2082 lines
98 KiB
Plaintext
2082 lines
98 KiB
Plaintext
|
Volume 6, Number 23 5 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. ARTICLES ................................................. 1
|
|||
|
|
The European Situation ................................... 1
|
|||
|
|
Response to Pete White's article ......................... 3
|
|||
|
|
The Fake Users Manual .................................... 10
|
|||
|
|
The Lost FidoNet Archives - Volume 2 ..................... 15
|
|||
|
|
Here We Go Again! ........................................ 21
|
|||
|
|
Something Exotic - Polish traffic in Net/Echo Mail ....... 29
|
|||
|
|
2. COLUMNS .................................................. 31
|
|||
|
|
The Veterinarian's Corner: Elimination Problem Behavior .. 31
|
|||
|
|
3. LATEST VERSIONS .......................................... 33
|
|||
|
|
Latest Software Versions ................................. 33
|
|||
|
|
And more!
|
|||
|
|
FidoNews 6-23 Page 1 5 Jun 1989
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
=================================================================
|
|||
|
|
ARTICLES
|
|||
|
|
=================================================================
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
The European Situation
|
|||
|
|
by Daniel Tobias
|
|||
|
|
1:380/7
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
This article is my reaction to the Zone 2 Policy situation as
|
|||
|
|
announced in FidoNews 622.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
The European nodes' statement to the effect that they have
|
|||
|
|
repealed POLICY3 for their zone, replaced it with a
|
|||
|
|
European-specific policy, and rejected the proposed POLICY4,
|
|||
|
|
amounts to a "Declaration of Independence" of sorts for the
|
|||
|
|
European nodes, who now claim not to be subject to the overall,
|
|||
|
|
American-dominated FidoNet policy.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
As a Libertarian politically, I have no moral objection to the
|
|||
|
|
European nodes declaring independence from the Americans, which
|
|||
|
|
sort of turns the tables on the Americans who did a similar thing
|
|||
|
|
to Europe over 200 years ago.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
However, I'm not entirely thrilled with the manner in which
|
|||
|
|
they did it. They are claiming to be fully autonomous and
|
|||
|
|
self-governing, not subject to overall FidoNet policy, but yet,
|
|||
|
|
they still consider themselves part of the FidoNet, and are in
|
|||
|
|
the nodelist distributed in zones 1, 3, and 4 as well as their
|
|||
|
|
zone.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
It seems to me, if they want their full independence, they
|
|||
|
|
should have to leave FidoNet altogether, and become a different
|
|||
|
|
network like AlterNet and EggNet. Under those circumstances,
|
|||
|
|
they would no longer be in the FidoNet nodelist, or have the
|
|||
|
|
rights to the name FidoNet under Tom Jennings' license, unless
|
|||
|
|
they engaged in separate negotiations to secure such privileges.
|
|||
|
|
After all, why should the American coordinator structure pay long
|
|||
|
|
distance charges to distribute a nodelist including a lengthy
|
|||
|
|
list of European nodes, if those nodes refuse to accept the
|
|||
|
|
authority of the FidoNet Policy which is supposed to cover ALL
|
|||
|
|
zones?
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
I think the Europeans should either break free of FidoNet
|
|||
|
|
altogether if they want that level of autonomy, or else work
|
|||
|
|
within the system to get a POLICY4 passed that allows for wide
|
|||
|
|
latitude for zone policies taking into account the varied
|
|||
|
|
circumstances of different world regions. But they shouldn't
|
|||
|
|
repudiate POLICY3 but still act like they're part of the net
|
|||
|
|
governed by this policy.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
As for the specific elements of European policy, the most
|
|||
|
|
controversial one is their mandatory fee for nodes. That's the
|
|||
|
|
element most in conflict with existing policy, and some might
|
|||
|
|
argue it contravenes the general spirit of FidoNet. That more
|
|||
|
|
than anything else might compel European nodes to leave FidoNet,
|
|||
|
|
since I don't know if the rest of the network would be willing to
|
|||
|
|
FidoNews 6-23 Page 2 5 Jun 1989
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
adopt a policy permitting zones (and perhaps regions or nets) to
|
|||
|
|
impose mandatory charges. That would open up a real can of
|
|||
|
|
worms; even if it is permitted, some controls would likely be
|
|||
|
|
placed to prevent the possibility of profiteering NCs, RCs, or
|
|||
|
|
ZCs imposing excessive charges for their personal profit.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
In conclusion, I'd like to see FidoNet preserved as an
|
|||
|
|
international network, held together by one consistent policy
|
|||
|
|
statement (with some latitude allowed for local policies within
|
|||
|
|
the constraints of the global one). If other systems, wherever
|
|||
|
|
in the world they may be located, wish to carry on networking
|
|||
|
|
under different rules, they've got every right to do so, but
|
|||
|
|
they're not then part of FidoNet.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
|||
|
|
FidoNews 6-23 Page 3 5 Jun 1989
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Jack Decker
|
|||
|
|
Fidonet 1:154/8 LCRnet 77:1011/8
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
RESPONSE TO PETE WHITE'S ARTICLE
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
In Fidonews 622, Pete White published an article containing
|
|||
|
|
certain "ramblings". I'd like to touch on a few of the points
|
|||
|
|
he made.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
As Pete noted, among many other positions, he is the Regional
|
|||
|
|
Coordinator of Region 16. He's also held positions in the
|
|||
|
|
IFNA.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Pete then goes on to admit confusion on certain things. He
|
|||
|
|
states, "I see attacks on those who are spending their time and
|
|||
|
|
money trying to feed the `echo-holics'. I see attacks on the
|
|||
|
|
*C structure for much of what they do, or don't do. I see a
|
|||
|
|
lot of commentary by folks who are obviously so biased and
|
|||
|
|
upset they ought to be collecting stamps or seeking an inner
|
|||
|
|
light.... What I don't see are answers to some of the basic
|
|||
|
|
questions I've asked since day one, that first day I
|
|||
|
|
unknowingly got a mailer to work! When I see all the messages
|
|||
|
|
about 'power plays' and 'the coordinators have all the power' I
|
|||
|
|
really get confused. Will someone out there tell me POWER over
|
|||
|
|
what? Is there a monetary benefit here that I'm missing that
|
|||
|
|
makes POWER profitable? If I have the POWER can I make my echo
|
|||
|
|
feeds send me the echos instead of me paying to go after them?
|
|||
|
|
I somewhat doubt that! Actually, it looks very much like those
|
|||
|
|
who are blamed for wanting POWER are those who are doing all
|
|||
|
|
the work."
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
I'll bet a lot of common sysops read the above and shook their
|
|||
|
|
head sadly. The problem is that Pete's an RC. If anybody
|
|||
|
|
should be making an effort to find out the reasons behind these
|
|||
|
|
complaints, an RC and IFNA member should. Instead, what I see
|
|||
|
|
is a "why is everybody always picking on me" type of reaction.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
When I think of the Coordinator structure in Fidonet, it
|
|||
|
|
reminds me of the cartoon about the overzealous boy scout, who,
|
|||
|
|
determined to do his "good deed for the day", helps the old
|
|||
|
|
lady across the street. Whereupon, he just can't understand
|
|||
|
|
why, instead of thanking him, she bashes him over the head with
|
|||
|
|
her umbrella. The problem, of course, was that the old lady
|
|||
|
|
didn't want to cross the street, she was just standing on the
|
|||
|
|
corner waiting for a bus!
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Why do the coordinators want POWER? Doggone if I know. You
|
|||
|
|
would think that as many complaints as they receive, at least
|
|||
|
|
some of them would wise up to the fact that they're doing
|
|||
|
|
things that just aren't popular with the common sysops...
|
|||
|
|
they're trying to take us in a direction we don't want to go...
|
|||
|
|
or they'd quit. The POWER is in forcing others to do things
|
|||
|
|
YOUR way, even though perhaps the majority doesn't think YOUR
|
|||
|
|
way is the BEST way. I'm sorry, but I don't know why some
|
|||
|
|
people thrive on that sort of power. They will endure flames,
|
|||
|
|
FidoNews 6-23 Page 4 5 Jun 1989
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
insults, and even sometimes a financial loss just to retain
|
|||
|
|
that sort of power over others. Maybe a sociologist can
|
|||
|
|
explain it, but I can't.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
What do I mean by "they're trying to take us in a direction we
|
|||
|
|
don't want to go?" I think it can be summed up in two ways.
|
|||
|
|
First, they are trying to impose a tight, rigid, unbending
|
|||
|
|
structure over a group of hobbyists, who really want a loose,
|
|||
|
|
informal, friendly structure. We want equals working together,
|
|||
|
|
not dictators imposing rules. Second, they want to impose a
|
|||
|
|
top-down form of government, whereas most sysops want a
|
|||
|
|
bottom-up (representative) form of government.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Pete then goes on to say: "How about those who are screaming
|
|||
|
|
for democracy? Have any of them every watched 'democracy at
|
|||
|
|
work' within FidoNet? You really ought to try it. Watching
|
|||
|
|
democracy at work when there was an ECHOPOL conference was
|
|||
|
|
enough to sell me on anything but. All I saw there was a few
|
|||
|
|
who were interested in only themselves and spent most of their
|
|||
|
|
time practicing in the age old FidoNet tradition of 'the
|
|||
|
|
beating of dead horses' while a few others tried to get some
|
|||
|
|
intelligence from the proceedings. Those who scream loudly for
|
|||
|
|
'democracy' have absolutely NO idea what they are asking for."
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
It's interesting that Pete should use the ECHOPOL conference as
|
|||
|
|
an example. I can tell you exactly what happened in ECHOPOL,
|
|||
|
|
because I was there. Basically, a number of us were opposed to
|
|||
|
|
the geographic (regional) restrictions on echomail. We wanted
|
|||
|
|
to be able to continue sending echomail between systems
|
|||
|
|
irregardless of regional boundaries, as we had always done in
|
|||
|
|
the past.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Now, to hear Pete talk, you'd think that a vote was taken, that
|
|||
|
|
the regional echomail restrictions were approved by the
|
|||
|
|
majority, and that a few "crybabies" just wouldn't let it go,
|
|||
|
|
and yield to the will of the majority. But, that's simply not
|
|||
|
|
what happened. What DID happen was that at the very start, the
|
|||
|
|
folks running the ECHOPOL conference decided that the issue of
|
|||
|
|
echomail crossing regional boundaries was NON-NEGOTIABLE. The
|
|||
|
|
fact of the matter is that we NEVER GOT TO VOTE on probably the
|
|||
|
|
single most important issue affecting echomail handling.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Not that we didn't try. I personally asked on numerous
|
|||
|
|
occasions that they just take a vote to determine the will of
|
|||
|
|
the majority on this matter, and if we were defeated, I
|
|||
|
|
promised to shut up about the issue. But we were told it was
|
|||
|
|
"too much trouble" to take a vote, and that everybody was in
|
|||
|
|
favor of the restrictions except a few "troublemakers."
