2082 lines
98 KiB
Plaintext
2082 lines
98 KiB
Plaintext
Volume 6, Number 23 5 June 1989
|
||
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
|
||
| _ |
|
||
| / \ |
|
||
| /|oo \ |
|
||
| - FidoNews - (_| /_) |
|
||
| _`@/_ \ _ |
|
||
| International | | \ \\ |
|
||
| FidoNet Association | (*) | \ )) |
|
||
| Newsletter ______ |__U__| / \// |
|
||
| / FIDO \ _//|| _\ / |
|
||
| (________) (_/(_|(____/ |
|
||
| (jm) |
|
||
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
|
||
Editor in Chief: Vince Perriello
|
||
Editors Emeritii: Dale Lovell
|
||
Thom Henderson
|
||
Chief Procrastinator Emeritus: Tom Jennings
|
||
|
||
FidoNews is published weekly by the International FidoNet
|
||
Association as its official newsletter. You are encouraged to
|
||
submit articles for publication in FidoNews. Article submission
|
||
standards are contained in the file ARTSPEC.DOC, available from
|
||
node 1:1/1. 1:1/1 is a Continuous Mail system, available for
|
||
network mail 24 hours a day.
|
||
|
||
Copyright 1989 by the International FidoNet Association. All
|
||
rights reserved. Duplication and/or distribution permitted for
|
||
noncommercial purposes only. For use in other circumstances,
|
||
please contact IFNA at (314) 576-4067. IFNA may also be contacted
|
||
at PO Box 41143, St. Louis, MO 63141.
|
||
|
||
Fido and FidoNet are registered trademarks of Tom Jennings of
|
||
Fido Software, 164 Shipley Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94107 and
|
||
are used with permission.
|
||
|
||
We don't necessarily agree with the contents of every article
|
||
published here. Most of these materials are unsolicited. No
|
||
article will be rejected which is properly attributed and legally
|
||
acceptable. We will publish every responsible submission
|
||
received.
|
||
|
||
|
||
Table of Contents
|
||
1. ARTICLES ................................................. 1
|
||
The European Situation ................................... 1
|
||
Response to Pete White's article ......................... 3
|
||
The Fake Users Manual .................................... 10
|
||
The Lost FidoNet Archives - Volume 2 ..................... 15
|
||
Here We Go Again! ........................................ 21
|
||
Something Exotic - Polish traffic in Net/Echo Mail ....... 29
|
||
2. COLUMNS .................................................. 31
|
||
The Veterinarian's Corner: Elimination Problem Behavior .. 31
|
||
3. LATEST VERSIONS .......................................... 33
|
||
Latest Software Versions ................................. 33
|
||
And more!
|
||
FidoNews 6-23 Page 1 5 Jun 1989
|
||
|
||
|
||
=================================================================
|
||
ARTICLES
|
||
=================================================================
|
||
|
||
The European Situation
|
||
by Daniel Tobias
|
||
1:380/7
|
||
|
||
This article is my reaction to the Zone 2 Policy situation as
|
||
announced in FidoNews 622.
|
||
|
||
The European nodes' statement to the effect that they have
|
||
repealed POLICY3 for their zone, replaced it with a
|
||
European-specific policy, and rejected the proposed POLICY4,
|
||
amounts to a "Declaration of Independence" of sorts for the
|
||
European nodes, who now claim not to be subject to the overall,
|
||
American-dominated FidoNet policy.
|
||
|
||
As a Libertarian politically, I have no moral objection to the
|
||
European nodes declaring independence from the Americans, which
|
||
sort of turns the tables on the Americans who did a similar thing
|
||
to Europe over 200 years ago.
|
||
|
||
However, I'm not entirely thrilled with the manner in which
|
||
they did it. They are claiming to be fully autonomous and
|
||
self-governing, not subject to overall FidoNet policy, but yet,
|
||
they still consider themselves part of the FidoNet, and are in
|
||
the nodelist distributed in zones 1, 3, and 4 as well as their
|
||
zone.
|
||
|
||
It seems to me, if they want their full independence, they
|
||
should have to leave FidoNet altogether, and become a different
|
||
network like AlterNet and EggNet. Under those circumstances,
|
||
they would no longer be in the FidoNet nodelist, or have the
|
||
rights to the name FidoNet under Tom Jennings' license, unless
|
||
they engaged in separate negotiations to secure such privileges.
|
||
After all, why should the American coordinator structure pay long
|
||
distance charges to distribute a nodelist including a lengthy
|
||
list of European nodes, if those nodes refuse to accept the
|
||
authority of the FidoNet Policy which is supposed to cover ALL
|
||
zones?
|
||
|
||
I think the Europeans should either break free of FidoNet
|
||
altogether if they want that level of autonomy, or else work
|
||
within the system to get a POLICY4 passed that allows for wide
|
||
latitude for zone policies taking into account the varied
|
||
circumstances of different world regions. But they shouldn't
|
||
repudiate POLICY3 but still act like they're part of the net
|
||
governed by this policy.
