informis/textfiles
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
textfiles/bbs/FIDONET/FIDONEWS/fido0703.nws

1113 lines
55 KiB
Plaintext
Raw Permalink Normal View History

Initial commit
2021-04-15 13:31:59 -05:00
Volume 7, Number 3 15 January 1990
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| _ |
| / \ |
| /|oo \ |
| - FidoNews - (_| /_) |
| _`@/_ \ _ |
| International | | \ \\ |
| FidoNet Association | (*) | \ )) |
| Newsletter ______ |__U__| / \// |
| / FIDO \ _//|| _\ / |
| (________) (_/(_|(____/ |
| (jm) |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Editor in Chief: Vince Perriello
Editors Emeritii: Dale Lovell
Thom Henderson
Chief Procrastinator Emeritus: Tom Jennings
FidoNews is published weekly by the International FidoNet
Association as its official newsletter. You are encouraged to
submit articles for publication in FidoNews. Article submission
standards are contained in the file ARTSPEC.DOC, available from
node 1:1/1. 1:1/1 is a Continuous Mail system, available for
network mail 24 hours a day.
Copyright 1989 by the International FidoNet Association. All
rights reserved. Duplication and/or distribution permitted for
noncommercial purposes only. For use in other circumstances,
please contact IFNA at (314) 576-4067. IFNA may also be contacted
at PO Box 41143, St. Louis, MO 63141.
Fido and FidoNet are registered trademarks of Tom Jennings of
Fido Software, 164 Shipley Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94107 and
are used with permission.
We don't necessarily agree with the contents of every article
published here. Most of these materials are unsolicited. No
article submitted by a FidoNet SysOp will be rejected if it is
properly attributed and legally acceptable. We will publish
every responsible submission received.
Table of Contents
1. ARTICLES ................................................. 1
PARALEGAL Echo ........................................... 1
The IGP, or Let's Destroy Othernets ...................... 2
Quo Vadis, FidoNet? ...................................... 12
2. LATEST VERSIONS .......................................... 19
Latest Software Versions ................................. 19
3. NOTICES .................................................. 22
The Interrupt Stack ...................................... 22
FidoNews 7-03 Page 1 15 Jan 1990
=================================================================
ARTICLES
=================================================================
Loel Larzelere
1:226/70.1
The PARALEGAL Echo
Some of you who have checked the echos that are available on the
backbone since the first of the year may have noticed the new
PARALEGAL echo. This echo is (primarily) for legal assistants,
paralegals and others who work as support staff for attorneys.
I've felt that it is important for paralegals to have a place to
meet and share ideas. Our concerns are sometimes very much
different than those of the attorney's we might work for. This
may be surprizing, since a paralegal today will do almost
everything that an attorney does except to represent a client in
court. In fact, in a largely "paperwork practice" such as wills
and estates, an attorney will likely sign on as representation,
and then turn the whole estate over to the paralegal to
administer.
In many areas a paralegal has more experience than an attorney.
This works out best for everyone as it allows the attorney to do
what s/he does best, while the paralegal does what s/he does
best.
The PARALEGAL echo hopes to bring together those who work in the
profession to share our problems and experiences. The echo
originates from 1:226/180 and is on the backbone. NetMail to
either 1:226/70 or 1:226/180 will get to me should you have any
questions. I am happy to be the moderator of this echo, and hope
that all participants will have an enjoyable time.
~~\ Loel /~~
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 7-03 Page 2 15 Jan 1990
Joe Lindstrom
Fidonet 1:134/55
Network 8:7500/55, 8:7500/9600, 8:75/0
Why Does FidoNet Dislike Othernets?
===================================
Perhaps FidoNet doesn't have a problem with Othernets.
Perhaps certain MEMBERS of FidoNet have problems with Othernets.
Although I cannot for the life of me think why.
My name is Joe Lindstrom. I run "Farpoint Station VHST" BBS
here in Calgary Alberta Canada. My node numbers are shown above,
the last two are administrative numbers denoting my
responsibilities as Net Echo Coordinator for Net 7500 and as
Regional Coordinator for Region 75 (Canada + Alaska).
In FidoNews Issue 651, an article by Tim Pearson of node
1:286/703 appeared. It focused on a new document called the
InterNetwork Gateway Policy. His article and the Policy itself
are SEVERELY flawed, and operate on the basis that FidoNet is the
ONLY TRUE NETWORK and that all others are merely sham,
fly-by-night operations. The following appeared near the bottom
of page 6:
"The problem is compounded when more than one other network
attempts to use the same illicit zone number."
Why is a zone number not used by FidoNet deemed "illicit"?
Are we members of othernets criminals of some variety? And if
so, what is our crime? Refusal to think of FidoNet as "the only
way to fly"?
This policy attempts to "smoke one past us" (sorry, I rented
"Weekend At Bernie's" last night). On the surface, it appears to
openly embrace othernets, and seems to want to implement a policy
that will further the goal of more open communications between
FidoNet and othernets. As anyone here in Calgary can tell you,
this has been MY fervent goal for quite some time. As an
example, I can point to a few "shared" echo conferences between
FidoNet Net 134 and The Network Net 7500. We will, hopefully,
reach an agreement whereby we'll be allowing existing echoes to
be distributed by the opposite Net. Obviously, policies
regarding echo content and particularly a dispute mechanism must
be in place before we can take that step, but we are working on
it. Unfortunately, the Internetwork Gateway Policy threatens to
throw a monkey wrench into the whole deal.