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Oh, we did get to vote on some things... real important
|
|||
|
|
stuff(?), like the format and length of tear lines and origin
|
|||
|
|
lines. But on major points, it seemed that the decisions had
|
|||
|
|
already been made for us.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
The low point occurred in a message from Mike Ratledge, the
|
|||
|
|
ECHOPOL conference moderator, to Vince Perriello (slightly
|
|||
|
|
FidoNews 6-23 Page 5 5 Jun 1989
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
reformatted to fit the FIDONEWS column width):
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
-----(message begins)-----
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Message #34, Area "Echopol "
|
|||
|
|
From: Mike Ratledge
|
|||
|
|
To: Vince Perriello 16 Nov 88 10:28:00
|
|||
|
|
Subject: Slight change in timing
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
NH>> There is a clear concensus that PATH lines are required.
|
|||
|
|
NH>> The messages in this conference have been overwelming in
|
|||
|
|
NH>> favor of them. We did not feel it was necessary to
|
|||
|
|
NH>> re-hash topics that alreay had a majority.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
-> PATH lines are NOT necessary. If you guys are going to
|
|||
|
|
-> design software this way, ignoring the FTSC working group,
|
|||
|
|
-> then you can damned well WRITE it too.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
They aren't necessary *if* we have the topology "locked down"
|
|||
|
|
and *if* we can control every one of the fools out there that
|
|||
|
|
thinks they're better off ignoring the requirements like not
|
|||
|
|
going out-of-region, etc, etc.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
We *could* totally eliminate SEEN-BY: lines, too - *if* the
|
|||
|
|
above two things were true - but I don't look for it to happen
|
|||
|
|
any time in the near future.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
I agree that there are a lot of things that we're talking about
|
|||
|
|
here that do overlap the FTSC. I think that the FTSC should be
|
|||
|
|
responsible for the basic format of the messages, the structure
|
|||
|
|
of the packets, etc - but the actual message content should be
|
|||
|
|
more in "our ballpark" here. I realize it's a fine line -
|
|||
|
|
especially when we're talking about the kludge lines - but
|
|||
|
|
we've got to start somewhere - or we'll never get there!
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
If the FTSC makes a decision which changes what is written in
|
|||
|
|
ECHOPOL, then I think that we should ammend the policy - that's
|
|||
|
|
all.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
--- via XRS 0.30
|
|||
|
|
* Origin: That Mean ol' RatMan's "Point-Less" Point
|
|||
|
|
(TComm 1:372/666.1)
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
-----(message ends)-----
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
The FOOLS comment by the moderator was the straw that broke the
|
|||
|
|
camel's back for many of us. It was clear to us then that only
|
|||
|
|
those whose opinions were in sync with the preconceived notions
|
|||
|
|
of the ECHOPOL committee were welcome to express an opinion in
|
|||
|
|
the conference. So, the participants in the ECHOPOL conference
|
|||
|
|
were subjected not only to being asked to vote only on
|
|||
|
|
insignificant matters, while being denied the right to vote on
|
|||
|
|
important ones (I guess this was so they could later claim that
|
|||
|
|
ECHOPOL had been arrived at by a vote of the sysops of
|
|||
|
|
Fidonet), but at the end were subjected to a fair amount of
|
|||
|
|
character assassination as well. By the way, I asked Mike
|
|||
|
|
FidoNews 6-23 Page 6 5 Jun 1989
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Ratledge for an apology for the FOOLS comment, and he declined
|
|||
|
|
to offer one.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Oh, and Pete White? He was in the conference, and hanging
|
|||
|
|
solidly with the clique that was running the conference. In
|
|||
|
|
fact, he was one of the most vocal supporters of the regional
|
|||
|
|
echomail restrictions.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
So when Pete tells you that we were beating a dead horse, it
|
|||
|
|
was only dead as far as the conference moderator and a few
|
|||
|
|
others (including Pete White) were concerned. To some of the
|
|||
|
|
rest of us, it appeared that the horse hadn't even been born
|
|||
|
|
yet, and that the ruling clique was trying to do a premature
|
|||
|
|
abortion on it!
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Getting back to Pete's Fidonews article, he then goes on to
|
|||
|
|
say, "The ones who make me worry are those who want
|
|||
|
|
'democracy'. Some of those very same people want to be able to
|
|||
|
|
run their own nets with their own policy! Imagine it, hundreds
|
|||
|
|
of nets all over the place - each with it's very own policy.
|
|||
|
|
Why, with any work at all we could probably confuse everyone as
|
|||
|
|
well as the federal, state and municipal laws have!" Now
|
|||
|
|
perhaps that sounds bad until you consider the alternatives.
|
|||
|
|
Someone once said that "Democracy is the very worst form of
|
|||
|
|
government, except for every other type." Right now the
|
|||
|
|
Chinese people have a government that operates a lot like
|
|||
|
|
Fidonet. There, despite the fact that the government could
|
|||
|
|
shoot to kill protestors, many people have gathered with one
|
|||
|
|
basic demand - they want DEMOCRACY! Here in the United States,
|
|||
|
|
we can protest with virtually no fear of anything much worse
|
|||
|
|
than perhaps a night in jail, and yet how many people do you
|
|||
|
|
see demonstrating against the government in favor of a
|
|||
|
|
dictatorship? Think about it!
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Pete continues, "The strange thing is we have many nets out
|
|||
|
|
there doing just that, and everyone is happy! They never
|
|||
|
|
demanded the 'right' to do it, they all agreed within
|
|||
|
|
themselves it was the right way to go and they went with it.
|
|||
|
|
Makes me wonder about those who are screaming for the same
|
|||
|
|
'rights' that others have had for years. Sure must be
|
|||
|
|
something wrong somewhere." Yes, something is wrong - the fact
|
|||
|
|
that those nets that are now using a democratic method of
|
|||
|
|
selecting their Net Coordinator are basically operating outside
|
|||
|
|
of Policy. They can get away with it, but ONLY if the Regional
|
|||
|
|
Coordinator allows them to do so. However, if the Regional
|
|||
|
|
Coordinator doesn't like the net's choice of an NC, that NC can
|
|||
|
|
be replaced at the whim of the RC. So what you have is a form
|
|||
|
|
of democracy at the net level, and (if you're lucky) a
|
|||
|
|
"benevolent dictatorship" at the Regional level. But if your
|
|||
|
|
elected NC manages to offend a not-so-benevolent RC, out he
|
|||
|
|
goes!
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Pete goes on, "...Whatever it is, there's a LOT of people out
|
|||
|
|
there who are doing a LOT of work - and the pay is pretty slim.
|
|||
|
|
Sure, there's a few who are difficult to get along with and a
|
|||
|
|
few who shouldn't be involved as they do more damage than good.
|
|||
|
|
FidoNews 6-23 Page 7 5 Jun 1989
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Guess that's because they are people. But if you have a
|
|||
|
|
problem with a 'people', try to use the system to rectify the
|
|||
|
|
problem before you decide that the system is wrong."
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Ah, yes, using the system to rectify the problem. The problem
|
|||
|
|
is that it rarely works. How often do you ever see the ZC
|
|||
|
|
reverse the decision of an RC? Rarely to never, except when
|
|||
|
|
much public pressure (the vocal kind that Pete White really
|
|||
|
|
hates) is brought to bear. There's a reason for that. If you
|
|||
|
|
have appointed someone to a position, that should indicate you
|
|||
|
|
have confidence in their ability to do the job. So, if you
|
|||
|
|
then reverse a decision they have made, doesn't that sort of
|
|||
|
|
indicate a lack of confidence in them? It becomes a matter of
|
|||
|
|
honor... if you trusted the guy enough to appoint him to the
|
|||
|
|
position, why aren't you backing up his decisions.
|
|||
|
|
Unfortunately, this sort of thinking often clouds the facts of
|
|||
|
|
a case.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Then, too, coordinators tend to appoint other coordinators that
|
|||
|
|
think like themselves. Right now we have a coordinator
|
|||
|
|
structure who, because they were not elected by the common
|
|||
|
|
sysops, in many ways don't think about things from the
|
|||
|
|
perspective of a common sysop. And, when they appoint other
|
|||
|
|
coordinators, they appoint clones of themselves (or as near as
|
|||
|
|
they can get). I know most coordinators don't see it that way,
|
|||
|
|
but it sure appears that way to those sysops who are not part
|
|||
|
|
of the *C structure.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
I would like for you to think for a moment about some public
|
|||
|
|
figure that epitomizes corruption for you. Perhaps it would be
|
|||
|
|
a leader of China or Panama, or perhaps a corrupt leader of a
|
|||
|
|
cult (such as Jim Jones of the Jonestown massacre). Now here
|
|||
|
|
were people who, in many cases, started out with the best of
|
|||
|
|
intentions in their own minds (not necessarily in everyone
|
|||
|
|
else's, but few people view themselves as evil). But as they
|
|||
|
|
got more and more corrupt, you wonder how on earth they managed
|
|||
|
|
to go through life without anyone challenging them on their
|
|||
|
|
actions. For example, how come nobody told Jim Jones that he
|
|||
|
|
was crazy?
