1882 lines
87 KiB
Plaintext
1882 lines
87 KiB
Plaintext
|
Volume 6, Number 28 10 July 1989
|
|||
|
|
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
|
|||
|
|
| _ |
|
|||
|
|
| / \ |
|
|||
|
|
| /|oo \ |
|
|||
|
|
| - FidoNews - (_| /_) |
|
|||
|
|
| _`@/_ \ _ |
|
|||
|
|
| International | | \ \\ |
|
|||
|
|
| FidoNet Association | (*) | \ )) |
|
|||
|
|
| Newsletter ______ |__U__| / \// |
|
|||
|
|
| / FIDO \ _//|| _\ / |
|
|||
|
|
| (________) (_/(_|(____/ |
|
|||
|
|
| (jm) |
|
|||
|
|
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
|
|||
|
|
Editor in Chief: Vince Perriello
|
|||
|
|
Editors Emeritii: Dale Lovell
|
|||
|
|
Thom Henderson
|
|||
|
|
Chief Procrastinator Emeritus: Tom Jennings
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
FidoNews is published weekly by the International FidoNet
|
|||
|
|
Association as its official newsletter. You are encouraged to
|
|||
|
|
submit articles for publication in FidoNews. Article submission
|
|||
|
|
standards are contained in the file ARTSPEC.DOC, available from
|
|||
|
|
node 1:1/1. 1:1/1 is a Continuous Mail system, available for
|
|||
|
|
network mail 24 hours a day.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Copyright 1989 by the International FidoNet Association. All
|
|||
|
|
rights reserved. Duplication and/or distribution permitted for
|
|||
|
|
noncommercial purposes only. For use in other circumstances,
|
|||
|
|
please contact IFNA at (314) 576-4067. IFNA may also be contacted
|
|||
|
|
at PO Box 41143, St. Louis, MO 63141.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Fido and FidoNet are registered trademarks of Tom Jennings of
|
|||
|
|
Fido Software, 164 Shipley Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94107 and
|
|||
|
|
are used with permission.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
We don't necessarily agree with the contents of every article
|
|||
|
|
published here. Most of these materials are unsolicited. No
|
|||
|
|
article will be rejected which is properly attributed and legally
|
|||
|
|
acceptable. We will publish every responsible submission
|
|||
|
|
received.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Table of Contents
|
|||
|
|
1. EDITORIAL ................................................ 1
|
|||
|
|
2. ARTICLES ................................................. 2
|
|||
|
|
Appeal to the IC re: the arbitrary impostion of p4 ....... 2
|
|||
|
|
D'Bridge 1.21 - A Quick Review .......................... 7
|
|||
|
|
Fido/FidoNet Routing, Topology, History, and Recent Cha .. 9
|
|||
|
|
Keep The Issue Clear! .................................... 17
|
|||
|
|
Notes on Net Numbering ................................... 19
|
|||
|
|
3. WANTED ................................................... 24
|
|||
|
|
Ham Radio Articles Needed! ............................... 24
|
|||
|
|
4. LATEST VERSIONS .......................................... 25
|
|||
|
|
Latest Software Versions ................................. 25
|
|||
|
|
And more!
|
|||
|
|
FidoNews 6-28 Page 1 10 Jul 1989
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
=================================================================
|
|||
|
|
EDITORIAL
|
|||
|
|
=================================================================
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Let's start this week's Editorial with a couple of questions:
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
1) To those of you promoting Democracy in Fidonet: didn't you
|
|||
|
|
notice we've tried this before with IFNA?
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
2) To those of you thinking right now, "He's GOT to be kidding":
|
|||
|
|
what did YOU do to help make the IFNA idea work? What proof can
|
|||
|
|
you offer that YOUR idea of Democracy in Fidonet is better than
|
|||
|
|
the original concept of IFNA? That more people will flock to
|
|||
|
|
your banner?
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Frankly, what seems to be going on in this network is an epidemic
|
|||
|
|
of "screw whoever's in charge". This seems to date back to about
|
|||
|
|
the time that IFNA was founded. In fact, it might be IFNA's
|
|||
|
|
fault. Nobody seemed to care whether they had a voice in the net
|
|||
|
|
before Messrs. Kaplan, Baker, Henderson and Jennings got on that
|
|||
|
|
stage in Colorado and told them they could HAVE one.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Since that time, we've had nothing but mikey wars played over and
|
|||
|
|
over and over again. Sometimes the participants changed but the
|
|||
|
|
basic issues seemed about the same. This Net 154 thing sounds a
|
|||
|
|
lot like the Net 103 thing of a few years ago, the only
|
|||
|
|
difference being WHAT the NC refused to go along with. The
|
|||
|
|
result then was the same as the current one. An entire net was
|
|||
|
|
excommunicated (of course the ratio of private to public nodes in
|
|||
|
|
103 was a lot different, most of the nodes there had real people
|
|||
|
|
running them).
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
About two years into the mikey wars, the *C's decided to
|
|||
|
|
extricate themselves from the IFNA situation. In my opinion,
|
|||
|
|
they drew the conclusion that the only thing you'd get from
|
|||
|
|
enfranchising the entire Net (as IFNA wanted to do) was utter
|
|||
|
|
chaos (which is all that IFNA had accomplished), so they
|
|||
|
|
proceeded to play the "benevolent dictatorship" game that
|
|||
|
|
persists to this day. If this is indeed what happened (nobody
|
|||
|
|
has told me one way or the other) I can certainly sympathize.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
What's happening these days? The "benevolent dictators" have
|
|||
|
|
made a few unpopular decisions. Now there's more screaming for
|
|||
|
|
democracy. Yeah, right. Let's try the IFNA thing again? I
|
|||
|
|
can't see any reason why. IFNA is still here, it is a 501(c)(3)
|
|||
|
|
organization, and all it needs is some guidance from its
|
|||
|
|
membership. That is, when it can get some people interested in
|
|||
|
|
democracy in Fidonet to become members. Re-connecting IFNA to
|
|||
|
|
Fidonet is a minor thing once IFNA can be shown to have some
|
|||
|
|
coherence.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Put up or shut up. Join IFNA and fix it. Or just bag the noise.
|
|||
|
|
I for one am fed up with the mikey wars. Aren't you?
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
|||
|
|
FidoNews 6-28 Page 2 10 Jul 1989
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
=================================================================
|
|||
|
|
ARTICLES
|
|||
|
|
=================================================================
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
TO: David Dodell
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
FROM: Doug Thompson
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
SUBJECT: Talk to me David!
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
cc: fidonews
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Hi David,
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Reading Fidonews and the nodelist is pretty disturbing these
|
|||
|
|
days. I spent half the day writing a program (so I'm a lousy
|
|||
|
|
programmer) to put Milwaukee back in the nodelist. I think,
|
|||
|
|
"hmmm, isn't this the job of the RCs, to make sure the nodelist
|
|||
|
|
is complete and accurate?". Seems the job of RC has changed to
|
|||
|
|
make sure that the nodelist is politically correct instead of
|
|||
|
|
technically correct. What's going on here?
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
The crime was the refusal to swear an oath of allegiance to the
|
|||
|
|
so-called policy 4. The crime was having a node listed that was
|
|||
|
|
outside somebody's idea of geographical limitations. I submit to
|
|||
|
|
you that the disease interfered much less with the smooth working
|
|||
|
|
of the net than the cure. There are all kinds of reasons why
|
|||
|
|
nodes will be listed outside their immediate geographic area and
|
|||
|
|
if you look at the nodelist you'll see it's pretty common.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
I submit to you that policy 3 places no limits on *where* a node
|
|||
|
|
can be located.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
As for policy 4, so-called, if that was somebody's idea of a bad
|
|||
|
|
joke it has gone too far. By precedent policy must be ratified
|
|||
|
|
by fidonet before it can be enforced, or before any reasonable
|
|||
|
|
person can be expected to abide by it. Policy 4 has not been
|
|||
|
|
ratified by fidonet, and I shall prove that the process of
|
|||
|
|
ratification by the NCs was fraudulent and invalid in execution
|
|||
|
|
as well as in design.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Have I not informed you that it is not acceptable in net 221?
|
|||
|
|
Has not all of zone 2 informed you of the same thing? Why are we
|
|||
|
|
not excommunicated, since "consistency", we are told by Steve
|
|||
|
|
Bonine, is so important?
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
And who is Steve Bonine and who gave him authority to start
|
|||
|
|
shrinking the nodelist according to his own political
|
|||
|
|
proclivities?
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Why is Milwaukee gone from the nodelist? Was the software
|
|||
|
|
incompatible? Were calls going undialable? Was mail hour not
|
|||
|
|
being observed? No.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Policy 3 was adopted by fidonet, and by IFNA. Policy 4 was
|
|||
|
|
FidoNews 6-28 Page 3 10 Jul 1989
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
ratified by neither. Thus policy 4 remains a hypothetical
|
|||
|
|
document, not an enforcable policy. Doesn't it? Or has some
|
|||
|
|
coup d'etat suddenly transformed fidonet?
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
So here are several offical policy complaints:
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
I)
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
I deem it excessively annoying that my vote on policy 4
|
|||
|
|
ratification was changed by my RC because he didn't approve of
|
|||
|
|
it.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Documentation and proof available on request. It consists of the
|
|||
|
|
message from Tom stating that he had altered my vote. I know,
|
|||
|
|
it's hard to believe, but it's true.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
I request that the ratification be declared null and void on that
|
|||
|
|
grounds, and that the RC in question be reprimanded for violation
|
|||
|
|
of basic, fundamental, democratic principles.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
I further request that an ivestigation be launched to inquire
|
|||
|
|
into the integrity of the policy 4 vote in general, and that all
|
|||
|
|
RCs who violated basic democratic principles, i.e. secret
|
|||
|
|
ballot, harassment of voters, attempts to get people to change
|
|||
|
|
their vote, falisfication of returns, etc., be exposed and that
|
|||
|
|
appropriate disciplinary action be taken against any RCs guilty
|
|||
|
|
of these crimes against common decency.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
It is recognized as policy violation to send a message under
|
|||
|
|
someone else's name and network address. Surely sending a
|
|||
|
|
falsified vote is just as serious. Indeed, it strikes me as
|
|||
|
|
vastly more serious!