|
||
|
||
As for the specific elements of European policy, the most
|
||
controversial one is their mandatory fee for nodes. That's the
|
||
element most in conflict with existing policy, and some might
|
||
argue it contravenes the general spirit of FidoNet. That more
|
||
than anything else might compel European nodes to leave FidoNet,
|
||
since I don't know if the rest of the network would be willing to
|
||
FidoNews 6-23 Page 2 5 Jun 1989
|
||
|
||
|
||
adopt a policy permitting zones (and perhaps regions or nets) to
|
||
impose mandatory charges. That would open up a real can of
|
||
worms; even if it is permitted, some controls would likely be
|
||
placed to prevent the possibility of profiteering NCs, RCs, or
|
||
ZCs imposing excessive charges for their personal profit.
|
||
|
||
In conclusion, I'd like to see FidoNet preserved as an
|
||
international network, held together by one consistent policy
|
||
statement (with some latitude allowed for local policies within
|
||
the constraints of the global one). If other systems, wherever
|
||
in the world they may be located, wish to carry on networking
|
||
under different rules, they've got every right to do so, but
|
||
they're not then part of FidoNet.
|
||
|
||
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
FidoNews 6-23 Page 3 5 Jun 1989
|
||
|
||
|
||
Jack Decker
|
||
Fidonet 1:154/8 LCRnet 77:1011/8
|
||
|
||
|
||
RESPONSE TO PETE WHITE'S ARTICLE
|
||
|
||
In Fidonews 622, Pete White published an article containing
|
||
certain "ramblings". I'd like to touch on a few of the points
|
||
he made.
|
||
|
||
As Pete noted, among many other positions, he is the Regional
|
||
Coordinator of Region 16. He's also held positions in the
|
||
IFNA.
|
||
|
||
Pete then goes on to admit confusion on certain things. He
|
||
states, "I see attacks on those who are spending their time and
|
||
money trying to feed the `echo-holics'. I see attacks on the
|
||
*C structure for much of what they do, or don't do. I see a
|
||
lot of commentary by folks who are obviously so biased and
|
||
upset they ought to be collecting stamps or seeking an inner
|
||
light.... What I don't see are answers to some of the basic
|
||
questions I've asked since day one, that first day I
|
||
unknowingly got a mailer to work! When I see all the messages
|
||
about 'power plays' and 'the coordinators have all the power' I
|
||
really get confused. Will someone out there tell me POWER over
|
||
what? Is there a monetary benefit here that I'm missing that
|
||
makes POWER profitable? If I have the POWER can I make my echo
|
||
feeds send me the echos instead of me paying to go after them?
|
||
I somewhat doubt that! Actually, it looks very much like those
|
||
who are blamed for wanting POWER are those who are doing all
|
||
the work."
|
||
|
||
I'll bet a lot of common sysops read the above and shook their
|
||
head sadly. The problem is that Pete's an RC. If anybody
|
||
should be making an effort to find out the reasons behind these
|
||
complaints, an RC and IFNA member should. Instead, what I see
|
||
is a "why is everybody always picking on me" type of reaction.
|
||
|
||
When I think of the Coordinator structure in Fidonet, it
|
||
reminds me of the cartoon about the overzealous boy scout, who,
|
||
determined to do his "good deed for the day", helps the old
|
||
lady across the street. Whereupon, he just can't understand
|
||
why, instead of thanking him, she bashes him over the head with
|
||
her umbrella. The problem, of course, was that the old lady
|
||
didn't want to cross the street, she was just standing on the
|
||
corner waiting for a bus!
|
||
|
||
Why do the coordinators want POWER? Doggone if I know. You
|
||
would think that as many complaints as they receive, at least
|
||
some of them would wise up to the fact that they're doing
|
||
things that just aren't popular with the common sysops...
|
||
they're trying to take us in a direction we don't want to go...
|
||
or they'd quit. The POWER is in forcing others to do things
|
||
YOUR way, even though perhaps the majority doesn't think YOUR
|
||
way is the BEST way. I'm sorry, but I don't know why some
|
||
people thrive on that sort of power. They will endure flames,
|
||
FidoNews 6-23 Page 4 5 Jun 1989
|
||
|
||
|
||
insults, and even sometimes a financial loss just to retain
|
||
that sort of power over others. Maybe a sociologist can
|
||
explain it, but I can't.
|
||
|
||
What do I mean by "they're trying to take us in a direction we
|
||
don't want to go?" I think it can be summed up in two ways.
|
||
First, they are trying to impose a tight, rigid, unbending
|
||
structure over a group of hobbyists, who really want a loose,
|
||
informal, friendly structure. We want equals working together,
|
||
not dictators imposing rules. Second, they want to impose a
|
||
top-down form of government, whereas most sysops want a
|
||
bottom-up (representative) form of government.