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Well, the answer is that some folks probably did, but these
|
|||
|
|
leaders surrounded themselves with folks who agreed with them
|
|||
|
|
(some only for personal gain, I'm sure, but they still voiced
|
|||
|
|
agreement with the corrupt leaders). And they either got rid
|
|||
|
|
of or avoided those who did NOT agree with them. Now, if folks
|
|||
|
|
tell you you're on the right track often enough, you just might
|
|||
|
|
start to believe them, even if they're lying. And if you hear
|
|||
|
|
what a wonderful person you are often enough, it gets pretty
|
|||
|
|
easy to ignore those few "fools" out there that don't agree
|
|||
|
|
with you, and that don't appreciate your "wisdom and
|
|||
|
|
intelligence." I'm sure Jim Bakker had plenty of people
|
|||
|
|
telling him that his amusement park complex was a wonderful
|
|||
|
|
idea, and that he really needed a lavish home. If all of his
|
|||
|
|
associates had said, "Jim, the money you're spending on this
|
|||
|
|
amusement park could be put to much better use feeding the
|
|||
|
|
needy", chances are he wouldn't have built it.
|
|||
|
|
FidoNews 6-23 Page 8 5 Jun 1989
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
What has that got to do with Fidonet? No, I'm not putting the
|
|||
|
|
Fidonet Coordinators in the same classification as the dictator
|
|||
|
|
of a country or a corrupted evangelist, but I am saying that
|
|||
|
|
they have formed their own little clique, where THEY decide
|
|||
|
|
what's best for Fidonet, and where the voice of the "common
|
|||
|
|
sysop" is never heard. It's called the REGCON conference, and
|
|||
|
|
it's open only to those at the Regional Coordinator position
|
|||
|
|
and higher. So, all the Regional Coordinators get into REGCON
|
|||
|
|
and support each other on their decisions, and probably decide
|
|||
|
|
who the "troublemakers" in Fidonet are, and who's not worth
|
|||
|
|
listening to. Unfortunately, unlike our Congress and Senate,
|
|||
|
|
we don't have the Fidonet equivalent of C-SPAN to keep us
|
|||
|
|
informed of what's happening in Fidonet government (for those
|
|||
|
|
outside the U.S., C-SPAN is a pair of cable television feeds
|
|||
|
|
that transmit live the proceedings of the U.S. Senate and the
|
|||
|
|
U.S. House of Representatives). The mental picture is one of
|
|||
|
|
a council of dukes gathered in the king's chamber to decide
|
|||
|
|
which peasants are "troublemakers" that need to be eliminated,
|
|||
|
|
or to plot other mischief.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
But the worst thing about REGCON is that is allows Regional
|
|||
|
|
Coordinators who are about to take some action that is
|
|||
|
|
questionable in the light of POLICY to muster support for their
|
|||
|
|
position BEFORE the action is taken, or immediately thereafter.
|
|||
|
|
In other words, before the victim even knows about an action
|
|||
|
|
that about to be taken against him, the RC has already
|
|||
|
|
discussed it with the other RC's and the ZC in the REGCON
|
|||
|
|
conference. The problem is that there is no one present to
|
|||
|
|
speak for the affected person(s)... in effect, it's like
|
|||
|
|
holding a trial "in absentia", without allowing the defendant
|
|||
|
|
to have any representation. Of course, after the affected
|
|||
|
|
sysop finds out about the action, he can still file a policy
|
|||
|
|
complaint... but now he has the burden of convincing this
|
|||
|
|
council of people who are NOT his peers to backtrack on an
|
|||
|
|
action that they have already pre-approved!
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Pete closes his commentary with: "Enough, already! All I can
|
|||
|
|
recommend is that when reading ANY commentary, including this,
|
|||
|
|
it's best to remember that the ones doing all the complaining
|
|||
|
|
are representative of less than 5% of the members of FidoNet.
|
|||
|
|
The *C structure is responsible to 100% of the net. Look at
|
|||
|
|
what FidoNet is. Simply amazing that it works at all! And
|
|||
|
|
what makes it work? The very same people who are doing
|
|||
|
|
everything wrong. And you wonder why I'm confused?" There are
|
|||
|
|
a couple of very valid points above. First, probably even LESS
|
|||
|
|
than 5% of the sysops ever bother to express their point of
|
|||
|
|
view. If EVERY sysop who wanted a more democratic form of
|
|||
|
|
government in Fidonet would write to their NC and RC and SAY
|
|||
|
|
SO, I'm sure it would have an impact. The problem is that, for
|
|||
|
|
example, I hear from lots of folks who agree with me on various
|
|||
|
|
issues, but they don't want to make waves. I say, "Why don't
|
|||
|
|
you write an article for Fidonews" and they say, "You write so
|
|||
|
|
much better than I do, and you say everything I'd want to say!"
|
|||
|
|
That's not the point! It's not how well you write, the whole
|
|||
|
|
idea is to convince the powers-that-be that you and most other
|
|||
|
|
Fidonet sysops want a more representative form of government,
|
|||
|
|
FidoNews 6-23 Page 9 5 Jun 1989
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
and that you're tired of the dictatorship in Fidonet. I could
|
|||
|
|
write like Shakespeare but if they think it's only a few lone
|
|||
|
|
nuts that want democracy, we aren't going to get it.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
The other thing is that Pete implies that everything is
|
|||
|
|
"working". Well, if you call having Regional Coordinators
|
|||
|
|
going around throwing nodes out of Fidonet for no real good
|
|||
|
|
reason a net that's "working", then I guess Fidonet is
|
|||
|
|
"working". At least some folks are working. Trouble is,
|
|||
|
|
sometimes they're working to make life difficult for the rest
|
|||
|
|
of us (whether they realize it or not).
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Please, folks, if you want to see some changes in Fidonet, take
|
|||
|
|
time to write to your RC and ZC today, or write an article for
|
|||
|
|
Fidonews expressing your sentiments. Let the *C. structure
|
|||
|
|
hear from some folks outside their "inner circle" for a change
|
|||
|
|
... from some folks that they haven't already branded as
|
|||
|
|
"troublemakers."
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
|||
|
|
FidoNews 6-23 Page 10 5 Jun 1989
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
The Fake Users Manual
|
|||
|
|
=====================
|
|||
|
|
Written By Jamie MacDonald
|
|||
|
|
==========================
|
|||
|
|
Sysop of The Romulan Sector QuickBBS - 222/20
|
|||
|
|
=============================================
|
|||
|
|
(705)566-5628 - Sudbury, Ontario
|
|||
|
|
================================
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
May 22, 1989
|
|||
|
|
============
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
I have just arrived home from my long weekend. I hadn't
|
|||
|
|
looked at the user edit program in about a week and a half and I
|
|||
|
|
thought I'd check to see my new users. To my surprise, and
|
|||
|
|
dismay, I have found that I have 60 new users in just over a
|
|||
|
|
week. Did some local store have a modem sale? Is there someone
|
|||
|
|
standing in downtown Sudbury handing out free modems?
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Nope. The fakes are back, and they are worse than ever.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
INTRODUCTION
|
|||
|
|
============
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
When I first introduced the Romulan Sector to the public on
|
|||
|
|
January 6th, 1989, I had visions of a wonderful board with
|
|||
|
|
seriously oriented users enjoying themselves. NEVER had I
|
|||
|
|
thought it would come to this. In the months that I have been
|
|||
|
|
running this board, I have had certain games running on this
|
|||
|
|
board, which is the target of the fakes. In this file, I will be
|
|||
|
|
discussing a topic that many sysops have the PLEASURE of
|
|||
|
|
discussing, the good old fake users.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
CHAPTER 1 - CLASSIFICATION OF FAKES
|
|||
|
|
===================================
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
There are many different types of fakes, and the first step
|
|||
|
|
to stopping them is to know who you are dealing with...so here
|
|||
|
|
they are:
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
#1) The Common Download/Gaming Idiot:
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
This is the most common type of fake. They gain small access
|
|||
|
|
(but small is enough for them!) to the BBS and then take
|
|||
|
|
advantage of it, the games, the files for downloading, etc. Many
|
|||
|
|
of these users are the users who make regular calls to 'handle'
|
|||
|
|
boards and who only call the serious boards because of games,
|
|||
|
|
downloads, etc. The most popular game for fakes is the infamous
|
|||
|
|
Trade Wars. It is a great game, a very interesting simulation
|
|||
|
|
and an excellent idea for a BBS. Too bad these users take a good
|
|||
|
|
thing and warp it. They tend to take it SO SERIOUSLY, that they
|
|||
|
|
would do almost anything to get more fighters/credits or even
|
|||
|
|
access to it. It is almost addictive. The only good thing about
|
|||
|
|
these users is that they are easy to catch, and they are rather
|
|||
|
|
FidoNews 6-23 Page 11 5 Jun 1989
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
chicken when it comes to catching them.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Example:
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
When you see a user who you don't know on your board (new
|
|||
|
|
user or old user) and you dial his/her number and get either a
|
|||
|
|
recording or a ring indicating that this user is either not
|
|||
|
|
calling from home, or is a fake!
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
You break in....
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
BBS: Hello John Doe, this is Jamie MacDonald.
|
|||
|
|
User: ya hi what
|
|||
|
|
Sysop: Hi, I just dialed your number and there is no busy signal,
|
|||
|
|
could you please explain this?
|
|||
|
|
User: (Hangs up quickly)
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
#2) The Gutsy Fake
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
This is a fake similar to #1, but is a lot more gutsy and
|
|||
|
|
will even risk his/her own account's deletation for this fake.
|
|||
|
|
To explain this, I will use an example of a fake I had on my
|
|||
|
|
board a little while back called David Harrison. I still haven't
|
|||
|
|
found the owner of that fake, but I have an idea of who it might
|
|||
|
|
be. For now, the owner will be called Joe Blow.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
A new user logs on to your board, David Harrison. After a
|
|||
|
|
few days of putting his deletation off, you call another area
|
|||
|
|
BBS, and find that David Harrison hasn't called there. You voice
|
|||
|
|
validate David and find out he is a nonexistant person. I delete
|
|||
|
|
David. 2 days later, I get a message from David (logged on as a
|
|||
|
|
new user) saying:
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
"I AM NOT A FAKE...WHY CAN'T YOU GET THAT INTO YOUR THICK
|
|||
|
|
SKULLS?!"
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Without hesitation, I deleted him. Never called back since.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
These fakes are the worst kind, because they are stubborn.
|
|||
|
|
Once they know they are caught, they don't give up.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
#3) Mr. Congeniality
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
These fakes are rather fun because they believe that by
|
|||
|
|
sucking up and kissing the sysops feet they will be able to
|
|||
|
|
remain a validated user. For example, a fake (you know he's a
|
|||
|
|
fake but you will be deleting him later) pages you and says:
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Hi there, Jamie. Would it be okay if you tell me why the board
|
|||
|
|
was down earlier today, if you aren't to busy?
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
I would reply:
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
I was working on a new door.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
He says:
|
|||
|
|
FidoNews 6-23 Page 12 5 Jun 1989
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Oh wonderful, that is just terrific if there was a new door, not
|
|||
|
|
that this BBS isn't great as it is, did I mention what a good BBS
|
|||
|
|
this is?
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
As I throw up in the garbage can next to me, I terminate chat
|
|||
|
|
mode. I recieve a message an hour later from the fake saying:
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Thank you very much for letting me know why it was down.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Thanks again!
