1727 lines
74 KiB
Plaintext
1727 lines
74 KiB
Plaintext
|
FidoNet Policy Document Version 4.07
|
||
|
June 9, 1989
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
This policy document has been accepted by vote of the FidoNet coordinator
|
||
|
structure, and is the current FidoNet policy document until superceded.
|
||
|
|
||
|
(There are no differences between this version and 4.06 except the statement
|
||
|
above.)
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
1 Overview
|
||
|
|
||
|
This document establishes the policy for sysops who are members of the
|
||
|
FidoNet organization of electronic bulletin board systems. FidoNet is
|
||
|
defined by a NodeList issued weekly by the International Coordinator.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Separate policy documents may be issued at the zone, region, or net level to
|
||
|
provide additional detail on local procedures. Ordinarily, these lower-level
|
||
|
policies may not contradict this policy. However, with the approval of the
|
||
|
International Coordinator, local policy can be used to implement differences
|
||
|
required due to local conditions. These local policies may not place
|
||
|
additional restrictions on members of FidoNet beyond those included in this
|
||
|
document, other than enforcement of local mail periods.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
1.0 Language
|
||
|
|
||
|
The official language of FidoNet is English. All documents must exist in
|
||
|
English. Translation into other languages is encouraged.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
1.1 Introduction
|
||
|
|
||
|
FidoNet is an amateur electronic mail system. As such, all of its partici-
|
||
|
pants and operators are unpaid volunteers. From its early beginning as a few
|
||
|
friends swapping messages back and forth (1984), it now (1989) includes over
|
||
|
5,000 systems on six continents.
|
||
|
|
||
|
FidoNet is not a common carrier or a value-added service network and is a
|
||
|
public network only in as much as the independent, constituent nodes may
|
||
|
individually provide public access to the network on their system.
|
||
|
|
||
|
FidoNet is large enough that it would quickly fall apart of its own weight
|
||
|
unless some sort of structure and control were imposed on it. Multinet
|
||
|
operation provides the structure. Decentralized management provides the
|
||
|
control. This document describes the procedures which have been developed to
|
||
|
manage the network.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
1.2 Organization
|
||
|
|
||
|
FidoNet systems are grouped on several levels, and administration is decen-
|
||
|
tralized to correspond with these groupings. This overview provides a
|
||
|
summary of the structure; specific duties of the coordinator positions are
|
||
|
given later in the document.
|
||
|
|
||
|
1.2.1 Individual Systems and System Operators
|
||
|
|
||
|
The smallest subdivision of FidoNet is the individual system, corresponding
|
||
|
to a single entry in the nodelist. The system operator (sysop) formulates a
|
||
|
policy for running the board and dealing with users. The sysop must mesh
|
||
|
with the rest of the FidoNet system to send and receive mail, and the local
|
||
|
policy must be consistent with other levels of FidoNet.
|
||
|
|
||
|
1.2.1.1 Users
|
||
|
|
||
|
The sysop is responsible for the actions of any user when they affect the
|
||
|
rest of FidoNet. (If a user is annoying, the sysop is annoying.) Any
|
||
|
traffic entering FidoNet via a given node, if not from the sysop, is consid-
|
||
|
ered to be from a user and is the responsibility of the sysop. (See section
|
||
|
2.1.3.)
|
||
|
|
||
|
1.2.1.2 Points
|
||
|
|
||
|
A point is a FidoNet-compatible system that is not in the nodelist, but
|
||
|
communicates with FidoNet through a node referred to as a bossnode. A point
|
||
|
is generally regarded in the same manner as a user, for example, the bossnode
|
||
|
is responsible for mail from the point. (See section 2.1.3.) Points are
|
||
|
addressed by using the bossnode's nodelist address; for example, a point
|
||
|
system with a bossnode of 114/15 might be known as 114/15.12. Mail destined
|
||
|
for the point is sent to the bossnode, which then routes it to the point.
|
||
|
|
||
|
In supporting points, the bossnode makes use of a private net number which
|
||
|
should not be generally visible outside of the bossnode-point relationship.
|
||
|
Unfortunately, should the point call another system directly (to do a file
|
||
|
request, for example), the private network number will appear as the caller's
|
||
|
address. In this way, points are different from users, since they operate
|
||
|
FidoNet-compatible mailers which are capable of contacting systems other than
|
||
|
the bossnode.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
1.2.3 Networks and Network Coordinators
|
||
|
|
||
|
A network is a collection of nodes in a local geographic area, usually
|
||
|
defined by an area of convenient telephone calling. Networks coordinate
|
||
|
their mail activity to decrease cost.
|
||
|
|
||
|
The Network Coordinator is responsible for maintaining the list of nodes for
|
||
|
the network, and for forwarding netmail sent to members of the network from
|
||
|
other FidoNet nodes. The Network Coordinator may make arrangements to handle
|
||
|
outgoing netmail, but is not required to do so.
|
||
|
|
||
|
The Network Coordinator is appointed by the Regional Coordinator.
|
||
|
|
||
|
1.2.3.1 Network Routing Hubs
|
||
|
|
||
|
Network Routing Hubs exist only in some networks. They may be appointed by
|
||
|
the Network Coordinator, in order to assist in the management of a large net-
|
||
|
work. The exact duties and procedures are a matter for the Network Coordina-
|
||
|
tor and the hubs to arrange, and will not be discussed here, except that a
|
||
|
network coordinator cannot delegate responsibility to mediate disputes.
|
||
|
|
||
|
1.2.4 Regions and Regional Coordinators
|
||
|
|
||
|
A region is a well-defined geographic area containing nodes which may or may
|
||
|
not be combined into networks. A typical region will contain many nodes in
|
||
|
networks, and a few independent nodes which are not a part of any network.
|
||
|
|
||
|
The Regional Coordinator maintains the list of independent nodes in the
|
||
|
region and accepts nodelists from the Network Coordinators in the region.
|
||
|
These are compiled to create a regional nodelist, which is then sent to the
|
||
|
Zone Coordinator. A Regional Coordinator does not perform message-forwarding
|
||
|
services for any nodes in the region.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Regional Coordinators are appointed by the Zone Coordinator.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
1.2.5 Zones and Zone Coordinators
|
||
|
|
||
|
A zone is a large geographic area containing many regions, covering one or
|
||
|
more countries and/or continents.
|
||
|
|
||
|
The Zone Coordinator compiles the nodelists from all of the regions in the
|
||
|
zone, and creates the master nodelist and difference file, which is then
|
||
|
distributed over FidoNet in the zone. A Zone Coordinator does not perform
|
||
|
message-forwarding services for any nodes in the zone.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Zone Coordinators are selected by the Regional Coordinators in that zone.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
1.2.6 Zone Coordinator Council
|
||
|
|
||
|
In certain cases, the Zone Coordinators work as a council to provide advice
|
||
|
to the International Coordinator. The arrangement is similar to that between
|
||
|
a president and advisors. In particular, this council considers inter-zonal
|
||
|
issues. This includes, but is not limited to: working out the details of
|
||
|
nodelist production, mediating inter-zonal disputes, and such issues not
|
||
|
addressed at a lower level of FidoNet.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
1.2.7 International Coordinator
|
||
|
|
||
|
The International Coordinator is the "first among equals" Zone Coordinator,
|
||
|
and coordinates the joint production of the master nodelist by the Zone
|
||
|
Coordinators.
|
||
|
|
||
|
The International Coordinator acts as the chair of the Zone Coordinator
|
||
|
Council and as the overseer of elections -- arranging the announcement of
|
||
|
referenda, the collection and counting of the ballots, and announcing the
|
||
|
results for those issues that affect FidoNet as a whole.
|
||
|
|
||
|
The International Coordinator is selected by the Zone Coordinators.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
1.2.8 Top-down Organization. Checks and Balances.
|
||
|
|
||
|
These levels act to distribute the administration and control of FidoNet to
|
||
|
the lowest possible level, while still allowing for coordinated action over
|
||
|
the entire mail system. Administration is made possible by operating in a
|
||
|
top-down manner. That is, a person at any given level is responsible to the
|
||
|
level above, and responsible for the level below.
|
||
|
|
||
|
For example, a Regional Coordinator is responsible to the Zone Coordinator
|
||
|
for anything that happens in the region. From the point of view of the Zone
|
||
|
Coordinator, the Regional Coordinator is completely responsible for the
|
||
|
smooth operation of the region. Likewise, from the point of view of the
|
||
|
Regional Coordinator, the Network Coordinator is completely responsible for
|
||
|
the smooth operation of the network.
|
||
|
|
||
|
If a person at any level above sysop is unable to properly perform their
|
||
|
duties, the person at the next level may replace them. For example, if a
|
||
|
Regional Coordinator fails to perform, the Zone Coordinator can replace him.
|
||
|
|
||
|
To provide for checks and balances at the highest level of FidoNet, there are
|
||
|
two exceptions to this top-down organization. Zone Coordinators and the
|
||
|
International Coordinator are selected by a majority vote of the coordinators
|
||
|
at the level below. Similarly, decisions made by the International Coordina-
|
||
|
tor can be reversed by the Zone Coordinator Council, and decisions made by a
|
||
|
Zone Coordinator can be reversed by the Regional Coordinators. See sections
|
||
|
6 and 7 for details. Decisions made by other coordinators are not subject to
|
||
|
reversal by a vote of the lower level, but instead are subject to the appeal
|
||
|
process described in section 9.5.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
1.3 Definitions
|
||
|
|
||
|
1.3.1 FidoNews
|
||
|
|
||
|
FidoNews is a weekly newsletter distributed in electronic form throughout the
|
||
|
network. It is an important medium by which FidoNet sysops communicate with
|
||
|
each other. FidoNews provides a sense of being a community of people with
|
||
|
common interests. Accordingly, sysops and users are encouraged to contribute
|
||
|
to FidoNews. Contributions are submitted to node 1:1/1; a file describing
|
||
|
the format to be used is available from 1:1/1 and many other systems.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
1.3.2 Geography
|
||
|
|
||
|
Each level of FidoNet is geographically contained by the level immediately
|
||
|
above it. A given geographic location is covered by one zone and one region
|
||
|
within that zone, and is either in one network or not in a network. There
|
||
|
are never two zones, two regions, or two networks which cover the same
|
||
|
geographic area.