In the paragraph "Administrative Objectives", Tim's article
laments the lack of accountability. If a user in The Network
behaves unruly in a FidoNet echo, how does FidoNet correct the
problem? The policy's solution is to appoint one person to serve
as the "official network gateway", to be fully responsible for
the actions of the members of his network. Period. The othernet
is relegated to the role of glorified POINTNET. And THAT is why
we gotta talk about it (to quote Kevin Pollak).
FidoNews 7-03 Page 3 15 Jan 1990
First off, the policy states that "FidoNet reserves the right
to reject any Other Network Gateway application for any reason."
This can, and probably will, be applied to networks that are in
some way "undesirable" to the Internetwork Coordinator. FidoNet
and Alternet have been at odds many times, is Alternet to be
disqualified because of this? "FOR ANY REASON", it says.
It gets better. "Henceforth, FidoNet will not permit
non-FidoNet addresses to appear in any addressing or routing
control fields (some current examples include: the 'From' or 'To'
address fields, the '* Origin' lines, the 'seen-by' fields, and
the '^APath' fields.) of any netmail or echomail messages
traveling on any portion of FidoNet's wide area network.
Excuse me for asking... but who the hell CARES what node
number is on the PATH line!? As I recall, the PATH lines show
the actual path taken by this message, and that REMOVING nodes
from that path was against echo policy. How exactly is anyone
being hurt by this, or by an othernet address appearing anywhere
else in a message?
If an othernet address appears, it's probably because the node
does not have a FidoNet address. He ain't in your nodelist. So
you probably ain't gonna get a reply sent to him directly, no
matter what scheme these Internetwork Policy makers come up with,
short of a radical new method of moving the mail. The policy,
therefore, outlaws such node numbers, effectively removing such
nodes from FidoNet echo conferences. Hey, if they want FidoNet
echo conferences they should join FidoNet, right?
After taking great pains to convince us that FidoNet wants to
impose no policies on members of othernets, it proceeds to do
just that. What's the scoop here?
And here I was, naively believing that this Policy wanted to
SMOOTH the path of mail between two networks. Instead, all I see
are obstacles. Need I point out that some folks are unable or
unwilling to join FidoNet? For example, I'm the NEC for Net 7500
in The Network (incidentally, for the record, we're Zone 8, and
have been for a longer period of time than RBBS-NET has). I feed
about 25 or so nodes here their mail, owing to the fact that I
have an HST modem and that I was one of the founding members of
this network and kinda inherited the job. Of these, 6 or 7 are
"private" nodes. That is, they are listed in the nodelist but do
not have a dial-in telephone number. They do not observe the
ZMH, but rather poll me regularly for my mail. Essentially, a
glorified point. Now, under this plan, these people will have to
find a willing bossnode in Net 134 if they wish to continue
getting FidoNet echo conferences. Why? Because I have a FidoNet
node number. I'm their feed. I'm soon going to be ineligle to
feed them because, as a member of both networks, I will not be
allowed to get FidoNet echomail from my Network feed. I will be
expected - nay, required - to get my Fidonet echomail from a
FidoNet source. So they'll have to find another feed, and the
only other HST's in Net 7500 also have dual identities, so this
alternate feed will have to be a 2400 baud one, thereby
FidoNews 7-03 Page 4 15 Jan 1990
multiplying their costs by a factor of six. They cannot join
FidoNet themselves because they can't observe ZMH. In other
words, they're screwed. FidoNet is slipping them the cold steel.
Here's an interesting paragraph, bottom of page 16:
"Given the above advantages (of joining BOTH networks), the FTN
Other Network must provide evidence of overriding technical or
social considerations, must show cause why these considerations
justify the establishment of a Gateway instead of merely allowing
its individual nodes to use the 'dual identity' approach, and
must satisfy FidoNet that such an arrangement will be mutually
beneficial."
Again, we're faced with "join FidoNet, or provide a damned
good explanation of why we should allow you to participate in our
echoes via a different source".
Let me explain something. Right now, The Network gets a GREAT
deal of FidoNet echomail. Messages coming in from FidoNet are
modified slightly, as are messages going out. On an outbound
message, my origin line looks something like this:
--- ZmailQ V1.10 @8:7500/55.0
* Origin: Farpoint Station VHST (8:7500/55.0)
Once it hits our gateway, presently Bob Hoffman at 1:129/34 aka
8:70/0, it gets changed as follows:
--- ZmailQ V1.10 @8:7500/55.0 & No-Origin v3.6f
# Origin: Farpoint Station VHST (8:7500/55.0)
* Origin: The Network - G Rated Family Oriented (1:129/34.0)
No fuss, no muss, it works and works well. If you gotta send
me a reply, then do so and route it to 129/34. The fact that I
COULD get the same echomail from a FidoNet source IS IRRELEVANT.