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
II)
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
I deem it excessively annoying that the ballot on policy 4 was
|
|||
|
|
not secret and that some NCs were subjected to verbal abuse and
|
|||
|
|
intense pressure to vote in accord with the RC's wishes. The
|
|||
|
|
results of the ballot are clearly a sham as a result of that.
|
|||
|
|
I.E. it is certain that many votes were influenced by pressure
|
|||
|
|
from RCs. Mine wasn't influenced. When he failed to convince me
|
|||
|
|
to vote as he wanted he just changed my vote.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
I request that the ratification be declared null and void on that
|
|||
|
|
grounds.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
III)
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
I deem it excessivley annoying that no vehicle for debate and
|
|||
|
|
discussion of the proposed policy 4 preceded the ratification
|
|||
|
|
vote. Yes, I was sent copies and asked to comment. When I did
|
|||
|
|
comment to Tom all I got back was a stream of abusive insults and
|
|||
|
|
an insistence that I hadn't read the document. In other words
|
|||
|
|
rather than debate or discussion, the only role I was allowed was
|
|||
|
|
FidoNews 6-28 Page 4 10 Jul 1989
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
that of making comments to a person who simply denounced them and
|
|||
|
|
obviously didn't carry them further. Discussion requires that
|
|||
|
|
all points of view be heard (not necessarily accepted, but at
|
|||
|
|
least heard) by all parties to the process.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
I request that the ratification be declared null and void on that
|
|||
|
|
grounds.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
IV)
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
I deem it excessively annoying that precedent in the adoption of
|
|||
|
|
policy was completely disregarded. Fidonet consists of sysops,
|
|||
|
|
not coordinators. Coordinators are the administrative servants
|
|||
|
|
of, not the masters of the net. Precedent demands that any
|
|||
|
|
ratification process be open to all sysops.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
I request that the ratification be declared null and void on that
|
|||
|
|
grounds.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
V)
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
I deem it excessively annoying that 96% of sysops were
|
|||
|
|
disenfranchised from the ratification of policy without any
|
|||
|
|
constitutional, moral or legal grounds, or precedent, and in
|
|||
|
|
complete violation of any recognizable notion of democratic
|
|||
|
|
priopriety in Western Civiliation,
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
I request that the ratification be declared null and void on that
|
|||
|
|
grounds.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
VI)
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
I deem it excessively annoying that I am forced to spend a lot of
|
|||
|
|
time and effort correcting the errors in the current nodelist
|
|||
|
|
(i.e. the removal of all of Milwaukee).
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
I request that the nodelist be corrected and that the person(s)
|
|||
|
|
responsible for the errors and ommissions be suitably
|
|||
|
|
reprimanded.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
VII)
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Whereas precedent in fidonet demonstrates that policy is adopted
|
|||
|
|
by consensus, and whereas no device for consensus of the net has
|
|||
|
|
been employed, and whereas *C sysops alone have arrogated the
|
|||
|
|
right to adopt policy, and whereas this represents a fundamental
|
|||
|
|
and basic violation of every principle of due process recognized
|
|||
|
|
in western civilization, and whereas severe abuses of the
|
|||
|
|
electoral process can be demonstrated, and whereas it has already
|
|||
|
|
been used to eliminate substantial numbers of fidonet-capable,
|
|||
|
|
mail-hour honouring nodes from the nodelist, for political
|
|||
|
|
reasons alone,
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
I deem policy 4 to be excessively annoying and request that it be
|
|||
|
|
FidoNews 6-28 Page 5 10 Jul 1989
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
officially junked, and that the process of consideration, review
|
|||
|
|
and ratification be re-started in a recognizably democratic
|
|||
|
|
fashion.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
VIII)
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Whereas the so-called "ratification process" of policy 4 was a
|
|||
|
|
total sham and travesty of common decency, and whereas fidonet is
|
|||
|
|
going to break asunder as sysops in general puke in disgust at
|
|||
|
|
this,
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
I urge you to inhale a sweet breath of sanity and institute a
|
|||
|
|
democratic, reasonable and proper means to establish new policy
|
|||
|
|
for the net.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
I doubt that the flagrant abuse in Region 12 was typical of what
|
|||
|
|
happened in other regions. But no precautions whatsoever were in
|
|||
|
|
place to prevent it and the result therefore cannot possibly have
|
|||
|
|
a shred of credibility. We were effectively told how to vote and
|
|||
|
|
reservations were dismissed out of hand. Not just mine either,
|
|||
|
|
this happened to other NCs. I have copies of the correspondence
|
|||
|
|
which show that.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
In the vernacular this means that policy 4 is viewed as having
|
|||
|
|
about as much moral and legal authority as the tanks in Tianenmen
|
|||
|
|
square. Very many are afraid to speak out right now. We have
|
|||
|
|
entered a reign of terror and strong-arm tactics. No one wants
|
|||
|
|
to be excommunicated, but it is clear that the results of
|
|||
|
|
exercising the right to freedom of speech entail this penalty.
|
|||
|
|
It is a brutal quashing of the democratic aspirations of
|
|||
|
|
thousands of fidonet sysops and has already proven itself to be
|
|||
|
|
wholly negative and counter-productive. The nodelist has shrunk
|
|||
|
|
. . . the balloting was falsified, even Tom Jennings is
|
|||
|
|
staunchly opposed. Is any further argument really required?
|
|||
|
|
There are many more arguments which can be mustered, but I think
|
|||
|
|
the facts presented here speak for themselves. Policy 4 contains
|
|||
|
|
several highly objectionable provisions, mostly those which give
|
|||
|
|
RCs policy-making responsibilities to the exclusion of sysops.
|
|||
|
|
The most objectionable thing, however, is the arbitrary
|
|||
|
|
psuedo-democratic way it was imposed on fidonet. It is simply
|
|||
|
|
unimaginable that this could possibly ever be acceptable within
|
|||
|
|
democratic societies. It is quite unthinkable.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
IX)
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Whereas the healthy democratic functioning, growth and prospering
|
|||
|
|
of fidonet is of great concern to both myself and my net,
|
|||
|
|
anything constructive you might have to suggest by which we can
|
|||
|
|
help bring that about would be most sincerely appreciated.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Working withing fidonet to change and improve policy is now
|
|||
|
|
virtually impossible. The RCs have erected a system which not
|
|||
|
|
only fails to encourage participation from sysops, it positively
|
|||
|
|
excludes it. While nearly all the sysops I talk to find the
|
|||
|
|
current situation intolerable, few have any ideas as to what can
|
|||
|
|
be done about it. The RCs have effectively insulated themselves
|
|||
|
|
FidoNews 6-28 Page 6 10 Jul 1989
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
from fidonet
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
The fact that policy 3 is valid and enforcable, while policy 4 is
|
|||
|
|
neither, and the hopeless disarray of IFNA at the moment leaves
|
|||
|
|
all sysops with but one hope, and that hope is that the
|
|||
|
|
International Coordinator will recognize the voice of reason and
|
|||
|
|
the need of the net and act to rectify the problem.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Please do something.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
As always,
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
your loyal servant,
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Doug Thompson
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
coordinator 1:221
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
|||
|
|
FidoNews 6-28 Page 7 10 Jul 1989
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Chuck Allen, Network 8:7200/2
|
|||
|
|
AlterNet 7:522/1 ISA:2108
|
|||
|
|
FidoNet 1:129/41
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Standard disclaimer - I have no affiliation with the author
|
|||
|
|
of the software.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Recently D'Bridge 1.21, by Chris Irwin, came across the
|
|||
|
|
Software Distribution System. By nature, I am always looking
|
|||
|
|
for new toys, and the docs for D'Bridge promised something
|
|||
|
|
different. I set up D'Bridge and asked for my "trial key", a
|
|||
|
|
process one has to see to believe. When I ran "install", the
|
|||
|
|
program checked the files and copied them into a working
|
|||
|
|
directory. Running DB and answering questions led to a outbound
|
|||
|
|
call to the support system of my choice for the trial key.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Rather than go into a detailed list of features and
|
|||
|
|
comparisons, I'm going to describe my experience setting
|
|||
|
|
D'Bridge up and operating it. D'Bridge, in a nutshell, is an
|
|||
|
|
integrated mailer, echo handler, area fix station, terminal
|
|||
|
|
program, and message editor with many unique features seamlessly
|
|||
|
|
integrated into one package.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Setup was as easy as I have seen it, rivaling or surpassing
|
|||
|
|
FrontDoor's renowned ease of setup. I seldom referred to the
|
|||
|
|
documentation (more than 250 pages), there is a brief "help
|
|||
|
|
line" displayed at the bottom of the screen, usually describing
|
|||
|
|
what is expected. In less than an hour, I had the mailer and
|
|||
|
|
echo handler set up and running.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
D'Bridge can use any of three storage types; Fido, QuickBBS,
|
|||
|
|
and TBBS. The editor allows you to define the area as local or
|
|||
|
|
echomail, and you can pick the storage type for each area. Thus
|
|||
|
|
you can have "normal" echoes imported into a QuickBBS message
|
|||
|
|
base and have "sysop" echoes stored in Fido (single message per
|
|||
|
|
file) format. For echo areas, you define the distribution and
|
|||
|
|
how you want mail for each node handled (crash, normal, hold,
|
|||
|
|
etc.). You can select autoaliasing (for echoes destined for a
|
|||
|
|
different zone or network) and specify an origin line. You
|
|||
|
|
chose a tag and security level along with an area number. There
|
|||
|
|
are sort options for some fields. You can choose number of
|
|||
|
|
messages or number of days for maintenance purposes, along with
|
|||
|
|
a feature to ignore the first nnnn messages in an area.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Using the message editor is very straight forward and
|
|||
|
|
controlled for the most part by function keys. All the features
|
|||
|
|
one has come to expect in a modern message editor are there, and
|
|||
|
|
more. You can search the text or headers of messages for
|
|||
|
|
selected text (very nice!). Again, the features are too
|
|||
|
|
numerous to mention.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
The mailer portion is easily set up and quite intuitive.
|
|||
|
|
Scheduling is done by a unique visual interface. Routing is as
|
|||
|
|
simple or complex as one chooses, there is no mucking around
|
|||
|
|
with external files. I tested D'Bridge with Opus 1.10, Opus
|
|||
|
|
1.03, FrontDoor 1.99, Seadog 4.1 & 4.51, and Binkley 2.20.