|
||
|
||
Pete then goes on to say: "How about those who are screaming
|
||
for democracy? Have any of them every watched 'democracy at
|
||
work' within FidoNet? You really ought to try it. Watching
|
||
democracy at work when there was an ECHOPOL conference was
|
||
enough to sell me on anything but. All I saw there was a few
|
||
who were interested in only themselves and spent most of their
|
||
time practicing in the age old FidoNet tradition of 'the
|
||
beating of dead horses' while a few others tried to get some
|
||
intelligence from the proceedings. Those who scream loudly for
|
||
'democracy' have absolutely NO idea what they are asking for."
|
||
|
||
It's interesting that Pete should use the ECHOPOL conference as
|
||
an example. I can tell you exactly what happened in ECHOPOL,
|
||
because I was there. Basically, a number of us were opposed to
|
||
the geographic (regional) restrictions on echomail. We wanted
|
||
to be able to continue sending echomail between systems
|
||
irregardless of regional boundaries, as we had always done in
|
||
the past.
|
||
|
||
Now, to hear Pete talk, you'd think that a vote was taken, that
|
||
the regional echomail restrictions were approved by the
|
||
majority, and that a few "crybabies" just wouldn't let it go,
|
||
and yield to the will of the majority. But, that's simply not
|
||
what happened. What DID happen was that at the very start, the
|
||
folks running the ECHOPOL conference decided that the issue of
|
||
echomail crossing regional boundaries was NON-NEGOTIABLE. The
|
||
fact of the matter is that we NEVER GOT TO VOTE on probably the
|
||
single most important issue affecting echomail handling.
|
||
|
||
Not that we didn't try. I personally asked on numerous
|
||
occasions that they just take a vote to determine the will of
|
||
the majority on this matter, and if we were defeated, I
|
||
promised to shut up about the issue. But we were told it was
|
||
"too much trouble" to take a vote, and that everybody was in
|
||
favor of the restrictions except a few "troublemakers."
|
||
|
||
Oh, we did get to vote on some things... real important
|
||
stuff(?), like the format and length of tear lines and origin
|
||
lines. But on major points, it seemed that the decisions had
|
||
already been made for us.
|
||
|
||
The low point occurred in a message from Mike Ratledge, the
|
||
ECHOPOL conference moderator, to Vince Perriello (slightly
|
||
FidoNews 6-23 Page 5 5 Jun 1989
|
||
|
||
|
||
reformatted to fit the FIDONEWS column width):
|
||
|
||
-----(message begins)-----
|
||
|
||
Message #34, Area "Echopol "
|
||
From: Mike Ratledge
|
||
To: Vince Perriello 16 Nov 88 10:28:00
|
||
Subject: Slight change in timing
|
||
|
||
NH>> There is a clear concensus that PATH lines are required.
|
||
NH>> The messages in this conference have been overwelming in
|
||
NH>> favor of them. We did not feel it was necessary to
|
||
NH>> re-hash topics that alreay had a majority.
|
||
|
||
-> PATH lines are NOT necessary. If you guys are going to
|
||
-> design software this way, ignoring the FTSC working group,
|
||
-> then you can damned well WRITE it too.
|
||
|
||
They aren't necessary *if* we have the topology "locked down"
|
||
and *if* we can control every one of the fools out there that
|
||
thinks they're better off ignoring the requirements like not
|
||
going out-of-region, etc, etc.
|
||
|
||
We *could* totally eliminate SEEN-BY: lines, too - *if* the
|
||
above two things were true - but I don't look for it to happen
|
||
any time in the near future.
|
||
|
||
I agree that there are a lot of things that we're talking about
|
||
here that do overlap the FTSC. I think that the FTSC should be
|
||
responsible for the basic format of the messages, the structure
|
||
of the packets, etc - but the actual message content should be
|
||
more in "our ballpark" here. I realize it's a fine line -
|
||
especially when we're talking about the kludge lines - but
|
||
we've got to start somewhere - or we'll never get there!
|
||
|
||
If the FTSC makes a decision which changes what is written in
|
||
ECHOPOL, then I think that we should ammend the policy - that's
|
||
all.
|
||
|
||
--- via XRS 0.30
|
||
* Origin: That Mean ol' RatMan's "Point-Less" Point
|
||
(TComm 1:372/666.1)
|
||
|
||
-----(message ends)-----
|
||
|
||
The FOOLS comment by the moderator was the straw that broke the
|
||
camel's back for many of us. It was clear to us then that only
|
||
those whose opinions were in sync with the preconceived notions
|
||
of the ECHOPOL committee were welcome to express an opinion in
|
||
the conference. So, the participants in the ECHOPOL conference
|
||
were subjected not only to being asked to vote only on
|
||
insignificant matters, while being denied the right to vote on
|
||
important ones (I guess this was so they could later claim that
|
||
ECHOPOL had been arrived at by a vote of the sysops of
|
||
Fidonet), but at the end were subjected to a fair amount of
|
||
character assassination as well. By the way, I asked Mike
|
||
FidoNews 6-23 Page 6 5 Jun 1989
|
||
|
||
|
||
Ratledge for an apology for the FOOLS comment, and he declined
|
||
to offer one.
