1595 lines
73 KiB
Plaintext
1595 lines
73 KiB
Plaintext
![]() |
F I D O N E W S -- | Vol. 8 No. 52 (30 December 1991)
|
|||
|
The newsletter of the |
|
|||
|
FidoNet BBS community | Published by:
|
|||
|
_ |
|
|||
|
/ \ | "FidoNews" BBS
|
|||
|
/|oo \ | (415)-863-2739
|
|||
|
(_| /_) | FidoNet 1:1/1
|
|||
|
_`@/_ \ _ | Internet:
|
|||
|
| | \ \\ | fidonews@fidonews.fidonet.org
|
|||
|
| (*) | \ )) |
|
|||
|
|__U__| / \// | Editors:
|
|||
|
_//|| _\ / | Tom Jennings
|
|||
|
(_/(_|(____/ | Tim Pozar
|
|||
|
(jm) |
|
|||
|
----------------------------+---------------------------------------
|
|||
|
Published weekly by and for the Members of the FidoNet international
|
|||
|
amateur network. Copyright 1991, Fido Software. All rights reserved.
|
|||
|
Duplication and/or distribution permitted for noncommercial purposes
|
|||
|
only. For use in other circumstances, please contact FidoNews.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Paper price: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $5.00US
|
|||
|
Electronic Price: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . free!
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
For more information about FidoNews refer to the end of this file.
|
|||
|
--------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Table of Contents
|
|||
|
1. EDITORIAL ..................................................... 1
|
|||
|
Editorial: Here we go again ................................... 1
|
|||
|
2. ARTICLES ...................................................... 2
|
|||
|
FidoNews! submission policy to change! ........................ 2
|
|||
|
FidoNet program version list info ............................. 3
|
|||
|
Wanted: Dovemail Beta Testers ................................. 4
|
|||
|
Area Code Chart, revised, for the postal-abbrev. impaired ..... 9
|
|||
|
Welfare Conference ............................................ 10
|
|||
|
The Play-By-Mail Echo Part II ................................. 11
|
|||
|
NEW PARENTS NETWORK AVAILABLE TO USA's PARENTS ................ 11
|
|||
|
FidoNet <==> Packet Gateway ................................... 13
|
|||
|
Brigadoon Village Network ..................................... 14
|
|||
|
FidoNet Technical Specification Problem ....................... 15
|
|||
|
3. RANTS AND FLAMES .............................................. 19
|
|||
|
Something Rotten in The Skeptic Tank .......................... 19
|
|||
|
Housebroken II ................................................ 21
|
|||
|
A rebuttal to a rebuttal ...................................... 22
|
|||
|
Meat Pies, Fosters Beer and Universal Mayhem .................. 22
|
|||
|
4. LATEST VERSIONS ............................................... 24
|
|||
|
Latest Greatest Software Versions ............................. 24
|
|||
|
5. FIDONEWS INFORMATION .......................................... 30
|
|||
|
FidoNews 8-52 Page 1 30 Dec 1991
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
======================================================================
|
|||
|
EDITORIAL
|
|||
|
======================================================================
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Editorial: here we go again...
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
by Tom Jennings (1:1/1)
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
There are two things of note in this issue of FidoNews! First is the
|
|||
|
revision to ARTSPEC.DOC, discussed this past summer. Portions of the
|
|||
|
revised text appear as an article, and the complete proposed revised
|
|||
|
file is also available.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Secondly, text once again appears in the RANTS AND FLAMES section. As
|
|||
|
annoying as it is, it may serve as a test for the new RESOLVING
|
|||
|
CONTROVERSIES section in FidoNews submission guidelines. If you are a
|
|||
|
regular reader of FidoNews, consider the thread of the articles leading
|
|||
|
to the ones in RANTs, and see how you think the new policy handles it.
|
|||
|
Feedback please!
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
----------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
FidoNews 8-52 Page 2 30 Dec 1991
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
======================================================================
|
|||
|
ARTICLES
|
|||
|
======================================================================
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
* ARTSPEC.DOC Changes soon...
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
As discussed (or monologued, for all the feedback I got) this past
|
|||
|
summer, the FidoNews! article submission policy, ARTSPEC.DOC, is about
|
|||
|
to be revised. It is substantially the same, with three major changes:
|
|||
|
SUBJECT MATTER tightened up, RESOLVING CONTROVERSIES added, article
|
|||
|
filenames simplified. The changed text is given below, with additions
|
|||
|
marked with |'s, and deleted text marked with $'s.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The complete new proposed policy file is available from 1:1/1 as
|
|||
|
NEWSPEC.DOC (filerequest or download) and will be delivered with all
|
|||
|
filerequests for ARTSPEC.DOC.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
All of these changes were mentioned in previous FidoNews', though I have
|
|||
|
clarified some of the specific language. Please send specific
|
|||
|
suggestions and complaints (constructive please) to me here at FidoNews.
|
|||
|
I would like to release this sometime in January 1992.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
--------------
|
|||
|
SUBJECT MATTER:
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
| Articles must be in some way related to the FidoNet, its
|
|||
|
| technology and its uses; other networks (such as uucp and the
|
|||
|
| Internet); social, ethical or legal aspects of the above; and
|
|||
|
| any other related matters. You are welcome to submit articles
|
|||
|
| on other subjects, but their inclusion is at the discretion of
|
|||
|
| the editor(s).
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
| Articles of a general commercial nature or "classified ads" for
|
|||
|
| services, equipment new or used, don't belong in FidoNews;
|
|||
|
| there are other avenues within FidoNet for commercial
|
|||
|
| transactions.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
| -----------------------
|
|||
|
| RESOLVING CONTROVERSIES:
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
| Occasionally FidoNews is presented with a dillema: a
|
|||
|
| "controversial" article generates a seemingly endless
|
|||
|
| series of responses, commentary, rebuttals, etc, and threatens
|
|||
|
| to overwhelm FidoNews. How to stop the stop the flood without
|
|||
|
| violating the editorial policy? Here is the somewhat complex
|
|||
|
| solution:
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
| If a particular article generates a cascade of responses, the
|
|||
|
| editor does two things: (1) chooses one or few of them as
|
|||
|
| representative; (2) passes them on to the original author, who
|
|||
|
| is asked to write a response within 2 weeks. The resulting
|
|||
|
| representative response(s), and the original authors response,
|
|||
|
FidoNews 8-52 Page 3 30 Dec 1991
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
| are run in the next possible FidoNews -- ONCE ONLY.
|
|||
|
| Interested parties can then pick up the torch and march with it
|
|||
|
| off the long or short pier of their choice.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
...
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
------------------
|
|||
|
WRITING GUIDELINES:
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
...
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
| * All submissions must include the author(s) name and
|
|||
|
| full contact information, so that the editor can
|
|||
|
| verify authorship if necessary. The author may request
|
|||
|
| that the article be run anonymously. The editor(s) and anyone
|
|||
|
| who comes across the above information is charged to
|
|||
|
| keep it completely confidential.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
---------------------
|
|||
|
SUBMITTING AN ARTICLE
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
...
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
| FILENAME.ART
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
| a 0 to 3 character file type, always "ART"
|
|||
|
|
|
|||
|
| The ".ART" file type is important, as it allows the flood of
|
|||
|
| input to the FidoNews node to be sorted properly. (Exceptions
|
|||
|
| will be granted if the sending system is not capable of meeting
|
|||
|
| this requirement.)
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
$ File types are used to distinguish types of submissions, as
|
|||
|
$ follows:
|
|||
|
$
|
|||
|
$ .ART An article, commentary, open letter, or general news
|
|||
|
$ item.
|
|||
|
$ .AD "For Sale", "Wanted" or other advertisement.
|
|||
|
$ .NOT A notice for the back of the issue.
|
|||
|
$
|
|||
|
$ If your file doesn't have one of the above extensions, then it
|
|||
|
$ will lay around taking up disk space until someone takes a look
|
|||
|
$ at it and realizes what it is. Maybe.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
----------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
FidoNet program version list info
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
by David French (1:103/250)
|
|||
|
(Version list compiler person)
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
FidoNews 8-52 Page 4 30 Dec 1991
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
> So David...how can I get the rest of the information? I.e.,
|
|||
|
> numbers 2 & 3?
|
|||
|
>
|
|||
|
> 1) Software Name & Version 2) FileName.Ext
|
|||
|
> 3) Support Node Address 4) Support BBS Phone Number
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Until recently the file was being deleted at 13/13 due to an error in
|
|||
|
communications. The problem has been fixed and the files should be
|
|||
|
getting out weekly.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
I added the FREQ info into this weeks FidoNews.Ver listing, so that should
|
|||
|
help also. Have a good one!
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
--dave
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
----------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Jack Decker 1:154/8
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
WANTED: DOVEMAIL BETA TESTERS
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
DoveMail is a program that lets you carry UseNet/Internet newsgroups
|
|||
|
on Fidonet systems. As you may be aware, Fidonet has both official and
|
|||
|
unofficial gateways into UseNet and the Internet, but you don't see
|
|||
|
UseNet Newsgroups (their equivalent of echomail) carried on very many
|
|||
|
Fidonet systems at present. I think part of the reason for this is
|
|||
|
that we've been using the wrong approach in the past. Up until now,
|
|||
|
all UseNet to Fidonet conversion software has attempted to convert the
|
|||
|
individual messages in a newsgroup from the UseNet message format to
|
|||
|
FidoNet echomail format.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
This simply doesn't work very well, for several reasons. UseNet
|
|||
|
newsgroup messages carry slightly different types of information in
|
|||
|
the message header, and this doesn't translate well into Fidonet
|
|||
|
format. In addition, it is not uncommon to see very long messages in
|
|||
|
some newsgroups, and these either have to be split, truncated, or
|
|||
|
discarded at the gateway system. If the gateway software allows a
|
|||
|
message that is too large to pass, it may be discarded by an echomail
|
|||
|
processor downstream (or worse yet, some echomail processors will lock
|
|||
|
up when they receive a too-long message). The problem is that there is
|
|||
|
no real standard in Fidonet as to what constitutes a message that is
|
|||
|
"too large"... in fact, the Fidonet standards call for unlimited
|
|||
|
length messages. It's just that in the "real world", there is NO
|
|||
|
echomail processor available that will handle an unlimited length
|
|||
|
message (at least not to my knowledge).
