun 1989
in Boston, Los Angeles, London, Stockholm and Sweden, and
publishing the results weekly. There has never been such a
comprehensive and accurate list of bulletin board systems
generated.
We talked for many months as to how we could possibly find a
solution to the many problems; it was at the point where if a
solution was not found in a few months (by Aug. 85 or so) that
FidoNet would collapse due to the sheer weight of it's node list.
The newsletter, FidoNews, was, and still is, an integral part of
the process of FidoNet. FidoNews is the only thing that unites
all FidoNet sysops consistently; please keep up to date on it,
and stock it for your users if you have the disk space. And
contribute if you can! [Thanks, Tom. Never hurts to make that
point again -- ed.]
There were many constraints on the kind of things we could do;
we had no money, so it had to be done for zero cost.
Centralization was out, so obviously localization was in; just
how to do it was a total unknown. We thought of going back to
having people in different areas handle new node requests in
their area, but that always generated confusion as to who a
person should go to, how to avoide having someone requesting a
node number from different people simultaneously, etc etc.
The old method of routing was very different than the current
method, and much more complex; instead of Fido automatically
routing to hosts, each sysop had to specify (via the ROUTE.BBS
file) how all routing was done in the system. The was done
originally by hand, later by John Warren's (102/31) NODELIST
program.
Then of course there was the problem that no matter what we did,
it would not be done overnight. (ha ha.) It would take many
weeks at the least, possibly months, so that whatever we did had
to be compatible with the old method as well.
We went through probably hundreds of ideas in the next few
months, some possibly useful, some insane. Eventually the
insanity boiled down to a pretty workable system. We chatted by
FidoNet and by voice telephone. Eventually, we settled on the
two part number scheme, like the phone company does with area
codes and exchanges. It accomodated backwards compatibility (you
can keep your present node number) and the new "area code" (net
number) could be added into an existing field that had been set
to zero. (This is why everyone was originally part of net #1).
When a fortunate set of circumstances was to bring Ezra Shapiro
and me to St. Louis to speak to the McDonnell Douglas
Recreational Computer Club on XXXX 11th, we planned ahead for a
national FidoNet sysops meeting that weekend. [Note -- this was
the first FidoCon -- ed.] Ken and Sally Kaplan were kind enough
to tolerate having all of us in their living room.
FidoNews 6-26 Page 55 26 Jun 1989
The people who showed up were (need that list) The meeting lasted
ten continuous hours; it was the most productive meeting I (and
most others) had attended. When we were done, we had basically
the whole thing layed out in every detail.
We stuck with the area code business (now known as net and region
numbers) and worked out how to break things up into regions and
nets. It was just one of those rare but fortunate events;
during the morning things went "normally", but in the afternoon
solutions fell into place one by one, so that by late afternoon
we had the entire picture laid out in black and white. Two or
three months of brainstorming just flowed smoothly into place in
one afternoon ...
What we had done was exactly what we have now, though we changed
the name of "Admin" to "Region", and added the "alternate" node
and net numbers. (We still seem to be stuck with that terrible
and inaccurate word, "manager". Any ideas?) I previously had a
buggy test hack running using area codes, and the week after the
meeting it was made to conform to what we had talked about that
Saturday.
When version 10C was done, it accomplished more or less
everything we wanted, but it sure did take a long time. 10C was
probably the single largest change ever made to Fido/FidoNet, and
the most thoroughly tested version. At 10M, there are STILL bugs
left from that early version, in spite of the testing.
Once the testing got serious, and it looked like we had a
shippable version, St. Louis froze the node list, and started
slicing it into pieces, to give to the soon-to-be net and region
managers. (That word again.) This caused a tremendous amount of
trouble for would-be sysops; not only was it difficult enough to
figure out how on earth to get a node number, once they did they
were told node numbers weren't being given out just yet.
Explaining why was even harder, since FIDOHIST.DC2 (ahem) wasn't
written yet. (I have to agree, this thing is a little bit late)
It was a typical case of those who already knew were informaed
constantly of updates, but thse in the dark had a hard time.
Things were published fairly regularly (am I remembering
"conveniently" or "accurately" on this part?)
Eventually, 10C was released, and seemed to work fairly well,
ignoring all the small scale disasters due to bugs, etc. We
couldn't just swap over to the new area code business until very
close to 100% of all Fidos were using the new version. This was
(for me) an excruciating period, basically a "hurry up and wait"
situation. There had not been a node list release for a month or
two, and for all practical purposes it looked like FidoNet had
halted ...
Finally, on June 12th, we all swapped over to the new system;
that afternoon, sysops were to set their net number (it had been
"1" for backwards compatibility), copy in the new node list
issued just for this occasion, and go. I assumed the result was
FidoNews 6-26 Page 56 26 Jun 1989
going to be perpetual chaos, bringing about the collapse of
FidoNet. Almost the exact opposite was true; things went very
smoothly (yes, there were problems, but when you consider that
FidoNet consists of microcomputers owned by almost 300 people who
had never even talked to each other ...)