|
|||
|
|
FidoNews 6-28 Page 8 10 Jul 1989
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
There was no problem negotiating a session with any of them.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
The built-in echohandler allows choosing several compression
|
|||
|
|
methods, specific to individual nodes, and will handle nearly
|
|||
|
|
any type of mail to come in. Further, it has a built-in AREAFIX
|
|||
|
|
handler, and an option for automatically creating new areas for
|
|||
|
|
previously unreceived echoes (terrific for echohubs). The
|
|||
|
|
permutations of possible options is incredible, there is
|
|||
|
|
something in the echohandler for everyone. It is quick and
|
|||
|
|
works flawlessly in my setup, a tough test considering my 3
|
|||
|
|
network membership.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
The program uses overlays, which is nice for those running
|
|||
|
|
under DesqView or DoubleDos. I've run D'Bridge under both, with
|
|||
|
|
no problem. The docs warn that reducing available memory may
|
|||
|
|
slow things down, this was never apparent on a 8 mhz turbo XT
|
|||
|
|
clone. In one case, I had not allocated enough memory to load
|
|||
|
|
the editor. At this point, many packages would give up the
|
|||
|
|
ghost and fold up. D'Bridge printed the message "swapping to
|
|||
|
|
disk" on the screen and carried on as though the stupid sysop
|
|||
|
|
had done nothing wrong.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
The terminal portion of the program is as good, if not
|
|||
|
|
better, than those I've seen in other mailers. The protocols
|
|||
|
|
we've all come to expect are all present, as is a dialing
|
|||
|
|
directory, etc. It depends on the nodelist, which is unique to
|
|||
|
|
D'Bridge and is handled by D'Bridge itself. Whenever D'Bridge
|
|||
|
|
is started, it goes through a series of tests, one of which is
|
|||
|
|
to make sure the nodelist is current. If it detects a
|
|||
|
|
difference file, it automatically updates the "St. Louis"
|
|||
|
|
nodelist as well as it's own nodelist. Simply amazing.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
As with all but the simplest package, at some point support
|
|||
|
|
becomes necessary. I am not a registered user, yet two
|
|||
|
|
questions to my chosen support board (Optical Illusion) were
|
|||
|
|
answered swiftly and correctly by Mark Moran (thanks Mark!).
|
|||
|
|
Quite honestly, I was surprised by the support, given that I was
|
|||
|
|
on a trial key, not a registered user.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
All in all, this is one impressive package. The seamless
|
|||
|
|
integration of so many functions is rivaled by the ease of use.
|
|||
|
|
It is tough for me to imagine a situation from echostar on down
|
|||
|
|
that D'Bridge couldn't easily handle. It is not shareware, it
|
|||
|
|
is a commercial product (with a 20% reduction until mid-July),
|
|||
|
|
well worth what Chris is asking (I'd still be running it and buy
|
|||
|
|
it if I weren't unemployed!).
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
|||
|
|
FidoNews 6-28 Page 9 10 Jul 1989
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Fido/FidoNet Routing, Topology, History, and Recent Changes
|
|||
|
|
Tom Jennings, 1:125/111
|
|||
|
|
15 June 89
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Fido/FidoNet, like all other FidoNet mailers and BBSs, generates
|
|||
|
|
messages, and puts them into packets that are later delivered to
|
|||
|
|
some appropriate destination by the mailer itself. All of the
|
|||
|
|
different mailers use different approaches as to just how you
|
|||
|
|
the sysop control where, how and when packets (and the messages
|
|||
|
|
they contain) get delivered.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
In light of all the mailer systems out there today, I don't think
|
|||
|
|
many are aware of just how Fido/FidoNet does it's routing. With
|
|||
|
|
a few recent changes you might find the design has become
|
|||
|
|
interesting once again. (And starting July 89, Fido/FidoNet is
|
|||
|
|
once again shareware. File Request "ABOUT" and "FILES" from
|
|||
|
|
1:125/111 for complete details.)
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
FIDO
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Fido was originally just a bulletin board; the first FidoNet was
|
|||
|
|
a separate program that was run from a batch file with a few
|
|||
|
|
small hooks into the BBS. (The origin of the Fido version 9 - 11
|
|||
|
|
MAIL.SYS file.) Fido (the BBS) only let users generate messages;
|
|||
|
|
FidoNet (the mailer) put messages into packets and delivered
|
|||
|
|
them.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
At this point, four years later, Fido and FidoNet are pretty well
|
|||
|
|
integrated, and this latest revision completes the weld.
|
|||
|
|
Logically, to the user and sysop, the two remain quite separate,
|
|||
|
|
and many (non-FidoNet) Fido systems are BBS only. (Most of my
|
|||
|
|
commercial customers are BBS only.) It is just as easy to run
|
|||
|
|
FidoNet without Fido.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Fido's packeting/mailing system works in four discrete phases.
|
|||
|
|
First, the destination node addresses for all the existing
|
|||
|
|
messages is determined. This is done by the "router", more on
|
|||
|
|
which follows. Second, the messages are put into packets by the
|
|||
|
|
"packeter" (I never was very good at names). Third, the phase
|
|||
|
|
that is most obvious to sysops watching the screen, is when the
|
|||
|
|
packets are delivered; Fido makes outgoing phone calls and sends
|
|||
|
|
the packets. Packets can also be received in between outgoing
|
|||
|
|
calls. The last phase deletes un-sent packets, and marks the
|
|||
|
|
original messages that went into the packets as "(SENT)" as
|
|||
|
|
appropriate. This ends the FidoNet session.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Note that different from Opus and other similar mailers, Fido
|
|||
|
|
only puts a copy of the message into a packet; during the fourth
|
|||
|
|
phase Fido again processes each message, and marks it or deletes
|
|||
|
|
it as determined by the success of that packet delivery.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
This is a fairly large amount of processing to do when looked at
|
|||
|
|
on a per-message basis, and is why Fido's FidoNet has always been
|
|||
|
|
slower to packet than other systems. In return there are many
|
|||
|
|
advantages, that will become more obvious later.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
FidoNews 6-28 Page 10 10 Jul 1989
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
FIDO AND FIDONET
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Originally, as was stated before, Fido and FidoNet were two
|
|||
|
|
separate programs. Even when integrated into one package,
|
|||
|
|
starting with Fido version 9 or 10, FidoNet was only usable when
|
|||
|
|
a FidoNet scheduled event was actually running; "continuous
|
|||
|
|
mail" is (relative to Fido) a new concept. Version 12 (Aug.
|
|||
|
|
1987) could accept incoming continuous mail, but not send mail
|
|||
|
|
unless a FidoNet event was running; starting with 12M Wazoo and
|
|||
|
|
.REQ file requests are supported.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Starting with version 12N, the FidoNet portion of Fido can be
|
|||
|
|
accessed at any time; packet creation and routing is under
|
|||
|
|
complete control, and can be altered, automatically using the
|
|||
|
|
routing language on a event by event basis throughout the day, or
|
|||
|
|
manually as the sysop sees fit, up to the point when the specific
|
|||
|
|
message has been delivered. Events themselves can be turned on
|
|||
|
|
and off from within Fido, allowing very high-level control over
|
|||
|
|
packet routing.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
You can have Fido create packets available for pickup, with any
|
|||
|
|
arbitrary routing, at any time of day. For example, you can have
|
|||
|
|
HOLD packets of long-distance systems waiting for pickup from
|
|||
|
|
9:00AM til 6:00PM, while enabling outgoing calls on local-dial
|
|||
|
|
systems, in between human callers, or any other construct allowed
|
|||
|
|
by the routing language, without restriction. There is a
|
|||
|
|
"penalty" of 30 - 60 seconds to prepare for a new schedule; once
|
|||
|
|
started, access is in the under 100 mS range.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
On my 8MHz "turbo" junk-pclone, 80mS 20 meg drive, Fido takes 30
|
|||
|
|
seconds to load, create outgoing packets and be ready for an
|
|||
|
|
incoming call (human or otherwise). On this crappy hardware,
|
|||
|
|
incoming echomail is received, unpacketed, tossed, the echo areas
|
|||
|
|
then scanned and outgoing packets made and delivered in 30 - 60
|
|||
|
|
seconds, in between human callers, using DCM and barefoot
|
|||
|
|
Fido/FidoNet 12N.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
The largest network Fido/FidoNet can (mathematically!) handle is
|
|||
|
|
(32767 * 32767 * 32767) or 3.5 x 10(e13) nodes; version 12's
|
|||
|
|
implementation 65,535. A recompile (change a table index from 16
|
|||
|
|
to 32 bits) will make Fido handle about 4 billion nodes with some
|
|||
|
|
performance loss and increased (disk) overhead, about 2
|
|||
|
|
bytes/node. Performance with 65,000 nodes would still be better
|
|||
|
|
than Fido 12M's.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Current nodelist overhead (NODELIST.132) is: NODELIST.BBS
|
|||
|
|
304,532 (physical data); NODELIST.NMP 53,920 (nodemap; see
|
|||
|
|
below); NODELIST.IDX 53920 (main index); NODELIST.NDX 2900
|
|||
|
|
(host index). NODELIST.SYS is no longer used.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
FIDONET TOPOLOGY
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
The router design mimics exactly the FidoNet network topology.
|
|||
|
|
The network went through four (so far...) stages: a "flat"
|
|||
|
|
system, ie. point to point; addresses were a simple number 1 -
|
|||
|
|
32767. The second formalized the concept of "nets",
|
|||
|
|
FidoNews 6-28 Page 11 10 Jul 1989
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
incorporating the routing optimization formerly done with Fido's
|
|||
|
|
primitive router. The third includes zones, which are similar
|
|||
|
|
mathematically to nets, but in real life act quite differently,
|
|||
|
|
with "zone gates" concentrating mail between zones (generally
|
|||
|
|
continents) because of real-life issues of telephone connect
|
|||
|
|
costs and equipment compatibility. The fourth adds "points",
|
|||
|
|
allowing for the next (or current, I am a bit slow sometimes)
|
|||
|
|
wave of BBS technology.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
OOPS BACKTRACK A LITTLE:
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
A small aside on nets and regions: "regions" originally were
|
|||
|
|
only a way for nodes not in a net (ie. not inside a local
|
|||
|
|
calling area) to be syntactically compatible with the "net/node"
|
|||
|
|
addressing scheme; since most nodes were in the most heavily
|
|||
|
|
populated areas, cities, where nets naturally form, "regions"
|
|||
|
|
would be where nodes not in cities would be found. Nodes in
|
|||
|
|
regions (marked REGION in the nodelist) act as any other node,
|
|||
|
|
but the mailers do not do the automatic routing to the "host" for
|
|||
|
|
the region -- mail is sent direct, or point to point.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
The function of region hosts as another layer of organizational
|
|||
|
|
hierarchy is a recent addition, and not part of the topology
|
|||
|
|
itself. Still further, there is nothing magic about the numbers
|
|||
|
|
themselves -- regions being numbered 1 - 99, nets 100 - 999 etc
|
|||
|
|
is a totally arbitrary decision on the part of the keepers of the
|
|||
|
|
lists. The only magic numbers are 0's -- these indicate the host
|
|||
|
|
for the entity, ie. zone, net or region.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
ROUTER DESIGN
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Back to the router design. While the hierarchical model of
|
|||
|
|
net/node is extremely useful (if not indispensable) there are
|
|||
|
|
still thousands of exceptions, usually on a system by system
|
|||
|
|
basis; you forward mail for one system that is local but is a
|
|||
|
|
toll call for other net members. Your net has a sugar daddy that
|
|||
|
|
can make long distance outgoing calls. One system calls in to
|
|||
|
|
pickup their mail. Commonly called systems are more efficiently
|
|||
|
|
handled in some special way.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
You need to remember that the mathematical model used frequently
|
|||
|
|
has nothing to do with the "real" world. This is as it should
|
|||
|
|
be. However, you need a good solid theoretical base for the
|
|||
|
|
network otherwise the world falls apart. The router bridges the
|
|||
|
|
two otherwise-incompatible worlds.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Fido's router design can handle any topology based on our address
|
|||
|
|
syntax: zone:net/node, plus any arbitrary number of exceptions.