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
The goody two shoes approach used to work with many sysops,
|
|||
|
|
but doesn't anymore.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
#4) The Forgetful Fake
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
This type usually occurs with a user with more than 1 fake.
|
|||
|
|
He either forgets entirely about the fake and lets the program
|
|||
|
|
delete the account after no call for a while, or he forgets the
|
|||
|
|
password of the fake. It is kind of fun to watch a person
|
|||
|
|
forgetting his password.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
#5) The generally stupid fake
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Most users with fakes have an IQ of 10-20, but there are some
|
|||
|
|
that have slightly lower. These users fall into this catagory.
|
|||
|
|
In my new user screens, I make mention that you MUST contribute
|
|||
|
|
something to the BBS, either in posts, uploads, ideas, etc. Some
|
|||
|
|
of the fakes who fall under catagory #5 like seem to think that
|
|||
|
|
by writing 4 word posts, they are contributing to the board. You
|
|||
|
|
sysops know what I'm talking about:
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Message #2456
|
|||
|
|
From: John Doe
|
|||
|
|
To: All
|
|||
|
|
Subject: hi
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
hi everyone hows life send me mail bye john
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Or of course, the famous insult-the-message-area post:
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Message #2457
|
|||
|
|
From: John Doe
|
|||
|
|
To: All
|
|||
|
|
Subject: ----
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
man this area is lame get some posts going bye john
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
I have a message area on my board called "The Romulan
|
|||
|
|
Resthome" for users whos access was lowered because of lack of
|
|||
|
|
contribution to the board, and most of the posts in this area
|
|||
|
|
look like these.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
#6) The Non-Consistent Fakes
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
FidoNews 6-23 Page 13 5 Jun 1989
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
These fakes are the DUMBEST fakes around, yes, even more
|
|||
|
|
idiotic than type #5. This type needs barely any explaination,
|
|||
|
|
on your board they are Sean, on another they are Shawn. On your
|
|||
|
|
board they are John, on another they are Jon. On your board they
|
|||
|
|
are.....well you get the idea.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
#7) The Friends of Modem Users
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
These are fakes that claim they are over at a friends house
|
|||
|
|
when they call your board, but never seem to be at home. Some
|
|||
|
|
even admit to not having a modem, but they soon learn their
|
|||
|
|
lesson when the sysop says "NO MODEM - NO ACCESS". Or even those
|
|||
|
|
who claim to have a busted modem are always a royal pain in the
|
|||
|
|
ass. These are, in my opinion, the worst type of users, because
|
|||
|
|
you can rarely tell whether they are fakes or not.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
You may have noticed that this file is beginning to look like
|
|||
|
|
"The Loser User's Manual". I am not surprised because the users
|
|||
|
|
with fakes are very similar to those in that manual.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Other famous types of fakes:
|
|||
|
|
----------------------------
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
The Page-The-Sysop-For-Access Fakes.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
The Try-To-Hack-Someone-Elses-Pass-And-If-Impossible-Make-A-Fake
|
|||
|
|
Fakes
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
And many other types (See the end of this file for more details)
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
What to Do
|
|||
|
|
==========
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Well, my advice is to voice validate all new users. If it
|
|||
|
|
gets too much out of hand (too many over and over again), just go
|
|||
|
|
to the centre of the problem:
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
a) If your problem is download fakes, go through your user list
|
|||
|
|
and give access to the download areas ONLY to users who have
|
|||
|
|
proved themselves by posting and uploading.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
b) If your problem is games, you can take out the game entirely
|
|||
|
|
(I may take out Trade Wars eventually due to the surprisingly
|
|||
|
|
large number of fakes). You may also want to put in hours for
|
|||
|
|
the games or doors (using an event file) or maybe restrict them
|
|||
|
|
to only those who have proved themselves.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
The one piece of advice to you is NOT to run a program like
|
|||
|
|
VERIFY. If you are unfermiliar with verify, it is a program that
|
|||
|
|
gives a new user 2 minutes to prepare his/her modem for auto
|
|||
|
|
answer while it calls them back to verify them. This may seem
|
|||
|
|
like a good idea, but many new users don't know how to put their
|
|||
|
|
modem on auto answer, therefore deleting just about all fakes.
|
|||
|
|
Perhaps you get a user who either is, or claims to be, from Hong
|
|||
|
|
Kong. You certainly don't want your modem calling there! Beware
|
|||
|
|
of such programs and don't be fooled by the description beside
|
|||
|
|
FidoNews 6-23 Page 14 5 Jun 1989
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
the file name!
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
One more piece of advice, to find out if a long distance user is
|
|||
|
|
a fake or not, call long distance directory assistance and ask if
|
|||
|
|
the number that you have belongs to the person who claims it
|
|||
|
|
does.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
And there you have it, The Fake Users Manual. Always be on the
|
|||
|
|
look out for fakes, hey, who knows? Maybe the person reading
|
|||
|
|
this right now is a fake?
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
You never know..............
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Jamie MacDonald.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
=================================================================
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
To Sysops:
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
If you have any other types of fakes that you would like to warn
|
|||
|
|
the public about, or any tips on catching fakes, please leave
|
|||
|
|
netmail to Jamie MacDonald at The Romulan Sector QBBS, 1:222/20
|
|||
|
|
or call The Romulan Sector QBBS at 300 (hopefully not) 1200 or
|
|||
|
|
2400 baud at (705)566-5628. Next edition will be sent In the
|
|||
|
|
Fall of 1989.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
=================================================================
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
|||
|
|
FidoNews 6-23 Page 15 5 Jun 1989
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
THE LOST FIDONET ARCHIVES
|
|||
|
|
VOLUME TWO
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Compiled by various members of FidoNet
|
|||
|
|
Edited by Vince Perriello
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
This is the second article in a series which reprints documents
|
|||
|
|
of historical significance to FidoNet. This week we feature some
|
|||
|
|
of the responses from early Fido sysops to Tom Jennings' FidoNet
|
|||
|
|
proposal. There are some really interesting items buried in
|
|||
|
|
these comments that even today hold real significance to the net.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
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.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
From John Madill, in file FIDONET.JNM (May 26, 1984):
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Considerations for FidoNet
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
As mentioned, one of the major drawbacks in the FidoNet project
|
|||
|
|
is the way by which it would be paid for. One of the
|
|||
|
|
possiblities is the 'Pay Ahead' method. The amount to be paid
|
|||
|
|
should most likely be a predetermined quantity of TJ Cubits. The
|
|||
|
|
application of the payment should be an entry, by the SysOp of
|
|||
|
|
the local Fido, into the USER.BBS file. This places the
|
|||
|
|
necessary information into a location that can be verified as a
|
|||
|
|
user utilizes their allocation of cubits. Each time an entry to
|
|||
|
|
the mail system is made, the available cubit quantity can be
|
|||
|
|
updated on a real time basis.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Another major problem is the verification of recieved mail. This
|
|||
|
|
applies not only to the FidoNet concept, but also to the message
|
|||
|
|
system as it exists in FidoBBS. A possible way of handling the
|
|||
|
|
transfer/receipt of remote mail, is to calculate the return
|
|||
|
|
message (received your message ### at FidoNet Location ###,
|
|||
|
|
time/date...) as part of the initial outgoing message. The
|
|||
|
|
local FidoMail system should in theory, check the senders
|
|||
|
|
USER.BBS record to determine the message area last used, and
|
|||
|
|
enter a message with the acknowledgement. As this pertains to
|
|||
|
|
local messages, when a message is entered, Fido could verify the
|
|||
|
|
name of the "To:" party, and the message area last used.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Another thing to be considered is the possiblity of automating SQ
|
|||
|
|
and LU modules in conjunction within a destination processor.
|
|||
|
|
This could squeeze all messages, and pack them into a library for
|
|||
|
|
each destination, cutting costs even further. If not to
|
|||
|
|
difficult, the receiving Fido could utilize a squeezed file
|
|||
|
|
interpreter to speed up the acknowledgement of receipt, as
|
|||
|
|
opposed to unsqueezing/de-lbr while on line. The only
|
|||
|
|
FidoNews 6-23 Page 16 5 Jun 1989
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
alternative would be for the remote Fido to call back an
|
|||
|
|
acknowledgement, shifting the cost to a location not receiving
|
|||
|
|
the payment.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
The prospect of transferring, or as in another communication
|
|||
|
|
which shall remain un-named, "attachment" of program or data
|
|||
|
|
files would definately increase the potential value of FidoNet.
|
|||
|
|
This is especially true for club or commercial ventures. The
|
|||
|
|
problem becomes one of cost accounting. Would subscribers be
|
|||
|
|
willing to pay for a portion, pro-rated amount, of the transfer?
|
|||
|
|
Obviously a stickey point, but should be considered.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
I certainly hope that this input is helpful. The possiblity of
|
|||
|
|
using this type of relay system is exciting! Hopefully it will
|
|||
|
|
be rewarding.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
From Jim Ryan, in file FIDONET.NOT (May 26, 1984):
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Jim Ryan
|
|||
|
|
02 May 84
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Notes on the FidoNet System
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Tom Jennings has outlined, in his article dated 30 Apr 84, a
|
|||
|
|
proposal for FidoNet-- a communications network for Fido and
|
|||
|
|
other message systems.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
I have some comments and suggestions for improvement of the
|
|||
|
|
FidoNet system.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
-----
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
If FidoNet were to use a structure similar to DecNet, the
|
|||
|
|
networking system for Digital computers, a person could send a
|
|||
|
|
message using the syntax :
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
To : -F01 Tom Jennings
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
meaning "Send this message to FidoNet Node 1, addressed to Tom
|
|||
|
|
Jennings". A message to all could be coded as :
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
To : -F01 All
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
and a message going to all systems could be coded as :
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
To : -F All
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
The originating Fido system could keep a log of all messages in
|
|||
|
|
all areas that are flagged to other FidoNet nodes, and send them
|
|||
|
|
with a record indicating there originating node, and area
|
|||
|
|
description :
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Message : 25
|
|||
|
|
From : -F01 Tom Jennings
|
|||
|
|
FidoNews 6-23 Page 17 5 Jun 1989
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
To : All
|
|||
|
|
Subject : FidoNet List
|
|||
|
|
(Area : General )
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
-----
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
In my opinion, the major drawback to the FidoNet system is the
|
|||
|
|
reliance on the SysOp to foot the bill for the long distance
|
|||
|
|
charges to all the FidoNet nodes he needs to send mail to. This
|
|||
|
|
may make the system prohibitive to smaller users.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
An alternate idea would be to send the FidoNet mail through an
|
|||
|
|
alternate system such as MCI Mail or Compuserve. In this manner
|
|||
|
|
each sysop would only be paying the charges of the various host
|
|||
|
|
systems instead of the long distance charges to each FidoNet
|
|||
|
|
node.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
For example : If Tom (or some other willing volunteer) would
|
|||
|
|
write a FidoNet mail system on Compuserve, a sample session might
|
|||
|
|
run like this (with the FidoNet computer handling the
|
|||
|
|
input/output) :
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
host : Welcome to Compuserve
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
User Id : XXXXX,XXX
|
|||
|
|
Password : ____________
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Compuserve Information Service
|
|||
|
|
XX-XXX-XX at XX:XX:XX
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
FidoNet Host System
|
|||
|
|
Login : FIDO-01
|
|||
|
|
Pass : XXXXXXX
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Welcome FIDO-01
|
|||
|
|
Checking for mail
|
|||
|
|
Ready to send mail
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
(CIS sends mail to FidoNet node)
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Ready to recieve mail
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
(FidoNet node sends mail to CIS)
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Thank you for using FidoNet
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
(logoff)
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
The disadvantages of this system (especially on CIS or the
|
|||
|
|
Source) would be transmission speed. Unless you want to spend
|
|||
|
|
the extra $12.00 per hour for 1200 baud service, your stuck with
|
|||
|
|
300 baud.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
But the advantages would be a central point for all FidoNet
|
|||
|
|
messages, and probably much greater efficiency.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
FidoNews 6-23 Page 18 5 Jun 1989
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
-----
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Well, those are my comments. I think the idea of a national BBS
|
|||
|
|
network is fabulous, but it's up to us to figure out the nit-
|
|||
|
|
picking details!!!!!