Even now, without this new policy, we've been operating under the
assumption that Bob is responsible for messages generating in The
Network, and has on occasion had to remove users from FidoNet
conferences. I myself have removed users from conferences on two
occasions, after being asked to do so by the conference
moderators. No problem, I understood THAT going in.
So along comes this new policy which, logically, asks for all
these things, yet at the same time actively encourages that FTN
Othernets join FidoNet as an "aka"? Failure to do so means you
can't get your FidoNet echomail from your Zone Coordinator (Bob
Hoffman), so I will soon be left with the choice of either
resigning my position as NEC of Net 7500 (thereby screwing a lot
of local nodes) or resigning my FidoNet node number (thereby
screwing MYSELF and a lot of local nodes).
FidoNews 7-03 Page 5 15 Jan 1990
There was nothing WRONG with the existing setup. But along
comes FidoNet, who, like engineers, like to change things.
Whether they need changing or not. The result of this Policy is
that The Network is teetering on the brink of utter collapse.
Bob Hoffman has issued a letter to all nodes stating that by
January 15th 1990, all Network nodes must either drop their
FidoNet aka's or be disconnected from FidoNet mail feeds. He
didn't want to make this choice, and in fact has always tried to
keep his nose OUT of our business. Network nodes are cutting
their Network ties and going FidoNet-only. FidoNet nodes are
cutting their FidoNet ties and going Network-only. This whole
thing is POLARIZING us, not bringing us together!!
So as a member of The Network and as a member of FidoNet, I
state that the Internetwork Gateway Policy, in its present form,
does far more damage to me and you than any previous FidoNet
policy to date. It is draconian, restrictive, and shows a desire
on the part of FidoNet to control all network activities, be they
FidoNet or Othernet.
All is not, however, lost. With a bit of work, and a heap of
respect for othernets, this policy COULD be reworked into
something we can live with. I'm already living with something
SIMILAR to it. I would suggest that the authors of this policy
consult with Bob Hoffman and find out exactly what it is we're
doing here that works so well, and USE IT. Don't fix what ain't
broke.
Failing that, I strongly urge that the issue be put to a vote
of all nodes. A failure to win a clear majority consensus would
indicate a preference for the status quo.
Do you really believe FidoNet will go for that, especially
with the "no vote means vote no" policy used in the IFNA vote? I
don't, but maybe they'll surprise me.
I have been working very hard to tear a few holes in the
Berlin Wall that seperates us. Here in Calgary, the issue was
compounded by the fact that when Net 7500 was formed, it was
comprised of many "undesirable" nodes (that Net 134 wanted
nothing to do with). It is a credit to BOTH Nets that we've
managed to get a bit of cooperation, and an upcoming vote in Net
134 will determine how far that cooperation is extended. I'm
confident that they will wish to continue with the echo sharing
we're doing here. The feeling here is that there are good people
in both nets, and that your preference of network should be
viewed the same as your preference for BBS software, mailer,
etc., that being one of personal preference only. We should not
discourage communications just because we happen to use different
zone numbers. I sincerely hope that this feeling is prevalent
throughout FidoNet, because I don't want to leave it. But if
leave it I must, then leave it I shall. It's your choice.
FidoNews 7-03 Page 6 15 Jan 1990
If you feel as I do, contact your *EC and MAKE YOUR FEELINGS
KNOWN! Tell him or her that you feel the Internetwork Gateway
Policy is restrictive and destructive, and should not be adopted
in its current form. It will prevent you from talking to many
people in othernets, who will simply not stand for this garbage
and will stop participating in your favorite echo conferences.
This hurts us ALL, each and every one of us.
Sincerely,
[~] Joey Philip Lindstrom, Sysop 1:134/55 & 8:7500/55 [~]
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 7-03 Page 7 15 Jan 1990
Reply on the InterNetwork Policy
Steven K. Shapiro
LoneStar CBCS
1:382/35
7:49/382
8:7102/35
99:9100/35
In the 651 issue of FidoNews, Tim Pearson 1:286/703 presented
an article regarding the adoption of an InterNetwork Policy.
Since then I have read several messages about this proposed
policy and have given consideration to it as well as some of its
ramifications.
In the 652 issue of FidoNews, Jack Decker 1:154/9 replied to
specific points of the document as well as the intent of the
FidoNet members who have proposed this policy.
I have also read several messages in various echos which are
discussing some of the ramifications of this proposed policy.
Well now it's my turn.
As you can see from my byline, I am a member of probably the 4
most commonly recognized FTNs. I joined these nets in an effort
to be able to communicate more readily with as many SysOps as I
could here in Austin. In Austin we have an organization named the
Central Texas SysOps Association (CTSA). The CTSA is a rather
lame organization whose sole purpose in life seems to be nothing
more than to bring SysOps together once a month to meet, discuss
BBS related topics, and go to the local IHOP (International House
Of Pancakes) for a snack.
Anyway, not all members of the CTSA are members of FidoNet, but
they are members of OtherNets. So, to keep in touch via netmail
and echomail with my fellow local SysOps, I joined all of the
various nets here in Austin.