|
||
|
|
||
|
If a node is in the area of a network, it should be listed in that network,
|
||
|
not as an independent in the region. (The primary exception to this is a
|
||
|
node receiving inordinate amounts of host-routed mail; see section 4.2).
|
||
|
Network boundaries are based on calling areas as defined by the local
|
||
|
telephone company. Even in the case of areas where node density is so great
|
||
|
that more than one network is needed to serve one local calling area, a geo-
|
||
|
graphic guideline is used to decide which nodes belong to what network.
|
||
|
Network membership is based on geographic or other purely technical ratio-
|
||
|
nale. It is not based on personal or social factors.
|
||
|
|
||
|
There are cases in which the local calling areas lead to situations where
|
||
|
logic dictates that a node physically in one FidoNet Region should be
|
||
|
assigned to another. In those cases, with the agreement of the Regional
|
||
|
Coordinators and Zone Coordinator involved, exemptions may be granted. Such
|
||
|
exemptions are described in section 5.6.
|
||
|
|
||
|
1.3.3 Zone Mail Hour
|
||
|
|
||
|
Zone Mail Hour (ZMH) is a defined time during which all nodes in a zone are
|
||
|
required to be able to accept netmail. Each Fidonet zone defines a ZMH and
|
||
|
publishes the time of its ZMH to all other Fidonet zones. See sections 2.1.8
|
||
|
and 10.2.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Zone Mail Hour has previously been referred to as National Mail Hour and
|
||
|
Network Mail hour. The term Zone Mail Hour is more accurate.
|
||
|
|
||
|
1.3.4 Nodelist
|
||
|
|
||
|
The nodelist is a file updated weekly which contains the addresses of all
|
||
|
recognized FidoNet nodes. This file is currently made available by the Zone
|
||
|
Coordinator not later than Zone Mail Hour each Saturday, and is available
|
||
|
electronically for download or file request at no charge. To be included in
|
||
|
the nodelist, a system must meet the requirements defined by this document.
|
||
|
No other requirements may be imposed.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Partial nodelists (single-zone, for example) may be made available at
|
||
|
different levels in FidoNet. The full list as published by the International
|
||
|
Coordinator is regarded as the official FidoNet nodelist, and is used in
|
||
|
circumstances such as determination of eligibility for voting. All parts
|
||
|
that make up the full nodelist are available on each Zone Coordinator's and
|
||
|
each Regional Coordinator's system.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
1.3.5 Excessively Annoying Behavior
|
||
|
|
||
|
There are references throughout this policy to "excessively annoying behav-
|
||
|
ior", especially in section 9 (Resolution of Disputes). It is difficult to
|
||
|
define this term, as it is based upon the judgement of the coordinator
|
||
|
structure. Generally speaking, annoying behavior irritates, bothers, or
|
||
|
causes harm to some other person. It is not necessary to break a law to be
|
||
|
annoying.
|
||
|
|
||
|
There is a distinction between excessively annoying behavior and (simply)
|
||
|
annoying behavior. For example, there is a learning curve that each new
|
||
|
sysop must climb, both in the technical issues of how to set up the software
|
||
|
and the social issues of how to interact with FidoNet. It is a rare sysop
|
||
|
who, at some point in this journey, does not manage to annoy others. Only
|
||
|
when such behavior persists, after being pointed out to the sysop, does it
|
||
|
becomes excessively annoying. This does not imply that it is not possible to
|
||
|
be excessively annoying without repetition (for example, deliberate falsifi-
|
||
|
cation of mail would likely be excessively annoying on the very first try),
|
||
|
but simply illustrates that a certain amount of tolerance is extended.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Refer to section 9 and the case studies (section 10.3) for more information.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
1.3.6 Commercial Use
|
||
|
|
||
|
FidoNet is an amateur network. Participants spend their own time and money
|
||
|
to make it work for the good of all the users. It is not appropriate for a
|
||
|
commercial enterprise to take advantage of these volunteer efforts to further
|
||
|
their own business interests. On the other hand, FidoNet provides a
|
||
|
convenient and effective means for companies and users to exchange informa-
|
||
|
tion, to the mutual benefit of all.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Network Coordinators could be forced to subsidize commercial operations by
|
||
|
forwarding host-routed netmail, and could even find themselves involved in a
|
||
|
lawsuit if any guarantee was suggested for mail delivery. It is therefore
|
||
|
FidoNet policy that commercial mail is not to be routed. "Commercial mail"
|
||
|
includes mail which furthers specific business interests without being of
|
||
|
benefit to the net as a whole. Examples include company-internal mail,
|
||
|
inter-corporate mail, specific product inquiries (price quotes, for in-
|
||
|
stance), orders and their follow-ups, and all other subjects specifically
|
||
|
related to business.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
2 Sysop Procedures
|
||
|
|
||
|
2.1 General
|
||
|
|
||
|
2.1.1 The Basics
|
||
|
|
||
|
As the sysop of an individual node, you can generally do as you please, as
|
||
|
long as you observe mail events, are not excessively annoying to other nodes
|
||
|
in FidoNet, and do not promote or participate in the distribution of pirated
|
||
|
copyrighted software or other illegal behavior via FidoNet.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
2.1.2 Familiarity with Policy
|
||
|
|
||
|
In order to understand the meaning of "excessively annoying", it is incumbent
|
||
|
upon all sysops to occasionally re-read FidoNet policy. New sysops must
|
||
|
familiarize themselves with policy before requesting a node number.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
2.1.3 Responsible for All Traffic Entering FidoNet Via the Node
|
||
|
|
||
|
The sysop listed in the nodelist entry is responsible for all traffic
|
||
|
entering FidoNet via that system. This includes (but is not limited to)
|
||
|
traffic entered by users, points, and any other networks for which the system
|
||
|
might act as a gateway. If a sysop allows "outside" messages to enter
|
||
|
FidoNet via the system, the gateway system must be clearly identified by
|
||
|
FidoNet node number as the point of origin of that message, and it must act
|
||
|
as a gateway in the reverse direction. Should such traffic result in a
|
||
|
violation of Policy, the sysop must rectify the situation.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
2.1.4 Encryption and Review of Mail
|
||
|
|
||
|
FidoNet is an amateur system. Our technology is such that the privacy of
|
||
|
messages cannot be guaranteed. As a sysop, you have the right to review
|
||
|
traffic flowing through your system, if for no other reason than to ensure
|
||
|
that the system is not being used for illegal or commercial purposes.
|
||
|
Encryption obviously makes this review impossible. Therefore, encrypted
|
||
|
and/or commercial traffic that is routed without the express permission of
|
||
|
all the links in the delivery system constitutes annoying behavior. See
|
||
|
section 1.3.6 for a definition of commercial traffic.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
2.1.5 No Alteration of Routed Mail
|
||
|
|
||
|
You may not modify, other than as required for routing or other technical
|
||
|
purposes, any message, netmail or echomail, passing through the system from
|
||
|
one FidoNet node to another. If you are offended by the content of a
|
||
|
message, the procedure described in section 2.1.7 must be used.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
2.1.6 Private Netmail
|
||
|
|
||
|
The word "private" should be used with great care, especially with users of a
|
||
|
BBS. Some countries have laws which deal with "private mail", and it should
|
||
|
be made clear that the word "private" does not imply that no person other
|
||
|
than the recipient can read messages. Sysops who cannot provide this
|
||
|
distinction should consider not offering users the option of "private mail".
|
||
|
|
||
|
If a user sends a "private message", the user has no control over the number
|
||
|
of intermediate systems through which that message is routed. A sysop who
|
||
|
sends a message to another sysop can control this aspect by sending the
|
||
|
message direct to the recipient's system, thus guaranteeing that only the
|
||
|
recipient or another individual to whom that sysop has given authorization
|
||
|
can read the message. Thus, a sysop may have different expectations than a
|
||
|
casual user.
|
||
|
|
||
|
2.1.6.1 No Disclosure of in-transit mail
|
||
|
|
||
|
Disclosing or in any way using information contained in private netmail
|
||
|
traffic not addressed to you or written by you is considered annoying
|
||
|
behavior, unless the traffic has been released by the author or the recipient
|
||
|
as a part of a formal policy complaint. This does not apply to echomail
|
||
|
which is by definition a broadcast medium, and where private mail is often
|
||
|
used to keep a sysop-only area restricted.
|
||
|
|
||
|
2.1.6.2 Private mail addressed to you
|
||
|
|
||
|
The issue of private mail which is addressed to you is more difficult than
|
||
|
the in-transit question treated in the previous section. A common legal
|
||
|
opinion holds that when you receive a message it becomes your property and
|
||
|
you have a legal right to do with it what you wish. Your legal right does
|
||
|
not excuse you from annoying others.
|
||
|
|
||
|
In general, sensitive material should not be sent using FidoNet. This ideal
|
||
|
is often compromised, as FidoNet is our primary mode of communication. In
|
||
|
general, if the sender of a message specifically requests in the text of the
|
||
|
message that the contents be kept confidential, release of the message into a
|
||
|
public forum may be considered annoying.
|
||
|
|
||
|
There are exceptions. If someone is saying one thing in public and saying
|
||
|
the opposite in private mail, the recipient of the private mail should not be
|
||
|
subjected to harassment simply because the sender requests that the message
|
||
|
not be released. Judgement and common sense should be used in this area as
|
||
|
in all other aspects of FidoNet behavior.
|
||
|
|
||
|
2.1.7 Not Routing Mail
|
||
|
|
||
|
You are not required to route traffic if you have not agreed to do so. You
|
||
|
are not obligated to route traffic for all if you route it for any, unless
|
||
|
you hold a Network Coordinator or Hub Coordinator position. Routing traffic
|
||
|
through a node not obligated to perform routing without the permission of
|
||
|
that node may be annoying behavior. This includes unsolicited echomail.