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Jim Ryan
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
From Richard P. Wilkes, in file FIDONET.RPW (May 26, 1984):
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
FIDONET: Response 5/24/84
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Richard P. Wilkes
|
|||
|
|
WILKES SOFTWARE SYSTEMS
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
With all due respect to Tom Jennings, I feel the FidoNet
|
|||
|
|
implementation as described in the FIDONET.DOC file is not
|
|||
|
|
practical. Let me explain, hopefully without becoming too
|
|||
|
|
verbose.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
I have been working on networking systems for seven years now.
|
|||
|
|
One thing that truly amazes me is the effort by every implementor
|
|||
|
|
to reinvent the wheel. Now, sometime when the wheel doesn't
|
|||
|
|
exist, you have to create it. But in this case, there are
|
|||
|
|
already MANY different ways to network computers together that
|
|||
|
|
WORK; if a network is to be designed, let's chose one that won't
|
|||
|
|
leave us isolated from the "rest of the world."
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
People in the micro BBS environ often are totally unaware that
|
|||
|
|
there is a working, FREE, network of mini and microcomputers
|
|||
|
|
exchanging gigabytes of mail around the country (by phone). Some
|
|||
|
|
are part of the Arpanet, but the one we should examine is UUCP, a
|
|||
|
|
network of machines running Unix.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
The UUCP mailer is not small, but could be modified (with great
|
|||
|
|
effort) to run on a PC. I know that vortex!lauren@RAND-UNIX is
|
|||
|
|
working on an MSDOS version. Note that the address format shown
|
|||
|
|
here is a standard. Messages addressed in this manner can be
|
|||
|
|
gatewayed through many networks to finally reach its destination.
|
|||
|
|
"vortex" is the UUCP machine; "lauren" is the username (for
|
|||
|
|
Lauren Weinstein); RAND-UNIX is the Arpanet gateway.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Now, all of this may not seem like it has much to do with
|
|||
|
|
FidoNet. But, the viability of such a network depends on several
|
|||
|
|
vital points:
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
1) Virtually no cost or minimal cost that could be easily
|
|||
|
|
absorbed by local administrations (as they do now).
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
2) Connectivity with other systems.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
3) Personal mailboxes, a feature unsupported by Fido to date.
|
|||
|
|
These also gobble disk space.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
4) net.news: This is the equivalent of country-wide SIGs.
|
|||
|
|
FidoNews 6-23 Page 19 5 Jun 1989
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Messages are gatewayed through several hosts and utimately reach
|
|||
|
|
all systems where they are posted in message areas. Note that
|
|||
|
|
messages may range from 5 to 500 *lines*.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Now, I could go on for many pages on the capabilities of systems
|
|||
|
|
like these. Right now, you can mail a message and have it
|
|||
|
|
delivered free to almost any university or major technology
|
|||
|
|
corporation in the country via this network. Other networks also
|
|||
|
|
allow file transfer (FTP).
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
I don't want to throw so much cold water on this that it never
|
|||
|
|
gets done. However, I have been around long enough to know that
|
|||
|
|
this ain't no one man task. Please, consider how naive the
|
|||
|
|
notion is of a "simple" routing scheme for 40,000 pc's! [UUCP
|
|||
|
|
gets around this by chaining host names. For example,
|
|||
|
|
brl-bmd!jhu!aplvax!joe is a message address. To deliver it, the
|
|||
|
|
holder contacts brl-bmd (Ballistic Research Lab). It need not
|
|||
|
|
know where it is headed after that. brl transfers the message to
|
|||
|
|
jhu (Johns Hopkins) which passes it on the the Applied Physics
|
|||
|
|
Lab (aplvax). "joe" is a user on aplvax; the message is put in
|
|||
|
|
his mailbox. This scheme may sound clumsy, but it works with
|
|||
|
|
small, fairly static routing tables.]
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
The idea of a network is terrific. As a matter of fact, I was
|
|||
|
|
working on interfacing with a UUCP host myself for a BBS that I
|
|||
|
|
use to publish, CompuCenter. I came to these conclusions: 1)
|
|||
|
|
you need at least a 33M hard drive at the major nodes, perhaps
|
|||
|
|
more. This is expensive. 2) You need nodes that are
|
|||
|
|
multi-caller. I mean, most of these systems are busy for HOURS.
|
|||
|
|
You don't want mail delayed like that. And, major nodes would
|
|||
|
|
have to spend so much time transferring that they would not be
|
|||
|
|
usable for anything else. If you had one line dedicated to MAIL
|
|||
|
|
with another for file transfer and another for messages, maybe it
|
|||
|
|
would work. But hey, an IBM PC at 4.77MHz just ain't the baby
|
|||
|
|
for that kind of load.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
All in all, I'd say... wait. The technology is coming. With a
|
|||
|
|
good multiprocessing environment with 5-6 serial lines, a high
|
|||
|
|
speed processor (80286?), and 86M drives on the major nodes, we
|
|||
|
|
can start to really work at making it a reality.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
For the time being, I strongly urge that those that are strongly
|
|||
|
|
interested in this type of system start doing some research.
|
|||
|
|
When you can hold a reasonable discussion on file transfer
|
|||
|
|
protocols (real ones, of course--NOT XMODEM), message headers and
|
|||
|
|
formats, routing algorithms, connectivity analysis, delivery
|
|||
|
|
systems and scheduling, plus some of the more intricate cost
|
|||
|
|
analyses, we can join the work that is already advancing in the
|
|||
|
|
"other world" so we are not left out once again.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
I welcome any reasonable comments. I frequent Fido CLP --
|
|||
|
|
Baltimore, only. [Other addresses mentioned by author removed
|
|||
|
|
from this paragraph -- ed.]
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Please, let's keep up the talk. But more importantly, we must
|
|||
|
|
approach this formidable task with a little humility and a lot of
|
|||
|
|
FidoNews 6-23 Page 20 5 Jun 1989
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
good, solid knowledge.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Sincerely,
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Richard P. Wilkes
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
|||
|
|
FidoNews 6-23 Page 21 5 Jun 1989
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Jack Decker
|
|||
|
|
Fidonet 1:154/8 LCRnet 77:1011/8
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
HERE WE GO AGAIN!
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
One of the major problems we have in Fidonet is that of *C's
|
|||
|
|
and *EC's trying to impose new policies before they have even
|
|||
|
|
been formally adopted.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Last year about this time, they came out with ECHOPOL. Now,
|
|||
|
|
Echopol was an extremely overly-restrictive document that
|
|||
|
|
hardly anyone cared for, except the folks that helped write it
|
|||
|
|
(and I think some of them weren't too sure about parts of it).
|
|||
|
|
It has NEVER been formally adopted as policy in Fidonet, but
|
|||
|
|
that hasn't stopped some *EC's from trying to enforce it as
|
|||
|
|
though it has been voted on and formally adopted by the sysops
|
|||
|
|
of Fidonet. Many sysops lost feeds of one or more echo
|
|||
|
|
conferences as a direct result of premature enforcement of a
|
|||
|
|
policy that was still in the draft stage (and that even now, a
|
|||
|
|
year later, has not gained acceptance among the sysops of
|
|||
|
|
Fidonet).
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Well, here we go again. Now they've come out with POLICY4,
|
|||
|
|
another overly-restrictive document that hardly anyone seems to
|
|||
|
|
like. And guess what... although it's still in the draft
|
|||
|
|
stage, and although the very first sentence states that "This
|
|||
|
|
policy document has been released for vote by the coordinator
|
|||
|
|
structure ..., AND IS NOT YET IN FORCE" (emphasis added), we
|
|||
|
|
have at least one Regional Coordinator that is trying to
|
|||
|
|
enforce the draft policy as though it had been signed, sealed,
|
|||
|
|
and approved.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Someone in our net asked me recently why it always seems like
|
|||
|
|
Spring is when things crawl out from under rocks.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
The message bearing the bad news was as follows:
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
From: Steve Bonine
|
|||
|
|
Subject: Misplaced systems in net 154
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
* Original to Affected systems and coordinators @
|
|||
|
|
1:115/777.0
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
cc: Ted Polczynski 154/0
|
|||
|
|
Mike Bader 120/0
|
|||
|
|
Bruce Casner 139/0
|
|||
|
|
Mario D'Ulisse 222/0
|
|||
|
|
Tom Kashuba 12/0
|
|||
|
|
David Dodell 1/0
|
|||
|
|
Jack Decker 154/8
|
|||
|
|
Robert Kubichek 154/11
|
|||
|
|
Mike Musolf 154/969
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Examination of net 154 indicates that the following
|
|||
|
|
systems should be in other nets:
|
|||
|
|
FidoNews 6-23 Page 22 5 Jun 1989
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
154/8 in Sault Ste Marie should be in net 222, the
|
|||
|
|
Sault Ste Marie net.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
154/11 in Manitowoc should be in net 139.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
154/969 in Gwinn, MI should probably be in net 120,
|
|||
|
|
although I can't seem to find Gwinn on my map (there
|
|||
|
|
is a misprint in the index).