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
(There's a reason that UseNet messages can be unlimited length while
|
|||
|
Fidonet messages cannot. In UseNet message, ALL control information is
|
|||
|
put at the TOP of the message. Thus, once you've read the message
|
|||
|
header, you have all the information you need to process the message,
|
|||
|
and from then on you can just copy the remainder of the message.
|
|||
|
However, Fidonet messages contain control information at both the top
|
|||
|
AND the bottom of the message, which means that you have to read the
|
|||
|
entire message before you can process it. It's not IMPOSSIBLE to do
|
|||
|
that, but it's very difficult from a programming standpoint and most
|
|||
|
FidoNews 8-52 Page 5 30 Dec 1991
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
programmers don't feel it's worth the effort, particularly when no
|
|||
|
OTHER existing echomail processors will handle an unlimited length
|
|||
|
message).
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Also, UseNet newsgroup messages may be posted to more than one
|
|||
|
newsgroup. In Fidonet Echomail, if you post an identical message to
|
|||
|
two echomail conferences, you actually create two copies of the
|
|||
|
message, which increases the amount of time (and telephone toll
|
|||
|
charges) needed to transmit the message. In UseNet, you can post a
|
|||
|
message to several newsgroups but only one copy of the message is
|
|||
|
transmitted. When such a message is converted to echomail at a gateway
|
|||
|
system, one of two things happens... either it is only posted to one
|
|||
|
echomail conference (corresponding to the first newsgroup listed in
|
|||
|
the message header), and those reading other areas don't see the
|
|||
|
message, or else multiple copies of the message are made (one for each
|
|||
|
echomail area that the message is posted to at the gateway system).
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Yet another problem is that UseNet messages are always assumed to be
|
|||
|
addressed to "all". When the message are converted at the gateway
|
|||
|
system, if the same person has entered more than one message, the
|
|||
|
messages may appear to be so similar that some echomail processors may
|
|||
|
erroneously discard some of them as duplicates. This is a very common
|
|||
|
problem because many echomail processors will declare a message as a
|
|||
|
dupe if the Date/Time, To, From, and Subject fields of a message are
|
|||
|
all the same (and in some cases, even those entire fields may not be
|
|||
|
checked... instead, a comparison may be made on only the first few
|
|||
|
characters, particularly of the Subject field). If someone in UseNet
|
|||
|
replies to two or more messages in the same subject thread, the From
|
|||
|
and Subject fields will be the same, and most gateway software
|
|||
|
addresses all messages to "All" so the To fields will be the same.
|
|||
|
And, if the date is derived from the time at which the messages were
|
|||
|
processed (at some point in UseNet or at the gateway system), rather
|
|||
|
than the time they were actually entered, the date/time field may be
|
|||
|
duplicated and one or more messages may be declared a dupe.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The solution to these problems is fairly obvious: DON'T convert
|
|||
|
newsgroups to Echomail! Instead, transmit them within Fidonet in their
|
|||
|
native RFC-822 (UseNet) format, and convert from that format DIRECTLY
|
|||
|
to *.msg format if necessary. Up until now, there has not been any
|
|||
|
software capable of doing this. But now, I am beta testing a program
|
|||
|
called DoveMail which, along with some related programs, allows UseNet
|
|||
|
format messages to be transmitted within Fidonet (and other Fidonet-
|
|||
|
technology networks) without ever being shoehorned into echomail
|
|||
|
format.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Now, please understand that I am talking about using a native UseNet
|
|||
|
format for the packet that carries the messages only. I'm not talking
|
|||
|
about using a UseNet mailer, or the UseNet/Internet communication
|
|||
|
protocols. When you use DoveMail, if you're not a "gateway" system,
|
|||
|
you use your usual mailer and send and receive mail in the normal
|
|||
|
manner. More on that in a moment.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
FidoNews 8-52 Page 6 30 Dec 1991
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The main DoveMail program is somewhat similar to an echomail processor
|
|||
|
like ConfMail or QMail, but works a little differently. With echomail,
|
|||
|
incoming messages are normally imported to your message base and then
|
|||
|
exported from there to any nodes you feed. With DoveMail, the main
|
|||
|
DoveMail program doesn't touch your message bases at all. It simply
|
|||
|
takes an incoming packet, looks at each message, decides which nodes
|
|||
|
that message has to go to, and creates mail packets for those nodes
|
|||
|
(again, these are in native UseNet format). If you are a "leaf" node
|
|||
|
and don't feed any other nodes, then you could get by without even
|
|||
|
using the main DoveMail program at all.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
So how do you see the messages on your system? A pair of programs
|
|||
|
called NewsToss and NewsScan accomplish that. What you do is to have
|
|||
|
DoveMail toss a packet for YOUR system, or if you're a leaf node, you
|
|||
|
just use the incoming newsgroup packets from your feed directly. In
|
|||
|
either case, NewsToss will toss messages from the newsgroup packet
|
|||
|
directly to your *.msg format message bases.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
When you have locally-entered messages to export, NewsScan will create
|
|||
|
an RFC-822 format message packet that can either be used as input for
|
|||
|
DoveMail, or if you're a leaf node, sent directly to your feed. Note
|
|||
|
that in either direction, the messages go directly from to or from
|
|||
|
your message base, from or to the RFC-822 message format.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Some might wonder why all these functions are not integrated into one
|
|||
|
program. The most practical reason is that NewsToss and NewsScan only
|
|||
|
work with the *.msg format. Someone could write a program similar to
|
|||
|
NewsToss and NewsScan that works with a Hudson message base, or a
|
|||
|
Squish message base, and you could still use DoveMail to send
|
|||
|
newsgroups to other nodes. Honestly, I prefer running several modules
|
|||
|
separately (even with programs I didn't write) because if one isn't
|
|||
|
working quite the way I want it to, I can replace just that one
|
|||
|
program with something else. Also, from a programming standpoint, it's
|
|||
|
easier to debug separate smaller programs than a single large program.
|
|||
|
I also find that it's easier for users of the program to figure out
|
|||
|
how the system actually works when separate programs handle separate
|
|||
|
functions. I guess I'm just the sort of person that prefers to build
|
|||
|
things up from individual modules than to have a whole complete system
|
|||
|
in a box.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Now, you may wonder how these UseNet format packets get sent between
|
|||
|
nodes in Fidonet. When DoveMail (or NewsScan) creates an RFC-822
|
|||
|
format message packet (called a "batched newsgroup" packet in UseNet
|
|||
|
terminology, because it contains a "batch" of newsgroup messages), it
|
|||
|
places the packet in your outbound directory (the appropriate one if
|
|||
|
you have multiple outbound directories) with the extension .UUT. This
|
|||
|
packet is the functional equivalent of a Fidonet *.OUT file (except
|
|||
|
that *.UUT's are in RFC-822 format while *.OUT's are FTS-0001). And
|
|||
|
then DoveMail (or NewsScan) washes its hands of the matter, so to
|
|||
|
speak.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
FidoNews 8-52 Page 7 30 Dec 1991
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
It is hoped that future mail packers will come along, see that there
|
|||
|
is a .UUT file in the directory, rename it to a file with the
|
|||
|
extension *.pku (similar to a Fidonet *.pkt file, but again, it's RFC-
|
|||
|
822 rather than FTS-0001), and then archive it into an outgoing mail
|
|||
|
archive (which CAN have the same extensions as Fidonet uses, that is,
|
|||
|
*.MO?, *.TU?, ..... *.SU?). An outgoing mail packet might quite
|
|||
|
possibly contain both *.PKT's and *.PKU's, intermixed in the same mail
|
|||
|
packet. Of course, you're only going to send such a packet to another
|
|||
|
node that runs DoveMail and therefore knows enough to run an external
|
|||
|
(to the echomail processor) unarchive shell such as GUS, POLYXARC, or
|
|||
|
SPAZ if necessary.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Since no EXISTING mail packers know about this convention yet, the
|
|||
|
DoveMail archive includes a program called DovePack that will serve
|
|||
|
the purpose in the interim. It will look for .UUT packets in the
|
|||
|
outbound area, and if it finds any it will rename them to *.PKT files,
|
|||
|
and then TRY to add them to EXISTING mail archive files (files with a
|
|||
|
*.mo? ... *.su? extension). If it doesn't find an EXISTING outbound
|
|||
|
mail archive file for the destination node, it will create a new one.