|
||
|
|
||
|
If you do not forward a message when you previously agreed to perform such
|
||
|
routing, the message must be returned to the sysop of the node at which it
|
||
|
entered FidoNet with an explanation of why it was not forwarded. (It is not
|
||
|
necessary to return messages which are addressed to a node which is not in
|
||
|
the current nodelist.) Intentionally stopping an in-transit message without
|
||
|
following this procedure constitutes annoying behavior. In the case of a
|
||
|
failure to forward traffic due to a technical problem, it does not become
|
||
|
annoying unless it persists after being pointed out to the sysop.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
2.1.8 Exclusivity of Zone Mail Hour
|
||
|
|
||
|
Zone Mail Hour is the heart of FidoNet, as this is when network mail is
|
||
|
passed between systems. Any system which wishes to be a part of FidoNet must
|
||
|
be able to receive mail during this time using the protocol defined in the
|
||
|
current FidoNet Technical Standards Committee publication (FTS-0001 at this
|
||
|
writing). It is permissible to have greater capability (for example, to
|
||
|
support additional protocols or extended mail hours), but the minimum
|
||
|
requirement is FTS-0001 capability during this one hour of the day.
|
||
|
|
||
|
This time is exclusively reserved for netmail. Many phone systems charge on
|
||
|
a per-call basis, regardless of whether a connect, no connect, or busy signal
|
||
|
is encountered. For this reason, any activity other than normal network mail
|
||
|
processing that ties up a system during ZMH is considered annoying behavior.
|
||
|
Echomail should not be transferred during ZMH. User (BBS) access to a system
|
||
|
is prohibited during ZMH.
|
||
|
|
||
|
A system which is a member of a local network may also be required to observe
|
||
|
additional mail events, as defined by the Network Coordinator. Access
|
||
|
restrictions during local network periods are left to the discretion of the
|
||
|
Network Coordinator.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
2.1.9 Private Nodes
|
||
|
|
||
|
The rare exception to ZMH compliance is private nodes. Persons requesting
|
||
|
private nodes should be supported as points if possible. A private listing
|
||
|
is justified when the system must interface with many others, such as an
|
||
|
echomail distributor. In these cases, the exact manner and timing of mail
|
||
|
delivery is arranged between the private node and other systems. Such an
|
||
|
agreement between a private system and a hub is not binding on any replace-
|
||
|
ment for that hub. A private node must be a part of a network (they cannot
|
||
|
be independents in the region.)
|
||
|
|
||
|
Private listings impact each member of FidoNet, since they take up space in
|
||
|
everyone's nodelist. Private listings which are for the convenience of one
|
||
|
sysop (at the expense of every other sysop in FidoNet) are a luxury which is
|
||
|
no longer possible. Non-essential redundant listings (more than one listing
|
||
|
for the same telephone number, except as mandated by FTSC standards) also
|
||
|
fall into this category. Sysops requesting private or redundant listings
|
||
|
must justify them with a statement explaining how they benefit the local net
|
||
|
or FidoNet as a whole. The Network Coordinator or Regional Coordinator may
|
||
|
review this statement at any time and listings which are not justified will
|
||
|
be removed.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
2.1.10 Observing Mail Events
|
||
|
|
||
|
Failure to observe the proper mail events is grounds for any node to be
|
||
|
dropped from FidoNet without notice (since notice is generally given by
|
||
|
netmail).
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
2.1.11 Use of Current Nodelist
|
||
|
|
||
|
Network mail systems generally operate unattended, and place calls at odd
|
||
|
hours of the night. If a system tries to call an incorrect or out-of-date
|
||
|
number, it could cause some poor citizen's phone to ring in the wee hours of
|
||
|
the morning, much to the annoyance of innocent bystanders and civil authori-
|
||
|
ties. For this reason, a sysop who sends mail is obligated to obtain and use
|
||
|
the most recent edition of the nodelist as is practical.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
2.1.12 Excommunication
|
||
|
|
||
|
A system which has been dropped from the network is said to be excommunicated
|
||
|
(i.e. denied communication). If you find that you have been excommunicated
|
||
|
without warning, your coordinator was unable to contact you. You should
|
||
|
rectify the problem and contact your coordinator.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Systems may also be dropped from the nodelist for cause. See section 9, and
|
||
|
sections 4.3 and 5.2.
|
||
|
|
||
|
It is considered annoying behavior to assist a system which was excommuni-
|
||
|
cated in circumventing that removal from the nodelist. For example, if you
|
||
|
decide to provide an echomail feed to your friend who has been excommuni-
|
||
|
cated, it is likely that your listing will also be removed.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
2.1.13 Timing of Zone Mail Hour
|
||
|
|
||
|
The exact timing of Zone Mail Hour for each zone is set by the Zone Coordina-
|
||
|
tor. See section 10.2.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
2.1.14 Non-observance of Daylight Savings Time
|
||
|
|
||
|
FidoNet does not observe daylight savings time. In areas which observe
|
||
|
daylight savings time the FidoNet mail schedules must be adjusted in the same
|
||
|
direction as the clock change. Alternatively, you can simply leave your
|
||
|
system on standard time.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
2.2 How to obtain a node number
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
You must first obtain a current nodelist so that you can send mail. You do
|
||
|
not need a node number to send mail, but you must have one in order for
|
||
|
others to send mail to you.
|
||
|
|
||
|
The first step in obtaining a current nodelist is to locate a FidoNet
|
||
|
bulletin board. Most bulletin board lists include at least a few FidoNet
|
||
|
systems, and usually identify them as such. Use a local source to obtain
|
||
|
documents because many networks have detailed information available which
|
||
|
explains the coverage area of the network and any special requirements or
|
||
|
procedures.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Once you have a nodelist, you must determine which network or region covers
|
||
|
your area. Regions are numbered 1-99; network numbers are greater than 99.
|
||
|
Networks are more restricted in area than regions, but are preferred since
|
||
|
they improve the flow of mail and provide more services to their members. If
|
||
|
you cannot find a network which covers your area, then pick the region which
|
||
|
does.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Once you have located the network or region in your area, send a message
|
||
|
containing a request for a node number to node zero of that network or
|
||
|
region. The request must be sent by netmail, as this indicates that your
|
||
|
system has FidoNet capability.
|
||
|
|
||
|
You must set up your software so that the from-address in your message does
|
||
|
not cause problems for the coordinator who receives it. If you pick the
|
||
|
address of an existing system, this will cause obvious problems. If your
|
||
|
software is capable of using address -1/-1, this is the traditional address
|
||
|
used by potential sysops. Otherwise use net/9999 (e.g. if you are applying
|
||
|
to net 123, set your system up as 123/9999). Many nets have specific
|
||
|
instructions available to potential sysops and these procedures may indicate
|
||
|
a preference for the from-address.
|
||
|
|
||
|
The message you send must include at least the following information:
|
||
|
|
||
|
1) Your name.
|
||
|
2) Your voice telephone number
|
||
|
3) The name of your system.
|
||
|
4) The city and state where your system is located.
|
||
|
5) The phone number to be used when calling your system.
|
||
|
6) Your hours of operation, netmail and BBS.
|
||
|
7) The maximum baud rate you can support.
|
||
|
8) The type of mailer software and modem you are using.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Your coordinator may contact you for additional information. All information
|
||
|
submitted will be kept confidential and will not be supplied to anyone except
|
||
|
the person who assumes the coordinator position at the resignation of the
|
||
|
current coordinator.
|
||
|
|
||
|
You must indicate that you have read, and agree to abide by, this document
|
||
|
and all the current policies of FidoNet.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Please allow at least two weeks for a node number request to be processed.
|
||
|
If you send your request to a Regional Coordinator, it may forwarded to the
|
||
|
appropriate Network Coordinator.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
2.3 If You are Going Down
|
||
|
|
||
|
If your node will be down for an extended period (more than a day or two),
|
||
|
inform your coordinator as soon as possible. It is not your coordinator's
|
||
|
responsibility to chase you down for a status report, and if your system
|
||
|
stops accepting mail it will be removed from the nodelist.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Never put an answering machine or any other device which answers the phone on
|
||
|
your phone line while you are down. If you do, calling systems will get the
|
||
|
machine repeatedly, racking up large phone bills, which is very annoying. In
|
||
|
short, the only thing which should ever answer the telephone during periods
|
||
|
when the nodelist indicates that your node will accept mail is FidoNet-
|
||
|
compatible software which accepts mail.
|
||
|
|
||
|
If you will be leaving your system unattended for an extended period of time
|
||
|
(such as while you are on vacation), you should notify your coordinator.
|
||
|
Systems have a tendency to "crash" now and then, so you will probably want
|
||
|
your coordinator to know that it is a temporary condition if it happens while
|
||
|
you are away.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
2.4 How to Form a Network
|
||
|
|
||
|
If there are several nodes in your area, but no network, a new network can be
|
||
|
formed. This has advantages to both you and to the rest of FidoNet. You
|
||
|
receive better availability of nodelist difference files and FidoNews, and
|
||
|
everyone else can take advantage of host-routing netmail to the new network.
|
||
|
|
||
|
The first step is to contact the other sysops in your area. You must decide
|
||
|
which nodes will comprise the network, and which of those nodes you would
|
||
|
like to be the Network Coordinator. Then consult your Regional Coordinator.
|
||
|
You must send the following information:
|
||
|
|
||
|
1) The region number(s), or network number(s) if a network is splitting
|
||
|
up, that are affected by the formation of your network. The Regional
|
||
|
Coordinator will inform the Zone Coordinator and the coordinators of any
|
||
|
affected networks that a new network is in formation.
|
||
|
|
||
|
2) A copy of the proposed network's nodelist segment. This file should
|
||
|
be attached to the message of application for a network number, and
|
||
|
should use the nodelist format described in the current version of the
|
||
|
appropriate FTSC publication. Please elect a name that relates to your
|
||
|
grouping, for example SoCalNet for nodes in the Southern California Area
|
||
|
and MassNet West for the Western Massachusetts Area. Remember if you
|
||
|
call yourself DOGNET it doesn't identify your area.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Granting a network number is not automatic. Even if the request is granted,
|
||
|
the network might not be structured exactly as you request. Your Regional
|
||
|
Coordinator will review your application and inform you of the decision.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Do not send a network number request to the Zone Coordinator. All network
|
||
|
number requests must be processed by the Regional Coordinator.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
3 General Procedures for All Coordinators
|
||
|
|
||
|
3.1 Make Available Difference Files and FidoNews
|
||
|
|
||
|
Any Coordinator is responsible for obtaining and making available, on a
|
||
|
weekly basis, nodelist difference files and FidoNews.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
3.2 Processing Nodelist Changes and Passing Them Upstream
|
||
|
|
||
|
Each coordinator is responsible for obtaining nodelist information from the
|
||
|
level below, processing it, and passing the results to the level above. The
|
||
|
timing of this process is determined by the requirements imposed by the level
|
||
|
above.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
3.3 Ensure the Latest Policy is Available
|
||
|
|
||
|
A Coordinator is responsible to make the current version of this document
|
||
|
available to the level below, and to encourage familiarity with it.