So now I get 4 nodediff/nodelists every week (plus I add in an
old RBBSNet nodelist just for completeness). When I last watched
my Parselst batch program run, the statistics claimed just over
8,000 unique nodes. Hmmmm. Of that number about 6,000 were
FidoNet. Simple statistics indicate that about %75 are FidoNet,
and about %25 are OtherNets. In my book, %25 is non-trivial.
Now, when I run the QSORT program, the statistics tell me that
there are just somewhat over 4,000 unique SysOps in these nets.
That seems to indicate that a good percentage of FidoNet SysOps
desire membership in other networks in addition to FidoNet
itself. Maybe their reasons are the same as mine, maybe they
aren't. It doesn't matter what the reasons. It just matters that
for some reason FidoNet SysOps want to belong to ADDITIONAL
networks.
FidoNews 7-03 Page 8 15 Jan 1990
One thing that I noticed in all this is that unless the actual
zone was duplicated, there was no duplication of net/node
numbers. (RBBSNet and Network share zone 8, so 8:1/0 was a
duplicate last I checked). Anway, the point I am trying to make
here is that there is a very valid argument to combine every
node number from every net into a single nodelist. The list
could be broken into blocks, or domains (as some people have
started calling them).
The most recent attempt at this was the OPCN. I viewed the OPCN
as basically a phone book of nodes.
One of the arguments for the need to implement the InterNet gates
is that people want to be able to send netmail in response to
echomail. Also that echo moderators want to be able to have
control and have accountability on the part of all participants.
IE: if a message is entered by a node which has a node number
unknown to a reader, then the node which originated the message
is not accountable and should be.
I felt that the OPCN list would satisfy this concern. IE: if all
nodes in all nets were included in this list, then everyone would
be able to communicate with everyone else.
Alas the OPCN was met with tremendous opposition. So it is pretty
much evident that even though we have the ability to support this
method of addressing the situation with a single nodelist
solution, too many people are opposed to it. In my mind it was
more a political issue rather than a technical (or technological)
issue.
So now we are left with having to figure out a way to allow each
network to maintain it's autonomy. Rather than a single nodelist,
we have (had) to find a way to get all of the individual nets to
communicate in a method which was consistent, effective and
technologically possible, ie: which could be done with current
software rather than having to develop an entirely new generation
of software.
So here comes the the InterNetwork Gateway Policy Committee. I
truly believe that this committee has the best interests of all
networks at heart and was endeavoring to develop a method
whereby all of the nets could communicate in a coherent and
consistent manner.
Now, the FidoNews article itself was about 42k characters in
length. A little utility I have analysed this article and the
proposed policy and my little utility claims that there are 5092
words, in 205 sentences, with an average of 24.8 words per
sentence with an average of 5.3 characters per word yielding a
document which requires a reader to have an 18th grade education
to understand properly. Whew!
FidoNews 7-03 Page 9 15 Jan 1990
Now in all that, I found just 3 sections which I oppose, request
clarification to, or request modication of. For brevity I am
just excerpting the pertinent fragments from each article. Here
we go:
3.2 - Connectivity Only Through Mutually Recognized Gateways
------------------------------------------------------------
Henceforth, FidoNet will not permit non-FidoNet addresses to
appear in any addressing or routing control fields (Some current
examples include: the "From" or "To" address fields, the "*
Origin" lines, the "seen-by" fields, and the "^APath" fields.) of
any netmail or echomail messages traveling on any portion of
FidoNet's wide area network.
------------------------------------------------------------
Since SeenBys are non-'active' information as far as the actual
delivery of the mail is concerned, I feel that including your AKA
in a SeenBy is acceptible. ie: Suppose you enter an echo
mail message in a multinet echo such as SYSOP. Suppose a person
wants to netmail you a reply, but your primary node number is in
EggNet while his is in Network. Now suppose both of you are also
members of FidoNet, but it is not your primary network. If the
AKA's were in the SeenBys, then it would be possible for the
person who wants to netmail you a reply to do so directly via
the net common to both of you, FidoNet in this case.
Also, as moderator of the Telix echo, sometimes I wish to do a
topography analysis. I have a utility which will read the Origin
and SeenBy lines of echomail and produce a sorted listing of
the nodes which the echo traverses. If the node numbers
subordinate to the internet gate are stripped, then I cannot get
an accurate topography of the echo.
3.7 - Other Criteria (FTN Other Networks)
-----------------------------------------
Given the above advantages, the FTN Other Network must
provide evidence of overriding technical or social
considerations, must show cause why these considerations justify
the establishment of a Gateway instead of merely allowing its
individual nodes to use the "dual identity" approach, and must
satisfy FidoNet that such an arrangement will be mutually
beneficial.
-----------------------------------------
Now just what the heck is this supposed to mean anyway?
'Overriding technical or social considerations'?? What kind of
doublespeak is this? I think that this needs to be eliminated or
reworded in such a way as to eliminate the complete ambiguity of
the statement.
FidoNews 7-03 Page 10 15 Jan 1990
4.4 - FidoNet to Other Network Addressing (Netmail)
---------------------------------------------------
FidoNet netmail arriving at a Gateway with improper
Other Network addressing information must either be corrected and
forwarded to the proper Other Network address or returned to the
FidoNet sender with text inserted notifying the sender that the
message was undeliverable.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hmmm. This is interesting. Does FidoNet agree to reciprocate in
kind? IE: if I send a netmail message to the Zone 3 Zonegate and
it is of an improper format, will the zonegate notify me?