|
|||
|
It then looks for an EXISTING *.?lo attach list for the node in
|
|||
|
question and tries to add the name of the outbound mail archive file
|
|||
|
to the attach list, if it's not already there. If no *.?lo attach list
|
|||
|
exists, DovePack will create a normal *.flo attach, which can be
|
|||
|
renamed to another "flavor" by other software or by batch file
|
|||
|
commands if necessary (or, for those systems that don't use *.?lo
|
|||
|
files for file attaches, DovePack can also create a file attach
|
|||
|
message in your netmail area). Obviously, this isn't an optimal
|
|||
|
solution, but I'm hoping that other software authors that write mail
|
|||
|
packers will support the *.UUT/*.PKU naming convention, since doing so
|
|||
|
would probably add only a VERY few lines of code to such programs.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Note that the above standard (if you can call it a "standard" at this
|
|||
|
point) does not really provide for sending UNCOMPRESSED batched
|
|||
|
newsgroups... while it would certainly be possible to send an
|
|||
|
uncompressed *.UUT file, there's no naming convention to make it any
|
|||
|
"flavor" other than normal... that is, you can't make the uncompressed
|
|||
|
file Crash or Hold. I honestly don't know of any situation where it
|
|||
|
would be desirable to send uncompressed files AND to mark them as
|
|||
|
crash or hold. Remember that once the files have been compressed into
|
|||
|
a mail archive, then the archive can be put on Crash or Hold.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The thing to keep in mind is that while the DovePack program will do
|
|||
|
the necessary task of preparing a batched newsgroup file for
|
|||
|
transmission, it certainly does not do it in an elegant manner. I'm
|
|||
|
really hoping that the authors of other programs, that now look for
|
|||
|
*.OUT files in the outbound directory and process them, will modify
|
|||
|
their programs slightly to also look for *.UUT files and if found,
|
|||
|
rename such files to *.PKU and add them to the appropriate mail
|
|||
|
archives.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Now a word about DoveMail's copyright. Most of the software I write I
|
|||
|
give away free, but I wanted to place just a few restrictions on the
|
|||
|
use of DoveMail. Now, before you go away, let me quickly say that MOST
|
|||
|
users will never have to pay a dime for DoveMail. But there are a few
|
|||
|
people that will have to pay, and fewer still that are barred from
|
|||
|
using it. Without reprinting the whole license agreement, I will just
|
|||
|
FidoNews 8-52 Page 8 30 Dec 1991
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
say that the people who will have to pay are those who themselves make
|
|||
|
money off of the sale of computer software. It burns me to see that,
|
|||
|
while on one hand there is some absolutely fabulous software offered
|
|||
|
free for all (and the authors of that software are to be congratulated
|
|||
|
and thanked profusely), there are other people who write (relatively)
|
|||
|
trivial programs and then try to charge a few bucks for them... it
|
|||
|
would never occur to them to give something back to this hobby. I
|
|||
|
figure that those people can pay me if they want to use DoveMail.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
DoveMail is what I call "Golden RuleWare." The Golden Rule is "Do unto
|
|||
|
others as you would have others do unto you." In this application, it
|
|||
|
means the following: If you do not sell computer software or receive
|
|||
|
money from the sale of computer software, if you do not charge money
|
|||
|
to others in exchange for providing them with newsgroup feeds, and if
|
|||
|
you do not use geography as a basis for determining to whom you will
|
|||
|
provide newsgroup feeds, then you will be granted a license to use
|
|||
|
DoveMail for free, with my compliments (subject to the restrictions
|
|||
|
mentioned in the documentation file). Otherwise, you may be required
|
|||
|
to pay for the use of DoveMail, or in some cases you may not be
|
|||
|
permitted to use DoveMail. Please don't assume that you will have to
|
|||
|
pay until you read the documentation. Honestly, I'm not trying to make
|
|||
|
money on this software as much as I'm trying to express, in a tangible
|
|||
|
way, my displeasure with those who cannot give anything back to the
|
|||
|
hobby and with "control freaks."
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
One stipulation that I make is that you may not use DoveMail in any
|
|||
|
newsgroup distribution scheme that refuses newsgroup feeds to other
|
|||
|
sysops based solely on where they are geographically located. In other
|
|||
|
words, you are not required to feed newsgroups you receive to any
|
|||
|
other system, but if you do, you may not refuse a newsgroup feed to a
|
|||
|
node solely because they are not in your net or region. Many readers
|
|||
|
of this publication are aware of my long-standing contempt for the
|
|||
|
geographic restrictions in Fidonet (and those who enforce them), and
|
|||
|
since UseNet doesn't have any such nonsense in there rules, I see no
|
|||
|
need whatsoever to try and place geographic restrictions on newsgroup
|
|||
|
feeds brought into Fidonet. Newsgroups are NOT echomail and therefore
|
|||
|
the "Echomail Coordinators" have no right to determine how they may be
|
|||
|
distributed.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The above is a VERY abridged and edited version of what's in the
|
|||
|
DoveMail documentation on this subject. If you hate "control freaks"
|
|||
|
and/or software authors that demand a payment for the use of their
|
|||
|
relatively trivial software, you might want to pick up a copy of
|
|||
|
DoveMail just to read the "legal stuff" section of DoveMail.Doc... I'm
|
|||
|
sure you'll agree that it's unique, if nothing else! And if you like
|
|||
|
it and want to use it with software you write, please by all means
|
|||
|
feel free to do so!
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Anyway, by now you're probably either saying "I want to see this
|
|||
|
program!" or "who cares?" If you're in the former group, you can pick
|
|||
|
up a copy of the latest version by file requesting DOVE*.* from
|
|||
|
1:154/600 (BUT SEE BELOW FOR HOURS OF OPERATION). You should get back
|
|||
|
a file with a name something like DOVE1207.ZIP (the current version as
|
|||
|
I write this). 1:154/600 is a mail-only board in Milwaukee but it is a
|
|||
|
PART-TIME board and is only up for requests AFTER MIDNIGHT CENTRAL
|
|||
|
STANDARD TIME. If you can't make the call after midnight, you might
|
|||
|
FidoNews 8-52 Page 9 30 Dec 1991
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
look for the file on 1:154/40 and/or 1:154/100 and/or 1:228/24 but I
|
|||
|
have no idea how long it takes the sysops of those BBS's to get a new
|
|||
|
version online, so you may get a newer version by waiting until after
|
|||
|
Midnight central time and polling 1:154/600.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
There's one thing that DoveMail cannot do, and that's to find
|
|||
|
newsgroup feeds for you. Check with your local UseNet guru, or with
|
|||
|
the nearest node that flies the "UUCP" flag in the nodelist, or just
|
|||
|
ask around.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Finally, I can't emphasize too strongly that this is still BETA-TEST
|
|||
|
software. While I think I have most of the early major bugs out, if
|
|||
|
you use the program YOU are a beta-tester! So if you only want iron-
|
|||
|
clad tested and guaranteed software, this isn't it yet. But hey,
|
|||
|
where's the fun in our hobby if you don't try something new
|
|||
|
occasionally? And support is available, either via netmail or the
|
|||
|
UFGATE conference (which seems to have expanded to cover anything and
|
|||
|
everything relative to Fidonet <--> Internet gateways), so give it a
|
|||
|
try.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
----------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Area Code Chart, revised - for the postal-abbreviation impaired
|
|||
|
Charlie Baden 1:207/117.1
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
201 N.J. 301 Md. 401 R.I. 501 Ark. 601 Miss 701 NDak 801 Utah 901 Tenn
|
|||
|
202 D.C. 302 Dela 402 Neb. 502 Ky. 602 Ariz 702 Nev. 802 Vt. 902#Nov.S
|
|||
|
203 Conn. 303 Colo 403#Alta 503 Ore. 603 N.H. 703 Va. 803 S.C. 903 Tex.
|
|||
|
204#Mani 304 W.Va 404 Ga. 504 La. 604#B.C. 704 N.C. 804 Va. 904 Fla.
|
|||
|
205 Ala. 305 Fla. 405 Okla 505 N.M. 605 SDak 705#Ont. 805 Cal.
|
|||
|
206 Wash. 306#Sask 406 Mont 506#N.B. 606 Ky. 806 Tex. 906 Mich
|
|||
|
207 Maine 307 Wyo. 407 Fla. 507 Minn 607 N.Y. 707 Cal. 807#Ont. 907Alask
|
|||
|
208 Idaho 308 Neb. 408 Cal. 508 Mass 608 Wisc 708 Ill. 808 Hi. 908 N.J.
|
|||
|
209 Cal. 309 Ill. 409 Tex. 509 Wash 609 N.J. 709#Newf 809 P.R.(909 Cal)
|
|||
|
310*Cal. 410*Md. 510*Cal.
|
|||
|
212 N.Y. 312 Ill. 412 Penn 512 Tex. 612 Minn 712 Iowa 812 Ind. 912 Ga.
|
|||
|
213 Cal. 313 Mich 413 Mass 513 Ohio 613#Ont. 713 Tex. 813 Fla. 913 Kans
|
|||
|
214 Texas 314 Mo. 414 Wisc 514#Queb 614 Ohio 714 Cal. 814 Penn 914 N.Y.
|
|||
|
215 Penn. 315 N.Y. 415 Cal. 515 Iowa 615 Tenn 715 Wisc 815 Ill. 915 Tex.
|
|||
|
216 Ohio 316 Kans 416#Ont. 516 N.Y. 616 Mich 716 N.Y. 816 Mo. 916 Cal.
|
|||
|
217 Ill. 317 Ind. 417 Mo. 517 Mich 617 Mass 717 Penn 817 Tex.
|
|||
|
218 Minn. 318 La. 418#Queb 518 N.Y. 618 Ill. 718 N.Y. 818 Cal. 918 Okla
|
|||
|
219 Ind. 319 Iowa 419 Ohio 519#Ont. 619 Cal. 719 Colo 819#Queb 919 N.C.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
* 310, 410, 510 are new for 1991.
|
|||
|
(909 won't be in use until 1992.)