|
||
|
|
||
|
In addition, a coordinator is required to forward any local policies received
|
||
|
to the level above, and to review such policies. Although not required,
|
||
|
common courtesy dictates that when formulating a local policy, the participa-
|
||
|
tion of the level above should be solicited.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
3.4 Minimize the Number of Hats Worn
|
||
|
|
||
|
Coordinators are encouraged to limit the number of FidoNet functions they
|
||
|
perform. A coordinator who holds two different positions compromises the
|
||
|
appeal process. For example, if the Network Coordinator is also the Regional
|
||
|
Coordinator, sysops in that network are denied one level of appeal.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Coordinators are discouraged from acting as echomail and software-distri-
|
||
|
bution hubs. If they do so, they should handle echomail (or other volume
|
||
|
distribution) on a system other than the administrative system. A coordina-
|
||
|
tor's system should be readily available to the levels immediately above and
|
||
|
below.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Another reason to discourage multiple hats is the difficulty of replacing
|
||
|
services if someone leaves the network. For example, if a coordinator is the
|
||
|
echomail hub and the software-distribution hub, those services will be
|
||
|
difficult to restore when that person resigns.
|
||
|
|
||
|
3.5 Be a Member of the Area Administered
|
||
|
|
||
|
A coordinator must be a member of the area administered. That is, a Network
|
||
|
Coordinator must be a member of that network by virtue of geography. A
|
||
|
Regional Coordinator must be either a member of a network in the region, or
|
||
|
an independent in the region.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
3.6 Encourage New Sysops to Enter FidoNet
|
||
|
|
||
|
A coordinator is encouraged to operate a public bulletin board system which
|
||
|
is freely available for the purpose of distributing Policy, FidoNews, and
|
||
|
Nodelists to potential new sysops. Dissemination of this information to
|
||
|
persons who are potential FidoNet sysops is important to the growth of
|
||
|
FidoNet, and coordinators should encourage development of new systems.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
3.7 Tradition and Precedent
|
||
|
|
||
|
A coordinator is not bound by the practices of predecessor or peers beyond
|
||
|
the scope of this document.
|
||
|
|
||
|
In addition, a new coordinator has the right to review any decision made by
|
||
|
predecessors for compliance with Policy, and take whatever actions may be
|
||
|
necessary to rectify any situations not in compliance.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
3.8 Technical Management
|
||
|
|
||
|
The primary responsibility of any coordinator is technical management of
|
||
|
network operations. Decisions must be made on technical grounds.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
4 Network Coordinator Procedures
|
||
|
|
||
|
4.1 Responsibilities
|
||
|
|
||
|
A Network Coordinator has the following responsibilities:
|
||
|
|
||
|
1) To receive incoming mail for nodes in the network, and arrange
|
||
|
delivery to its recipients.
|
||
|
|
||
|
2) To assign node numbers to nodes in the network.
|
||
|
|
||
|
3) To maintain the nodelist for the network, and to send a copy of it to
|
||
|
the Regional Coordinator whenever it changes.
|
||
|
|
||
|
4) To make available to nodes in the network new nodelist difference
|
||
|
files, new issues of FidoNews, and new revisions of Network Policy
|
||
|
Documents as they are received, and to periodically check to insure that
|
||
|
nodes use up to date nodelists.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
4.2 Routing Inbound Mail
|
||
|
|
||
|
It is your responsibility as Network Coordinator to coordinate the receipt
|
||
|
and forwarding of host-routed inbound netmail for nodes in your network. The
|
||
|
best way to accomplish this is left to your discretion.
|
||
|
|
||
|
If a node in your network is receiving large volumes of mail you can request
|
||
|
that the sysop contact the systems which are sending this mail and request
|
||
|
that they not host-route it. If the problem persists, you can request your
|
||
|
Regional Coordinator to assign the node a number as an independent and drop
|
||
|
the system from your network.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Occasionally a node will make a "bombing run" (sending one message to a great
|
||
|
many nodes). If a node in another network is making bombing runs on your
|
||
|
nodes and routing them through your inbound host, then you can complain to
|
||
|
the network coordinator of the offending node. (If the node is an indepen-
|
||
|
dent, complain to the regional coordinator.) Bombing runs are considered to
|
||
|
be annoying.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Another source of routing overload is echomail. Echomail cannot be allowed
|
||
|
to degrade the ability of FidoNet to handle normal message traffic. If a
|
||
|
node in your network is routing large volumes of echomail, you can ask the
|
||
|
sysop to either limit the amount of echomail or to stop routing echomail.
|
||
|
|
||
|
You are not required to forward encrypted, commercial, or illegal mail.
|
||
|
However, you must follow the procedures described in section 2.1.7 if you do
|
||
|
not forward the mail.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
4.3 Assigning Node Numbers
|
||
|
|
||
|
It is your responsibility to assign node numbers to new nodes in your net-
|
||
|
work. You may also change the numbers of existing nodes in your network,
|
||
|
though you should check with your member nodes before doing so. You may
|
||
|
assign any numbers you wish, so long as each node has a unique number within
|
||
|
your network.
|
||
|
|
||
|
You must not assign a node number to any system until you have received a
|
||
|
formal request from that system by FidoNet mail. This will ensure that the
|
||
|
system is minimally operational. The strict maintenance of this policy has
|
||
|
been one of the great strengths of FidoNet.
|
||
|
|
||
|
It is also recommended, though not required, that you call a board which is
|
||
|
applying for a node number before assigning it a node number.
|
||
|
|
||
|
You may not assign a node number to a node in an area covered by an existing
|
||
|
network. Further, if you have nodes in an area covered by a network in
|
||
|
formation, those nodes must be transferred to the new network.
|
||
|
|
||
|
You should use network mail to inform a new sysop of the node number, as this
|
||
|
helps to insure that the system is capable of receiving network mail.
|
||
|
|
||
|
If a node in your network is acting in a sufficiently annoying manner, then
|
||
|
you can take whatever action you deem fit, according to the circumstances of
|
||
|
the case.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
4.4 Maintaining the Nodelist
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
You should implement name changes, phone number changes, and so forth in your
|
||
|
segment of the nodelist as soon as possible after the information is received
|
||
|
from the affected node. You should also on occasion send a message to every
|
||
|
node in your network to ensure that they are operational. If a node turns
|
||
|
out to be "off the air" with no prior warning, you can either mark the node
|
||
|
down or remove it from the nodelist. (Nodes are to be marked DOWN for a
|
||
|
maximum of two weeks, after which the line should be removed from the node-
|
||
|
list.)
|
||
|
|
||
|
At your discretion, you may distribute a portion of this workload to routing
|
||
|
hubs. In this case, you should receive the nodelists from the Hub Coordina-
|
||
|
tors within your network. You will need to maintain a set of nodelists for
|
||
|
each hub within your network, since you cannot count on getting an update
|
||
|
from each Hub Coordinator every week. You should assemble a master nodelist
|
||
|
for your network every week and send it to your Regional Coordinator by the
|
||
|
day and time designated. It is suggested that you do this as late as is
|
||
|
practical, so as to accommodate any late changes, balanced with the risk of
|
||
|
missing the connection with your Regional Coordinator and thus losing a week.
|
||
|
|
||
|
4.5 Making Available Policies, Nodelists and FidoNews
|
||
|
|
||
|
As a Network Coordinator you should obtain a new issue of FidoNews and a new
|
||
|
nodelist difference file every week from your Regional Coordinator. The
|
||
|
nodelist difference file is currently made available each Saturday, and
|
||
|
FidoNews is published each Monday. You must make these files available to
|
||
|
all nodes in the network, and you are encouraged to make them available to
|
||
|
the general public for download.
|
||
|
|
||
|
You should also obtain the most recent versions of the Policy documents that
|
||
|
bind the members of your network, and make those available to the nodes in
|
||
|
your network. Policies are released at sporadic intervals, so you should
|
||
|
also inform the nodes in your network when such events occur, and ensure the
|
||
|
nodes are generally familiar with the changes.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Policy, FidoNews, and the nodelist are the glue that holds us together.
|
||
|
Without them, we would cease to be a community, and become just another
|
||
|
random collection of bulletin boards.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
5 Regional Coordinator Procedures
|
||
|
|
||
|
5.1 Responsibilities
|
||
|
|
||
|
A Regional Coordinator has the following responsibilities:
|
||
|
|
||
|
1) To assign node numbers to independent nodes in the region.
|
||
|
|
||
|
2) To encourage independent nodes in the region to join existing net-
|
||
|
works, or to form new networks.
|
||
|
|
||
|
3) To assign network numbers to networks in the region and define their
|
||
|
boundaries.
|
||
|
|
||
|
4) To compile a nodelist of all of the networks and independents in the
|
||
|
region, and to send a copy of it to the Zone Coordinator whenever it
|
||
|
changes.
|
||
|
|
||
|
5) To ensure the smooth operation of networks within the region.
|
||
|
|
||
|
6) To make new nodelist difference files, Policies, and issues of
|
||
|
FidoNews available to the Network Coordinators in the region as soon as
|
||
|
is practical.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
5.2 Assigning Node Numbers
|
||
|
|
||
|
It is your responsibility to assign node numbers to independent nodes in your
|
||
|
region. You may also change the numbers of existing nodes in your region,
|
||
|
though you should check with the respective nodes before doing so. You may
|
||
|
assign any numbers you wish, so long as each node has a unique number within
|
||
|
your region.
|
||
|
|
||
|
You should not assign a node number to any system until you have received a
|
||
|
formal request from that system by FidoNet mail. This will ensure that the
|
||
|
system is minimally operational. The strict maintenance of this policy has
|
||
|
been one of the great strengths of FidoNet.