|
||
|
||
Oh, and Pete White? He was in the conference, and hanging
|
||
solidly with the clique that was running the conference. In
|
||
fact, he was one of the most vocal supporters of the regional
|
||
echomail restrictions.
|
||
|
||
So when Pete tells you that we were beating a dead horse, it
|
||
was only dead as far as the conference moderator and a few
|
||
others (including Pete White) were concerned. To some of the
|
||
rest of us, it appeared that the horse hadn't even been born
|
||
yet, and that the ruling clique was trying to do a premature
|
||
abortion on it!
|
||
|
||
Getting back to Pete's Fidonews article, he then goes on to
|
||
say, "The ones who make me worry are those who want
|
||
'democracy'. Some of those very same people want to be able to
|
||
run their own nets with their own policy! Imagine it, hundreds
|
||
of nets all over the place - each with it's very own policy.
|
||
Why, with any work at all we could probably confuse everyone as
|
||
well as the federal, state and municipal laws have!" Now
|
||
perhaps that sounds bad until you consider the alternatives.
|
||
Someone once said that "Democracy is the very worst form of
|
||
government, except for every other type." Right now the
|
||
Chinese people have a government that operates a lot like
|
||
Fidonet. There, despite the fact that the government could
|
||
shoot to kill protestors, many people have gathered with one
|
||
basic demand - they want DEMOCRACY! Here in the United States,
|
||
we can protest with virtually no fear of anything much worse
|
||
than perhaps a night in jail, and yet how many people do you
|
||
see demonstrating against the government in favor of a
|
||
dictatorship? Think about it!
|
||
|
||
Pete continues, "The strange thing is we have many nets out
|
||
there doing just that, and everyone is happy! They never
|
||
demanded the 'right' to do it, they all agreed within
|
||
themselves it was the right way to go and they went with it.
|
||
Makes me wonder about those who are screaming for the same
|
||
'rights' that others have had for years. Sure must be
|
||
something wrong somewhere." Yes, something is wrong - the fact
|
||
that those nets that are now using a democratic method of
|
||
selecting their Net Coordinator are basically operating outside
|
||
of Policy. They can get away with it, but ONLY if the Regional
|
||
Coordinator allows them to do so. However, if the Regional
|
||
Coordinator doesn't like the net's choice of an NC, that NC can
|
||
be replaced at the whim of the RC. So what you have is a form
|
||
of democracy at the net level, and (if you're lucky) a
|
||
"benevolent dictatorship" at the Regional level. But if your
|
||
elected NC manages to offend a not-so-benevolent RC, out he
|
||
goes!
|
||
|
||
Pete goes on, "...Whatever it is, there's a LOT of people out
|
||
there who are doing a LOT of work - and the pay is pretty slim.
|
||
Sure, there's a few who are difficult to get along with and a
|
||
few who shouldn't be involved as they do more damage than good.
|
||
FidoNews 6-23 Page 7 5 Jun 1989
|
||
|
||
|
||
Guess that's because they are people. But if you have a
|
||
problem with a 'people', try to use the system to rectify the
|
||
problem before you decide that the system is wrong."
|
||
|
||
Ah, yes, using the system to rectify the problem. The problem
|
||
is that it rarely works. How often do you ever see the ZC
|
||
reverse the decision of an RC? Rarely to never, except when
|
||
much public pressure (the vocal kind that Pete White really
|
||
hates) is brought to bear. There's a reason for that. If you
|
||
have appointed someone to a position, that should indicate you
|
||
have confidence in their ability to do the job. So, if you
|
||
then reverse a decision they have made, doesn't that sort of
|
||
indicate a lack of confidence in them? It becomes a matter of
|
||
honor... if you trusted the guy enough to appoint him to the
|
||
position, why aren't you backing up his decisions.
|
||
Unfortunately, this sort of thinking often clouds the facts of
|
||
a case.
|
||
|
||
Then, too, coordinators tend to appoint other coordinators that
|
||
think like themselves. Right now we have a coordinator
|
||
structure who, because they were not elected by the common
|
||
sysops, in many ways don't think about things from the
|
||
perspective of a common sysop. And, when they appoint other
|
||
coordinators, they appoint clones of themselves (or as near as
|
||
they can get). I know most coordinators don't see it that way,
|
||
but it sure appears that way to those sysops who are not part
|
||
of the *C structure.
|
||
|
||
I would like for you to think for a moment about some public
|
||
figure that epitomizes corruption for you. Perhaps it would be
|
||
a leader of China or Panama, or perhaps a corrupt leader of a
|
||
cult (such as Jim Jones of the Jonestown massacre). Now here
|
||
were people who, in many cases, started out with the best of
|
||
intentions in their own minds (not necessarily in everyone
|
||
else's, but few people view themselves as evil). But as they
|
||
got more and more corrupt, you wonder how on earth they managed
|
||
to go through life without anyone challenging them on their
|
||
actions. For example, how come nobody told Jim Jones that he
|
||
was crazy?