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
# Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Newfoundland, Nova
|
|||
|
Scotia, Ontario, Quebec, Saskatchewan are Canadian provinces.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
I have found it convenient to have this little chart accessible, either
|
|||
|
via a pop-up window or just as a printed table, to see just what state a
|
|||
|
phone number is located in. I welcome your comments, corrections,
|
|||
|
suggestions and additions. And yes, I know that the Northwest
|
|||
|
Territories and Yukon use area codes from adjoining provinces, and
|
|||
|
Prince Edward Island uses Nova Scotia's area code; and the various
|
|||
|
FidoNews 8-52 Page 10 30 Dec 1991
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Caribbean islands that are in our phone system all use the same area
|
|||
|
code (809), listed as P.R. above. This is just to give you an idea of
|
|||
|
where they are! My original chart just used the 2-letter postal
|
|||
|
abbrevations (LA for Louisiana, AR for Arkansas, etc.) because I assumed
|
|||
|
everybody had them memorized like I do... NE=Nebraska, AK=Alaska,
|
|||
|
AL=Alabama, and so on... This expanded version should explain some of
|
|||
|
the questions I received after I sent in the last version.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Really, it's just a silly little chart that I found interesting. I could
|
|||
|
also post the phone number prefixes in 213, 301, 415, that were split in
|
|||
|
Fall '91 to create area codes 310, 410, 510... plus the 714 prefixes
|
|||
|
that are going to create 909 in late *1992*. Gee, I could set myself up
|
|||
|
as the self-appointed Fidonews telnum expert... <grin>
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
You can reach me on the NEWSCHAT echo, or netmail to 1:207/117.1.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
----------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
by Mike Adams (1:19/10)
|
|||
|
Welfare Conference Begins
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Whenever the word "welfare" enters a discussion, people automatically
|
|||
|
start thinking of multi-generational families who've been living off of
|
|||
|
the system forever and appear to have every desire to continue doing so.
|
|||
|
They think of welfare fraud, and they become angry when confronted with
|
|||
|
examples of able-bodied individuals who manage to live quite well
|
|||
|
without working.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Welfare had its beginnings many years ago, and it originated in many
|
|||
|
states as an effort to assist widows, orphans, the aged and the infirm.
|
|||
|
Today, it is an institution which seems to touch well over a third of
|
|||
|
the population of this country. The existance of welfare is hotly
|
|||
|
debated because of the abusers within the system, because of an
|
|||
|
over-grown bureacracy, and because of the large chunk of the economic
|
|||
|
pie it represents. Despite its negative attributes, there are many
|
|||
|
aspects to the welfare programs which exist in this country which prove
|
|||
|
to be beneficial to those who recieve assistance from them. Efforts are
|
|||
|
being made to move the economically deprived towards self-sufficiency.
|
|||
|
Work is being done to improve self-esteem, which often is the culprit
|
|||
|
when it comes to analyzing why people end up on "welfare."
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
After nearly fourteen years with the Oklahoma Department of Human
|
|||
|
Services, I've gathered a certain amount of knowledge in the area of
|
|||
|
administering the social service programs that my state provides, and
|
|||
|
I've seen how mis-information and half-told stories often malign
|
|||
|
programs which provide positive benefits to thousands of people. I've
|
|||
|
also been involved in dealing both directly and indirectly with welfare
|
|||
|
fraud and its detection.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
If you're interested in picking up the WELFARE conference, I'm starting,
|
|||
|
you will have to pick it up directly from my system. I envision
|
|||
|
discussions from others in the field of social services as well as from
|
|||
|
those who have an interest in understanding how the welfare system works
|
|||
|
(or doesn't work).
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
FidoNews 8-52 Page 11 30 Dec 1991
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Until such time as the conference is more widely spread, as through the
|
|||
|
Backbone, send netmail to me at 1:19/10, and we'll work things out. I
|
|||
|
have a feeling that this could turn into a very interesting, if not
|
|||
|
controversial, discussion area.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Mike Adams, Welfare Moderator
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
----------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The PBM Echo, Again.
|
|||
|
by Dean Gilbert
|
|||
|
1:353/700.0
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Well, the PBM echo has had a reasonable amount of response,
|
|||
|
but it seems that I wasn't as clear about the subject matter
|
|||
|
as I should have been.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The Play-By-Mail echo is a chat echo about commercial
|
|||
|
Play-By-Mail games such as Spiral Arm, Feudal Lords,
|
|||
|
Hyborean War, etc. These games are played over Snail
|
|||
|
mail primarily although some companies allow you to submit
|
|||
|
turns over commercial networks like CompuServe.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The PBM Echo is NOT a forum or a method to play such
|
|||
|
games over FidoNet. There are several echoes/networks
|
|||
|
that support this (the AD&D echo and VervanNet come to mind).
|
|||
|
Although it might be a good idea to start something like this
|
|||
|
up, it's not a current priority of mine.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
If you would like more information, or would like to begin
|
|||
|
polling for this echo, please contact me at 1:353/700.0
|
|||
|
The Echotag is PBM, and I can be polled anytime between
|
|||
|
8pm and 12noon daily. I default to archiving with Lharc, so
|
|||
|
if you don't use that archiver to de-arc mail, please tell me
|
|||
|
in your message.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
----------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
By Ken Salois 1:300/21@FidoNet
|
|||
|
New Parents Network ... A Vital Parenting Information Network
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The word Parent fits a broad definition in todays society no matter
|
|||
|
where you are in the world. Although we hold the title "New Parents
|
|||
|
Network", we serve all likes of parents, relatives and interested
|
|||
|
parties. We have no limits or specifications to base on interests for
|
|||
|
parenting.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
New Parents Network is currently available to the United States as a
|
|||
|
zone 79 based network. We plan to open up to the world as soon as our
|
|||
|
network grows to a greater size within the U.S.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
FidoNews 8-52 Page 12 30 Dec 1991
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The New Parents Network opened up to the the U.S. as a National
|
|||
|
Network in October of 1991. At this point we have NPNet State
|
|||
|
Coordinators in nine states and we are continuing to grow.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
We are currently in need of 9600 Baud HUBS to serve our parenting
|
|||
|
network through your residing State. States that are currently linked
|
|||
|
to NPNet are: Arizona, California, Texas, Oklahoma, Florida, Missouri,
|
|||
|
Tennessee and Louisiana. We would like to have all states join our
|
|||
|
parenting network.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
NPNet is designed to co-exist on an existing BBS system and takes up
|
|||
|
little space. We currently offer National Bulletin text files that
|
|||
|
range from national parenting organizations that provide services to
|
|||
|
parents, to safety recall information on items such as faulty child
|
|||
|
restraints. All systems that are currently NPNets have sent their
|
|||
|
praises as to the volume and information contained in the NPNet
|
|||
|
National Bulletins files area. This information has been collected
|
|||
|
since 1988 and contains excellent information for all likes of
|
|||
|
interested parents, guardians, child care providers, friends and
|
|||
|
relatives. Bulletin specifics include: recently recalled toys
|
|||
|
and car seats, support groups that exist to help parents, safety
|
|||
|
information, immunization schedules, government agencies that
|
|||
|
help parents, etc.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
If you are interested in joining our network please reference the
|
|||
|
following information:
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
=====================================================================
|
|||
|
Zone Coordinator Fidonet Info file to
|
|||
|
Network Name Zone or Contact Address FREQ
|
|||
|
======================== ================ ========== ============
|
|||
|
New Parents Network 79 Ken Salois 1:300/21 NP_NET.ZIP
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Filename Size Date Title
|
|||
|
==================== ======== =====================================
|
|||
|
NP_NET.ZIP 30237 12-10-91 New Parents Network Information File
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
We currently offer seven national message forums that are broad in
|
|||
|
scope and offer great parenting interaction.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
1) NPN SysOp Support
|
|||
|
2) NPN Bulletin Information
|
|||
|
3) NPN Public Discussion Forum
|
|||
|
4) NPN Father's Forum
|
|||
|
5) NPN Mother's Forum
|
|||
|
6) NPN Alternative Parenting
|
|||
|
7) NPN Safety Forum
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
New Parents Network started as a National BBS in Tucson Arizona and is
|
|||
|
available 24 hours a day. The BBS allows immediate access to all
|
|||
|
first time callers following a new user questionnaire. If you'd like
|
|||
|
to call the New Parents Network BBS for further information, call:
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
FidoNews 8-52 Page 13 30 Dec 1991
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
1-602-326-9345
|
|||
|
24 hours a day
|
|||
|
1200 - 9600 Baud 8,N,1
|
|||
|
System IBM MS-DOS
|
|||
|
Software - RemoteAccess 1.10+ - FrontDoor 2.02 NC
|
|||
|
SysOp / Founder and Executive Director - Karen Storek Lange
|
|||
|
Voice 1-602-327-1451
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
New Parents Network is trade marked and trade named. All facets of
|
|||
|
the New Parents Network are protected by copyright (c) 1991. New
|
|||
|
Parents Network is a Social & Service Information Provider and is a
|
|||
|
Non-Profit Organization.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Ken Salois
|
|||
|
New Parents National Network Coordinator
|
|||
|
1:300/21@FidoNet
|
|||
|
79:300/21@NPNet
|
|||
|
---
|
|||
|
END
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
----------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Fredric L. Rice
|
|||
|
The Skeptic Tank, 1:102/901.0
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The HAM Radio Packet message environment now interfaces to the Fido
|
|||
|
Network through this system by virtue of the Echo Mail Conference:
|
|||
|
SC_HAMPK. Moderated by Tony Lane (1:102/833.0), this conference is
|
|||
|
exported into the HAM world to WB6YMH.#SOCAL.CA.USA.NA.FIDONET.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
If you have access to a Packet system, you can send mail into the
|
|||
|
Southern California area by addressing all messages to:
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
KC6EFH@WB6YMH.#SOCAL.CA.USA.NA.FIDONET
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
If the first line of your message begins with a FidoNet mailing
|
|||
|
address, your message will be forwarded to the FidoNet system so long as
|
|||
|
its address is in the Southern California area or an area which a
|
|||
|
partcipating FidoNet system currently interfaces directly to. If your
|
|||
|
message does not contain a FidoNet address, it will be placed into the
|
|||
|
SC_HAMPK Echo Mail Conference. Once technical aspects have been through
|
|||
|
a peer review board, Usenet may be included in SC_HAMPK.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
If anyone is interested in details, contact either myself or Tony
|
|||
|
Lane. If you would like to review the gateway software, an initial
|
|||
|
release, which is not technically solid yet, is available for File
|
|||
|
Requests from my system as FIDO-HAM.LZH. As usually is the case, my
|
|||
|
source code is included so that it may be expanded upon and corrected.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
This is the work of several software engineers and hardware demi-
|
|||
|
gods and uses resources which the F.C.C. regulates with a passion.