|
||
|
|
||
|
It is also recommended, though not required, that you call a board which is
|
||
|
applying for a node number before assigning it a node number.
|
||
|
|
||
|
You should use network mail to inform a new sysop of the node number, as this
|
||
|
helps to insure that the system is capable of receiving network mail.
|
||
|
|
||
|
If a node in your region is acting in a sufficiently annoying manner, then
|
||
|
you can take whatever action you deem fit, according to the circumstances of
|
||
|
the case.
|
||
|
|
||
|
If you receive a node number request from outside your region, you must
|
||
|
forward it to the most local coordinator for the requestor as you can deter-
|
||
|
mine. If you receive a node number request from a new node that is in an
|
||
|
area covered by an existing network, then you must forward the request to the
|
||
|
Coordinator of that network instead of assigning a number yourself.
|
||
|
|
||
|
If a network forms in an area for which you have independent nodes, those
|
||
|
nodes will be transferred to the local network as soon as is practical.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
5.3 Encouraging the Formation and Growth of Networks
|
||
|
|
||
|
One of your main duties as a Regional Coordinator is to promote the growth of
|
||
|
networks in your region.
|
||
|
|
||
|
You should avoid having independent nodes in your region which are within the
|
||
|
coverage area of a network. There are, however, certain cases where a node
|
||
|
should not be a member of a network, such as a system with a large amount of
|
||
|
inbound netmail; see section 4.2.
|
||
|
|
||
|
If several independent nodes in your region are in a local area you should
|
||
|
encourage them to form a network, and if necessary you may require them to
|
||
|
form a network. Refer to section 2.4. Note that this is not intended to
|
||
|
encourage the formation of trivial networks. Obviously, one node does not
|
||
|
make a network. The exact number of nodes required for an effective network
|
||
|
must be judged according to the circumstances of the situation, and is left
|
||
|
to your discretion.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
5.4 Assigning Network Numbers
|
||
|
|
||
|
It is your responsibility to assign network numbers to new networks forming
|
||
|
within your region. You are assigned a pool of network numbers to use for
|
||
|
this purpose by your Zone Coordinator. As a part of this function, it is the
|
||
|
responsibility of the Regional Coordinator to define the boundaries of the
|
||
|
networks in the region.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
5.5 Maintaining the Nodelist
|
||
|
|
||
|
As a Regional Coordinator, you have a dual role in maintaining the nodelist
|
||
|
for your region.
|
||
|
|
||
|
First, you must maintain the list of independent nodes in your region. You
|
||
|
should attempt to implement name changes, phone number changes, and so forth
|
||
|
in this nodelist as soon as possible. You should also on occasion send a
|
||
|
message to every independent node in your region to ensure that they are
|
||
|
operational. If a node turns out to be "off the air" with no prior warning,
|
||
|
you can either mark the node down or remove it from the nodelist. (Nodes are
|
||
|
to marked DOWN for a maximum of two weeks, after which the line should be
|
||
|
removed from the nodelist.)
|
||
|
|
||
|
Second, you must receive the nodelists from the Network Coordinators within
|
||
|
your region. You will need to maintain a set of nodelists for each network
|
||
|
within your region, since you cannot count on getting an update from each
|
||
|
Network Coordinator every week. You should assemble a master nodelist for
|
||
|
your region every week and send it to your Zone Coordinator by the day and
|
||
|
time designated. It is suggested that you do this as late as practical, so
|
||
|
as to accommodate late changes, balanced with the risk of missing the connec-
|
||
|
tion with your Zone Coordinator and thus losing a week.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
5.6 Geographic Exemptions
|
||
|
|
||
|
There are cases where local calling geography does not follow FidoNet re-
|
||
|
gions. In exceptional cases, exemptions to normal geographic guidelines are
|
||
|
agreed upon by the Regional Coordinators and Zone Coordinator involved. Such
|
||
|
an exemption is not a right, and is not permanent. When a network is formed
|
||
|
in the proper region that would provide local calling access to the exempted
|
||
|
node, it is no longer exempt. An exemption may be reviewed and revoked at
|
||
|
any time by any of the coordinators involved.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
5.7 Overseeing Network Operations
|
||
|
|
||
|
You are responsible for appointing network coordinators for the nets in your
|
||
|
region. If the outgoing Network Coordinator suggests a successor, you are
|
||
|
not obligated to accept that individual, although you normally will. Simi-
|
||
|
larly, you are not obligated to accept the individual selected by the members
|
||
|
of the network in an election, although you normally will.
|
||
|
|
||
|
It is your responsibility as Regional Coordinator to ensure that the networks
|
||
|
within your region are operating in an acceptable manner. This does not mean
|
||
|
that you are required to operate those networks; that is the responsibility
|
||
|
of the Network Coordinators. It means that you are responsible for assuring
|
||
|
that the Network Coordinators within your region are acting responsibly.
|
||
|
|
||
|
If you find that a Network Coordinator within your region is not properly
|
||
|
performing the duties outlined in Section 4, you should take whatever action
|
||
|
you deem necessary to correct the situation.
|
||
|
|
||
|
If a network grows so large that it cannot reasonably accommodate traffic
|
||
|
flow during the Zone Mail Hour, the Regional Coordinator can direct the
|
||
|
creation of one or more new networks from that network. These new networks,
|
||
|
although they may be within a single local-calling area, must still conform
|
||
|
to a geographical basis for determining membership.
|
||
|
|
||
|
It is your obligation as Regional Coordinator to maintain direct and reason-
|
||
|
ably frequent contact with the networks in your region. The exact method of
|
||
|
accomplishing this is left to your discretion.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
5.8 Making Available Nodelists, Policies, and FidoNews
|
||
|
|
||
|
As a Regional Coordinator, it is your responsibility to obtain the latest
|
||
|
nodelist difference file, network policies, and the latest issues of FidoNews
|
||
|
as they are published, and to make them available to the Network Coordinators
|
||
|
within your region. The nodelist is posted weekly on Saturday by the Zone
|
||
|
Coordinator, and FidoNews is published weekly on Monday by node 1/1. Contact
|
||
|
them for more details on how to obtain the latest copies each week.
|
||
|
|
||
|
It is your responsibility to make these available to all Network Coordina-
|
||
|
tors in your region as soon as is practical after you receive them. The
|
||
|
method of distribution is left to your discretion. You are not required to
|
||
|
distribute them to any independent nodes in your region, though you may if
|
||
|
you wish. You are encouraged to make all these documents available for
|
||
|
downloading by the general public.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
6 Zone Coordinator Procedures
|
||
|
|
||
|
6.1 General
|
||
|
|
||
|
A Zone Coordinator for FidoNet has the primary task of maintaining the
|
||
|
nodelist for the Zone, sharing it with the other Zone Coordinators, and
|
||
|
ensuring the distribution of the master nodelist (or difference file) to the
|
||
|
Regions in the Zone. The Zone Coordinator is also responsible for coordinat-
|
||
|
ing the distribution of Network Policy documents and FidoNews to the Regional
|
||
|
Coordinators in the zone.
|
||
|
|
||
|
The Zone Coordinator is responsible for the maintenance of the nodelist for
|
||
|
the administrative region. The Administrative Region has the same number as
|
||
|
the zone, and consists of nodes assigned for administrative purposes not
|
||
|
related to the sending and receiving of normal network mail.
|
||
|
|
||
|
A Zone Coordinator is charged with the task of ensuring the smooth operation
|
||
|
of the Zone, which is done by appointing and supervising the Regional Coordi-
|
||
|
nators.
|
||
|
|
||
|
If a Zone Coordinator determines that a Regional Coordinator is not properly
|
||
|
performing the duties outlined in section 5, a replacement should be found.
|
||
|
|
||
|
The Zone Coordinator defines the geographic boundaries of the regions within
|
||
|
the zone and sets the time for the Zone Mail Hour.
|
||
|
|
||
|
The Zone Coordinator is responsible for reviewing and approving any geograph-
|
||
|
ic exemptions as described in section 5.6.
|
||
|
|
||
|
The Zone Coordinator is responsible for insuring the smooth operation of
|
||
|
gates between that zone and all other zones for the transfer of interzonal
|
||
|
mail.
|
||
|
|
||
|
The Zone Coordinators are responsible for the selection of the International
|
||
|
Coordinator from among their ranks.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
6.2 Selection
|
||
|
|
||
|
The Zone Coordinator is selected by an absolute majority vote of the Regional
|
||
|
Coordinators within the zone.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
7 International Coordinator Procedures
|
||
|
|
||
|
7.1 General
|
||
|
|
||
|
The International Coordinator is the "first among equals" Zone Coordinator.
|
||
|
|
||
|
The International Coordinator has the primary task of coordinating the
|
||
|
creation of the master nodelist by managing the distribution between the
|
||
|
Zones of the Zone nodelists. The International Coordinator is responsible
|
||
|
for definition of new zones and for negotiation of agreements for communica-
|
||
|
tion with other networks. ("Other network" in this context means other
|
||
|
networks with which FidoNet communicates as peer-to-peer, not "network" in
|
||
|
the sense of the FidoNet organizational level.)
|
||
|
|
||
|
The International Coordinator is also responsible for coordinating the
|
||
|
distribution of Network Policies and FidoNews to the Zone Coordinators.
|
||
|
|
||
|
The International Coordinator is responsible for coordinating the activities
|
||
|
of the Zone Coordinator Council. The International Coordinator acts as the
|
||
|
spokesman for the Zone Coordinator Council.
|
||
|
|
||
|
In cases not specifically covered by this document, the International Coordi-
|
||
|
nator may issue specific interpretations or extensions to this policy. The
|
||
|
Zone Coordinator Council may reverse such rulings by a majority vote.