|
|||
|
|
To do this, the router is very simple -- not complex.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Logically, the router is an N x N crossbar switch, where N is the
|
|||
|
|
number of nodes in the nodelist. You can imagine a crossbar
|
|||
|
|
switch by drawing on paper a grid:
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
IN
|
|||
|
|
--> 1 ----O---O---O---O---O
|
|||
|
|
FidoNews 6-28 Page 12 10 Jul 1989
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
| | | | |
|
|||
|
|
2 ----O---O---O---O---O
|
|||
|
|
| | | | |
|
|||
|
|
3 ----O---X---O---O---O
|
|||
|
|
| | | | |
|
|||
|
|
4 ----O---O---O---O---O
|
|||
|
|
| | | | |
|
|||
|
|
5 ----O---O---O---O---O
|
|||
|
|
| | | | |
|
|||
|
|
1 2 3 4 5
|
|||
|
|
OUT
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Shown is a 5 x 5 crossbar switch. The O's represent an OFF (but
|
|||
|
|
potential) connection; X's represent a ON connection. The
|
|||
|
|
connection (3,2) is ON, all others closed. If a signal were
|
|||
|
|
applied to Input 3, it would appear also on Output 2. (ASCII
|
|||
|
|
graphics are terrible, sorry!) You will notice that by placing
|
|||
|
|
X's and O's appropriately, any input can be connected to any
|
|||
|
|
output.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
A "real" crossbar switch can route one signal to many
|
|||
|
|
destinations; just place X's along the same horizontal row in
|
|||
|
|
the example above. Any node can route to any node; times (N)
|
|||
|
|
nodes is (N * N) possible states. Not pleasant to think about in
|
|||
|
|
real terms -- a 5000 node nodelist would mean 25,000,000 states
|
|||
|
|
to represent on your disk! This is not a very useful side effect
|
|||
|
|
for us; our messages have a single destination address.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Fido's router places one limitation upon the crossbar design:
|
|||
|
|
there can be only one possible destination per node. It can
|
|||
|
|
still be any possible node, but only one at a time. This means
|
|||
|
|
the router can consist of (2 * N) entries -- the originating node
|
|||
|
|
and the destination node.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
You can imagine Fido's router as the crossbar switch above, or as
|
|||
|
|
I do, a simple two column table:
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
----+----
|
|||
|
|
1 | _
|
|||
|
|
2 | _
|
|||
|
|
3 | 2
|
|||
|
|
4 | _
|
|||
|
|
5 | _
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
The _'s represent potential, but OFF connections. #3 has been
|
|||
|
|
routed to #2 by merely filling in that table entry. This table
|
|||
|
|
is called the NodeMap.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
(Fido's nodemap also contains a third column, where attributes
|
|||
|
|
like HOLD, SEND-TO, PICKUP and other things are stored. These
|
|||
|
|
attributes are built into the nodemap for programming convenience
|
|||
|
|
only, they are not really part of the router per se.)
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
HOW THE ROUTER WORKS
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
At FidoNet mail time, Fido prepares the router files before
|
|||
|
|
FidoNews 6-28 Page 13 10 Jul 1989
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
making packets and outgoing phone calls. The basic net host
|
|||
|
|
routing is performed, then any routing specified by the sysop in
|
|||
|
|
route language files.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Before any routing, the table looks like this:
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
ADDRESS ROUTE-TO ATTRIBUTES
|
|||
|
|
1:1/1 1:1/1 (none)
|
|||
|
|
1:1/2 1:1/2 ...
|
|||
|
|
... ... ...
|
|||
|
|
1:125/0 1:125/0
|
|||
|
|
1:125/20 1:125/20
|
|||
|
|
1:125/111 1:125/111
|
|||
|
|
... ...
|
|||
|
|
2:500/0 2:500/0
|
|||
|
|
2:500/2 2:500/2
|
|||
|
|
... ... ...
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Basic default routing is applied, which does the FidoNet-as-we-
|
|||
|
|
know-it net and zonegate routing (see the Appendix A: DEFAULT
|
|||
|
|
ROUTING section):
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
ADDRESS ROUTE-TO ATTRIBUTES
|
|||
|
|
1:1/1 1:1/1 ...
|
|||
|
|
1:1/2 1:1/2
|
|||
|
|
... ...
|
|||
|
|
1:125/0 1:125/0
|
|||
|
|
1:125/20 1:125/0
|
|||
|
|
1:125/111 1:125/0
|
|||
|
|
... ...
|
|||
|
|
2:500/0 1:1/2
|
|||
|
|
2:500/2 1:1/2
|
|||
|
|
... ...
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
At this point Fido performs any additional routing you may have
|
|||
|
|
specified, such as overriding the routing, HOLD packets, enabling
|
|||
|
|
only certain nodes or groups of nodes per schedule, etc. Things
|
|||
|
|
like HOLD, PICKUP, SEND-TO and other basic concepts are as
|
|||
|
|
attributes within the nodemap.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
The nodemap is built on disk, and can be saved between schedules
|
|||
|
|
so that it an be used over and over; this is called a "QUICK"
|
|||
|
|
FidoNet event. It takes my Fido system mentioned above
|
|||
|
|
approximately 90 seconds to completely build the nodemap (about
|
|||
|
|
100 route language statements); subsequent "QUICK" events take a
|
|||
|
|
fraction of a second.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
PACKET CREATION
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Fido creates packets when a FidoNet schedule starts (which is
|
|||
|
|
controlled by Fido's scheduler and is outside this discussion).
|
|||
|
|
For every message in the netmail message area, Fido consults the
|
|||
|
|
nodemap, in two steps:
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
First, the actual destination (for example: 1:125/111) is looked
|
|||
|
|
up in the ADDRESS column of the nodemap. The ROUTE-TO column
|
|||
|
|
FidoNews 6-28 Page 14 10 Jul 1989
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
determines where this message goes, ie. into which packet. If
|
|||
|
|
the destination node is not found, the message is marked
|
|||
|
|
(ORPHAN).
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Secondly, Fido looks up the packet (ROUTE-TO) address (1:125/0)
|
|||
|
|
itself, in the ADDRESS column. This is done to locate the
|
|||
|
|
ATTRIBUTE bits for the destination node. If the bits indicate it
|
|||
|
|
is OK to packet this message (SEND-TO set, etc) then the packeter
|
|||
|
|
creates the packet.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
This is done for all messages in the netmail area; once all the
|
|||
|
|
packets are built then FidoNet can dial out, allow incoming
|
|||
|
|
pickups, etc.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Messages put into packets are not modified in any way; packets
|
|||
|
|
contain a copy of the original message. The post-FidoNet process
|
|||
|
|
takes care of messages that have been sent.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
FIDONET SESSION COMPLETION
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
When a FidoNet schedule is over, Fido processes packets that were
|
|||
|
|
received from other mailers and cleans up any packets it had
|
|||
|
|
created earlier.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Packets that are un-sent are merely killed; the messages that
|
|||
|
|
these packet(s) were created from still exist in the netmail
|
|||
|
|
area; when a FidoNet session start again, Fido may put the
|
|||
|
|
messages into a packet to the same destination node or possibly
|
|||
|
|
another; since packeting is done only before actual mailing the
|
|||
|
|
routing can be altered at any point up to actual successful
|
|||
|
|
transmission.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Packets that are sent, or picked up, are handled slightly
|
|||
|
|
differently. The packets themselves are deleted, but Fido once
|
|||
|
|
again refers to the router to mark the messages that comprised
|
|||
|
|
the packet as (SENT), or kills them if they were indicated
|
|||
|
|
(KILL/SENT) by the originator.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Appendix A: DEFAULT ROUTING
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Fido/FidoNet's routing is not "built-in" nor hard-coded; if it
|
|||
|
|
were not told otherwise, Fido would send messages to the
|
|||
|
|
destinations in the message itself. The routing needed to make a
|
|||
|
|
practical mailer are added as layers upon this base; the
|
|||
|
|
tradeoff is speed vs. flexibility and accuracy. (Speed is, um,
|
|||
|
|
somewhat improved over older implementations...)
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
What the real-life Fido does at FidoNet mail time is make a pass
|
|||
|
|
through the table, and fill in the "default" routing that defines
|
|||
|
|
the FidoNet topology, which is our zone:net/node with routing to
|
|||
|
|
HOSTs for nets, which goes like this:
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
-For nodes in our own net, send direct (point to
|
|||
|
|
point)
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
-For nodes in a net in our zone, outside our net,
|
|||
|
|
FidoNews 6-28 Page 15 10 Jul 1989
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
send to it's host (net/0)
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
-For nodes in a region in our zone, sent direct
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
-For nodes in another zone, send to it's zone
|
|||
|
|
host (zone:0/0)
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
The first three make sense in the network as we know it; the
|
|||
|
|
fourth requires some background.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
FidoNet's topology is based upon a gimmick: the address of the
|
|||
|
|
logical host for any net or zone is composed of the number of the
|
|||
|
|
net or zone, with the magic zero added as the least significant
|
|||
|
|
address field. A net or region host is net/0 or region/0; a
|
|||
|
|
zone host is zone:0/0. FidoNet sysops use net/0 routinely; no
|
|||
|
|
one uses zone:0/0 routinely, if at all.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
The difference is that the addressing scheme, the topology, is a
|
|||
|
|
mathematical construct, and has nothing to do with the real
|
|||
|
|
world, ie. overseas phone calls, governmental regulations,
|
|||
|
|
manufacturer incompatibilities, etc. The addressing scheme needs
|
|||
|
|
to be rigorous and provide a solid design base for all
|
|||
|
|
implementations.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
If we didn't have real-life complications like the above, never
|
|||
|
|
mind how overloaded the poor zone host computer would be, the
|
|||
|
|
mathematical model might fit the real world. Obviously it
|
|||
|
|
doesn't, and never did.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
The solution in Fido's scheme is to merely modify the default
|
|||
|
|
routing. There exists a keyword in Fido's routing language
|
|||
|
|
(called, not surprisingly, "ZoneGate") that does exactly what it
|
|||
|
|
sounds like: it routes all mail destined for another zone to any
|
|||
|
|
arbitrary node designated "zone gate".