|
||
|
||
Well, the answer is that some folks probably did, but these
|
||
leaders surrounded themselves with folks who agreed with them
|
||
(some only for personal gain, I'm sure, but they still voiced
|
||
agreement with the corrupt leaders). And they either got rid
|
||
of or avoided those who did NOT agree with them. Now, if folks
|
||
tell you you're on the right track often enough, you just might
|
||
start to believe them, even if they're lying. And if you hear
|
||
what a wonderful person you are often enough, it gets pretty
|
||
easy to ignore those few "fools" out there that don't agree
|
||
with you, and that don't appreciate your "wisdom and
|
||
intelligence." I'm sure Jim Bakker had plenty of people
|
||
telling him that his amusement park complex was a wonderful
|
||
idea, and that he really needed a lavish home. If all of his
|
||
associates had said, "Jim, the money you're spending on this
|
||
amusement park could be put to much better use feeding the
|
||
needy", chances are he wouldn't have built it.
|
||
FidoNews 6-23 Page 8 5 Jun 1989
|
||
|
||
|
||
What has that got to do with Fidonet? No, I'm not putting the
|
||
Fidonet Coordinators in the same classification as the dictator
|
||
of a country or a corrupted evangelist, but I am saying that
|
||
they have formed their own little clique, where THEY decide
|
||
what's best for Fidonet, and where the voice of the "common
|
||
sysop" is never heard. It's called the REGCON conference, and
|
||
it's open only to those at the Regional Coordinator position
|
||
and higher. So, all the Regional Coordinators get into REGCON
|
||
and support each other on their decisions, and probably decide
|
||
who the "troublemakers" in Fidonet are, and who's not worth
|
||
listening to. Unfortunately, unlike our Congress and Senate,
|
||
we don't have the Fidonet equivalent of C-SPAN to keep us
|
||
informed of what's happening in Fidonet government (for those
|
||
outside the U.S., C-SPAN is a pair of cable television feeds
|
||
that transmit live the proceedings of the U.S. Senate and the
|
||
U.S. House of Representatives). The mental picture is one of
|
||
a council of dukes gathered in the king's chamber to decide
|
||
which peasants are "troublemakers" that need to be eliminated,
|
||
or to plot other mischief.
|
||
|
||
But the worst thing about REGCON is that is allows Regional
|
||
Coordinators who are about to take some action that is
|
||
questionable in the light of POLICY to muster support for their
|
||
position BEFORE the action is taken, or immediately thereafter.
|
||
In other words, before the victim even knows about an action
|
||
that about to be taken against him, the RC has already
|
||
discussed it with the other RC's and the ZC in the REGCON
|
||
conference. The problem is that there is no one present to
|
||
speak for the affected person(s)... in effect, it's like
|
||
holding a trial "in absentia", without allowing the defendant
|
||
to have any representation. Of course, after the affected
|
||
sysop finds out about the action, he can still file a policy
|
||
complaint... but now he has the burden of convincing this
|
||
council of people who are NOT his peers to backtrack on an
|
||
action that they have already pre-approved!
|
||
|
||
Pete closes his commentary with: "Enough, already! All I can
|
||
recommend is that when reading ANY commentary, including this,
|
||
it's best to remember that the ones doing all the complaining
|
||
are representative of less than 5% of the members of FidoNet.
|
||
The *C structure is responsible to 100% of the net. Look at
|
||
what FidoNet is. Simply amazing that it works at all! And
|
||
what makes it work? The very same people who are doing
|
||
everything wrong. And you wonder why I'm confused?" There are
|
||
a couple of very valid points above. First, probably even LESS
|
||
than 5% of the sysops ever bother to express their point of
|
||
view. If EVERY sysop who wanted a more democratic form of
|
||
government in Fidonet would write to their NC and RC and SAY
|
||
SO, I'm sure it would have an impact. The problem is that, for
|
||
example, I hear from lots of folks who agree with me on various
|
||
issues, but they don't want to make waves. I say, "Why don't
|
||
you write an article for Fidonews" and they say, "You write so
|
||
much better than I do, and you say everything I'd want to say!"
|
||
That's not the point! It's not how well you write, the whole
|
||
idea is to convince the powers-that-be that you and most other
|
||
Fidonet sysops want a more representative form of government,
|
||
FidoNews 6-23 Page 9 5 Jun 1989
|
||
|
||
|
||
and that you're tired of the dictatorship in Fidonet. I could
|
||
write like Shakespeare but if they think it's only a few lone
|
||
nuts that want democracy, we aren't going to get it.
|
||
|
||
The other thing is that Pete implies that everything is
|
||
"working". Well, if you call having Regional Coordinators
|
||
going around throwing nodes out of Fidonet for no real good
|
||
reason a net that's "working", then I guess Fidonet is
|
||
"working". At least some folks are working. Trouble is,
|
||
sometimes they're working to make life difficult for the rest
|
||
of us (whether they realize it or not).
|
||
|
||
Please, folks, if you want to see some changes in Fidonet, take
|
||
time to write to your RC and ZC today, or write an article for
|
||
Fidonews expressing your sentiments. Let the *C. structure
|
||
hear from some folks outside their "inner circle" for a change
|
||
... from some folks that they haven't already branded as
|
||
"troublemakers."