|
||
|
|
||
|
7.2 Selection
|
||
|
|
||
|
The International Coordinator is selected (or removed) by an absolute majori-
|
||
|
ty vote of the Zone Coordinators.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
8 Referenda
|
||
|
|
||
|
The procedures described in this section are used to ratify a new version of
|
||
|
FidoNet policy, which is the mechanism by which policy is changed. This
|
||
|
procedure is also used to impeach a Zone Coordinator.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
8.1 Initiation
|
||
|
|
||
|
A referendum on policy modification is invoked when a majority of the
|
||
|
FidoNet Regional Coordinators inform the International Coordinator that they
|
||
|
wish to consider a proposed new version of Policy.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
8.2 Announcement and Results Notification
|
||
|
|
||
|
Proposed changes to Policy are distributed using the same structure which is
|
||
|
used to distribute nodelist difference files and FidoNews. Results and
|
||
|
announcements related to the referendum are distributed by the coordinator
|
||
|
structure as a part of the weekly nodelist difference file. The Interna-
|
||
|
tional Coordinator provides copies to the editor of FidoNews for inclusion
|
||
|
there, although the official announcement and voting dates are tied to
|
||
|
nodelist distributions.
|
||
|
|
||
|
If it is adopted, the International Coordinator sets the effective date for a
|
||
|
new policy through announcement in the weekly nodelist difference file. The
|
||
|
effective date will be not more than one month after the close of balloting.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
8.3 Eligibility to Vote
|
||
|
|
||
|
Each member of the FidoNet coordinator structure at and above Network Coordi-
|
||
|
nator is entitled to one vote. (Hub coordinators do not vote.) In the case
|
||
|
of the position changing hands during the balloting process, either the
|
||
|
incumbent or the new coordinator may vote, but not both. If a person holds
|
||
|
more than one coordinator position, they still receive only one vote.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Network coordinators are expected to assess the opinions of the members of
|
||
|
their network, and to vote accordingly. A formal election is not necessary,
|
||
|
but the network coordinator must inform the net of the issues and solicit
|
||
|
input. The network coordinator functions as the representative of the rank
|
||
|
and file members of FidoNet.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
8.4 Voting Mechanism
|
||
|
|
||
|
The actual voting mechanism, including whether the ballot is secret and how
|
||
|
the ballots are to be collected, verified, and counted, is left to the
|
||
|
discretion of the International Coordinator. Ideally, ballot collection
|
||
|
should be by some secure message system, conducted over FidoNet itself.
|
||
|
|
||
|
In order to provide a discussion period, the announcement of any ballot must
|
||
|
be made at least two weeks before the date of voting commencement. The
|
||
|
balloting period must be at least two weeks.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
8.5 Voting on a whole Policy Document
|
||
|
|
||
|
Given that Policy is intertwined and self referencing, a relatively simple
|
||
|
change may require several alterations of the document. In order to simplify
|
||
|
the process, balloting is done on choices between whole documents, rather
|
||
|
than individual amendments. In the simplest case, this means voting yea or
|
||
|
nay to a new document. If a number of alternatives are to be considered,
|
||
|
they must be presented as whole documents, from which one is chosen.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
8.6 Decision of vote
|
||
|
|
||
|
A Policy amendment is considered in force if, at the end of the balloting
|
||
|
period, it has received a majority of the votes cast. For example, if there
|
||
|
were 350 eligible voters, 100 of which cast a vote, then at least 51 affirma-
|
||
|
tive votes would be required to declare the amendment in force.
|
||
|
|
||
|
In the case of multiple policy changes which are considered on the same
|
||
|
ballot, a version must receive more than 50% of the votes cast to be consid-
|
||
|
ered ratified. "Abstain" is a valid vote in this case, effectively being a
|
||
|
vote for not changing the current policy as it simply increases the number of
|
||
|
votes required to ratify the proposed change.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
8.7 Impeachment of a Zone Coordinator
|
||
|
|
||
|
8.7.1 Initiation
|
||
|
|
||
|
In extreme cases, a Zone Coordinator may be impeached by referendum. Im-
|
||
|
peachment of a Zone Coordinator does not require a Policy violation. An
|
||
|
impeachment proceeding is invoked when a majority of the Regional Coordina-
|
||
|
tors in a zone request the International Coordinator to institute it.
|
||
|
|
||
|
8.7.2 Procedure as in Policy Referendum
|
||
|
|
||
|
The provisions of sections 8.2 and 8.3 apply to impeachment referenda.
|
||
|
|
||
|
The definition of "majority" in section 8.6 applies. Only coordinators in
|
||
|
the affected zone vote (even if the zone coordinator is also the Internation-
|
||
|
al Coordinator).
|
||
|
|
||
|
8.7.3 Voting Mechanism
|
||
|
|
||
|
The balloting procedures are set, the votes are collected, and the results
|
||
|
are announced by a Regional Coordinator chosen by the Zone Coordinator who is
|
||
|
being impeached. The removal of the Zone Coordinator is effective two weeks
|
||
|
after the end of balloting if the impeachment carries.
|
||
|
|
||
|
8.7.4 Limited to once per year
|
||
|
|
||
|
The removal of a Zone Coordinator is primarily intended to be a mechanism by
|
||
|
which the net as a whole expresses displeasure with the way Policy is being
|
||
|
interpreted. At one time or another, everyone is unhappy with the way policy
|
||
|
is interpreted. In order to keep the Zone Coordinators interpreting policy
|
||
|
as opposed to defending themselves, at least one full calendar year must
|
||
|
elapse between impeachment referenda (regardless of how many people hold the
|
||
|
position of Zone Coordinator during that year.)
|
||
|
|
||
|
Should a Zone Coordinator resign during an impeachment process, the process
|
||
|
is considered null and void, and does not consume the "once per year quota".
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
9 Resolution of Disputes
|
||
|
|
||
|
9.1 General
|
||
|
|
||
|
The FidoNet judicial philosophy can be summed up in two rules:
|
||
|
|
||
|
1) Thou shalt not excessively annoy others.
|
||
|
|
||
|
2) Thou shalt not be too easily annoyed.
|
||
|
|
||
|
In other words, there are no hard and fast rules of conduct, but reasonably
|
||
|
polite behavior is expected. Also, in any dispute both sides are examined,
|
||
|
and action could be taken against either or both parties. ("Judge not, lest
|
||
|
ye be judged!")
|
||
|
|
||
|
The coordinator structure has the responsibility for defining "excessively
|
||
|
annoying". Like a common definition of pornography ("I can't define it, but
|
||
|
I know it when I see it."), a hard and fast definition of acceptable FidoNet
|
||
|
behavior is not possible. The guidelines in this policy are deliberately
|
||
|
vague to provide the freedom that the coordinator structure requires to
|
||
|
respond to the needs of a growing and changing community.
|
||
|
|
||
|
The first step in any dispute between sysops is for the sysops to attempt to
|
||
|
communicate directly, at least by netmail, preferably by voice. Any com-
|
||
|
plaint made that has skipped this most basic communication step will be
|
||
|
rejected.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Filing a formal complaint is not an action which should be taken lightly.
|
||
|
Investigation and response to complaints requires time which coordinators
|
||
|
would prefer to spend doing more constructive activities. Persons who
|
||
|
persist in filing trivial policy complaints may find themselves on the wrong
|
||
|
side of an excessively-annoying complaint. Complaints must be accompanied
|
||
|
with verifiable evidence, generally copies of messages; a simple word-of-
|
||
|
mouth complaint will be dismissed out of hand.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Failure to follow the procedures herein described (in particular, by skipping
|
||
|
a coordinator, or involving a coordinator not in the appeal chain) is in and
|
||
|
of itself annoying behavior.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
9.2 Problems with Another Sysop
|
||
|
|
||
|
If you are having problems with another sysop, you should first try to work
|
||
|
it out via netmail or voice conversation with the other sysop.
|
||
|
|
||
|
If this fails to resolve the problem, you should complain to your Network
|
||
|
Coordinator and the other sysop's Network Coordinator. If one or both of you
|
||
|
is not in a network, then complain to the appropriate Regional Coordinator.
|
||
|
Should this fail to provide satisfaction, you have the right to follow the
|
||
|
appeal process described in section 9.5.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
9.3 Problems with your Network Coordinator
|
||
|
|
||
|
If you are having problems with your Network Coordinator and feel that you
|
||
|
are not being treated properly, you are entitled to a review of your situa-
|
||
|
tion. As with all disputes, the first step is to communicate directly to
|
||
|
attempt to resolve the problem.
|
||
|
|
||
|
The next step is to contact your Regional Coordinator. If your case has
|
||
|
merit, there are several possible courses of action, including a change of
|
||
|
Network Coordinators or even the disbanding of your network. If you have
|
||
|
been excommunicated by your Network Coordinator, that judgement may be
|
||
|
reversed, at which point you will be reinstated into your net.
|
||
|
|
||
|
If you fail to obtain relief from your Regional Coordinator, you have the
|
||
|
right to follow the appeal process described in section 9.5.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
9.4 Problems with Other Coordinators
|
||
|
|
||
|
Complaints concerning annoying behavior on the part of any coordinator are
|
||
|
treated as in section 9.2 and should be filed with the next level of coordi-
|
||
|
nator. For example, if you feel that your Regional Coordinator is guilty of
|
||
|
annoying behavior (as opposed to a failure to perform duties as a coordina-
|
||
|
tor) you should file your complaint with the Zone Coordinator.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Complaints concerning the performance of a coordinator in carrying out the
|
||
|
duties mandated by policy are accepted only from the level immediately below.
|
||
|
For example, complaints concerning the performance of Regional Coordinators
|
||
|
would be accepted from Network Coordinators and independents in that region.
|
||
|
Such complaints should be addressed to the Zone Coordinator after an appro-
|
||
|
priate attempt to work them out by direct communications.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
9.5 Appeal Process
|
||
|
|
||
|
A decision made by a coordinator may be appealed to the next level. Appeals
|
||
|
must be made within two weeks of the decision which is being appealed. All
|
||
|
appeals must follow the chain of command; if levels are skipped the appeal
|
||
|
will be dismissed out of hand.
|
||
|
|
||
|
An appeal will not result in a full investigation, but will be based upon the
|
||
|
documentation supplied by the parties at the lower level. For example, an
|
||
|
appeal of a Network Coordinator's decision will be decided by the Regional
|
||
|
Coordinator based upon information provided by the coordinator and the sysop
|
||
|
involved; the Regional Coordinator is not expected to make an independent
|
||
|
attempt to gather information.