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Zone Gates were thunk up at the now notorious "New Hampshire
|
|||
|
|
meeting" in '86 or so. The idea was to make it so that net/node
|
|||
|
|
mailers, ie. not zone-aware, could route messages destined for
|
|||
|
|
other zones. The thing was called the "IFNA Kludge", and
|
|||
|
|
consists of two parts: (1) an addressing kludge to trick the
|
|||
|
|
mailer to route the interzone message to a node in it's own zone,
|
|||
|
|
and (2) to have the full zone:net/node origination and
|
|||
|
|
destination addresses buried in the message body itself, hidden
|
|||
|
|
behind a line that began with Control-A, so that message editors
|
|||
|
|
could learn to ignore it. (For your curiosity: full address
|
|||
|
|
consists of the very first line in the message, that looks like:
|
|||
|
|
"^AINTL z:n/f z:n/f", where the first address is the destination
|
|||
|
|
node address, the second the originator.)
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
The addressing trick is: "Address the message for zone (N) to
|
|||
|
|
node 1/(N) in my zone". Node 1/(N) is designated the zone gate;
|
|||
|
|
for example, the zonegate for Europe, Zone 2, node 1/2, in the
|
|||
|
|
North American zone 1. And so on.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Fido is a registered trademark of Tom Jennings
|
|||
|
|
FidoNet is a registered trademark of Tom Jennings
|
|||
|
|
FidoNews 6-28 Page 16 10 Jul 1989
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
(Sorry, I gotta say this!)
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
NEW SOFTWARE POLICY
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
This is the new (June 1989) software policy for the Fido/FidoNet
|
|||
|
|
package. Please read it carefully.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
First, some important definitions:
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Hobbyists run BBSs for their own personal reasons. Their BBS is
|
|||
|
|
not associated with their employer or any business. How they run
|
|||
|
|
their BBS is none of my business, ie. private, public,
|
|||
|
|
subscription, collective or chattel slavery.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Commercial users are companies, corporations, proprietorships or
|
|||
|
|
any other business entities that run a BBS, either publicly or
|
|||
|
|
privately, associated with their business. "Non-profit" and "not
|
|||
|
|
for profit" organizations are included in this category.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
And here's the deal:
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
HOBBYISTS AND INDIVIDUALS: Fido/FidoNet is shareware; you can
|
|||
|
|
download the software itself, minus documentation, from the Fido
|
|||
|
|
Software BBS. There is no machine-readable documentation. (If
|
|||
|
|
you thought the version 11 docs were unwieldy ... besides I pay
|
|||
|
|
royalties to the author). I will provide no direct support.
|
|||
|
|
Hobbyists can receive the latest version on diskette plus printed
|
|||
|
|
and bound documentation for $50. If you later desire updates via
|
|||
|
|
diskette instead of download, updates (including printed errata
|
|||
|
|
sheet) cost $20 plus the original Fido Software diskette. $5
|
|||
|
|
discount on either for US ca$h payment.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
COMMERCIAL USERS: Fido/FidoNet is a usual licensable product;
|
|||
|
|
the license fee is $175, as it has been for two years. You will
|
|||
|
|
receive the latest software version, complete documentation, and
|
|||
|
|
support via the Fido Software BBS and voice telephone. (This has
|
|||
|
|
proved to be more than adequate for over two years.)
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Deals, exceptions and special arrangements can be made on a case
|
|||
|
|
by case basis. In all cases, bugs are fixed promptly, as they
|
|||
|
|
have been for five years. This is basically the policy that was
|
|||
|
|
in force through 1987. It worked pretty well, there were very
|
|||
|
|
few problems, and most of those were caused by my ambiguity.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
SHAREWARE DISTRIBUTORS: I do not wish Fido/FidoNet to be
|
|||
|
|
distributed by "shareware distributors", "libraries" or other
|
|||
|
|
similar organization. The problems are too numerous to count:
|
|||
|
|
shipping ancient, incomplete versions; missing critical files;
|
|||
|
|
giving out incorrect information regarding support; giving bad
|
|||
|
|
operating advice, etc. Never mind the fact that they are using
|
|||
|
|
the software for profit, regardless of claims to the otherwise
|
|||
|
|
and suggesting that their customers pay instead.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
|||
|
|
FidoNews 6-28 Page 17 10 Jul 1989
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Bernard Levine, Box 2404, Eugene OR 97402
|
|||
|
|
Not copyrighted -- please circulate
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Most of the arguments for and against gun bans address such
|
|||
|
|
marginal issues as the protection of hunting and target shooting
|
|||
|
|
versus the prevention of crime. They avoid the central issue,
|
|||
|
|
which is the protection of liberty against the inroads of
|
|||
|
|
tyranny. In fact the Constitution is equally silent on sport
|
|||
|
|
shooting and on crime prevention. The Constitution's Second
|
|||
|
|
Amendment guarantees our right to keep and bear arms strictly as
|
|||
|
|
the means of last resort by which a free people can and ought to
|
|||
|
|
resist tyranny, whether the threat of tyranny be foreign or
|
|||
|
|
domestic, military conquest or political subversion.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Certainly guns are dangerous. So are cars. Certainly guns, like
|
|||
|
|
cars, should be kept from the hands of the irresponsible and the
|
|||
|
|
deranged. Nonetheless guns, like cars, are an essential
|
|||
|
|
ingredient of our freedom. When the Bill of Rights states, "the
|
|||
|
|
right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
|
|||
|
|
infringed", it does not mention "sporting" arms or any chimerical
|
|||
|
|
"right" to hunt. If you are "pro-gun" but think that hunting and
|
|||
|
|
target shooting are the real issues, then you, like President
|
|||
|
|
Bush, have naively surrendered the moral high ground to the foes
|
|||
|
|
of liberty in a pusillanimous and futile attempt to appease them.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Whatever high-sounding or devious excuses they might offer, gun
|
|||
|
|
ban advocates really want to support tyranny. This is true of the
|
|||
|
|
press and broadcast moguls, who profit most from a frightened,
|
|||
|
|
passive, helpless audience. It is true of the radical
|
|||
|
|
legislators, who rightly view an armed public as the ultimate
|
|||
|
|
deterrent to their revolutionary agenda of redistributive "social
|
|||
|
|
justice". It is most especially true of police chiefs and senior
|
|||
|
|
police officials, the very men who always assume absolute power
|
|||
|
|
in the police-states that spring up whenever radical revolutions
|
|||
|
|
succeed.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
The news publishers, the radical legislators, and the police
|
|||
|
|
bureaucrats are natural allies in promoting gun bans. The advance
|
|||
|
|
of the states monopoly on power (which is what tyranny means)
|
|||
|
|
enhances their individual influence, strengthens the power of
|
|||
|
|
their organizations, and advances their shared dogma, that an
|
|||
|
|
"enlightened" police-state (namely one with them in charge) is
|
|||
|
|
more "just" to the "poor and downtrodden" than is a government
|
|||
|
|
based on individual liberty.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
By themselves the publishers, the legislators, and the police
|
|||
|
|
chiefs could not subvert the Constitution and enact gun bans.
|
|||
|
|
Therefore they drum up the support of the most readily swayed
|
|||
|
|
part of the public, all the tremulous dewy-eyed naifs who are
|
|||
|
|
ignorant of history and mystified by our political and economic
|
|||
|
|
system. These frightened followers are unable to grasp the nature
|
|||
|
|
of cause and effect, so the media have taught them that guns
|
|||
|
|
cause crime. They are unable to tell right from wrong, so they
|
|||
|
|
have been led to believe that self-defense is an "injustice to
|
|||
|
|
the poor". They cannot distinguish statesmanship from psychosis,
|
|||
|
|
so they glorify violent criminals as "free spirits" and the
|
|||
|
|
FidoNews 6-28 Page 18 10 Jul 1989
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
"shock troops of the movement". These innocents form a powerful
|
|||
|
|
team with the would-be tyrants and their journalistic apologists,
|
|||
|
|
for without an ignorant, foolish and self-destructive public that
|
|||
|
|
is intoxicated by wishful thinking and seduced by government
|
|||
|
|
programs (remember Weimar Germany?) there can be no tyranny --
|
|||
|
|
and no tyrannical gun bans.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
|||
|
|
FidoNews 6-28 Page 19 10 Jul 1989
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Notes on Net Numbering
|
|||
|
|
by Daniel Tobias
|
|||
|
|
1:380/7
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
I'll keep it short this week, since I've said about all I care to
|
|||
|
|
about the present policy debates and squabbles, and the editor
|
|||
|
|
has decreed that such talk is not desirable for FidoNews anyway.