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
FidoNews 6-23 Page 10 5 Jun 1989
|
||
|
||
|
||
The Fake Users Manual
|
||
=====================
|
||
Written By Jamie MacDonald
|
||
==========================
|
||
Sysop of The Romulan Sector QuickBBS - 222/20
|
||
=============================================
|
||
(705)566-5628 - Sudbury, Ontario
|
||
================================
|
||
|
||
May 22, 1989
|
||
============
|
||
|
||
I have just arrived home from my long weekend. I hadn't
|
||
looked at the user edit program in about a week and a half and I
|
||
thought I'd check to see my new users. To my surprise, and
|
||
dismay, I have found that I have 60 new users in just over a
|
||
week. Did some local store have a modem sale? Is there someone
|
||
standing in downtown Sudbury handing out free modems?
|
||
|
||
|
||
Nope. The fakes are back, and they are worse than ever.
|
||
|
||
|
||
INTRODUCTION
|
||
============
|
||
|
||
When I first introduced the Romulan Sector to the public on
|
||
January 6th, 1989, I had visions of a wonderful board with
|
||
seriously oriented users enjoying themselves. NEVER had I
|
||
thought it would come to this. In the months that I have been
|
||
running this board, I have had certain games running on this
|
||
board, which is the target of the fakes. In this file, I will be
|
||
discussing a topic that many sysops have the PLEASURE of
|
||
discussing, the good old fake users.
|
||
|
||
CHAPTER 1 - CLASSIFICATION OF FAKES
|
||
===================================
|
||
|
||
There are many different types of fakes, and the first step
|
||
to stopping them is to know who you are dealing with...so here
|
||
they are:
|
||
|
||
#1) The Common Download/Gaming Idiot:
|
||
|
||
This is the most common type of fake. They gain small access
|
||
(but small is enough for them!) to the BBS and then take
|
||
advantage of it, the games, the files for downloading, etc. Many
|
||
of these users are the users who make regular calls to 'handle'
|
||
boards and who only call the serious boards because of games,
|
||
downloads, etc. The most popular game for fakes is the infamous
|
||
Trade Wars. It is a great game, a very interesting simulation
|
||
and an excellent idea for a BBS. Too bad these users take a good
|
||
thing and warp it. They tend to take it SO SERIOUSLY, that they
|
||
would do almost anything to get more fighters/credits or even
|
||
access to it. It is almost addictive. The only good thing about
|
||
these users is that they are easy to catch, and they are rather
|
||
FidoNews 6-23 Page 11 5 Jun 1989
|
||
|
||
|
||
chicken when it comes to catching them.
|
||
|
||
Example:
|
||
|
||
When you see a user who you don't know on your board (new
|
||
user or old user) and you dial his/her number and get either a
|
||
recording or a ring indicating that this user is either not
|
||
calling from home, or is a fake!
|
||
|
||
You break in....
|
||
|
||
BBS: Hello John Doe, this is Jamie MacDonald.
|
||
User: ya hi what
|
||
Sysop: Hi, I just dialed your number and there is no busy signal,
|
||
could you please explain this?
|
||
User: (Hangs up quickly)
|
||
|
||
#2) The Gutsy Fake
|
||
|
||
This is a fake similar to #1, but is a lot more gutsy and
|
||
will even risk his/her own account's deletation for this fake.
|
||
To explain this, I will use an example of a fake I had on my
|
||
board a little while back called David Harrison. I still haven't
|
||
found the owner of that fake, but I have an idea of who it might
|
||
be. For now, the owner will be called Joe Blow.
|
||
|
||
A new user logs on to your board, David Harrison. After a
|
||
few days of putting his deletation off, you call another area
|
||
BBS, and find that David Harrison hasn't called there. You voice
|
||
validate David and find out he is a nonexistant person. I delete
|
||
David. 2 days later, I get a message from David (logged on as a
|
||
new user) saying:
|
||
|
||
"I AM NOT A FAKE...WHY CAN'T YOU GET THAT INTO YOUR THICK
|
||
SKULLS?!"
|
||
|
||
Without hesitation, I deleted him. Never called back since.
|
||
|
||
These fakes are the worst kind, because they are stubborn.
|
||
Once they know they are caught, they don't give up.
|
||
|
||
#3) Mr. Congeniality
|
||
|
||
These fakes are rather fun because they believe that by
|
||
sucking up and kissing the sysops feet they will be able to
|
||
remain a validated user. For example, a fake (you know he's a
|
||
fake but you will be deleting him later) pages you and says:
|
||
|
||
Hi there, Jamie. Would it be okay if you tell me why the board
|
||
was down earlier today, if you aren't to busy?