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Ted, please contact the appropriate NC's and get
|
|||
|
|
these systems moved. I have no problem with
|
|||
|
|
duplicate listings for three weeks, but I would
|
|||
|
|
expect these systems to be in their correct nets and
|
|||
|
|
removed from 154 no later than the end of June.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Thank you.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Now, there are a few interesting you should know about the
|
|||
|
|
above:
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
First, the affected nodes are not really in the area of another
|
|||
|
|
net. Two of the mentioned nodes are in the 906 area code,
|
|||
|
|
which is the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. The U.P. is "no
|
|||
|
|
man's land" as far as Fidonet is concerned, as there is no
|
|||
|
|
active net operating in this area. Historically, Michigan's
|
|||
|
|
Upper Peninsula has always had economic ties with Wisconsin
|
|||
|
|
(most of our supermarkets are supplied from Wisconsin, for
|
|||
|
|
example) and even telephone calls between Michigan's Upper and
|
|||
|
|
Lower Peninsulas are routed through Wisconsin and around Lake
|
|||
|
|
Michigan. So one could easily justify placing nodes in
|
|||
|
|
Michigan's Upper Peninsula in a Wisconsin net (particularly
|
|||
|
|
since intrastate calls within Michigan are billed at a MUCH
|
|||
|
|
higher rate than interstate calls). Also, for the Gwinn node,
|
|||
|
|
Net 154 IS geographically closer than any Michigan net.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Second, there is no way that node 154/8 should be in net 222,
|
|||
|
|
according to strict interpretation of Fidonet Policy. The
|
|||
|
|
reason is simple. Node 154/8 is located in Sault Ste. Marie,
|
|||
|
|
Michigan, which is in Region 11. Net 222 is located in Sault
|
|||
|
|
Ste. Marie, Ontario, Canada, which is in Region 12 and which is
|
|||
|
|
NOT a local call from the Michigan Sault. Now, admittedly, if
|
|||
|
|
it weren't for all this geographic nonsense that the *C's are
|
|||
|
|
pushing, it might make a lot of sense for a node in Sault Ste.
|
|||
|
|
Marie, Michigan to be in the Sault, Ontario net. But here we
|
|||
|
|
have an RC that's trying to break a node out of a net because
|
|||
|
|
he feels that node is not geographically entitled to be there,
|
|||
|
|
and put it into another net in another region, where it is
|
|||
|
|
definitely not supposed to be, according to the "standards"
|
|||
|
|
he's trying to use!
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Third, Node 154/8 is a private node, with the phone number not
|
|||
|
|
even listed in the nodelist. I could put ANY city down for a
|
|||
|
|
location, and no one would know the difference. Actually, it
|
|||
|
|
is a "sister system" to 154/7, which IS located in Milwaukee
|
|||
|
|
(actually in the suburb of Cudahy). The whole reason for the
|
|||
|
|
existence of 154/8 is to allow easy remote control of 154/7,
|
|||
|
|
FidoNews 6-23 Page 23 5 Jun 1989
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
since the actual sysop of 154/7 is out of town most of the
|
|||
|
|
time. The two systems run the same software, and even have (in
|
|||
|
|
effect) common netmail areas. It's a pretty unique setup, but
|
|||
|
|
one that pretty much dictates that both nodes be in the same
|
|||
|
|
net.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Someone is bound to ask why 154/8 isn't a point. Glad you
|
|||
|
|
asked. For one thing, I do receive some echo conferences
|
|||
|
|
directly from a different BBS in Net 154, that are not carried
|
|||
|
|
on 154/7. For another thing, I have a point user (that uses a
|
|||
|
|
Commodore Amiga, no less) that operates off of 154/8, and
|
|||
|
|
receives echoes from here. So I do need to have full node
|
|||
|
|
status, albeit private because my system is not up 24 hours a
|
|||
|
|
day.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Anyway, our RC didn't make much of an attempt to discover any
|
|||
|
|
of these facts. Apparently, he was just sitting around one day
|
|||
|
|
and on his own initiative, decided to see who he could make
|
|||
|
|
trouble for. I say that because no one had complained about
|
|||
|
|
the placement of these nodes. He just decided he didn't like
|
|||
|
|
the situation and wanted to force a change.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Now, the truth of the matter is that I don't think he had to
|
|||
|
|
think too long or hard about who he wanted to bother. Make no
|
|||
|
|
mistake, there are other nets in Region 11 that are much more
|
|||
|
|
geographically diverse than ours. One other net in particular
|
|||
|
|
has nodes in FOUR different area codes (and one of those area
|
|||
|
|
codes is NOT technically in Region 11, although it is logical
|
|||
|
|
for those nodes to be in that net), and covers a radius of
|
|||
|
|
approximately 450 miles. But the RC has been looking to pick a
|
|||
|
|
fight with Net 154 for quite some time. Why? I'm not sure.
|
|||
|
|
But last year, he tried (unsuccessfully) to forcefully replace
|
|||
|
|
Ted Polczynski, the Net 154 NC. He failed in this because no
|
|||
|
|
one in Net 154 wanted to take Ted's job away from him!
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Now, Ted has been in Fidonet longer than most NC's, and is an
|
|||
|
|
At-Large member of the IFNA Board of Directors... he is not
|
|||
|
|
some greenhorn kid who just got the NC post, and as far as I
|
|||
|
|
can tell, Ted is well liked and highly respected by everyone in
|
|||
|
|
Net 154. But, he is not the sort to take dictates from an RC
|
|||
|
|
who bends Policy to suit his own convenience. So, Ted and
|
|||
|
|
Steve have had some disagreements in the past. Not only that,
|
|||
|
|
but Steve and I have also had a few differences of opinion.
|
|||
|
|
So, there's no doubt in my mind why Net 154 was singled out for
|
|||
|
|
"selective enforcement."
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
But the purpose of this article is not to air our Regional
|
|||
|
|
"dirty linen" nationally. Rather, it's a living example of the
|
|||
|
|
type of abuse and heavy-handed regulation that we can probably
|
|||
|
|
expect on a regular basis if POLICY4 is approved.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
You see, Policy4 contains the following language:
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
1.3.2 Geography
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Each level of FidoNet is geographically contained by
|
|||
|
|
FidoNews 6-23 Page 24 5 Jun 1989
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
the level immediately above it. A given geographic
|
|||
|
|
location is covered by one zone and one region within
|
|||
|
|
that zone, and is either in one network or not in a
|
|||
|
|
network. There are never two zones, two regions, or
|
|||
|
|
two networks which cover the same geographic area.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
If a node is in the area of a network, it should be
|
|||
|
|
listed in that network, not as an independent in the
|
|||
|
|
region. (The primary exception to this is a node
|
|||
|
|
receiving inordinate amounts of host-routed mail; see
|
|||
|
|
section 4.2). Network boundaries are based on
|
|||
|
|
calling areas as defined by the local telephone
|
|||
|
|
company...
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
What does the phrase "Network boundaries are based on calling
|
|||
|
|
areas as defined by the local telephone company" mean? There
|
|||
|
|
are at least two possible definitions I can think of offhand:
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
1) It means that if you're a local call from a net host, you
|
|||
|
|
should be in his net, and if you're not in his local calling
|
|||
|
|
area, you should not be.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
2) It means that if you're in the same LATA (or maybe area
|
|||
|
|
code?) as a net host, you should be in his net, otherwise you
|
|||
|
|
should not be.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Now, under either definition, the two of the three Net 154
|
|||
|
|
nodes that our RC is complaining would not qualify to belong to
|
|||
|
|
ANY net. The third node, the one in Manitowoc, would not
|
|||
|
|
qualify to belong to any net under definition 1, and WOULD
|
|||
|
|
qualify to belong to Net 154, but NOT to Net 139 under
|
|||
|
|
definition 2 (Manitowoc is in the Southeast Wisconsin LATA, as
|
|||
|
|
is Milwaukee, while the Net 139 NC is in Neenah, which is in
|
|||
|
|
the Northeast Wisconsin LATA).
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Now of course, any *C could come along at any time and
|
|||
|
|
interpret the above policy section in yet another way, but then
|
|||
|
|
that would just be his opinion. Another *C could interpret the
|
|||
|
|
same phrase in a completely different manner. "Calling areas
|
|||
|
|
as defined by the local telephone company" could be interpreted
|
|||
|
|
in a lot of different ways, I guess.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
But, as I pointed out earlier, there are LOTS of nets around
|
|||
|
|
that contain nodes that are not within the local calling area,
|
|||
|
|
or even the same area code, as the net host. YOUR net may have
|
|||
|
|
a few such nodes. I know for a fact that other nets in Region
|
|||
|
|
11 have such nodes. But, our RC has been looking for a reason
|
|||
|
|
to "get" Net 154, so I'm sure he'd notice things here that he'd
|
|||
|
|
overlook in other nets... FOR NOW.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
But if Net 154 falls, YOUR NET COULD BE NEXT! There is a
|
|||
|
|
saying that "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts
|
|||
|
|
absolutely." If the RC has the right to dictate which nodes
|
|||
|
|
may or may not be in nets, there are several nets in Region 11,
|
|||
|
|
and in all the other regions, that may have nodes added or
|
|||
|
|
taken away without their consent.
|
|||
|
|
FidoNews 6-23 Page 25 5 Jun 1989
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Please stop for a moment and think about those nodes in your
|
|||
|
|
net that are NOT a local telephone call from your Net
|
|||
|
|
Coordinator. If POLICY4 passes, just about any of these nodes
|
|||
|
|
could be subject to being pruned from your net, depending on
|
|||
|
|
how the RC decides to interpret POLICY4 on a given day (and
|
|||
|
|
whether or not he's holding a grudge against you, or someone in
|
|||
|
|
your net).
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
You may not agree with me about Echopol, or any of other
|
|||
|
|
numerous matters on which I've expressed an opinion. I can
|
|||
|
|
live with that. But do you really want the RC to be able to
|
|||
|
|
come in and prune and graft on your net, with you or your NC
|
|||
|
|
having no say at all in the matter?
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Some folks thought I was tilting at windmills when I sounded
|
|||
|
|
the alarm about all this geographic nonsense while Echopol was
|
|||
|
|
under consideration. Now that you see where it's leading, are
|
|||
|
|
you still in favor of it? Do you really want the day to come
|
|||
|
|
when the *C structure tells you exactly how you're going to run
|
|||
|
|
your system, and all you get to do is pay the phone bills?
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
I feel that the potential for heavy-handed regulation by the *C
|
|||
|
|
structure (particularly at the RC level and above) is
|
|||
|
|
sufficient reason to:
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
1) Vote down POLICY4, if and when we ever get to vote on it
|
|||
|
|
(and IGNORE IT if we DON'T get to vote on it... by the way, the
|
|||
|
|
same applies to ECHOPOL).
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
2) Let other sysops (particularly those in other regions) know
|
|||
|
|
the dangers in POLICY4 (that's a hint to any of you who still
|
|||
|
|
have access to echoes such as IFNA or SYSOP... I don't!)
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
3) Push ever harder for a truly democratic and representative
|
|||
|
|
structure in Fidonet, so that we can get rid of the petty
|
|||
|
|
dictators. (This isn't Communist China, and we shouldn't have
|
|||
|
|
to sit still for this type of dictatorship!).
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
4) Teach our *C's the difference between geography and network
|
|||
|
|
topology, or get some new *C's who have the mental capacity to
|
|||
|
|
understand the difference!