|
|||
|
|
(I disagree; the future of FidoNet will be decided by what
|
|||
|
|
happens regarding its policy documents and internal politics, and
|
|||
|
|
as the official journal of the net, FidoNews is the best place to
|
|||
|
|
discuss such things. And, even local squabbles could be relevant
|
|||
|
|
to the global discussion if basic principles of policy get
|
|||
|
|
adjudicated therein. I do, however, agree with the editor that
|
|||
|
|
such discussion can get tiresome if it continues on one subject
|
|||
|
|
long after all viewpoints have been aired repeatedly.[ I didn't
|
|||
|
|
decree anything, I just asked for people to try to observe some
|
|||
|
|
kind of self-limits, specifically to keep interesting topics from
|
|||
|
|
being over-aired past the limits of boredom -- ed.] )
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Just one thing I'd like to comment on: Jack Decker's (otherwise
|
|||
|
|
good) article makes some strong attacks on FidoNet for failing to
|
|||
|
|
respect AlterNet's assignments of zone and net numbers, and
|
|||
|
|
criticizes zones, points, and the proposed domain addresses as
|
|||
|
|
"kludges" which shouldn't be necessary.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
I disagree. FidoNet was the entity which created the concept of
|
|||
|
|
zone, region, net, and node numbers in the first place, and they
|
|||
|
|
were created to represent geographical areas rather than
|
|||
|
|
political groupings; they're not some "public resource" that
|
|||
|
|
must be parceled out to all network entities which wish to use
|
|||
|
|
similar addressing systems. FidoNet has the right to use its own
|
|||
|
|
numbering system in whatever way it wishes, in accordance with
|
|||
|
|
its POLICY document, and without reference to whatever numbering
|
|||
|
|
scheme non-FidoNet systems may use.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Other networks (AlterNet, EggNet, LCRNet, FamilyNet, et al) have
|
|||
|
|
similar sovereignty with regard to their own numbering; they may
|
|||
|
|
use zones, regions, nets, and nodes in whatever manner THEY
|
|||
|
|
choose.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
In the absence of some agreement between the networks in
|
|||
|
|
question, no network has the right to compel any other to
|
|||
|
|
circumscribe its numbering in order to prevent conflicts between
|
|||
|
|
nodes of the two networks. After all, most of the alternative
|
|||
|
|
nets broke off from FidoNet because they wished autonomy
|
|||
|
|
regarding network policies, so it is presumptuous of them to
|
|||
|
|
expect any of the separate network entities to automatically
|
|||
|
|
bring their policy regarding number utilization into harmony with
|
|||
|
|
any other in the absence of diplomatic negotiations of some sort.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
I could declare myself to be the leader of "FishNet", and claim
|
|||
|
|
to encompass Zones 11 through 32 inclusive (for instance, Zone 17
|
|||
|
|
will cover all FishNet nodes in the western half of the Andromeda
|
|||
|
|
Galaxy), but I wouldn't expect FidoNet, AlterNet, or AnyOtherNet
|
|||
|
|
to instantly relinquish all plans to use any of these numbers in
|
|||
|
|
deference to my wishes.
|
|||
|
|
FidoNews 6-28 Page 20 10 Jul 1989
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Sure, I'd like to see harmony between the different networks, and
|
|||
|
|
a well-established gatewaying system. For this to come about,
|
|||
|
|
somebody needs to get representatives of the nets together to
|
|||
|
|
negotiate something. I hear such a thing was tried at last
|
|||
|
|
year's FidoCon, which resulted in a FidoNet/AlterNet gateway
|
|||
|
|
officially in place; however, it was later removed for some
|
|||
|
|
political reason of which I have no knowledge. That's too bad,
|
|||
|
|
and I hope talks can be established towards reinstating a gateway
|
|||
|
|
of some sort. If such gateway is determined by all parties to be
|
|||
|
|
best done through zone numbering, then numbers can be reserved
|
|||
|
|
for all participating networks by common consent.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
However, it may be best in the long run to go to a domain system,
|
|||
|
|
despite Decker's distaste for it; this best preserves the full
|
|||
|
|
autonomy of different networks, as well as (if domain addressing
|
|||
|
|
is implemented in a sufficiently flexible manner) enabling the
|
|||
|
|
possibility of future links to non-FidoNet-compatible networks.
|
|||
|
|
(UUCP gateways already exist, but they're very kludgey; I hope
|
|||
|
|
future FidoNet software allows smoother addressing of
|
|||
|
|
inter-network mail using domains.) With each independent network
|
|||
|
|
represented by its domain name, there would be no need to parcel
|
|||
|
|
out numbers to each network in a non-conflicting manner;
|
|||
|
|
assignment of zones, regions, and nets could be done by each
|
|||
|
|
network on whatever internal basis it wishes. It would then be
|
|||
|
|
clear that Zones 1 through 4 (and any other FidoNet zones that
|
|||
|
|
may be added later) are part of the single network (domain),
|
|||
|
|
FidoNet; AlterNet would have its own domain rather than being
|
|||
|
|
confusingly referred to as "Zone 7" as if it were simply another
|
|||
|
|
geographical zone of FidoNet; and the profusion of other
|
|||
|
|
networks existing or likely to sprout up in the future (a healthy
|
|||
|
|
trend, in my opinion, since it promotes experimentation in both
|
|||
|
|
technical and policy areas, and gives new sysops a wide choice of
|
|||
|
|
possible affiliations) will be able to join the "greater FidoNet"
|
|||
|
|
gatewaying complex by picking an unused domain identifier,
|
|||
|
|
without cutting the address space of any pre-existing network,
|
|||
|
|
since each network needs only one domain. "Domain-aware" mailers
|
|||
|
|
could be written which allow multiple nodelists to be present on
|
|||
|
|
one system, each keyed to a particular domain. If a message is
|
|||
|
|
addressed to a domain that you have the nodelist for, it would be
|
|||
|
|
sent directly; otherwise, it would go through a pre-arranged
|
|||
|
|
gateway.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Admittedly, domains, zones, and points ARE kludgey, and not fully
|
|||
|
|
supported by present software. I hope, however, that future
|
|||
|
|
software will be more understanding of these concepts. In a
|
|||
|
|
rapidly-changing field like computers, it is not possible to
|
|||
|
|
preserve standards forever; they must change with the times.
|
|||
|
|
The old NET/NODE addressing is insufficient for the present
|
|||
|
|
conglomeration of intercommunicating systems, and must be
|
|||
|
|
supplemented even if it produces some confusion in the
|
|||
|
|
changeover, just as the original change from single node numbers
|
|||
|
|
to NET/NODE combinations was both necessary and temporarily
|
|||
|
|
confusing.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
I'll be interested to see what develops. (It would be boring if
|
|||
|
|
it always stayed the same, wouldn't it?)
|
|||
|
|
FidoNews 6-28 Page 21 10 Jul 1989
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
|||
|
|
FidoNews 6-28 Page 22 10 Jul 1989
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
To : All
|
|||
|
|
From: Count 0 (listed as Doc Taylor), 1:363/28
|
|||
|
|
Re : Proposed POLICY 5
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
POLICY 5
|
|||
|
|
=================================================================
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
1: Complete dissolution of current Fido-Net doctrine.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Everything goes.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
2: Installation of new officers.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
I, _your_name_goes_here_, am the Chief. Big Cheese. Top
|
|||
|
|
Dog. Head honcho. UC (Universal Coordinator). GOD.
|
|||
|
|
Buddha. Mohammed. Rambo.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
3: Appeals process.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
If you don't do what I say, quit or I'll kick you out.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
4: Topology.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
From midnight until noon, you can only call someone who's
|
|||
|
|
geographically south and east of you. From noon 'til
|
|||
|
|
midnight the reverse is true. Anyone south and west or north
|
|||
|
|
and east of you is off limits. Except during ZMH... no-one
|
|||
|
|
calls ANYBODY for ANY REASON. You may not exchange mail with
|
|||
|
|
anyone farther than thiry miles from you; if you are thirty
|
|||
|
|
miles away from the nearest node you must remove yourself
|
|||
|
|
from the nodelist; if you have friends more than thirty
|
|||
|
|
miles from you... tough. See 3:. On groundhog day, though,
|
|||
|
|
anyone can call anyone, anywhere. But only if the sun is
|
|||
|
|
out. Or was out the previous Tuesday. Any questions? See
|
|||
|
|
3:.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
5: New Policy.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
There will never again be a new policy.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
6: Ratification.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
By unarcing this FidoNews you accept this policy as ratified.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
7: The Future.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Nobody likes a dictator. In time you will be killed or will
|
|||
|
|
be responsible for killing somebody else. Do the right and
|
|||
|
|
honourable thing: abdicate immediately and name as a
|
|||
|
|
successor somebody without a modem.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
8: Afterwards.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
You have a responsibility to any BBS networks forming after
|
|||
|
|
this dissolution. That responsibility is to make entirely
|
|||
|
|
FidoNews 6-28 Page 23 10 Jul 1989
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
certain that it never becomes civilized or organized past the
|
|||
|
|
point of (roughly) Policy 2.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
And that it never has policies.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Never ever.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
9: Miscellaneous.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
See 3:.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
=================================================================
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
>> In 'Oh, Jesus! Not again!' we say,
|
|||
|
|
>> Ammnen.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
> Amen.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Whichever.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
|||
|
|
FidoNews 6-28 Page 24 10 Jul 1989
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
=================================================================
|
|||
|
|
WANTED
|
|||
|
|
=================================================================
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Ham Radio Articles Needed!