|
||
|
||
I would reply:
|
||
|
||
I was working on a new door.
|
||
|
||
He says:
|
||
FidoNews 6-23 Page 12 5 Jun 1989
|
||
|
||
|
||
Oh wonderful, that is just terrific if there was a new door, not
|
||
that this BBS isn't great as it is, did I mention what a good BBS
|
||
this is?
|
||
|
||
As I throw up in the garbage can next to me, I terminate chat
|
||
mode. I recieve a message an hour later from the fake saying:
|
||
|
||
Thank you very much for letting me know why it was down.
|
||
|
||
Thanks again!
|
||
|
||
The goody two shoes approach used to work with many sysops,
|
||
but doesn't anymore.
|
||
|
||
#4) The Forgetful Fake
|
||
|
||
This type usually occurs with a user with more than 1 fake.
|
||
He either forgets entirely about the fake and lets the program
|
||
delete the account after no call for a while, or he forgets the
|
||
password of the fake. It is kind of fun to watch a person
|
||
forgetting his password.
|
||
|
||
#5) The generally stupid fake
|
||
|
||
Most users with fakes have an IQ of 10-20, but there are some
|
||
that have slightly lower. These users fall into this catagory.
|
||
In my new user screens, I make mention that you MUST contribute
|
||
something to the BBS, either in posts, uploads, ideas, etc. Some
|
||
of the fakes who fall under catagory #5 like seem to think that
|
||
by writing 4 word posts, they are contributing to the board. You
|
||
sysops know what I'm talking about:
|
||
|
||
Message #2456
|
||
From: John Doe
|
||
To: All
|
||
Subject: hi
|
||
|
||
hi everyone hows life send me mail bye john
|
||
|
||
Or of course, the famous insult-the-message-area post:
|
||
|
||
Message #2457
|
||
From: John Doe
|
||
To: All
|
||
Subject: ----
|
||
|
||
man this area is lame get some posts going bye john
|
||
|
||
I have a message area on my board called "The Romulan
|
||
Resthome" for users whos access was lowered because of lack of
|
||
contribution to the board, and most of the posts in this area
|
||
look like these.
|
||
|
||
|
||
#6) The Non-Consistent Fakes
|
||
|
||
FidoNews 6-23 Page 13 5 Jun 1989
|
||
|
||
|
||
These fakes are the DUMBEST fakes around, yes, even more
|
||
idiotic than type #5. This type needs barely any explaination,
|
||
on your board they are Sean, on another they are Shawn. On your
|
||
board they are John, on another they are Jon. On your board they
|
||
are.....well you get the idea.
|
||
|
||
#7) The Friends of Modem Users
|
||
|
||
These are fakes that claim they are over at a friends house
|
||
when they call your board, but never seem to be at home. Some
|
||
even admit to not having a modem, but they soon learn their
|
||
lesson when the sysop says "NO MODEM - NO ACCESS". Or even those
|
||
who claim to have a busted modem are always a royal pain in the
|
||
ass. These are, in my opinion, the worst type of users, because
|
||
you can rarely tell whether they are fakes or not.
|
||
|
||
You may have noticed that this file is beginning to look like
|
||
"The Loser User's Manual". I am not surprised because the users
|
||
with fakes are very similar to those in that manual.
|
||
|
||
Other famous types of fakes:
|
||
----------------------------
|
||
|
||
The Page-The-Sysop-For-Access Fakes.
|
||
|
||
The Try-To-Hack-Someone-Elses-Pass-And-If-Impossible-Make-A-Fake
|
||
Fakes
|
||
|
||
And many other types (See the end of this file for more details)
|
||
|
||
What to Do
|
||
==========
|
||
|
||
Well, my advice is to voice validate all new users. If it
|
||
gets too much out of hand (too many over and over again), just go
|
||
to the centre of the problem:
|
||
|
||
a) If your problem is download fakes, go through your user list
|
||
and give access to the download areas ONLY to users who have
|
||
proved themselves by posting and uploading.
|
||
|
||
b) If your problem is games, you can take out the game entirely
|
||
(I may take out Trade Wars eventually due to the surprisingly
|
||
large number of fakes). You may also want to put in hours for
|
||
the games or doors (using an event file) or maybe restrict them
|
||
to only those who have proved themselves.
|
||
|
||
The one piece of advice to you is NOT to run a program like
|
||
VERIFY. If you are unfermiliar with verify, it is a program that
|
||
gives a new user 2 minutes to prepare his/her modem for auto
|
||
answer while it calls them back to verify them. This may seem
|
||
like a good idea, but many new users don't know how to put their
|
||
modem on auto answer, therefore deleting just about all fakes.
|
||
Perhaps you get a user who either is, or claims to be, from Hong
|
||
Kong. You certainly don't want your modem calling there! Beware
|
||
of such programs and don't be fooled by the description beside
|
||
FidoNews 6-23 Page 14 5 Jun 1989
|
||
|
||
|
||
the file name!