Within a month or so, just about every Fido had swapped over to
the area code, or net/node architecture. With a few exceptions,
things went very smoothly. No one was more suprised than
pessimistic I. At this time, August, I don't think there is a
single system still using the old node number method.
This is all well and fine as far as the software goes, but it
made a mess for new sysops. For us sysops who have been around
for a while, there was no great problem, as we saw the changes
happen one by one. However, new sysops frequently came out of
the blue; armed with a diskette full of code, they attempted to
set up a FidoNet node.
Actually, I don't understand how anyone does it. The information
needed is not recorded in any place that a non sysop could find.
On top of that, most of it is now totally wrong! If you follow
the original instructions, it said "call Fido #1 ..." if you
found a real antique, or "calling Fido #51 ..." if it is more
current. Of course now it tells you to find your region manager.
"Region manager???" Well, a list of region managers was published
in FidoNews, but unless you read FidoNews, how does anyone ever
find out? I'll probably never know.
ANYWAYS ... the original reason for all the changes was to
DECENTRALIZE FidoNet. It just wasn't possible for Ken Kaplan to
keep accurate, up to date information on every Fido in the US and
Europe. The decentralization has been more or less a total
success. The number of problems introduced were negligable
compared to the problems solved, and even most new problems are
by this time solved.
It is interesting to note that with the hundreds of systems there
are today, the national FidoNet hour is less crowded than it was
when there were only 50 nodes.
Please, keep in mind that no one has done anything like this
before, we are all winging it, and learning (hopefully) as we go.
Please be patient with problems, none of us is paid to do this,
and it is more and more work as time goes on. Somehow it seems
to all get done ...
HOW TO GET A NODE NUMBER AND ALL THAT
20 August 1985
This is by necessity a very general idea of how it's done, and
you were warned earlier that this may be obsolete this very
minute; with that, here's the "current" process for starting up
a new FidoNet node.
FidoNews 6-26 Page 57 26 Jun 1989
You can of course skip all or part of this if you've done this
before; if you haven't, well, be prepared for a lot of searching
and asking questions.
Of course, you need to have your Fido BBS system running first.
It's probably best that you play with it for a while, and get
some experience with how it all works, and whether you have the
patience to run a BBS. It can get exasperating, and you will
never find time to use the computer ever again.
Obtain the most recent copy of the nodelist possible; thi may
take some searching. If you get totally lost, you can always
contact Fido 125/1 or Fido 100/51; though these are very busy
systems, they both usually have the very latest of anything, and
can direct you to the right place.
The big problem here is to find out if oyu are in a net or not,
and if not, then who your region manager is. If you are in a
lrge city (Los Angeles, Cincinnati, etc) then there is probably a
net in your area. Look through the node list (use the N)odebook
command in Fido, or a text editor) for the right area code or
city.
If there is no net in your area, then you are part of a region.
This is a little harder, because regions are large, and sometomes
cover many states. Look at all the regions in the node list, you
should find a region that fits you.
Once you find this, you have to contact the net or region manager
to get your node number. Exactly how this is done depends on who
the manager is, and how sticky they are fir details. A near
universal requirement is that you send your request via FidoNet,
not by manully; this isn't done to make you life difficult, but
to ensure that your system is really working right. IF you
manage to get a FidoNet message to the manager, its usually safe
to assume that you're system is working OK. If you get a reply
in return, then you know both directions work.
It is usually each sysops' responsibility to go get the latest
nodelist and newsletters; they are not distributed to all
systems because of the expense. (Though, I'm trying to get them
distributed to more places than they are now, it's sometimes very
difficult to get a copy of the nodelist!)
Again, read the FidoNew newsletter regularly; it is about the
only way to stay in contact with the rest of the net. Programs,
problems, services, bugs and interesting announcements can always
be found there. FidoNews articles don't come out of thin air;
send in anythnig you think might be of interest. They don't have
to be lifetime masterpieces, or even well written.
Please remember the entire network is made of the sysops; there
is no central location from which good things come, the net
consists entirely of the sysops and their contributions. If you
don't do it, chances are no one else will!
FidoNews 6-26 Page 58 26 Jun 1989
Tom Jennings
20 Aug 85
Ken Kaplan Fido 100/51 314/432-4129
Tom Jennings Fido 125/1 415/864-1418
Ben Baker Fido 100/10 314/234-1462
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 6-26 Page 59 26 Jun 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 6-26 Page 60 26 Jun 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 6-26 Page 61 26 Jun 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 6-26 Page 62 26 Jun 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 6-26 Page 63 26 Jun 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 6-26 Page 64 26 Jun 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 6-26 Page 65 26 Jun 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