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
By Brian Murrey <KB9BVN> of 1:231/30
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Over the last two months I have compiled an Amateur Radio
|
|||
|
|
newsletter called the Fidonet HAM/PACKET digest. It has been
|
|||
|
|
widely acclaimed from Zone 1 to Zone 3 and I appreciate all of
|
|||
|
|
the comments that I have received. I would also like to thank
|
|||
|
|
Tom Jennings for allowing me to use the Fidonet moniker in the
|
|||
|
|
main file header. These files are mainly a compilation of radio
|
|||
|
|
related bulletins, messages, and stories found in the HAM,
|
|||
|
|
PACKET, and SHORTWAVE echo areas. If you are interested in
|
|||
|
|
seeing them they can be file requested at 9600HST from 231/30 and
|
|||
|
|
they are named as follows. HAM0101.ARC, HAM0102.ARC, and
|
|||
|
|
HAM0103.ARC will get you the first three issues and at this time
|
|||
|
|
issues 4 and 5 are due out but I have run into a snag of sorts,
|
|||
|
|
that being little or no information coming to me to put in the
|
|||
|
|
issues. If this newsletter is to continue, I must have input,
|
|||
|
|
there is a lot going on right now in the amateur community, the
|
|||
|
|
FCC is giving our bandwidth away, the No-Code controversy
|
|||
|
|
continues here in the United States, and field day is upon us. I
|
|||
|
|
know from talking to other amateurs in Australia, Europe, and the
|
|||
|
|
US that we do not have a problem with finding something to talk
|
|||
|
|
about (hi hi). So, if you have anything that you would like to
|
|||
|
|
contribute, and I will print anything as long as it is radio
|
|||
|
|
related, send it to me. I know a lot of you have articles
|
|||
|
|
printed in the various magazines, well I don't want to infringe
|
|||
|
|
on your income, so send me those articles that no one else wants,
|
|||
|
|
I know that my stack of reject letters will end up in the
|
|||
|
|
Smithsonian Institute in the "Most Frustrated Author of All Time"
|
|||
|
|
display. I'll leave the future of this newsletter up to you, the
|
|||
|
|
worldwide amateur community. BTW, if you are a PEP
|
|||
|
|
system...these issues can still be had via FREQ from 231/161, our
|
|||
|
|
local PEP node.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Thank you.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Brian Murrey - <KB9BVN> 1:231/30 HST
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
|||
|
|
FidoNews 6-28 Page 25 10 Jul 1989
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
=================================================================
|
|||
|
|
LATEST VERSIONS
|
|||
|
|
=================================================================
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Latest Software Versions
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Bulletin Board Software
|
|||
|
|
Name Version Name Version Name Version
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Fido 12n+* Phoenix 1.3 TBBS 2.1
|
|||
|
|
Lynx 1.30 QuickBBS 2.03 TComm/TCommNet 3.4
|
|||
|
|
Opus 1.03b+ RBBS 17.2A TPBoard 5.2
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
+ Netmail capable (does not require additional mailer software)
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Network Node List Other
|
|||
|
|
Mailers Version Utilities Version Utilities Version
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
BinkleyTerm 2.20 EditNL 4.00 ARC 6.02
|
|||
|
|
D'Bridge 1.21* 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
|
|||
|
|
QM 1.0*
|
|||
|
|
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 6-28 Page 26 10 Jul 1989
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
=================================================================
|
|||
|
|
NOTICES
|
|||
|
|
=================================================================
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
The Interrupt Stack
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
14 Jul 1989
|
|||
|
|
200th anniversary of the storming of the Bastille
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
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.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
20 Jul 1989
|
|||
|
|
Twentieth anniversary of Neil Armstrong's first moonwalk.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
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 6-28 Page 27 10 Jul 1989
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
=================================================================
|
|||
|
|
REPORTS
|
|||
|
|
=================================================================
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Nominations and Elections Committee
|
|||
|
|
1:107/210 or 1:107/233
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
IFNA ANNUAL ELECTION BALLOT
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
RULES FOR THE ELECTION
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Only members of IFNA in good standing may vote. This ballot is
|
|||
|
|
being mailed (via Air Mail outside North America) to all such
|
|||
|
|
members as of the cut-off date of July 4, 1989. Those who were
|
|||
|
|
not members in good-standing as of that date but whose membership
|
|||
|
|
status changes between then and the ballot due date are also
|
|||
|
|
entitled to vote. Ballots may be printed from the FidoNews
|
|||
|
|
article and utilized for this purpose or in the event that the
|
|||
|
|
official mailed ballot becomes lost.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Ballots may be submitted in one of two methods: They may be
|
|||
|
|
mailed to the address given below or they may be submitted by
|
|||
|
|
hand at FidoCon '89 in San Jose, California. The due date for
|
|||
|
|
mailed ballots is Noon, Thursday, August 24, 1989. Ballots to be
|
|||
|
|
handed in at FidoCon are to be done so prior to Noon, Friday
|
|||
|
|
August 25, 1989.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Any ballot received after the above cut-off dates is subject to
|
|||
|
|
invalidation.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Mailed ballots are to be sent to:
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
IFNA BALLOT
|
|||
|
|
c/o Robert C. Halvorsen, CPA
|
|||
|
|
Regency Center Suite 309
|
|||
|
|
100 Smith Ranch Road
|
|||
|
|
San Rafael, CA 94904 USA
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
The ballot is divided into two sections, one for Directors of
|
|||
|
|
IFNA and one for Bylaws Amendments. In the Directors of IFNA
|
|||
|
|
section, you may vote for six at-large directors. In addition,
|
|||
|
|
if you reside in one of the Divisions listed, you may cast one
|
|||
|
|
vote for Divisional Director for that Division only. Do not cast
|
|||
|
|
a vote for any Divisional Director position if you are not a
|
|||
|
|
resident of that Division. As no one has been officially
|
|||
|
|
nominated in accordance with the Bylaws, all votes will have to
|
|||
|
|
be in the form of write-ins of the names of the individuals you
|
|||
|
|
choose.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
In determining whether an individual has been elected, the total
|
|||
|
|
votes casts for the individual in both At-large and Divisional
|
|||
|
|
categories will be combined and analyzed, with the individual
|
|||
|
|
with the largest number of valid votes being declared the
|
|||
|
|
Divisional Director. Divisional votes cast for an individual not
|
|||
|
|
elected as Divisional Director will still count towards the
|
|||
|
|
FidoNews 6-28 Page 28 10 Jul 1989
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
position of at-large director. Therefore, DO NOT VOTE FOR THE
|
|||
|
|
SAME INDIVIDUAL IN BOTH DIVISIONAL AND AT-LARGE CATEGORIES, as
|
|||
|
|
this may nullify your ballot. Note that, if they were two
|
|||
|
|
individuals you felt qualified to be your Divisional Divisional
|
|||
|
|
Director, it would make no difference if you placed one in the
|
|||
|
|
Divisional category and one in the at-large category, or
|
|||
|
|
vice-versa.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
For the Bylaws Amendments Section, simply vote either YAY or NAY
|
|||
|
|
to accept or reject the amendment, respectively.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Voting results will remain confidential, but you must enter your
|
|||
|
|
name and address for verification purposes.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
It is not necessary to answer every question.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
DIRECTORS OF IFNA
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Divisional Directors VOTE ONLY FOR YOUR DIVISION!
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Division 11 _______________________________
|
|||
|
|
IL, IN, KY, MI, OH,
|
|||
|
|
WI, Ont, Que, PEI,
|
|||
|
|
NovaS, NBrun, Newf.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Division 13 _______________________________
|
|||
|
|
NY, NJ, DE, MD, VA,
|
|||
|
|
PA, WV
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Division 15 _______________________________
|
|||
|
|
AZ, CO, NM, UT, WY
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Division 17 _Kathi Crockett (Elected)______
|
|||
|
|
AK, ID, MT, OR, WA,
|
|||
|
|
Alb, BC, Sask, Man,
|
|||
|
|
Yuk, NWT
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Division 19 _______________________________
|
|||
|
|
AR, LA, OK, TX,
|
|||
|
|
Latin Amer.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Division 3 _______________________________
|
|||
|
|
Australia, New Zealand
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
At-Large Directors [Vote for no more than six (6)]:
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
(1) ______________________________
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
(2) ______________________________
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
(3) ______________________________
|
|||
|
|
FidoNews 6-28 Page 29 10 Jul 1989
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
(4) ______________________________
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
(5) ______________________________
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
(6) ______________________________
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
BYLAWS AMENDMENTS BALLOT
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
As no proposed amendments were submitted by the membership in the
|
|||
|
|
manner as stipulated in the Bylaws, the only bylaws amendments to
|
|||
|
|
be voted are three that were implmented by the Board of Directors
|
|||
|
|
in St. Louis in February of this year. According to Bylaw 41-f,
|
|||
|
|
the "By-Laws may be changed by a two-thirds majority vote of the
|
|||
|
|
Board of Directors. Such changes implemented by the Board of
|
|||
|
|
Directors must appear on the next Ballot for confirmation by the
|
|||
|
|
membership, but shall be in effect during the interim period."
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
As indicated above, these three bylaws have been in effect since
|
|||
|
|
February; you are to vote for or against ratification.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
46. Official communications of the Board of Directors or
|
|||
|
|
Executive Commitee may be presented, in lieu of written form
|
|||
|
|
as called for within these bylaws, through electronic means,
|
|||
|
|
providing such means are secure and their authenticity
|
|||
|
|
verifiable.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
YEA _________ NAY _________
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
47. Any elected or appointed official may be removed for failure
|
|||
|
|
to adequately perform the assigned duties as defined by the
|
|||
|
|
Board of Directors.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
(a) The Chairman of the Board of Directors may recommend the
|
|||
|
|
removal of an appointed official to the Board of Directors.
|
|||
|
|
The removal will be effective upon a majority vote of those
|
|||
|
|
voting at a properly convened meeting of the Board or by
|
|||
|
|
electronic mail or by postal mail.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
(b) The Executive Committee may recommend the removal of a
|
|||
|
|
Director or elected official to the Board of Directors. The
|
|||
|
|
removal will be effective upon a majority vote of those
|
|||
|
|
voting at a properly convened meeting of the Board or by
|
|||
|
|
electronic mail or by postal mail.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
YEA _________ NAY _________
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
48. An Alternate replacing a Director temporarily or permanently
|
|||
|
|
assumes the seat on the Board of Directors but no other
|
|||
|
|
elected or appointed position.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
YEA _________ NAY _________
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
FidoNews 6-28 Page 30 10 Jul 1989
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
IMPORTANT! The following section must be completed for
|
|||
|
|
verification purposes!