|
|||
|
Because of these facts, certain subjects will be sensored out-right so
|
|||
|
that the radio licenses of the HAM operators are secured. [Note: It was
|
|||
|
known that the, well, 'unenlightened?', would argue against takeing
|
|||
|
reasonable cautions about what the F.C.C. would consider to be
|
|||
|
FidoNews 8-52 Page 14 30 Dec 1991
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
pronographic in a previous FidoNews. HAMs will not take such an idiotic
|
|||
|
attitude. Packet security is doubly tight about such issues as each
|
|||
|
individuals station is _licensed_. The second version of Fido-Ham
|
|||
|
employs word searches and will mark messages on hold for review in some
|
|||
|
cases.]
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Fredric Rice.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
----------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Brigadoon Village Network
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Why why why did you say that
|
|||
|
Why why why did you walk over there
|
|||
|
Why why why did the girl in the shadows beckon me
|
|||
|
Why why why am I here
|
|||
|
Because you said: promise me you won't fade away
|
|||
|
Fade away
|
|||
|
Fade away....
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Oh run run run... let it run itself out
|
|||
|
Let the light in
|
|||
|
Let the light come in and shine on the floor
|
|||
|
Let it lift itself to your hair
|
|||
|
Let the insanity bring you joy
|
|||
|
Joy
|
|||
|
Joy...
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Yes, oh yes I told you
|
|||
|
I promised you I would not turn away
|
|||
|
And I won't
|
|||
|
No I won't
|
|||
|
I won't...
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
If I seem sad
|
|||
|
If I seem too badly off
|
|||
|
It will end now
|
|||
|
End now
|
|||
|
Yes now I will be dancing with the light
|
|||
|
I am the light
|
|||
|
And I cannot leave
|
|||
|
Cannot leave
|
|||
|
Cannot leave...
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
---------------------------------------
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
For info on Brigadoon.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
FREQ: BRIGADOON
|
|||
|
Modem supported: USR HST DS
|
|||
|
V32bis V42bis
|
|||
|
FidoNews 8-52 Page 15 30 Dec 1991
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
From: 1:325/101.0 @FidoNet
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
If you would like to try it first, then FREQ the magic name
|
|||
|
TRYBRIG which will get you NODELIST.TXT. (You don't need to
|
|||
|
FREQ this if you FREQ BRIGADOON)
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
as always you can always call: 1-802-453-3316
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
----------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
An apparent FidoNet Technical Specification incompatability problem
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
by
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Brice Fleckenstein
|
|||
|
1:231/190
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
From: FTS-0001
|
|||
|
Version: 015
|
|||
|
Date: 30-Aug-90
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
2. Levels of Compliance
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
This documents represents the most basic FidoNet implementation. A
|
|||
|
future document will define well tested extensions which are optional
|
|||
|
but provide sufficient additional function that implementors should
|
|||
|
seriously consider them. SEAdog(tm), from System Enhancement
|
|||
|
Associates, is an excellent example of such an extended FidoNet
|
|||
|
implementation.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
(Notice there is NOTHING here that specifies that a future standard
|
|||
|
INHERENTLY overrides FTS-0001, but rather adds OPTIONAL EXTENSIONS to
|
|||
|
FTS-0001. Therefore, FTS-0001 definitions of the information in a
|
|||
|
message packet remain in effect for ALL messages. - B.F.)
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
From FTS-0001:
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Message Text
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
A 'hard' carriage return, 0DH, marks the end of a paragraph, and must
|
|||
|
be preserved.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
If the first character of a physical line (e.g. the first character of
|
|||
|
the message text, or the character immediately after a hard carriage
|
|||
|
return (ignoring any linefeeds)) is a ^A (<control-A>, 01H), then that
|
|||
|
line is not displayed as it contains control information. The
|
|||
|
convention for such control lines is:
|
|||
|
FidoNews 8-52 Page 16 30 Dec 1991
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
o They begin with ^A
|
|||
|
o They end at the end of the physical line (i.e. ignore soft <cr>s).
|
|||
|
o They begin with a keyword followed by a colon.
|
|||
|
o The keywords are uniquely assigned to applications.
|
|||
|
o They keyword/colon pair is followed by application specific data.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
(Notice the definition of an information line here - this definition
|
|||
|
fits a "SEEN-BY" line EXACTLY, just like it fits a PATH line or a TOPT
|
|||
|
line or a INTL line. - B.F.)
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
From: FTS-0004 EchoMail Specification
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
This document is directly derived from the documentation of
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The Conference Mail System
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
By
|
|||
|
Bob Hartman
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
With Bob Hartman's kind consent, copying for the purpose of technological
|
|||
|
research and advancement is allowed.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
(Which leaves the question of the editor of this document in
|
|||
|
considerable doubt - B.F.)
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The Conference Mail System is designed to operate in conjunction
|
|||
|
with a FidoNet compatible mail server.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
(Thus specifying that FTS-0001 DOES effect this document - B.F.)
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
CONFERENCE MAIL MESSAGE CONTROL INFORMATION
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
There are five pieces of control information associated with a
|
|||
|
Conference Mail message. Some are optional, some are not.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
4. Seen-by Lines
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
There can be many seen-by lines at the end of Conference
|
|||
|
Mail messages, and they are the real "meat" of the control
|
|||
|
information. They are used to determine the systems to
|
|||
|
receive the exported messages. The format of the line is:
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
SEEN-BY: 132/101 113 136/601 1014/1
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
FidoNews 8-52 Page 17 30 Dec 1991
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The net/node numbers correspond to the net/node numbers of
|
|||
|
the systems having already received the message. In this way
|
|||
|
a message is never sent to a system twice. In a conference
|
|||
|
with many participants the number of seen-by lines can be
|
|||
|
very large. This line is added if it is not already a part
|
|||
|
of the message, or added to if it already exists, each time
|
|||
|
a message is exported to other systems. This is a REQUIRED
|
|||
|
field, and Conference Mail will not function correctly if
|
|||
|
this field is not put in place by other Echomail compatible
|
|||
|
programs.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
(Note the definition of a SEEN-BY line as a control information line -
|
|||
|
an EXACT corespondance to the terminology used in FTS-0001.
|
|||
|
Also note the less-then-rigid definitions used throughout this document
|
|||
|
- sorry, Bob, you're a good programmer but a poor technical
|
|||
|
documentation writer. - B.F.)
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Refering to the original ConfMail docs that FTS-0004 was BASED on, I
|
|||
|
find the following option listed:
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
-K
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Use the International FidoNet Association (IFNA) endorsed
|
|||
|
"kludge" of hiding the AREA and SEEN-BY lines behind a
|
|||
|
Control-A character. This option should not be used by
|
|||
|
systems which must communicate with older echomail
|
|||
|
compatable systems.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
(Note that this is SPECIFICALLY mentioned as being a bad idea when
|
|||
|
talking to OLD EchoMail systems - the implication is that NEW and/or
|
|||
|
CURRENT EchoMail systems SHOULD HANDLE A "hidden" SEEN-BY and/or AREA
|
|||
|
line properly. -B.F.)
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
End of document referances.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
It would appear to me that there is a DEFINITE conflict in the current
|
|||
|
set of FidoNet specifications here, and that the AUTHOR of FTS-0004
|
|||
|
INTENDED that "hidden SEEN-BYs" should become the NORM in FidoNet, per
|
|||
|
their status as a "control information" line per FTS-0001's definition
|
|||
|
of such.
|
|||
|
It also appears to me that Bob Hartman is the current "final authority"
|
|||
|
on the subject, and FTSC should get a WRITTEN clarification from him
|
|||
|
A.S.A.P. (preferably in the form of a FTS-0004 re-written SPEFICICALLY
|
|||
|
AS A SPECIFICATION rather than "cut and pasted" from the ConfMail
|
|||
|
documentation).