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
5) Get rid of Regions in Fidonet altogether (okay, I know
|
|||
|
|
a lot of folks don't want to go that far... but please consider
|
|||
|
|
the benefits vs. the disadvantages of the "Region" level of
|
|||
|
|
Fidonet government. It seems that this is the level where most
|
|||
|
|
of the real problems in Fidonet originate!).
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
I would also ask those of you who communicate regularly with
|
|||
|
|
Net 154 to use a text editor and clip the Net 154 segment of
|
|||
|
|
the nodelist some time in the next week or two, so that if our
|
|||
|
|
RC decides to slash our whole net from the nodelist, you'll
|
|||
|
|
still be able to talk to us by placing our nodelist segment in
|
|||
|
|
a private nodelist.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Speaking of the nodelist... the only real "club" that the *C
|
|||
|
|
FidoNews 6-23 Page 26 5 Jun 1989
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
structure has over any net or node is the ability to remove
|
|||
|
|
them from the nodelist. I feel it is high time we had a
|
|||
|
|
nodelist that is NOT used for disciplinary purposes. In other
|
|||
|
|
words, you have a node that's Fidonet compatible, you get to be
|
|||
|
|
in the nodelist, no matter what the *C structure thinks of you.
|
|||
|
|
Obviously, this will never happen with the "official" Fidonet
|
|||
|
|
nodelist. But, suppose that one fine day all of the NC's,
|
|||
|
|
instead of sending their nodelist updates to their RC's, sent
|
|||
|
|
them to a new organization whose sole purpose for existence was
|
|||
|
|
to compile a Fidonet-compatible nodelist without regard to
|
|||
|
|
politics, and who were pledged to NOT use the nodelist listing
|
|||
|
|
for disciplinary purposes?
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
I've seen similar cooperative efforts spring up in Fidonet. We
|
|||
|
|
now have a Software Distribution System and a Software
|
|||
|
|
Distribution Network. Perhaps we also need a Nodelist
|
|||
|
|
Distribution Network, that would simply distribute a St. Louis
|
|||
|
|
format nodelist, not aligned with any particular group, but
|
|||
|
|
simply dedicated to giving people the ability to communicate.
|
|||
|
|
The only problem is that few people have access to the software
|
|||
|
|
that creates the nodelists and nodediffs, and fewer still know
|
|||
|
|
how to use it (I'd be tempted to write something myself if I
|
|||
|
|
could figure out how to calculate that doggone checksum,
|
|||
|
|
preferably using compiled BASIC).
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
ADDENDUM
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
I was going to write an article for Fidonews regarding a
|
|||
|
|
message I had seen that was apparently received by David
|
|||
|
|
Dodell, and then forwarded out to the *C structure. David was
|
|||
|
|
apparently worried enough about this message to forward it out.
|
|||
|
|
It read:
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
After giving the matter serious thought, I'm unable
|
|||
|
|
to resolve (in my mind) why there is such a negative
|
|||
|
|
feeling among the FidoNet higher ups against
|
|||
|
|
democratic process. We are an amatuer organization.
|
|||
|
|
To my knowledge, FidoNet is the only international
|
|||
|
|
organization of its type WITHOUT ANY ELECTED
|
|||
|
|
OFFICERS.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
At this point I would want to ask all SysOps if there
|
|||
|
|
is any interest in becoming part of a CLASS ACTION
|
|||
|
|
against the ZONE and REGION structure of FidoNet? I
|
|||
|
|
personally feel that I'm being DENIED my RIGHT to
|
|||
|
|
select our officers. Even the corporate structure in
|
|||
|
|
American business has to answer to the stockholders
|
|||
|
|
<GRIN>
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
What I'm asking for is support in SUEing the
|
|||
|
|
operators of all '/0' addresses above the network
|
|||
|
|
level. The amount can be $1.00 but the issue is the
|
|||
|
|
drafting of rational documents and election
|
|||
|
|
procedures. I'm tired of 'good old boy' appointments
|
|||
|
|
and 'pork barrel politics.'
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
FidoNews 6-23 Page 27 5 Jun 1989
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Think about it..... Let the campaign slogan be:
|
|||
|
|
Litigation '89
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
After what I've read in 2 years, there is no other
|
|||
|
|
way!
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Now, I have to admit that the thought of sysops bringing
|
|||
|
|
lawsuits against other sysops scares me plenty, and I had
|
|||
|
|
planned to write something along those lines. But after this
|
|||
|
|
most recent unprovoked attack by our RC, I now have a new
|
|||
|
|
appreciation of the frustration that the author of the above
|
|||
|
|
message must have felt. We have an unpopular hierarchy that
|
|||
|
|
simply refuses to yield to the call for reform and democracy in
|
|||
|
|
Fidonet. These people weren't elected... in fact, most of us
|
|||
|
|
aren't quite sure just how these people managed to achieve
|
|||
|
|
their status in Fidonet. In more than one instance, one of the
|
|||
|
|
most unpopular people in a region has managed to get himself
|
|||
|
|
appointed RC or REC. And under present policy, there is no way
|
|||
|
|
for the average sysop to have any input into this appointment
|
|||
|
|
process!
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
I'm not printing the name of the author of the message, because
|
|||
|
|
I'm still afraid that such a lawsuit might destroy Fidonet
|
|||
|
|
entirely (sort of like cutting off your head to cure a
|
|||
|
|
headache). But if the *C structure doesn't soon begin to
|
|||
|
|
understand that most sysops do NOT approve of the dictatorial,
|
|||
|
|
top-down government of Fidonet, I fear that an action such as
|
|||
|
|
the one mentioned above is bound to occur sooner or later.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
I'll tell you one thing, though. After this most recent
|
|||
|
|
occurrence of getting the shaft from our RC, I have to admit
|
|||
|
|
that the temptation to send this guy a a few bucks toward his
|
|||
|
|
legal expenses is much stronger now!
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
|||
|
|
FidoNews 6-23 Page 28 5 Jun 1989
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
1:115/982
|
|||
|
|
CURTIS SAHAKIAN
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
THE FIDONET DEMOCRACY ECHO
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
THE FIDONET DEMOCRACY ECHO.....The purpose of this Echo is
|
|||
|
|
to discuss the best way to implement a fully representative
|
|||
|
|
democracy within FidoNet. This is not a *C bashing area.
|
|||
|
|
This is not a place to keep saying 'You can't do this.",
|
|||
|
|
"Democracy in FidoNet is impossible.", or "You are
|
|||
|
|
preaching treason and will be excommunciated." This area
|
|||
|
|
is for rational discussion and debate on HOW we will make
|
|||
|
|
FidoNet democratic not IF we will. When you enter this
|
|||
|
|
Echo and participate, you accept the premise that making
|
|||
|
|
FidoNet fully representative is a foregone conclusion and
|
|||
|
|
your purpose here is to discover HOW it will be done and
|
|||
|
|
WHEN it will be done. Personal attacks of any kind are
|
|||
|
|
not tolerated. Name calling, libelous or slanderous
|
|||
|
|
pronouncements, deliberate distortion of facts or insertion
|
|||
|
|
of misinformation are not tolerated. No shouting matchs
|
|||
|
|
or ego contests. Everyone is welcome and encouraged to
|
|||
|
|
make constructive comments and to offer solutions. We all
|
|||
|
|
know what the problems are. Everyone is encouraged to use
|
|||
|
|
their common sense and to offer well thought out plans of
|
|||
|
|
action.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
At present, you may link into DEMOCRACY in the Midwest
|
|||
|
|
(Chicago) at 1:115/982, and in Southeast (Florida) at
|
|||
|
|
1:135/14, 1:135/10, or 1:133/302. We are looking for
|
|||
|
|
Denver, Texas, California and New England Hubs. The Echo
|
|||
|
|
is open to anyone with a REAL interest in the goals stated
|
|||
|
|
above and the intent to observe the simple conference
|
|||
|
|
guidelines. If you are interested in picking it up and
|
|||
|
|
distributing it call any of the above hubs. It is
|
|||
|
|
intentionally being kept off the backbone. We need more
|
|||
|
|
hubs to spread the word! The echo is has only just
|
|||
|
|
recently started and is already is filling up with a great
|
|||
|
|
deal of constructive comment and discussion. Lets hear
|
|||
|
|
your thoughts!
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
|||
|
|
FidoNews 6-23 Page 29 5 Jun 1989
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Jacek Szelozynski
|
|||
|
|
Quick Cat BBS, 2:286/201.10
|
|||
|
|
xx48-58-523319
|
|||
|
|
Gdansk, Poland
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Something Exotic - Polish traffic in Net/Echo Mail
|
|||
|
|
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Poland is a country in Europe placed between USSR, East Germany,
|
|||
|
|
Czechoslovakia and Baltic Sea. And I am one of three Polish BBSes
|
|||
|
|
SYSOP. Just few weeks ago we joined the Net/Echo Mail as a point
|
|||
|
|
of AINEX-RBBS in Holland. Now we exchange netmail and joined
|
|||
|
|
COMMS, CLONE, C_ECHO, PENPAL, INTERNAT, TELIX and ZMODEM echoes.
|
|||
|
|
Soon it turned out that messages from Poland in worldwide echoes
|
|||
|
|
are quite a sensation so I decided to drop you all a line an
|
|||
|
|
enlighten you a bit on "BBSes in communist country".