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Name: __________________________ Division of Residence ______
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
City: __________________________ Zone/Net/Node ______________
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
State/Country ________________________
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
=================================================================
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
From: Nominations and Elections Committee
|
|||
|
|
To: All IFNA Members
|
|||
|
|
Date: July 8, 1989
|
|||
|
|
Subj: Additional Info on 1989 Annual Election
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
As you will notice by reading the 1989 Annual Ballot material,
|
|||
|
|
with one exception, there have been no candidates officially
|
|||
|
|
nominated by the membership. The one exception is Kathi Crockett
|
|||
|
|
who, being the only official nominee for Division 17, has been
|
|||
|
|
declared elected in accordance with provisions in the bylaws.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
In order to assist you in the election process, the Nominations
|
|||
|
|
and Elections Committee solicited volunteers via FidoNews and
|
|||
|
|
other mediums. Those listed below have expressed interest in
|
|||
|
|
serving FidoNet as a Director of IFNA. The Committee has, in
|
|||
|
|
some cases, listed known qualifications. However, it should be
|
|||
|
|
noted that those without qualifications listed should not be
|
|||
|
|
considered as lesser candidates; we suggest that you investigate
|
|||
|
|
through various forums to determine those who may best represent
|
|||
|
|
your interests.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
To this end, the committee will solicit a short statement from
|
|||
|
|
each volunteer which we expect to publish in an upcoming issue of
|
|||
|
|
FidoNews.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
The Committee has not verified the qualifications of all of the
|
|||
|
|
following and it is understood that the memberships of some are
|
|||
|
|
"in process". Only those individuals marked with an asterisk
|
|||
|
|
appear in the current IFNA membership list.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Name Zone/Net/Node Division Comments
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Jerry Ablan 1:115/876 11
|
|||
|
|
*Steven Barnes 1:138/49 17 Incumbent
|
|||
|
|
Tom Hendricks 1:261/66 13 Present Alternate
|
|||
|
|
Bor-Long Lin, MD 3:56/1 12 R56 EC
|
|||
|
|
Carl Linden 1:10/1 10
|
|||
|
|
John Rafuse 1:12/700 11 R12 EC
|
|||
|
|
*John Roberts 1:147/14 19
|
|||
|
|
*Kris Veitch 1:147/30 19 Treasurer, Incumbent
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
FidoNews 6-28 Page 31 10 Jul 1989
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Our apologies to anyone who may have been inadvertantly left out
|
|||
|
|
of this list. Please contact the Committee immediately at
|
|||
|
|
1:107/210 if you are an IFNA member who wishes to be a candidate.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
|||
|
|
FidoNews 6-28 Page 32 10 Jul 1989
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
OFFICERS OF THE INTERNATIONAL FIDONET ASSOCIATION
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Mort Sternheim 1:321/109 Chairman of the Board
|
|||
|
|
Bob Rudolph 1:261/628 President
|
|||
|
|
Matt Whelan 3:3/1 Vice President
|
|||
|
|
Bill Bolton 3:711/403 Vice President-Technical Coordinator
|
|||
|
|
Linda Grennan 1:147/1 Secretary
|
|||
|
|
Kris Veitch 1:147/30 Treasurer
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
IFNA COMMITTEE AND BOARD CHAIRS
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Administration and Finance Mark Grennan 1:147/1
|
|||
|
|
Board of Directors Mort Sternheim 1:321/109
|
|||
|
|
Bylaws Don Daniels 1:107/210
|
|||
|
|
Ethics Vic Hill 1:147/4
|
|||
|
|
Executive Committee Bob Rudolph 1:261/628
|
|||
|
|
International Affairs Rob Gonsalves 2:500/1
|
|||
|
|
Membership Services David Drexler 1:147/47
|
|||
|
|
Nominations & Elections David Melnick 1:107/233
|
|||
|
|
Public Affairs David Drexler 1:147/47
|
|||
|
|
Publications Rick Siegel 1:107/27
|
|||
|
|
Security & Individual Rights Jim Cannell 1:143/21
|
|||
|
|
Technical Standards Rick Moore 1:115/333
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
IFNA BOARD OF DIRECTORS
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
DIVISION AT-LARGE
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
10 Courtney Harris 1:102/732 Don Daniels 1:107/210
|
|||
|
|
11 Bill Allbritten 1:11/301 Mort Sternheim 1:321/109
|
|||
|
|
12 Bill Bolton 3:711/403 Mark Grennan 1:147/1
|
|||
|
|
13 Irene Henderson 1:107/9 (vacant)
|
|||
|
|
14 Ken Kaplan 1:100/22 Ted Polczyinski 1:154/5
|
|||
|
|
15 Scott Miller 1:128/12 Matt Whelan 3:3/1
|
|||
|
|
16 Ivan Schaffel 1:141/390 Robert Rudolph 1:261/628
|
|||
|
|
17 Neal Curtin 1:343/1 Steve Jordan 1:206/2871
|
|||
|
|
18 Andrew Adler 1:135/47 Kris Veitch 1:147/30
|
|||
|
|
19 David Drexler 1:147/47 (vacant)
|
|||
|
|
2 Henk Wevers 2:500/1 David Melnik 1:107/233
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
|||
|
|
FidoNews 6-28 Page 33 10 Jul 1989
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
__
|
|||
|
|
The World's First / \
|
|||
|
|
BBS Network /|oo \
|
|||
|
|
* FidoNet * (_| /_)
|
|||
|
|
FidoCon '89 in San Jose, California _`@/_ \ _
|
|||
|
|
at The Holiday Inn Park Plaza | | \ \\
|
|||
|
|
August 24-27, 1989 | (*) | \ ))
|
|||
|
|
______ |__U__| / \//
|
|||
|
|
/ Fido \ _//|| _\ /
|
|||
|
|
(________) (_/(_|(____/ (tm)
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
R E G I S T R A T I O N F O R M
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Name: _______________________________________________________
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Address: ____________________________________________________
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
City: _______________________ State: ____ Zip: ______________
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Country: ____________________________________________________
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Phone Numbers:
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Day: ________________________________________________________
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Evening: ____________________________________________________
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Data: _______________________________________________________
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Zone:Net/
|
|||
|
|
Node.Point: ___________________________________________________
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Your BBS Name: ________________________________________________
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
BBS Software: _____________________ Mailer: ___________________
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Modem Brand: _____________________ Speed: ____________________
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
At what hotel will you be staying: ____________________________
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Do you want an in room point? (Holiday Inn only) ______________
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Are you a Sysop? _____________
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Are you an IFNA Member? ______
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Additional Guests: __________
|
|||
|
|
(not attending conferences)
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Do you have any special requirements? (Sign Language translation,
|
|||
|
|
handicapped, etc.)
|
|||
|
|
FidoNews 6-28 Page 34 10 Jul 1989
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
______________________________________________________
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Comments: ______________________________________________________
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
______________________________________________________
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
______________________________________________________
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Costs How Many? Cost
|
|||
|
|
--------------------------- -------- -------
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Conference fee $60 .................... ________ _______
|
|||
|
|
($75.00 after July 15)
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Friday Banquet $30.00 ................ ________ _______
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
======== =======
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Totals ................................ ________ _______
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
You may pay by Check, Money Order, or Credit Card. Please send
|
|||
|
|
no cash. All monies must be in U.S. Funds. Checks should be
|
|||
|
|
made out to: "FidoCon '89"
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
This form should be completed and mailed to:
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Silicon Valley FidoCon '89
|
|||
|
|
PO Box 390770
|
|||
|
|
Mountain View, CA 94039
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
You may register by Netmailing this completed form to 1:1/89 for
|
|||
|
|
processing. Rename it to ZNNNXXXX.REG where Z is your Zone
|
|||
|
|
number, N is your Net number, and X is your Node number. US Mail
|
|||
|
|
confirmation is required within 72 hours to confirm your
|
|||
|
|
registration.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
If you are paying by credit card, please include the following
|
|||
|
|
information. For your own security, do not route any message
|
|||
|
|
with your credit card number on it. Crash it directly to 1:1/89.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Master Card _______ Visa ________
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Credit Card Number _____________________________________________
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Expiration Date ________________________________________________
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Signature ______________________________________________________
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
No credit card registrations will be accepted without a valid
|
|||
|
|
FidoNews 6-28 Page 35 10 Jul 1989
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
signature.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Rooms at the Holiday Inn may be reserved by calling the Hotel at
|
|||
|
|
408-998-0400, and mentioning that you are with FidoCon. Rooms
|
|||
|
|
are $60.00 per night double occupancy. Additional rollaways are
|
|||
|
|
available for $10.00 per night. To obtain these rates you must
|
|||
|
|
register before July 15.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
The official FidoCon '89 airline is American Airlines. You can
|
|||
|
|
receive either a 5% reduction in supersaver fares or a 40%
|
|||
|
|
reduction in the regular day coach fare. San Jose is an American
|
|||
|
|
Airlines hub with direct flights to most major cities. When
|
|||
|
|
making reservations, you must call American's reservation number,
|
|||
|
|
800-433-1790, and reference Star number S0289VM.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
The official FidoCon '89 automobile rental agency is Alamo Rent a
|
|||
|
|
Car. Rates are as described below. All rates include automatic
|
|||
|
|
transmission, air conditioning, radio, and unlimited mileage.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Economy car (example: Geo Metro) $32 day/$109 week.
|
|||
|
|
Compact car (example: Chevy Cavalier) $34 day/$120 week.
|
|||
|
|
Midsize car (example: Pontiac Grand Am) $36 day/$135 week.
|
|||
|
|
Standard car (example: Buick Regal) $38 day/$165 week.
|
|||
|
|
Luxury car (example: Buick LeSabre) $40 day/$239 week.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
To take advantage of this rate, call Alamo at 1-800-327-9633 and
|
|||
|
|
request the convention rate. Mention FidoCon '89, the location
|
|||
|
|
and dates.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
|||
|
|
FidoNews 6-28 Page 36 10 Jul 1989
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
__
|
|||
|
|
The World's First / \
|
|||
|
|
BBS Network /|oo \
|
|||
|
|
* FidoNet * (_| /_)
|
|||
|
|
_`@/_ \ _
|
|||
|
|
| | \ \\
|
|||
|
|
| (*) | \ ))
|
|||
|
|
______ |__U__| / \//
|
|||
|
|
/ Fido \ _//|| _\ /
|
|||
|
|
(________) (_/(_|(____/ (tm)
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Membership for the International FidoNet Association
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Membership in IFNA is open to any individual or organization that
|
|||
|
|
pays a specified annual membership fee. IFNA serves the
|
|||
|
|
international FidoNet-compatible electronic mail community to
|
|||
|
|
increase worldwide communications.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Member Name _______________________________ Date _______________
|
|||
|
|
Address _________________________________________________________
|
|||
|
|
City ____________________________________________________________
|
|||
|
|
State ________________________________ Zip _____________________
|
|||
|
|
Country _________________________________________________________
|
|||
|
|
Home Phone (Voice) ______________________________________________
|
|||
|
|
Work Phone (Voice) ______________________________________________
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Zone:Net/Node Number ____________________________________________
|
|||
|
|
BBS Name ________________________________________________________
|
|||
|
|
BBS Phone Number ________________________________________________
|
|||
|
|
Baud Rates Supported ____________________________________________
|
|||
|
|
Board Restrictions ______________________________________________
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Your Special Interests __________________________________________
|
|||
|
|
_________________________________________________________________
|
|||
|
|
_________________________________________________________________
|
|||
|
|
In what areas would you be willing to help in FidoNet? __________
|
|||
|
|
_________________________________________________________________
|
|||
|
|
_________________________________________________________________
|
|||
|
|
Send this membership form and a check or money order for $25 in
|
|||
|
|
US Funds to:
|
|||
|
|
International FidoNet Association
|
|||
|
|
PO Box 41143
|
|||
|
|
St Louis, Missouri 63141
|
|||
|
|
USA
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Thank you for your membership! Your participation will help to
|
|||
|
|
insure the future of FidoNet.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
Please NOTE that IFNA is a general not-for-profit organization
|
|||
|
|
and Articles of Association and By-Laws were adopted by the
|
|||
|
|
membership in January 1987. The second elected Board of Directors
|
|||
|
|
was filled in August 1988. The IFNA Echomail Conference has been
|
|||
|
|
established on FidoNet to assist the Board. We welcome your
|
|||
|
|
input to this Conference.
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
|
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
|||
|
|
|