|
||
|
|
||
|
The appeal structure is as follows:
|
||
|
|
||
|
Network Coordinator decisions may be appealed to the appropriate Region-
|
||
|
al Coordinator.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Regional Coordinator decisions may be appealed to the appropriate Zone
|
||
|
Coordinator. At this point, the Zone Coordinator will make a decision
|
||
|
and communicate it to the Regional Coordinators in that zone. This
|
||
|
decision may be reversed by a majority vote of the Regional Coordina-
|
||
|
tors.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Zone Coordinator decisions may be appealed to the International Coordi-
|
||
|
nator. The International Coordinator will make a decision and communi-
|
||
|
cate it to the Zone Coordinator Council, which may reverse it by majori-
|
||
|
ty vote.
|
||
|
|
||
|
If your problem is with a Zone Coordinator per se, that is, a Zone Coordina-
|
||
|
tor has committed a Policy violation against you, your complaint should be
|
||
|
filed with the International Coordinator, who will make a decision and submit
|
||
|
it to the Zone Coordinator Council for possible reversal, as described above.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
9.6 Statute of Limitations
|
||
|
|
||
|
A complaint may not be filed more than 60 days after the date of discovery of
|
||
|
the source of the infraction, either by admission or technical evidence.
|
||
|
Complaints may not be filed more than 120 days after the incident unless they
|
||
|
involve explicitly illegal behavior.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
9.7 Right to a Speedy Decision
|
||
|
|
||
|
A coordinator is required to render a final decision and notify the parties
|
||
|
involved within 30 days of the receipt of the complaint or appeal.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
9.8 Return to Original Network
|
||
|
|
||
|
Once a policy dispute is resolved, any nodes reinstated on appeal are re-
|
||
|
turned to the local network or region to which they geographically or techni-
|
||
|
cally belong.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
9.9 Echomail
|
||
|
|
||
|
Echomail is an important and powerful force in FidoNet. For the purposes of
|
||
|
Policy Disputes, echomail is simply a different flavor of netmail, and is
|
||
|
therefore covered by Policy. By its nature, echomail places unique technical
|
||
|
and social demands on the net over and above those covered by this version of
|
||
|
Policy. In recognition of this, an echomail policy which extends (and does
|
||
|
not contradict) general Policy, maintained by the Echomail Coordinators, and
|
||
|
ratified by a process similar to that of this document, is recognized by the
|
||
|
FidoNet Coordinators as a valid structure for dispute resolution on matters
|
||
|
pertaining to echomail. At some future date the echomail policy document may
|
||
|
be merged with this one.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
9.10 Case Histories
|
||
|
|
||
|
Most of FidoNet Policy is interpretive in nature. No one can see what is to
|
||
|
come in our rapidly changing environment. Policy itself is only a part of
|
||
|
what is used as the ground rules for mediating disputes -- as or more impor-
|
||
|
tant are the precedents.
|
||
|
|
||
|
In order to accommodate this process, case histories may be added to or
|
||
|
removed from this document by the International Coordinator, with such a
|
||
|
revision subject to reversal by the Zone Coordinator Council. Should Policy
|
||
|
be amended in such a way to invalidate a precedent, Policy supersedes said
|
||
|
precedent. (A carefully prepared amendment would address this by removing
|
||
|
the precedent reference as a part of the amendment.)
|
||
|
|
||
|
Although a case may be removed, the text of a case history may not be modi-
|
||
|
fied by any mechanism. Case history is written close to the time of the
|
||
|
decision, by those involved with it. Amending the text of a case history is
|
||
|
the same as revising history, something quite inappropriate in an organiza-
|
||
|
tion dedicated to moving information.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
10 Appendices
|
||
|
|
||
|
10.1 General
|
||
|
|
||
|
The Appendices of this document are exceptions to the normal ratification
|
||
|
process. Section 10.2 can be changed by the appropriate Zone Coordinator,
|
||
|
and section 10.3 may be modified by the International Coordinator (see
|
||
|
Section 9.10).
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
10.2 Timing of Zone Mail Hour
|
||
|
|
||
|
Zone Mail Hour is observed each day, including weekends and holidays. The
|
||
|
time is based upon Universal Coordinated Time (UTC), also known as Greenwich
|
||
|
Mean time (GMT). In areas which observe Daylight Savings Time during part of
|
||
|
the year, the local time of zone mail hour will change because FidoNet does
|
||
|
not observe Daylight Savings Time. The exact timing of Zone Mail Hour is set
|
||
|
for each zone by the Zone Coordinator.
|
||
|
|
||
|
In FidoNet Zone 1, Zone Mail Hour is observed from 0900 to 1000 UTC. In each
|
||
|
of the time zones, this is:
|
||
|
|
||
|
Eastern Standard Time 4 AM to 5 AM
|
||
|
Central Standard Time 3 AM to 4 AM
|
||
|
Mountain Standard Time 2 AM to 3 AM
|
||
|
Pacific Standard Time 1 AM to 2 AM
|
||
|
Hawaii Standard Time 11 PM to Midnight
|
||
|
|
||
|
In FidoNet Zone 2, Zone Mail Hour is observed from 0230 to 0330 UTC.
|
||
|
|
||
|
In Fidonet Zone 3, Zone Mail Hour is observed from 1800 to 1900 UTC. In each
|
||
|
of the time Zones involved this is:
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
GMT +12 Zone 6:00 AM to 7:00 AM
|
||
|
(New Zealand)
|
||
|
|
||
|
GMT +10 Zone 4:00 AM to 5:00 AM
|
||
|
(East Australia)
|
||
|
(Papua New Guinea)
|
||
|
(Micronesia)
|
||
|
|
||
|
GMT +9.5 Zone 3:30 AM to 4:30 AM
|
||
|
(Central Australia)
|
||
|
|
||
|
GMT +9 Zone 3:00 AM to 4:00 AM
|
||
|
(Japan)
|
||
|
(Korea)
|
||
|
(Eastern Indonesia)
|
||
|
|
||
|
GMT +8 Zone 2:00 AM to 3:00 AM
|
||
|
(Hong Kong)
|
||
|
(Taiwan)
|
||
|
(Central Indonesia)
|
||
|
(Philippines)
|
||
|
(Western Australia)
|
||
|
|
||
|
GMT +7 Zone 1:00 AM to 2:00 AM
|
||
|
(Malaysia)
|
||
|
(Singapore)
|
||
|
(Thailand)
|
||
|
(Western Indonesia)
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
10.3 Case Histories
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
Case histories of past disputes are instructive to show general procedures
|
||
|
and methods. Any decision may be included in this document by a majority
|
||
|
vote of either the Zone Coordinator Council or the Regional Coordinators.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Policy4 significantly changes the functions of the Zone and International
|
||
|
Coordinators. In the following cases which were decided using Policy3,
|
||
|
substitute "Zone Coordinator" for all occurrences of "International Coordina-
|
||
|
tor(*)".
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
10.3.1 The Case of the Crooked Node
|
||
|
|
||
|
A sysop of a local node was using network mail to engage in unethical busi-
|
||
|
ness practices. The Network Coordinator became very annoyed at this, and
|
||
|
dropped the local from the nodelist.
|
||
|
|
||
|
The local appealed to the Regional Coordinator for assignment as an indepen-
|
||
|
dent node. The Regional Coordinator, after checking with the Network Coordi-
|
||
|
nator, decided that the Network Coordinator was right to be annoyed. Inde-
|
||
|
pendent status was denied.
|
||
|
|
||
|
The International Coordinator(*) did not intervene.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
10.3.2 The Case of the Hacker Mailer
|
||
|
|
||
|
A sysop of a local node made use of file attaches for extra users to mail
|
||
|
himself the USER.BBS file from several local boards. The sysops of these
|
||
|
boards felt annoyed at this, and appealed to their Network Coordinator, who
|
||
|
agreed and dropped the offending node from the nodelist.
|
||
|
|
||
|
The Regional Coordinator was not consulted.
|
||
|
|
||
|
The International Coordinator(*) did not intervene.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
10.3.3 The Case of the Bothered Barker
|
||
|
|
||
|
A local node became annoyed with the Network Coordinator for failing to
|
||
|
provide services. Repeated complaints to the Network Coordinator did not
|
||
|
satisfy him, so he appealed to the International Coordinator(*).
|
||
|
|
||
|
The International Coordinator(*) dismissed the complaint because the Regional
|
||
|
Coordinator had not been consulted.
|
||
|
|
||
|
The local node submitted the complaint to his Regional Coordinator, who
|
||
|
investigated the case and discovered that there was some justice to the
|
||
|
complaint. He advised and assisted the Network Coordinator in configuring
|
||
|
his system to provide an improved level of service to the local nodes.
|
||
|
|
||
|
The Regional Coordinator also decided that the local node was being too
|
||
|
easily annoyed, in that he was expecting services not normally required of a
|
||
|
Network Coordinator. The local node was informed as to the true duties of a
|
||
|
Network Coordinator, and was advised to lower his expectations.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
10.3.4 The Case of the Busy Beaver
|
||
|
|
||
|
A local node which was operated by a retail establishment was engaged in
|
||
|
making "bombing runs" to mail advertisements over FidoNet. The Network
|
||
|
Coordinator felt annoyed and handling the outgoing traffic for a commercial
|
||
|
operation, and asked the local node to leave the network.
|
||
|
|
||
|
The local node applied to the Regional Coordinator, and was granted status as
|
||
|
an independent node in the region.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
10.3.5 The Mark of the Devil
|
||
|
|
||
|
A local sysop whose board was used in conjunction with voodoo rites, hacking,
|
||
|
phreaking, and obscene material applied to a Network Coordinator for a node
|
||
|
number. The Network Coordinator deemed that this board was exceptionally
|
||
|
annoying, and denied the request.
|
||
|
|
||
|
The Regional Coordinator was not consulted.
|
||
|
|
||
|
The International Coordinator(*), on seeing that the Regional Coordinator had
|
||
|
not been consulted, dismissed the case out of hand. No further appeals were
|
||
|
made.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
10.3.6 The Case of the Sysop Twit
|
||
|
|
||
|
A patron of various local nodes had been roundly recognized by all sysops as
|
||
|
a twit. The user obtained his own system, became a sysop, and applied for a
|
||
|
node number. The Network Coordinator denied the request. No appeals were
|
||
|
made.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
10.3.7 The Case of the Echomail Junkie
|
||
|
|
||
|
A local node became enamored with echomail and joined several conferences,
|
||
|
routing mail through his network. He then started an echomail conference of
|
||
|
his own and began relaying echomail between several systems, again routing it
|
||
|
all through the network.
|
||
|
|
||
|
His Network Coordinator observed that network performance was becoming
|
||
|
seriously impaired. The offending node was told to hold it down. A compro-
|
||
|
mise was reached whereby much of the echomail traffic was no longer routed
|
||
|
through the network, and routed echomail was limited to twenty messages per
|
||
|
night. No appeals were made.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
10.3.8 The Case of the Bouncing Board
|
||
|
|
||
|
A local user decided to establish a node to promote a worthy charity. The
|
||
|
machine being used was also used for various other activities during the day,
|
||
|
and the sysop was often called away. His coworkers would often forget to
|
||
|
bring the board up at the end of the day while he was away, so the node was
|
||
|
often down for extended periods. The Network Coordinator, finding the node
|
||
|
unable to receive mail, would mark it down. The sysop would return, restart
|
||
|
the board, and ask to be reinstated.
|
||
|
|
||
|
The Network Coordinator eventually decided that the sysop was not able to
|
||
|
maintain a reliable system, and removed him from the nodelist completely.
|
||
|
Subsequent requests for a node number from the same sysop were turned down.
|
||
|
No appeals were made.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
10.5 Credits, acknowledgments, etc.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Fido and FidoNet are registered trademarks of Fido Software, Inc.