Using a US Mail example: If I send a letter to someone, but I
address it incorrectly, the post office will either forward it if
possible ie: in the case of them having a forwarding order on
file, or they will return it to me. Depending on the class of
mail, sometimes the post office will bill be for returning the
undeliverable letter back to me.
The difference between Netmail and US Mail is that when I place
a stamp on the envelope, I have purchased services from the US
Postal service. When I make a phone call to a Gateway, I have
not paid the Gateway for anything. If I make a mistake, it is
my responsibility. I feel it is unreasonable to require a
member of an amateur net to incur additional expenses for the
mistake of another individual.
I would like to see this section modified in such a way that
if a Gateway determines a netmail message to be unforwardable,
that it create a HOLD message for the node which sent the
erroneous message. If the sending node does not receive a
reply in a reasonable amount of time, it would be his
responsibility to contact the Gateway and obtain any HOLD
messages. This puts the burden on the node which sends the
undeliverable message.
I also feel that it is not the responsibility of the Gateway
to actually deliver the netmail message. All networks have a
SysOp echo which all members of the network can/should subscribe
to. I think that the Gateway should merely post a message in this
echo stating that mail has arrived for node XXX.
Thank you for your attention and consideration to this matter.
Regards,
Steve.
FidoNews 7-03 Page 11 15 Jan 1990
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 7-03 Page 12 15 Jan 1990
Mike Riddle
1:285/666.6 FidoNet
1:30102/6 FidoNet assigned Private
Net Number, (Dare I Say It?)
OPCN Listed
Quo Vadis, FidoNet?
-------------------
The recent article by Tim Pearson and accompanying draft Inter-
network Gateway Policy Document, Fido News 6:51 at 6, prompted me
to release what is perhaps a diatribe in our local community open
echo conference. At the request of some local sysops, I rein-
serted, my thoughts in the Net 285 sysops conference, and the
NC 285 asked that I prepare this article for Fido News. The NC
indicated that he did not agree with all, or even most, of what I
had said, but that criticism of any sort was preferable to blindly
jumping over a cliff (well, he didn't put it /quite/ that way, I
guess).
This article will explain what my concerns are and then include a
slightly edited text of the debate in our local echo. I speak as
one involved in telecommunications, as an operator, maintainer, and
manager, for some twenty-plus years. The last seven of them have
been in, among other areas, personal computer communications
(BBSes). I apologize in advance for the length of the following,
but after reviewing it I feel it sums up the debate, in the words
of some of the participants, much better than I could.
Please note that the concerns are NOT about the technical issues,
such as duplicates in echomail, or smooth interoperability with
other networks. The real issues are how the current coordinators
acceded to their positions, how they remain there, the management
and personal attitudes they represent within and without FidoNet,
and how subordinate sysops can, or cannot, replace a coordinator
who has not violated policy, but in whom they no longer have
confidence.
Let me say at the outset that I consider the major issue facing
Fido Net to be one of direction, both in the sense of where the
network is headed and in the sense of who is heading the network.
The recent turmoil over POLICY4, followed by the IFNA plebiscite,
and now by the draft Gateway document, lead me to wonder if very
many of the operators in FidoNet have given much thought lately to
the nature and purpose of the network they belong to. I have also
wondered if the *C structure has done the same. (The *C structure
is a convenient shorthand for coordinators at all levels. It is
not pejorative in nature.)
POLICY 4, in my own mind, started the current difficulties.
Whether or not it represents sound policy, the *C structure adopted
it outside of the recognized means. The IFNA BOD didn't adopt it,
nor did the network under the established process for amendment
contained in POLICY 3. From where I sat (assistant sysop and long-
time user), the two most controversial changes were mandatory
FidoNews 7-03 Page 13 15 Jan 1990
membership in the local net (instead of being an independent node)
and the selection of coordinators. In some cases, the exact number
is unknown, most sysops in a network were forced into the network
under POLICY 4. As a result, they never had any meaningful input
in the selection of the NC. (I know this may start a rehash of the
top-down v. bottom-up debate, but it's a real and valid concern.)
To repeat what I said at the start of the last paragraph, the
complaint has absolutely nothing to do with the wisdom of the
policy changes. The complaint is about the process of change and
what it said to many of us about the nature of the *C structure.
This arguably autocratic bureaucracy now apparently intends to
force itself onto other networks, both "Fido Technology Networks"
and others, even as the only legal structure for Fido Net is
winding up operations.
This begs the question, what happens next? Does FidoNet, the
network, continue as an unincorporated association, governed only
by control of the nodelist? How, if at all, can sysops and users,
the heart of Fido Net, have a voice in its management? Will the
degeneration (and confusion) started by alternative networks,
formed in response to perceived abuses by the *C structure,
continue?
As I say below, and as a fellow sysop says below, we need the *C
structure. Someone has to insure that the system operates in a
technically acceptable manner. Someone has to insure that
addresses remain specific to the intended system. Those someones,
however, have to be responsive, and the sysops and users they serve
have to perceive them as responsive. The following discussion
reflects some of the thoughts expressed recently in our local area.