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
FidoNews 8-52 Page 18 30 Dec 1991
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
----------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
FidoNews 8-52 Page 19 30 Dec 1991
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
======================================================================
|
|||
|
RANTS AND FLAMES
|
|||
|
======================================================================
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
_(*#$_(*@#(* (*^$+)#(%&+| #$)%(&*#_$ @_#( @$
|
|||
|
^@#+)(#&%$*+)$%&*+$*%&#@(@#_|)*%|)#%&)#*%&+(@#&*_+(@#*^&@###
|
|||
|
*&#_($*&#$_(*#&$_(#*$&$ _(#$*#$+)#($&*+#)$ &#+$*&#
|
|||
|
()*&#$_(&^#$_(#*$_#($^&#_$(^&#_$(&^#$_(&#^ damn right _(#^&$_(#^&
|
|||
|
$*&#$_+(* #)$&(%($%+)($%*+$)%($* it's ugly _#&%^# &
|
|||
|
#($_*#$_ FidoNet (*$&%_@#_(*&@#_(@*#&_ @#_(*&@#_(*
|
|||
|
)*&#$ Flames *^$+)#(% (not for the timid) @_#(
|
|||
|
(*#$_(*^@#+) and #_|)*% &+(@#&*_+(@#*^&@###
|
|||
|
(#$*&#_($*&#$_(*#&$_(#* Rants *&+#$*&#+$*&#
|
|||
|
)*&#$_(a regular feature)^&#_$(&^#$_ $^&#$_(#^
|
|||
|
(*^#$_*#^&$)*#&$^%)#*$&^_#($*^&#_($ Section #&%^_
|
|||
|
_(*#&$_(#* #($*& #$* _(*&@#_(@*# *&@#_(*&
|
|||
|
)&*+_)*&+)*&+))&*(*&
|
|||
|
(*&_(*&_(*&
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
----------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Jack Decker
|
|||
|
1:154/8
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
SOMETHING ROTTEN IN THE SKEPTIC TANK
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
I'd like to take a moment to protest the inclusion of a
|
|||
|
defamatory statement in Fidonews 8-49. The statement occurred
|
|||
|
the the article "The Skeptic Tank" by Fredric L. Rice, in which
|
|||
|
he encourages sysops to be more aware of the types of files
|
|||
|
they have available on their systems. I have no problem with
|
|||
|
anything that was said in the article EXCEPT for this one
|
|||
|
statement:
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
"And then there is another method of attack that we should
|
|||
|
guard against. So many christians, out of a love for their
|
|||
|
jesus, would have us remove the pronographic materials from our
|
|||
|
systems upon pain of lawsuit if their holy and untried children
|
|||
|
were ever to be caught panting over a GIF file displayed on
|
|||
|
their screens."
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
First of all, there is an obvious intent to show disrespect to
|
|||
|
Christians by the lack of capitalization of the term
|
|||
|
"Christian" and the name of "Jesus". Even secular books and
|
|||
|
articles capitalize those properly. I notice that Mr. Rice
|
|||
|
managed to capitalize his own name properly at the top and
|
|||
|
bottom of the article, so it's not as though he's unaware of
|
|||
|
the rules for capitalization of proper names.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
FidoNews 8-52 Page 20 30 Dec 1991
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
And second, the paragraph implies that it is only Christians
|
|||
|
who are concerned about the influence of pornography,
|
|||
|
especially upon children. The fallacy of that thinking should
|
|||
|
be obvious, but in any case, it's an unsubstantiated slur
|
|||
|
against a particular religious group. It reminds me of an
|
|||
|
article that appeared in the local newspaper which accused
|
|||
|
Christians of removing copies of an atheistic magazine (the
|
|||
|
magazine actually has the word "Atheist" in the title) from the
|
|||
|
local public library, despite the fact that no one had ever
|
|||
|
been caught or charged with the removal of the magazines.
|
|||
|
Apparently the writer of the article had forgotten (or ignored)
|
|||
|
the fact that one of the basic tenets of the Christian religion
|
|||
|
is the commandment, "Thou shalt not steal." I suggested that
|
|||
|
it could just as easily have been a case of someone wanting to
|
|||
|
read the magazine, but not be observed reading it in the
|
|||
|
library (this IS a small town).
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
There are numerous groups and individuals, some religious (not
|
|||
|
necessarily Christian, however), some involved in law
|
|||
|
enforcement, and others that for whatever reason feel that
|
|||
|
pornography is harmful to our society. I'm not for a moment
|
|||
|
denying that many Christians feel this way, but to suggest that
|
|||
|
it is ONLY Christians that are opposed to pornography is to
|
|||
|
mis-state the facts. When coupled with the deliberate lack of
|
|||
|
capitalization noted above, I feel that the above quoted
|
|||
|
paragraph was written in such as way as to be deliberately
|
|||
|
offensive to Christians, and to manipulate others into feeling
|
|||
|
resentment toward members of the Christian faith. I'm
|
|||
|
surprised that the editor allowed it to be printed verbatim,
|
|||
|
without at least correcting the capitalization.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
(Seriously, Tom, are you not aware that there has been a lot of
|
|||
|
Christian bashing in Fidonews in the last few months? Would
|
|||
|
you allow the bashing of other groups in this manner? If not,
|
|||
|
then why the discriminatory treatment?)
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
That said, I will agree that there are many state and federal
|
|||
|
laws that prohibit or restrict the distribution of pornography
|
|||
|
in various ways. Whether you agree with them or not, the laws
|
|||
|
currently exist, and if you are a sysop you violate those laws
|
|||
|
at your own peril. If you believe that there should be fewer
|
|||
|
restrictions on the distribution of pornography, you certaily
|
|||
|
have the right to lobby your lawmakers to that effect.
|
|||
|
However, I hope you'll appreciate the fact that those who may
|
|||
|
disagree with you, regardless of religion (or lack thereof)
|
|||
|
also have the right to make their voices heard, and to insist
|
|||
|
that existing laws be enforced. You might also consider that
|
|||
|
some of the folks who are against pornography are not against
|
|||
|
it simply because of blind religious faith, or because they
|
|||
|
want to spoil your fun, but because they are aware of the
|
|||
|
influence of pornography in various sex crimes, including but
|
|||
|
not limited to the torture and murder of children.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
FidoNews 8-52 Page 21 30 Dec 1991
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
How would you feel if you knew that someone downloaded a .GIF
|
|||
|
file from your BBS and printed it out on a high-quality
|
|||
|
printer, and then it was found at the scene of a rape or child
|
|||
|
molestation? Just something to think about. And if THAT
|
|||
|
doesn't bother you, you might want to give some thought to the
|
|||
|
fact that many .GIF's are scanned in from copyrighted
|
|||
|
publications, so if you carry .GIF's on your BBS, chances are
|
|||
|
that at least a few of them violate someone's copyright. And,
|
|||
|
in some cases it may be much easier for a prosecutor to prove
|
|||
|
copyright infringement than to get a court to agree that
|
|||
|
certain images are pornographic.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Parting comment: Why is it that the folks who are generally so
|
|||
|
quick to defend "freedom of speech" as an absolute right, are
|
|||
|
often among the first to try and deny that right to those who
|
|||
|
disagree with them?
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
----------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Housebroken II
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Billy Cash III - Programmer's Connection BBS - 1:226/70.0
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
A short reply to Daniel Tobias' article about a previous piece I
|
|||
|
published in FidoNews. He states that
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
"... there is a ... category of material which can
|
|||
|
pose legal trouble for a sysop. This is libelous text,
|
|||
|
material that defames a person. Somebody who writes material
|
|||
|
of this nature, and a sysop who allows his system to be used
|
|||
|
in the dissemination of such things, could be the subject of
|
|||
|
a lawsuit in today's litigious climate."
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Later he comments that
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
"Unfortunately, a possible example of such conduct has
|
|||
|
been provided to the FidoNews audience in the form of Billy
|
|||
|
Cash's (1:226/70.0) response to Rice."
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Well, Mr. Tobias, if this is true, and I am "guilty" of libel, then
|
|||
|
so is every sysop in the world receiving this newsletter. Including
|
|||
|
Mr. Tobias.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
It must be taken into account, however, whether or not libel was
|
|||
|
actually committed. In the original article, Mr. Rice mentioned that
|
|||
|
he had "adult" materials on his bulletin board. If this is the case,
|
|||
|
and he reveals this to the entire planet, then how can my restatement
|
|||
|
of the fact be libel?
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
I will reiterate what I have been saying all along. People who hide
|
|||
|
objectionable material and get caught can't complain. It is this
|
|||
|
type of sysop that causes big headlines -- not the SaudiNet sysop, or
|
|||
|
the veterans' echo sysop.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
FidoNews 8-52 Page 22 30 Dec 1991
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
----------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
"Cleaning out the dog house.." - part III
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
By Scott Neville - The Fourth Dimension BBS - 3:635/553
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
In responce to Billy Cash, I think he has a rather pompous view of
|
|||
|
amatuer bulletin board systems.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
You say that nobody will be moving heaven amd earth to remove you for a
|
|||
|
long time. How can you say that? You dont know that some official
|
|||
|
people might not come barging into your house and seize all of your
|
|||
|
computer gear, be they from the government or telephone company. You
|
|||
|
really have no idea what will happen, and Im sure that it happens to.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Good sysops dont need to worry about this? Who are you trying to kid?