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
Index
|
||
|
|
||
|
-1/-1, 2.3
|
||
|
Additional mail events in local network 2.1.8
|
||
|
Address in message to request node 2.2
|
||
|
Administrative Region 6.1
|
||
|
Advantages to network membership 2.2
|
||
|
Alteration of mail 2.1.5
|
||
|
Answering machine 2.3
|
||
|
Announcement of voting results 8.2
|
||
|
Annoying behavior 1.3.5, 1.4.8, 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.4, 2.1.6, 2.1.7, 2.1.8,
|
||
|
2.1.11, 2.3, 4.2, 4.3, 5.2, 9, 10
|
||
|
Appeal chain 9.5
|
||
|
Appointment of coordinators 1.2.3, 1.2.4, 5.7, 6.1
|
||
|
Availability of NodeList 1.3.4
|
||
|
Balloting Period 8.4
|
||
|
Bombing run 4.2
|
||
|
BossNode 1.2.1.2
|
||
|
Boundaries 1.3.2
|
||
|
Business use of FidoNet 1.3.6
|
||
|
Calling areas 1.3.2, 5.6, 5.7
|
||
|
Case histories 9.10, 10.3
|
||
|
Chain of command 1.2.8
|
||
|
Changing node numbers 4.3, 5.2
|
||
|
Checks and balances 1.2.8
|
||
|
Commercial messages 1.3.6, 2.1.4, 4.2
|
||
|
Complaint (policy) 2.1.6.1, 9
|
||
|
Contributions to FidoNews 1.3.1
|
||
|
Current nodelist 2.1.11
|
||
|
Daylight Savings Time 2.1.14
|
||
|
Difference file 4.5, 5.8, 8.2
|
||
|
Disclosing private mail 2.1.6
|
||
|
Discussion period 8.2
|
||
|
Disputes 9
|
||
|
Distribution of ballots 8.2
|
||
|
Down 2.3, 4.4, 5.5
|
||
|
Downloading by users 3.6, 4.5, 5.8
|
||
|
EchoMail 4.2, 9.9
|
||
|
Effective date (policy change) 8.2
|
||
|
Election of coordinators 1.2.5, 6.2, 7.2
|
||
|
Eligibility to vote 8.3
|
||
|
Encryption 2.1.4, 4.2
|
||
|
Exceptions 5.6
|
||
|
Excessively annoying behavior 1.2.1.1, 1.3.5, 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.4, 2.1.6,
|
||
|
2.1.7, 2.1.8, 2.1.11, 2.3, 4.2, 4.3, 5.2, 9, 10
|
||
|
Exclusivity of Zone Mail Hour 2.1.8
|
||
|
Excommunication 2.1.12, 4.3, 5.2, 9
|
||
|
Exemptions, node location 1.3.2, 5.6
|
||
|
Familiarity with policy 2.1.2, 2.2
|
||
|
FidoNews 1.3.1
|
||
|
availability 3.1, 4.5, 5.8
|
||
|
FTSC 2.1.8, 2.1.9, 2.4
|
||
|
Gateway 2.1.3
|
||
|
Geography 1.3.2, 5.6
|
||
|
Glue 4.5
|
||
|
Guarantee of mail delivery 1.3.6
|
||
|
Hats 3.4
|
||
|
Host-routed mail 4.2
|
||
|
How to obtain a node number 2.2
|
||
|
Hub 1.2.3.1, 4.4
|
||
|
Illegal behavior 2.1.1, 9.6
|
||
|
Illegal mail 4.2
|
||
|
Impeachment 8.7
|
||
|
In-transit mail 2.1.6.1
|
||
|
Independent node 4.2, 5.2
|
||
|
Inter-zonal questions 1.2.6
|
||
|
International Coordinator 1.4.1, 1.4.9, 7
|
||
|
Justification of private nodes 2.1.9
|
||
|
Language 1.0
|
||
|
Levels of FidoNet 1.2, 1.4
|
||
|
Local calling areas 1.3.2
|
||
|
Local policies 1.2, 3.3
|
||
|
Mail 1.2.3, 4.2
|
||
|
Mailer 2.2
|
||
|
Majority 8.6, 8.7.2
|
||
|
Member of area administrated 3.5
|
||
|
Modem 2.2
|
||
|
Modification of mail 2.1.5
|
||
|
National Mail Hour see Zone Mail Hour
|
||
|
Network
|
||
|
advantages 2.2
|
||
|
boundaries 1.3.2, 5.4
|
||
|
definition 1.2.3
|
||
|
forming 2.4, 5.3
|
||
|
hub 1.2.3.1, 4.4
|
||
|
numbers 2.2, 5.4
|
||
|
Network Coordinator 1.2.3
|
||
|
procedures 4
|
||
|
replacement 5.7, 9.3
|
||
|
Network Mail Hour see Zone Mail Hour
|
||
|
New sysops 2.1.2, 3.6
|
||
|
Node numbers 4.3, 5.2
|
||
|
obtaining 2.2
|
||
|
Nodelist 1.3.4, 2.2, 4.4, 5.5
|
||
|
availability 3.1, 4.5, 5.8
|
||
|
changes 4.4, 5.2
|
||
|
current 2.1.11
|
||
|
definition 1.3.4
|
||
|
format 10.3
|
||
|
official 1.3.4
|
||
|
Nodes
|
||
|
definition 1.2.1
|
||
|
down 2.3
|
||
|
Observing mail events 2.1.8, 2.1.10
|
||
|
Obtaining a node number 2.2
|
||
|
Offensive messages 2.1.5
|
||
|
Orders (commercial) 1.3.6
|
||
|
Partial nodelist 1.3.4
|
||
|
Pirated software 2.1.1
|
||
|
Point of origin 2.1.3
|
||
|
Points 1.2.1.2, 2.1.3
|
||
|
Policy 3.1, 3.3, 4.5, 5.8
|
||
|
changing 8
|
||
|
complaint 2.1.6.1, 9
|
||
|
familiarity with 2.1.2, 2.2
|
||
|
local 1.2, 3.3
|
||
|
Precedent 3.7, 9.10, 10.3
|
||
|
Private messsages 2.1.6
|
||
|
Private network 1.2.1.2
|
||
|
Private nodes 2.1.9
|
||
|
Problem resolution 9
|
||
|
Protocol 2.1.8
|
||
|
Public BBS 3.6
|
||
|
Ratification 7.1
|
||
|
Redundant nodes 2.1.9
|
||
|
Referendum 1.2.7, 8
|
||
|
Regional Coordinator 1.2.4
|
||
|
procedures 5
|
||
|
replacement 6.1, 9.4
|
||
|
Regions 1.2.4
|
||
|
Replacement of coordinators 1.2.8
|
||
|
Replacing services 3.4
|
||
|
Requirements to be in NodeList 1.3.4, 2.1.2, 2.2
|
||
|
Resignation of ZC 8.7.4
|
||
|
Resolution of disputes 9
|
||
|
Results Announcement 8.2
|
||
|
Review of decisions 3.7
|
||
|
Review of routed traffic 2.1.4
|
||
|
Routing 2.1.4 - 2.1.7, 4.2
|
||
|
Routing Hub 1.2.3.1, 4.4
|
||
|
Rules 9.1
|
||
|
Speedy decision 9.7
|
||
|
Standards (FTSC) 2.1.8, 2.4
|
||
|
Statute of limitations 9.6
|
||
|
Submissions to FidoNews 1.3.1
|
||
|
Sysop procedures 2
|
||
|
System operator (sysop) 1.2.1
|
||
|
Three-tiered networks 1.2.3.1
|
||
|
Time limit on decision 9.7
|
||
|
Timing of Zone Mail Hour 2.1.13, 2.1.14, 10.2
|
||
|
Top-down 1.4.9
|
||
|
Tradition 3.7
|
||
|
Trivial network 5.3
|
||
|
Unattended systems 2.3
|
||
|
Updates to nodelist 3.2
|
||
|
User 1.2.1.1
|
||
|
User access during ZMH 2.1.8
|
||
|
Vacation 2.3
|
||
|
Voice telephone number 2.2
|
||
|
Vote 8
|
||
|
eligibility 8.3, 8.7.2
|
||
|
ZMH see Zone Mail Hour
|
||
|
Zone Coordinator 1.2.5, 6
|
||
|
election 6.2
|
||
|
impeachment 8.7
|
||
|
procedures 6
|
||
|
removal 6.2
|
||
|
resignation during impeachment 8.7.4
|
||
|
Zone Coordinator Council 1.2.6, 7.1
|
||
|
Zone Mail Hour 1.3.3, 2.1.8
|
||
|
timing 2.1.13, 2.1.14, 10.2
|
||
|
Zones 1.2.5, 1.3.2
|