My Comments:
FIDO702.NWS has an interesting non-cataloged article about the
proposed Internet Gateway Policy which first appeared in
FIDO651.NWS.
I say non-cataloged, since the article is on page 4 but does
not appear in the table of contents.
While specifically addressed to the *C structure's proposed
internet gateway policy document, the comments have broader
applicability. The same narrow-minded and short-sighted,
arguably ego-tripping, conduct that led to the proposed
gateway document may have led to the demise of the International
Fido Net Associate (IFNA).
Those of you who follow the "politics" have noted the recent
vote on the future of IFNA. The board of directors established
that 50% of all listed nodes would have to vote "YES"
to continue the organization. Not even 50% voted, so even
though an overwhelming majority of those voting supported the
reorganization and continuation of IFNA, the vote failed.
FidoNews 7-03 Page 14 15 Jan 1990
The Chairman of the IFNA Board, as required by the resolution
from the previous meeting and as mandated by the results of
the vote, has called a special board meeting for later this
month to WIND UP THE AFFAIRS OF THE ASSOCIATION. See the last
page FIDO702.NWS, just following the "current systems"
listing.
Hey folks! It's only a hobby. Why and how did we get to this
point? I hate to think of the potential for abuse in the
future by the self-appointed and self-perpetuating "*C"
structure if the board really goes through with this. Also,
since IFNA owns the copyright and trademark to "FIDO," and we
all use it by general permission and license from Tom
Jennings, what happens legally, if not technically, in the
future?
I may just be a doom-sayer, but I see degeneration and anarchy
if the *C's continue down their present path and no structured
organization, such as IFNA, exists to stop them.
It may be too late, but I encourage anyone who cares about the
future of this HOBBY to contact a valid board member and
suggest the vote was flawed, that the percentage of those
voting should be sufficient to do it over in a manner that
wasn't doomed to apathetic failure from the start.
***{flame off}***
To this a sysop replied:
> The same narrow-minded and short-sighted, arguably ego-
> tripping, conduct that led to the proposed gateway document
> may have led to the demise of the International Fido Net
> Associate (IFNA).
> Hey folks! It's only a hobby. Why and how did we get to
> this point....
It's unfortunate, but there are **STILL** quite a few out
there who put their own personal needs and interests ahead of
the collective needs of the network as a whole. That is the
mentality that turned Fidonet into Fight-o-net and even though
it's becoming unfashionable,it still persists.
> It may be too late, but I encourage anyone who cares about
> the future of this HOBBY to ... suggest the vote was flawed,
Unfortunately, neither 'yes' nor 'no' held the majority.
'Don't give a damn' won handily. {following from Fidonews
701}
FidoNews 7-03 Page 15 15 Jan 1990
> YES votes received: 1417
> NO votes received: 480
> Total eligible voters: 5010
Although there were some improprieties that I know of, I don't
think there was any wide-scale rigging. Some that I have
talked to are so p*ssed off at the whole scene that they
refused to participate. Also,in years past, the IFNA BOD (a
term we seldom hear anymore) gained the same reputation that
the current *C's have. To some, anarchy was the lesser evil.
A user commented:
Will somebody tell me what the big deal is? When I started
using these BBS'es, you people were doing all kinds of good
things with your networking and your file transfer. Now all
I hear is bickering and lawsuits and power-playing. If
somebody wants to be an ass, just tell him to find somebody
else's BBS to be an ass on. It's getting to be as bad as CB
radio. When I call a new BBS I can tell in about 1 minute if
it will be worth it. If the opening says "Welcome" and tells
you about all the features, I'll stay and look around. If they
start off with "Rules, NO this and NO that" then I figure the
guy is on an ego-trip and just hang the heck up.
I further commented:
> ...all sorts of good things with your networking and file
> transfers and stuff....
Charlie, the problem is that the structure ("topology" is the
current buzzword) that makes/lets it happen efficiently is,
arguably, now controlled by the ego-tripping folks we can't
seem to work with. FidoNet is broken down into Zones (North
America, Australia, Europe, etc.),Regions (Midwest, New
England, whatever), Nets (Tri-City, here in Omaha)and finally
Nodes (this BBS). There are also things called Points, which
FIDO tolerates but doesn't really like, since they normally
aren't publicly accessible BBSes. Current Policy is that the
lowest form of life in FIDO is the Sysop and associated BBS.
(Double entendre absolutely intentional.) Thus, I operate
more or less at the tolerance of the system as:
1:285/666.6.
| | | |- Point 6 (The Inns of Court)
| | |---- Node 666 (DRBBS Technical BBS)
| |-------- Net 285 (Tri-City: Omaha, CB + ?)
| | (Regions are here, but they don't mean much
| | in the traffic routing. Their main contri-
| | bution is in the (mis)management of the net)
|----------- Zone 1 (North America)
FidoNews 7-03 Page 16 15 Jan 1990
Each level above Sysop, i.e., Net, Region, and Zone, have
Coordinators.The "*C" structure, since they are referred to
as ZC, RC, and NC.