|
|||
|
You can do whatever you like, but unless you sit watching your BBS 24
|
|||
|
hours a day, you cannot guarentee that there wont be commercial
|
|||
|
programs uploaded to your system, no matter how "good" you think you
|
|||
|
are. Furthermore, you blame Fred Rice for any bad name given to the BBS
|
|||
|
community? Thats absurd. The only statement he has made on the matter
|
|||
|
has been constructive to try and stop the illegal going-ons that can
|
|||
|
happen in the electronic media and you blame him.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
I have nothing to hide myself and Im sure Mr Rice doesnt either, but if
|
|||
|
you are found with a copy of a commercial program on your system, you
|
|||
|
(not the user who uploaded it) are in direct breach of the copyright
|
|||
|
laws. I think thats something worth taking notice of, rather than
|
|||
|
criticising.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
----------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
BY Scott Neville P.O. Box 1077
|
|||
|
Ph : 61-3-560-9292 Glen Waverley
|
|||
|
3:635/553 (Fido) Victoria
|
|||
|
11:9000/0 (ClariNet) Australia 3150
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Meat Pies, Fosters Beer and Universal Mayhem.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
After Fred Rice wrote his article entitled "Death throws with much
|
|||
|
twitching" (very creative Fred), reguarding the laying to rest of the
|
|||
|
Universal Mayhem online game, many of the Australian sysops turned to
|
|||
|
me, being the one who distributes the game in Australia. It was taken
|
|||
|
many years ago and distributed by the network I started (ClariNet) and
|
|||
|
is still being continued with today. So what is Universal Mayhem? It is
|
|||
|
quite possibly the most complicated online game ever written, but also
|
|||
|
the most addictive and competative if the players take the time to
|
|||
|
learn how to play it well. You assume the role of a space trader,
|
|||
|
caught in the constant race for power over your opponants. The ultimate
|
|||
|
goal is to assemble the parts of the slaver death weapon that was
|
|||
|
dismantled many moons ago. To this day I dont believe that anyone has
|
|||
|
ever managed this feat on any system in the world. The supporting echo
|
|||
|
conference (MAYHEM) is being distributed, along with export ships for
|
|||
|
the remote player function of the game to anyone who asks and calls in
|
|||
|
FidoNews 8-52 Page 23 30 Dec 1991
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
for them. Although Fred has decided that he will not continue writing
|
|||
|
the game, ClariNet (and people of other nets) are welcome to the echo
|
|||
|
and the latest version that is available to me. In the future I hope to
|
|||
|
see more players and updates. I hope to organise some updates to the
|
|||
|
program to keep it coming up with more surprises.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Mayhem is not dead. It is just beginning.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
To anyone who wants more information on ClariNet or to connect to the
|
|||
|
mayhem echo or take remote ships, call/message/write to the above
|
|||
|
address. There may be a local ClariNet BBS taking them.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
----------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
FidoNews 8-52 Page 24 30 Dec 1991
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
======================================================================
|
|||
|
LATEST VERSIONS
|
|||
|
======================================================================
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Latest Greatest SoftWare Versions
|
|||
|
Last Update: 12/25/91 - Season's Greetings!!!! /df/
|
|||
|
----------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
MS-DOS Systems
|
|||
|
--------------
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
BBS Software NodeList Utilities Compression
|
|||
|
Name Version Name Version Utilities
|
|||
|
-------------------- -------------------- Name Version
|
|||
|
Aurora 1.32b EditNL 4.00 --------------------
|
|||
|
DMG 2.93 FDND 1.10 ARC 7.12
|
|||
|
DreamBBS 1.05 MakeNL 2.31 ARJ 2.20
|
|||
|
Fido/FidoNet 12.21 Parselst 1.33 LHA 2.13
|
|||
|
Genesis Deluxe 3.2 Prune 1.40 PAK 2.51
|
|||
|
GSBBS 3.02 SysNL 3.14 PKPak 3.61
|
|||
|
Kitten 1.01 XlatList 2.90 PKZip 1.10
|
|||
|
Lynx 1.30 XlaxNode/Diff 2.53
|
|||
|
Maximus-CBCS 2.00
|
|||
|
Merlin 1.39n
|
|||
|
Opus 1.73a* Other Utilities(A-M) Other Utilities(N-Z)
|
|||
|
Oracomm 5.M.6P@ Name Version Name Version
|
|||
|
Oracomm Plus 6.E@ -------------------- --------------------
|
|||
|
PCBoard 14.5a 2DAPoint 1.50* Netsex 2.00b
|
|||
|
Phoenix 1.07* ARCAsim 2.31 OFFLINE 1.32@
|
|||
|
ProBoard 1.20* ARCmail 2.07 Oliver 1.0a
|
|||
|
QuickBBS 2.75 Areafix 1.20 PKInsert 7.00
|
|||
|
RBBS 17.3b ConfMail 4.00 PolyXarc 2.1a
|
|||
|
RemoteAccess 1.10 Crossnet 1.5 QM 1.00a
|
|||
|
SimplexBBS 1.05 DOMAIN 1.42 QSort 4.04
|
|||
|
SLBBS 2.15C* DEMM 1.06 RAD Plus 2.11@
|
|||
|
Socrates 1.11 DGMM 1.06 Raid 1.00
|
|||
|
SuperBBS 1.12* DOMAIN 1.42 RBBSMail 18.0@
|
|||
|
SuperComm 0.99@ EEngine 0.32 ScanToss 1.28
|
|||
|
TAG 2.5g EMM 2.11* ScMail 1.00@
|
|||
|
TBBS 2.1 EZPoint 2.1 ScEdit 1.12@
|
|||
|
TComm/TCommNet 3.4 4Dog/4DMatrix 1.18 Sirius 1.0x
|
|||
|
Telegard 2.5 FGroup 1.00 SLMail 2.15C
|
|||
|
TPBoard 6.1 FNPGate 2.70 SquishMail 1.00
|
|||
|
TriTel 2.0* GateWorks 3.06e StarLink 1.01
|
|||
|
WildCat! 2.55 GMail 2.05 TagMail 2.41
|
|||
|
WWIV 4.20 GMD 3.10 TCOMMail 2.2
|
|||
|
XBBS 1.77 GMM 1.21 Telemail 1.27
|
|||
|
GoldEd 2.31p TGroup 1.13
|
|||
|
GROUP 2.23 TIRES 3.11@
|
|||
|
Network Mailers GUS 1.40 TMail 1.21
|
|||
|
Name Version Harvey's Robot 4.10@ TosScan 1.00
|
|||
|
-------------------- HeadEdit 1.18 UFGATE 1.03
|
|||
|
BinkleyTerm 2.50 HLIST 1.09@ VPurge 4.09e
|
|||
|
D'Bridge 1.30 IMAIL 1.20 WildMail 2.00
|
|||
|
Dreamer 1.06 InterPCB 1.31 XRS 4.99
|
|||
|
Dutchie 2.90c Lola 1.01d XST 2.3e
|
|||
|
FidoNews 8-52 Page 25 30 Dec 1991
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
FrontDoor 2.02 Mosaic 1.00b@ ZmailH 1.25
|
|||
|
InterMail 2.01 MSG 4.2 ZSX 2.40
|
|||
|
Milqtoast 1.00 MSGED 2.06
|
|||
|
PreNM 1.48 MsgLnk 1.0c
|
|||
|
SEAdog 4.60 MsgMstr 2.03a
|
|||
|
SEAmail 1.01 MsgNum 4.16d
|
|||
|
TIMS 1.0(mod8) MSGTOSS 1.3
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
OS/2 Systems
|
|||
|
------------
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
BBS Software Other Utilities(A-M Other Utilities(N-Z)
|
|||
|
Name Version Name Version Name Version
|
|||
|
-------------------- -------------------- --------------------
|
|||
|
Kitten 1.01 ARC 7.12 oMMM 1.52
|
|||
|
Maximus-CBCS 2.00 ARC2 6.01 Omail 3.1
|
|||
|
SimplexBBS 1.04.02+ ConfMail 4.00 Parselst 1.33
|
|||
|
EchoStat 6.0 PKZip 1.02
|
|||
|
EZPoint 2.1 PMSnoop 1.30
|
|||
|
Network Mailers FGroup 1.00 PolyXOS2 2.1a
|
|||
|
Name Version GROUP 2.23 QSort 2.1
|
|||
|
-------------------- LH2 2.11 Raid 1.0
|
|||
|
BinkleyTerm 2.50 MSG 4.2 Remapper 1.2
|
|||
|
BinkleyTerm(S) 2.50 MsgEd 2.06c SquishMail 1.00
|
|||
|
BinkleyTerm/2-MT MsgLink 1.0c Tick 2.0
|
|||
|
1.40.02 MsgNum 4.16d VPurge 4.09e
|
|||
|
SEAmail 1.01
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Xenix/Unix 386
|
|||
|
--------------
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
BBS Software Network Mailers Other Utilities
|
|||
|
Name Version Name Version Name Version
|
|||
|
-------------------- -------------------- --------------------
|
|||
|
BinkleyTerm 2.32b ARC 5.21
|
|||
|
C-LHARC 1.00
|
|||
|
MsgEd 2.06
|
|||
|
|Contact: Jon Hogan-uran 3:711/909, | MSGLINK 1.01
|
|||
|
|Willy Paine 1:343/15 or Eddy van Loo| oMMM 1.42
|
|||
|
|2:285/406 | Omail 1.00
|
|||
|
ParseLst 1.32
|
|||
|
Unzip 3.10
|
|||
|
VPurge 4.08
|
|||
|
Zoo 2.01
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
QNX
|
|||
|
---
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
FidoNews 8-52 Page 26 30 Dec 1991
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
BBS Software Network Mailers Other Utilities
|
|||
|
Name Version Name Version Name Version
|
|||
|
-------------------- -------------------- --------------------
|
|||
|
QTach2 1.09 QMM 0.50s Kermit 2.03
|
|||
|
QCP 1.02
|
|||
|
NodeList Utilities Archive Utilities QSave 3.6
|
|||
|
Name Version Name Version QTTSysop 1.07.1
|
|||
|
-------------------- -------------------- SeaLink 1.05
|
|||
|
QNode 2.09 Arc 6.02 XModem 1.00
|
|||
|
LH 1.00.2 YModem 1.01
|
|||
|
Unzip 2.01 ZModem 0.02f
|
|||
|
Zoo 2.01
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Apple II
|
|||
|
--------
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
BBS Software Network Mailers Other Utilities
|
|||
|
Name Version Name Version Name Version
|
|||
|
-------------------- -------------------- --------------------
|
|||
|
DDBBS + 8.0* Fruity Dog 2.0 deARC2e 2.1
|
|||
|
GBBS Pro 2.1 ProSel 8.70*
|
|||
|
ShrinkIt 3.30*
|
|||
|
|Contact: Dennis McClain-Furmanski 1:275/42| ShrinkIt GS 1.04