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
First some history. Our adventure with BBS has started in March
|
|||
|
|
1988 from WILDCAT! 1.03 brought from USA by Stach Roth, my fellow
|
|||
|
|
sysop and programmer in our company. There has been one BBS in
|
|||
|
|
Poland at that time but it worked very irregularly and we did
|
|||
|
|
want to create something better and more reliable. Soon Polish
|
|||
|
|
adaptation of WILDCAT! was ready (the knowledge of English is not
|
|||
|
|
too popular in Poland). We started our run on the 12th of August
|
|||
|
|
1988. Browsing various BBSes in Europe I have met Arjen Lentz and
|
|||
|
|
very soon it was clear that our software can not do everything we
|
|||
|
|
would like our BBS to do. There was urgent need to implement Z-
|
|||
|
|
Modem (a must on poor Polish lines) and the version of WILDCAT!
|
|||
|
|
we used could not work with Net and Echo Mail.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
So what could we do? One day we got Quick BBS version 2.03 and
|
|||
|
|
from 10th of March 1989 we continue our activity as Quick Cat
|
|||
|
|
BBS connected to The Box mailer.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
The most often asked question in the messages is "Do commies
|
|||
|
|
allow for such an activity as using modems?". I am sorry if my
|
|||
|
|
reply does not agree with certain prejudices, but we are not
|
|||
|
|
at all restricted in anything we do. At least nowadays. We only
|
|||
|
|
had to register our modem in the Main Post Office and check if it
|
|||
|
|
meets Polish homologation. Anyway... The condition of Polish
|
|||
|
|
telephone lines is in some places so poor that commies do not
|
|||
|
|
have to be afraid one day their monopoly will be threatened by
|
|||
|
|
thousands of modem transmissions. We have some 500.000 PC's in
|
|||
|
|
Poland (even buying true-blue COCOM registered IBM PS2/80 or
|
|||
|
|
Honeywell or HP is not a problem at all) but the idea of modem
|
|||
|
|
communication is not very popular as yet. Most of the computers
|
|||
|
|
are used in working places and they rather do book-keeping or
|
|||
|
|
accounting jobs than send/exchange messages. The latter are
|
|||
|
|
rather transmitted by faxes. However there ARE few fanatics in my
|
|||
|
|
country for whom connecting Poland into European modem net is not
|
|||
|
|
just a mere hobby.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Why do I say "European", not "worldwide"? The reason is simple.
|
|||
|
|
Poland (as by now) only has direct telephone links with Europe...
|
|||
|
|
If I want to call to USA or Australia I have to wait about 2 - 3
|
|||
|
|
days for the operator-made call. There's probably another good
|
|||
|
|
FidoNews 6-23 Page 30 5 Jun 1989
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
reason why Polish government doesn't have to be afraid of
|
|||
|
|
modems. All in all THEY (not modems!) control the telephone
|
|||
|
|
network and switching it all off is very easy.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Well, back to the subject. As I mentioned there are two other
|
|||
|
|
BBSes in Poland too, one in Warsaw and one in Krakow. All use
|
|||
|
|
Quick BBS. Being an echo pioneer in Poland is quite difficult and
|
|||
|
|
very expensive. If say (proportionally to your wages) you pay one
|
|||
|
|
dollar per minute of Holland - Poland call, then I my costs are
|
|||
|
|
at least twice as high. I am alone so I have to download all the
|
|||
|
|
support I need from abroad on my sponsor expenses. Necessity
|
|||
|
|
however is the mother of invention, so we create the utils we
|
|||
|
|
need too. E.g. Stach (writes in C) created extended log-viewer
|
|||
|
|
utility and now he writes dBase format data base utility to
|
|||
|
|
browse and search any records you wish ON-LINE!
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
In fact I have two sponsors. The other one in Holland sends my
|
|||
|
|
netmail all over the world if I have a bug report for someone. I
|
|||
|
|
do not have a phone at home, so the BBS is in my working place.
|
|||
|
|
There are some 8 (yes, eight, not a mistake) phones per 100
|
|||
|
|
people in Poland and one have to wait about 15 years to get one
|
|||
|
|
connected. Crazy, eh? But I am not guilty of that situation so I
|
|||
|
|
do not have to be ashamed. All the troubles and difficulties do
|
|||
|
|
not make me feel like giving it up either, I am really a fanatic
|
|||
|
|
of all the mailing beasts and the ROYAL troubles they can cause.
|
|||
|
|
Installing the new BBS I used to work on it day by day from 5 pm
|
|||
|
|
till midnight for over a month and even longer. It is not a
|
|||
|
|
problem for a night killer like me.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
The users of our BBS (we have 72 participants) are mainly
|
|||
|
|
programmers. As I said modeming idea in Poland is not very
|
|||
|
|
popular as yet and we do work hard to convince people that it
|
|||
|
|
is faster and cheaper to use modem sometimes. I am sure
|
|||
|
|
connecting Gdansk to worldwide FidoNet is a step in right
|
|||
|
|
direction.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
If you have any questions you are welcome! I'll try to reply all
|
|||
|
|
messages (if there will be any :)). You can leave messages to us
|
|||
|
|
in the Echoes mentioned above or call directly, and of course by
|
|||
|
|
Netmail to 2:286/201.10 (or 2:2/102.10).
|
|||
|
|
We run our Quick Cat everyday from 22:00 till 09:00 GMT+1, number
|
|||
|
|
is: xx48-58-523319.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Happy modeming!
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Jacek Szelozynski, Quick Cat BBS, Point of AINEX RBBS.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
|||
|
|
FidoNews 6-23 Page 31 5 Jun 1989
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
=================================================================
|
|||
|
|
COLUMNS
|
|||
|
|
=================================================================
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
The Veterinarian's Corner
|
|||
|
|
Excerpts from the ANIMED GroupMail Conference
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
by Don Thomson, 1:102/1005
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
> The problem .... was that it was CONSTANTLY using the couch for
|
|||
|
|
> a toilet. He was always spraying it, and it smelled horrible...
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
You bring up a good, albeit difficult, topic on cats and
|
|||
|
|
elimination problem behavior. The first step towards arriving at
|
|||
|
|
a solution is to make a distinction between spraying (which is
|
|||
|
|
delivering a forceful urine stream to a vertical surface - the
|
|||
|
|
tail is held erect, quivering, while the behavior occurs) and
|
|||
|
|
innapropriate elimination - the basic squatting and leaving the
|
|||
|
|
results on a horizontal surface.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Generally the approach to spraying behavior is different than the
|
|||
|
|
approach to innapropriate elimination behavior, although with
|
|||
|
|
some cats the two may occur in the same area.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Let me first address the 'easier' of the two behaviors-
|
|||
|
|
inappropriate elimination - or truely 'using the couch as the
|
|||
|
|
sandbox.' Here I will address generalities on the subject, some
|
|||
|
|
of which may not be germain to your parents plight, but need to
|
|||
|
|
be considered in other similar instances.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Urinary tract infections which create a sensation of urgency to
|
|||
|
|
eliminate is a cause that must first be ruled out. Not all
|
|||
|
|
bladder infections (cystitis) are accompanied by blood, so a
|
|||
|
|
urinalysis and/or urine culture may be warrented in certain
|
|||
|
|
instances to make sure this is a behavioral rather than medical
|
|||
|
|
problem. There are also age-related 'senile' or 'weakness'
|
|||
|
|
related causes in geriatric cats that may contribute to
|
|||
|
|
elimination problems in some cats.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Behaviorally, though, we have two general categories, each of
|
|||
|
|
which have an approach. There are 'Aversions' to the litterbox,
|
|||
|
|
or 'Attractions' to the innapropriate area. Lastly, there are the
|
|||
|
|
'Emotional' disturbances that may effect an elimation problem.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Aversions: This may in some cases be as simple as not cleaning
|
|||
|
|
out the litterbox frequently enough. Other times it may be that
|
|||
|
|
one particular cat will not use the catbox that another cat has
|
|||
|
|
eliminated in. For some reason a cat may find the smell of
|
|||
|
|
certain litters offensive - this may be the case in those who use
|
|||
|
|
certain chlorophyll containing kitty litters or the use of strong
|
|||
|
|
deodorizors or perfumes. Some cats find kitty litter itself
|
|||
|
|
aversive and require actual sand. Fortunatly, sand is cheeper
|
|||
|
|
than kitty litter anyway. Interrupting the cat while using the
|
|||
|
|
litterbox to administer medications etc may create an 'aversion
|
|||
|
|
by association' to using the litterbox. Sometimes, too, the
|
|||
|
|
owners preferred location of the litterbox may be the cause of
|
|||
|
|
FidoNews 6-23 Page 32 5 Jun 1989
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
the adversion and a change in location may be in order.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Attractions: One of the biggest problem with urinating in the
|
|||
|
|
wrong spot is that it quickly becomes self perpetuating by virtue
|
|||
|
|
of the scent left behind. Cats and dogs have a tremendous
|
|||
|
|
interaction between smell and certain behaviors, such that even
|
|||
|
|
the scent of urine triggers a behavioral elimination response. It
|
|||
|
|
is of absolute importance that the area be completely cleansed of
|
|||
|
|
the urine smell. There are improved commercial products on the
|
|||
|
|
market, and some people find that carbonated soda water works
|
|||
|
|
well. Feeding a cat in the previously soiled area may also reduce
|
|||
|
|
the likelyhood of using the spot again.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Emotional Disturbances: This may be the result of early trauma
|
|||
|
|
and individual 'personality' of the cat. We have reasonably good
|
|||
|
|
luck in treating this type of behavior with mood altering
|
|||
|
|
medications, actually synthetic progesterone derivatives. (Megace
|
|||
|
|
or Ovaban, or injectable Depo-Provera). This medical approach is
|
|||
|
|
not without a degree of risk of certain side effects, and for
|
|||
|
|
this reason, the previously mentioned factors should be addressed
|
|||
|
|
first.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
After the causative factors have been addressed, then the cat
|
|||
|
|
needs to 're-learn' to use the litterbox. Initially this may mean
|
|||
|
|
confinement in a relatively small area of the house with the
|
|||
|
|
litterbox placed where there is the highest likelyhood that it
|
|||
|
|
will use it. Usually the bathroom is the most convenient place
|
|||
|
|
because of tile or linoleum floor. As the cat learns to use the
|
|||
|
|
box regularly, it can gradually be re-introduced into other parts
|
|||
|
|
of the house. It should be watched fairly closely to make sure it
|
|||
|
|
doesn't break training. Slowly through 'successive approximation'
|
|||
|
|
it may be given more and more area, and the cat box slowly moved
|
|||
|
|
to a place that is more convenient for the owner. Both changes
|
|||
|
|
(increased area, and movement of the catbox should be gradual.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
> Was there anything they could have done to keep this cat
|
|||
|
|
> from ruining their furniture?
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Maybe, Phil. But as you know, the process is difficult at times,
|
|||
|
|
and there are, sadly, failures.... As your folks' cat sounds as
|
|||
|
|
though it had a combination of factors acting, possibly a
|
|||
|
|
combination of medical and behavoral modifaction would be needed.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Spraying behavior is another story......
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
DB Thomson, DVM
|
|||
|
|
1:102/1005
|
|||
|
|
9:871/16
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
|||
|
|
FidoNews 6-23 Page 33 5 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 17.1D 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 6-23 Page 34 5 Jun 1989
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
=================================================================
|
|||
|
|
NOTICES
|
|||
|
|
=================================================================
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
The Interrupt Stack
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
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 6-23 Page 35 5 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 1:147/1
|
|||
|
|
Nominations & Elections David Melnick 1:107/233
|
|||
|
|
Public Affairs David Drexler 1:147/1
|
|||
|
|
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 1:147/1 (vacant)
|
|||
|
|
2 Henk Wevers 2:500/1 David Melnik 1:107/233
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
|||
|
|
FidoNews 6-23 Page 36 5 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: ____________________
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
What Hotel will you be Staying at: ____________________________
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
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 6-23 Page 37 5 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 ______________________________________________________
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
FidoNews 6-23 Page 38 5 Jun 1989
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
No credit card registrations will be accepted without a valid
|
|||
|
|
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.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
|||
|
|
FidoNews 6-23 Page 39 5 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.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
|||
|
|
|