The *C structure controls the NODELIST, which is how they get
their power. If you aren't in the NODELIST, other systems
can't route to you and some systems won't accept incoming
traffic from you.
The current *C structure, in just enough places and at just
enough levels, is extremely difficult for many (mere) sysops
to work with.Imagine, to use your example, if EVERY BBS you
called started the log-on screen with RULES, RULES, DEMANDS
and RULES. You wouldn't have any place to call. If we are
to continue to network, we have to comply with the demands of
the *C structure or find a way around it.
The battle has been for control of this structure, with the
incumbents,controlling the NODELIST, wanting "top-down"
organization, and many local sysops wanting "bottom-up"
organization. Several alternative networks have sprung up,
and at least one attempt to issue an alternative nodelist with
no rules at all.
The technical problem is that the *C structure, at the least,
deconflicts addressing conflicts. There /is/ a valid reason
for it to exist, and many, perhaps most, of the *Cs are good
people, trying hard to do their(volunteer, unpaid) jobs and
please both their sysops and their 'superior' *Cs. But it
doesn't take more than a few misguided RCs, or one or two ZCs,
to ruin it all.
The International FidoNet Association has been the legal
structure for this network of hobbyists. The recent plebiscite
was directed by the IFNA Board of Directors to see if the
association should continue. At the present, it looks like
it will cease operations, leaving FIDONET, the network, as an
unincorporated association of individuals with only"POLICY"
as rules. That would make it a virtual fiefdom of the *C
structure and further anarchy (and probably technical problems
with the network) will likely follow.
What does this mean to the average local BBS user? Not much
unless you do echomail, such as the CP/M Technical Echo on
this BBS, or the Genealogy Echo on Friends, or the MJCN Echo
on Firm Foundation, or the Amiga Echos, or .... The routing
for those is difficult enough at present, and it will probably
get worse. The NETMAIL, for those who use it, might get all
messed up.
Then maybe some of us are doomsayers and the net will continue
to function perfectly--with sometimes self-appointed czars in
charge. Perestroika is succeeding in Eastern Europe, but
failing in FIDONET Zone 1.
FidoNews 7-03 Page 17 15 Jan 1990
A sysop replied:
> The second is a reply from a user (remember them) ...
We sysops (myself included, sometimes) tend to forget that
it's really the USERS, and not us who make a BBS what it is.
Carry this one level upward, and ... Let's face it, without
users, we are nothing. If someone isn't operating his/her
system to the benefit of the users,he/she might as well just
pull the plug. Everybody knows what happens when a sysop
behaves like a jerk -- word gets out and he soon ends up
counting his callers on one hand with fingers left over.
> many, perhaps most, of the *Cs are good people, trying hard
> to do their (volunteer, unpaid) jobs and please ...
Yes! I know a lot of damn good people who are *C's in
Fidonet. Names such as George Peace, Fred Armantrout,
Merrilyn Vaughan, and Ted Polczynski (sp?) come to mind
immediately and there are others.These are people who will do
almost anything to help another sysop,in his/her net or out
of it, to keep things running smoothly. I've had people such
as these send me test messages (at their own expense)across
the country to help get two modems talking, and send countless
dumps and logs to help debug a quirky dupe-loop. This is what
a coordinator is supposed to be. A lot of Fidonet sysops
speak very highly of their coordinators, and they have good
reasons for doing so.
What seems like interminable *C bashing is not without cause,
how-ever. From what I have seen it's almost always aimed at
those who abused their positions. I would think that the *C's
would want to apply a bit of peer pressure to those who do not
operate toward the best interest of their networks.
CONCLUSION
Well folks, there you have it. My thesis is that the *C structure,
for what I am sure were, to them, good reasons, has become
nonsupportive of the network they serve. They have forced
managerial changes on the network, to the point where an overwhelm-
ing majority said "the hell with it" in the IFNA vote. Sysops who
really care are joining alternative networks. In response, the *C
structure is floating more ideas to consolidate their power over
whoever is left.
I sincerely hope I've got it all wrong, but . . . . I would
appreciate knowing comments from those of you who have been around
longer than I, who perhaps can put everything in a better perspec-
tive. Until then, Quo Vadis, Fido Net ?
FidoNews 7-03 Page 18 15 Jan 1990
[quo vadis: Latin, "where are you going?"]