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Apple CP/M
|
|||
|
----------
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
BBS Software Network Mailers Other Utilities
|
|||
|
Name Version Name Version Name Version
|
|||
|
-------------------- -------------------- --------------------
|
|||
|
Daisy 2j Daisy Mailer 0.38 Filer 2-D
|
|||
|
MsgUtil 2.5
|
|||
|
Nodecomp 0.37
|
|||
|
PackUser 4
|
|||
|
UNARC.Com 1.20
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Macintosh
|
|||
|
---------
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
BBS Software Network Mailers Other Software
|
|||
|
Name Version Name Version Name Version
|
|||
|
-------------------- -------------------- --------------------
|
|||
|
FBBS 0.91 Copernicus 1.0 ArcMac 1.3
|
|||
|
Hermes 1.6.1 Tabby 2.2 AreaFix 1.6
|
|||
|
Mansion 7.15 Compact Pro 1.30
|
|||
|
Precision Sys. 0.95b EventMeister 1.0
|
|||
|
Red Ryder Host 2.1 Export 3.21
|
|||
|
Telefinder Host Import 3.2
|
|||
|
FidoNews 8-52 Page 27 30 Dec 1991
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
2.12T10 LHARC 0.41
|
|||
|
MacArd 0.04
|
|||
|
Mantissa 3.21
|
|||
|
Point System Mehitable 2.0
|
|||
|
Software OriginatorII 2.0
|
|||
|
Name Version PreStamp 3.2
|
|||
|
-------------------- StuffIt Classic 1.6
|
|||
|
Copernicus 1.00 SunDial 3.2
|
|||
|
CounterPoint 1.09 TExport 1.92
|
|||
|
MacWoof 1.1 TimeStamp 1.6
|
|||
|
TImport 1.92
|
|||
|
Tset 1.3
|
|||
|
TSort 1.0
|
|||
|
UNZIP 1.02c
|
|||
|
Zenith 1.5
|
|||
|
Zip Extract 0.10
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Amiga
|
|||
|
-----
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
BBS Software Network Mailers Other Software
|
|||
|
Name Version Name Version Name Version
|
|||
|
-------------------- -------------------- --------------------
|
|||
|
4D-BBS 1.65@ BinkleyTerm 1.00 Areafix 1.48
|
|||
|
DLG Pro. 0.96b TrapDoor 1.80 AReceipt 1.5
|
|||
|
Falcon CBCS 1.00 WelMat 0.44 ChameleonEdit 0.11
|
|||
|
Paragon 2.082+ ConfMail 1.12
|
|||
|
TransAmiga 1.07 ElectricHerald 1.66
|
|||
|
XenoLink 1.0 Compression FileMgr 2.08
|
|||
|
Utilities GCChost 3.6b
|
|||
|
Name Version Login 0.18
|
|||
|
NodeList Utilities -------------------- MessageFilter 1.52
|
|||
|
Name Version AmigArc 0.23 Message View 1.12
|
|||
|
-------------------- booz 1.01 oMMM 1.50
|
|||
|
ParseLst 1.66 LHARC 1.30 PolyXAmy 2.02
|
|||
|
Skyparse 2.30 LZ 1.92 RMB 1.30
|
|||
|
TrapList 1.40 PKAX 1.00 Roof 46.15
|
|||
|
UnZip 4.1 RoboWriter 1.02
|
|||
|
Zippy (Unzip) 1.25 Rsh 4.07a
|
|||
|
Zoo 2.01 Tick 0.75
|
|||
|
TrapToss 1.20
|
|||
|
|Contact: Maximilian Hantsch 2:310/6| Yuck! 2.02
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Atari ST/TT
|
|||
|
-----------
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
BBS Software Network Mailers Other Utilities
|
|||
|
Name Version Name Version Name Version
|
|||
|
-------------------- -------------------- --------------------
|
|||
|
FIDOdoor/ST 2.5.1 BinkleyTerm 2.40n9 ApplyList 1.00@
|
|||
|
FiFo 2.1v The Box 1.20 Burep 1.1
|
|||
|
LED ST 1.00 ComScan 1.04
|
|||
|
MSGED 1.99 ConfMail 4.10
|
|||
|
QuickBBS/ST 1.04 NodeList Utilities Echoscan 1.10
|
|||
|
FidoNews 8-52 Page 28 30 Dec 1991
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Name Version FDrenum 2.5.2
|
|||
|
-------------------- FastPack 1.20
|
|||
|
Compression ParseList 1.30 Import 1.14
|
|||
|
Utilities EchoFix 1.20 oMMM 1.40
|
|||
|
Name Version sTICK/Hatch 5.50 Pack 1.00
|
|||
|
-------------------- Trenum 0.10
|
|||
|
ARC 6.02
|
|||
|
LHARC 2.01e
|
|||
|
PackConvert
|
|||
|
STZIP
|
|||
|
UnJARST 2.00
|
|||
|
WhatArc 2.02
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Archimedes
|
|||
|
----------
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
BBS Software Network Mailers Other Utilities
|
|||
|
Name Version Name Version Name Version
|
|||
|
-------------------- -------------------- --------------------
|
|||
|
ARCbbs 1.44 BinkleyTerm 2.03 ARC 1.03
|
|||
|
BatchPacker 1.00
|
|||
|
ParseLst 1.30
|
|||
|
!Spark 2.00d
|
|||
|
Unzip 2.1TH
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Tandy Color Computer 3 (OS-9 Level II)
|
|||
|
--------------------------------------
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
BBS Software Compression Utility Other Utilities
|
|||
|
Name Version Name Version Name Version
|
|||
|
-------------------- -------------------- --------------------
|
|||
|
RiBBS 2.02 OS9ARC (Arc) 1.0 Ascan 1.2
|
|||
|
OS9ARC (Dearc) 1.0 AutoFRL 2.0
|
|||
|
DEARC CKARC 1.1
|
|||
|
UNZIP 3.10 EchoCheck 1.01
|
|||
|
FReq 2.5a
|
|||
|
LookNode 2.00
|
|||
|
ParseLST
|
|||
|
RList 1.03
|
|||
|
RTick 2.00
|
|||
|
UnSeen 1.1
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
|
|||
|
Key: + - Netmail Capable (Doesn't Require Additional Mailer Software)
|
|||
|
* - Recently Updated Version
|
|||
|
@ - New Addition
|
|||
|
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
FidoNews 8-52 Page 29 30 Dec 1991
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
The Complete List is Available For FReq as VERSIONS from 1:103/250
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Utility Authors: Please help keep this list up to date by reporting
|
|||
|
all new versions to 1:103/250 in this format:
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
1) Software Name & Version 2) FileName.Ext
|
|||
|
3) Support Node Address 4) Support BBS Phone Number
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Note: It is not our intent to list all utilities here, only those
|
|||
|
which verge on necessity. If you want it updated in the next
|
|||
|
FidoNews, get it to me by Thursday evening.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
--David French, 1:103/250
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
----------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
FidoNews 8-52 Page 30 30 Dec 1991
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
======================================================================
|
|||
|
FIDONEWS INFORMATION
|
|||
|
======================================================================
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
------- FIDONEWS MASTHEAD AND CONTACT INFORMATION ----------------
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Editors: Tom Jennings, Tim Pozar
|
|||
|
Editors Emeritii: Thom Henderson, Dale Lovell, Vince Periello
|
|||
|
Special thanks to Ken Kaplan, 1:100/22, aka Fido #22
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
"FidoNews" BBS
|
|||
|
FidoNet 1:1/1
|
|||
|
Internet fidonews@fidonews.fidonet.org
|
|||
|
BBS (415)-863-2739 (9600 HST/V32)
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
(Postal Service mailing address)
|
|||
|
FidoNews
|
|||
|
Box 77731
|
|||
|
San Francisco
|
|||
|
CA 94107 USA
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Published weekly by and for the Members of the FidoNet international
|
|||
|
amateur electronic mail system. It is a compilation of individual
|
|||
|
articles contributed by their authors or their authorized agents. The
|
|||
|
contribution of articles to this compilation does not diminish the
|
|||
|
rights of the authors. Opinions expressed in these articles are those
|
|||
|
of the authors and not necessarily those of FidoNews.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
FidoNews is copyright 1991 Fido Software. All rights reserved.
|
|||
|
Duplication and/or distribution permitted for noncommercial purposes
|
|||
|
only. For use in other circumstances, please contact FidoNews (we're
|
|||
|
easy).
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
OBTAINING COPIES: FidoNews in electronic form may be obtained from
|
|||
|
the FidoNews BBS via manual download or Wazoo FileRequest, or from
|
|||
|
various sites in the FidoNet and via uucp. PRINTED COPIES mailed
|
|||
|
may be obtained from Fido Software for $5.00US each PostPaid First
|
|||
|
Class within North America, or $7.00US elsewhere, mailed Air Mail.
|
|||
|
(US funds drawn upon a US bank only.)
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
Periodic subscriptions are not available at this time; if enough
|
|||
|
people request it I will implement it.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
SUBMISSIONS: You are encouraged to submit articles for publication in
|
|||
|
FidoNews. Article submission requirements are contained in the file
|
|||
|
ARTSPEC.DOC, available from the FidoNews BBS, or Wazoo filerequestable
|
|||
|
from 1:1/1 as file "ARTSPEC.DOC".
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
FidoNews 8-52 Page 31 30 Dec 1991
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
"Fido", "FidoNet" and the dog-with-diskette are U.S. registered
|
|||
|
trademarks of Tom Jennings of Fido Software, Box 77731, San Francisco
|
|||
|
CA 94107, USA and are used with permission.
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
-- END
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
----------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|||
|
|
|||
|
|