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 7-03 Page 19 15 Jan 1990
=================================================================
LATEST VERSIONS
=================================================================
Latest Software Versions
MS-DOS Systems
--------------
Bulletin Board Software
Name Version Name Version Name Version
Fido 12q+ Phoenix 1.3 TBBS 2.1
Lynx 1.30 QuickBBS 2.61* TComm/TCommNet 3.4
Kitten 2.16 RBBS 17.2B TPBoard 6.0
Opus 1.03b+ RBBSmail 17.2 Wildcat! 2.10*
Network Node List Other
Mailers Version Utilities Version Utilities Version
BinkleyTerm 2.30 EditNL 4.00 ARC 6.02
D'Bridge 1.30* MakeNL 2.20 ARCA06 2.20*
Dutchie 2.90C ParseList 1.30 ARCmail 2.0
FrontDoor 1.99b* Prune 1.40 ConfMail 4.00
PRENM 1.47 SysNL 3.01* EMM 2.02
SEAdog 4.51b XlatList 2.90 Gmail 2.01
XlaxDiff 2.32 GROUP 2.16
XlaxNode 2.32 GUS 1.30*
LHARC 1.13
MSG 4.0
MSGED 1.99
PK[UN]ZIP 1.02*
QM 1.0
QSORT 4.03
StarLink 1.01
TCOMMail 2.2
TMail 1.12
TPBNetEd 3.2
UFGATE 1.03
XRS 3.10
ZmailQ 1.10*
Macintosh
---------
Bulletin Board Software Network Mailers Other Utilities
Name Version Name Version Name Version
Red Ryder Host v2.1b3 Macpoint 0.91* MacArc 0.04
Mansion 7.12 Tabby 2.1 ArcMac 1.3
WWIV (Mac) 3.0 StuffIt 1.51
FidoNews 7-03 Page 20 15 Jan 1990
TImport 1.331
TExport 1.32
Timestamp 1.6
Tset 1.3
Timestart 1.1
Tally 1.1
Mehitabel 1.2
Archie 1.60
Jennifer 0.25b2g
Numberizer 1.5c
MessageEdit 1.0
Mantissa 1.0
PreStamp 2.01
R.PreStamp 2.01
Saphire 2.1t
Epistle II 1.01
Import 2.52
Export 2.54
Sundial 2.1
AreaFix 1.1
Probe 0.052
Terminator 1.1
TMM 4.0b
UNZIP 1.01*
Amiga
-----
Bulletin Board Software Network Mailers Other Utilities
Name Version Name Version Name Version
Paragon 2.00+* BinkleyTerm 1.00 AmigArc 0.23
TrapDoor 1.11 booz 1.01
WelMat 0.35* ConfMail 1.10
ChameleonEdit 0.10
Lharc 1.00*
ParseLst 1.30
PkAX 1.00
RMB 1.30
UNzip 0.86
Zoo 2.00
Atari ST
--------
Bulletin Board Software Network Mailer Other Utilities
Name Version Name Version Name Version
FIDOdoor/ST 1.5c* BinkleyTerm 1.03g3 ConfMail 1.00
Pandora BBS 2.41c The BOX 1.20 ParseList 1.30
QuickBBS/ST 0.40 ARC 6.02*
GS Point 0.61 LHARC 0.51
FidoNews 7-03 Page 21 15 Jan 1990
PKUNZIP 1.10
MSGED 1.96S
SRENUM 6.2
Trenum 0.10
OMMM 1.40
+ Netmail capable (does not require additional mailer software)
* Recently changed
Utility authors: Please help keep this list up to date by
reporting new versions to 1:1/1. It is not our intent to list
all utilities here, only those which verge on necessity.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 7-03 Page 22 15 Jan 1990
=================================================================
NOTICES
=================================================================
The Interrupt Stack
1 Feb 1990
Deadline for IFNA Policy and Bylaws election
5 Jun 1990
David Dodell's 33rd Birthday
5 Oct 1990
21st Anniversary of "Monty Python's Flying Circus"
If you have something which you would like to see on this
calendar, please send a message to FidoNet node 1:1/1.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 7-03 Page 23 15 Jan 1990
OFFICERS OF THE INTERNATIONAL FIDONET ASSOCIATION
Thom Henderson 1:107/528 Chairman of the Board
Les Kooyman 1:204/501 President
Fabian Gordon 1:107/323 Vice President
Bill Bolton 3:3/0 Vice President-Technical Coordinator
Kris Veitch 1:147/30 Secretary
Kris Veitch 1:147/30 Treasurer
IFNA COMMITTEE AND BOARD CHAIRS
Administration and Finance *
By-laws and Rules John Roberts 1:385/49
Executive Committee (Pres) Les Kooyman 1:204/501
International Affairs *
Membership Services Jim Vaughan 1:226/300
Nominations and Elections Steve Bonine 1:1/0
Public Affairs David Drexler 1:147/30.20
Publications Irene Henderson 1:107/9
Technical Standards Rick Moore 1:115/333
Ethics *
Security and Privacy *
Grievances *
* Position in abeyance pending reorganization
IFNA BOARD OF DIRECTORS
DIVISION AT-LARGE
10 Courtney Harris 1:102/732 Don Daniels 1:107/210
11 John Rafuse 1:12/900 Phil Buonomo 1:107/583
12 Bill Bolton 3:711/403 Mark Hawthorne 1:107/238
13 Fabian Gordon 1:107/323 Tom Jennings 1:125/111
14 Ken Kaplan 1:100/22 Irene Henderson 1:107/509
15 Kevin McNeil 1:128/45 Steve Jordan 1:206/2871
16 Ivan Schaffel 1:141/390 Robert Rudolph 1:261/628
17 Kathi Crockett 1:134/30 Dave Melnik 1:107/233
18 Andrew Adler 1:135/47 Jim Hruby 1:107/536
19 Kris Veitch 1:147/30 Burt Juda 1:107/528
2 Henk Wevers 2:500/1 Karl Schinke 1:107/516
3 Matt Whelan 3:54/99 John Roberts 1:147/14
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Reference in New Issue Copy Permalink