|
||
|
||
One more piece of advice, to find out if a long distance user is
|
||
a fake or not, call long distance directory assistance and ask if
|
||
the number that you have belongs to the person who claims it
|
||
does.
|
||
|
||
And there you have it, The Fake Users Manual. Always be on the
|
||
look out for fakes, hey, who knows? Maybe the person reading
|
||
this right now is a fake?
|
||
|
||
You never know..............
|
||
|
||
Jamie MacDonald.
|
||
|
||
=================================================================
|
||
|
||
To Sysops:
|
||
|
||
If you have any other types of fakes that you would like to warn
|
||
the public about, or any tips on catching fakes, please leave
|
||
netmail to Jamie MacDonald at The Romulan Sector QBBS, 1:222/20
|
||
or call The Romulan Sector QBBS at 300 (hopefully not) 1200 or
|
||
2400 baud at (705)566-5628. Next edition will be sent In the
|
||
Fall of 1989.
|
||
|
||
=================================================================
|
||
|
||
|
||
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
FidoNews 6-23 Page 15 5 Jun 1989
|
||
|
||
|
||
THE LOST FIDONET ARCHIVES
|
||
VOLUME TWO
|
||
|
||
Compiled by various members of FidoNet
|
||
Edited by Vince Perriello
|
||
|
||
|
||
This is the second article in a series which reprints documents
|
||
of historical significance to FidoNet. This week we feature some
|
||
of the responses from early Fido sysops to Tom Jennings' FidoNet
|
||
proposal. There are some really interesting items buried in
|
||
these comments that even today hold real significance to the net.
|
||
|
||
Please note that most if not all of the FidoNet addresses, data
|
||
line phone numbers, and company names and/or addresses mentioned
|
||
in this or any of the other articles in this series are not to
|
||
be considered reliable for current use in locating something or
|
||
someone mentioned here. Refer to the current nodelist if you
|
||
want to try to find any of the above.
|
||
|
||
|
||
From John Madill, in file FIDONET.JNM (May 26, 1984):
|
||
|
||
|
||
Considerations for FidoNet
|
||
|
||
As mentioned, one of the major drawbacks in the FidoNet project
|
||
is the way by which it would be paid for. One of the
|
||
possiblities is the 'Pay Ahead' method. The amount to be paid
|
||
should most likely be a predetermined quantity of TJ Cubits. The
|
||
application of the payment should be an entry, by the SysOp of
|
||
the local Fido, into the USER.BBS file. This places the
|
||
necessary information into a location that can be verified as a
|
||
user utilizes their allocation of cubits. Each time an entry to
|
||
the mail system is made, the available cubit quantity can be
|
||
updated on a real time basis.
|
||
|
||
Another major problem is the verification of recieved mail. This
|
||
applies not only to the FidoNet concept, but also to the message
|
||
system as it exists in FidoBBS. A possible way of handling the
|
||
transfer/receipt of remote mail, is to calculate the return
|
||
message (received your message ### at FidoNet Location ###,
|
||
time/date...) as part of the initial outgoing message. The
|
||
local FidoMail system should in theory, check the senders
|
||
USER.BBS record to determine the message area last used, and
|
||
enter a message with the acknowledgement. As this pertains to
|
||
local messages, when a message is entered, Fido could verify the
|
||
name of the "To:" party, and the message area last used.
|
||
|
||
Another thing to be considered is the possiblity of automating SQ
|
||
and LU modules in conjunction within a destination processor.
|
||
This could squeeze all messages, and pack them into a library for
|
||
each destination, cutting costs even further. If not to
|
||
difficult, the receiving Fido could utilize a squeezed file
|
||
interpreter to speed up the acknowledgement of receipt, as
|
||
opposed to unsqueezing/de-lbr while on line. The only
|
||
FidoNews 6-23 Page 16 5 Jun 1989
|
||
|
||
|
||
alternative would be for the remote Fido to call back an
|
||
acknowledgement, shifting the cost to a location not receiving
|
||
the payment.
|
||
|
||
The prospect of transferring, or as in another communication
|
||
which shall remain un-named, "attachment" of program or data
|
||
files would definately increase the potential value of FidoNet.
|
||
This is especially true for club or commercial ventures. The
|
||
problem becomes one of cost accounting. Would subscribers be
|
||
willing to pay for a portion, pro-rated amount, of the transfer?
|
||
Obviously a stickey point, but should be considered.
|
||
|
||
I certainly hope that this input is helpful. The possiblity of
|
||
using this type of relay system is exciting! Hopefully it will
|
||
be rewarding.
|
||
|
||
|
||
From Jim Ryan, in file FIDONET.NOT (May 26, 1984):
|
||
|
||
|
||
Jim Ryan
|
||
02 May 84
|
||
|
||
Notes on the FidoNet System
|
||
|
||
Tom Jennings has outlined, in his article dated 30 Apr 84, a
|
||
proposal for FidoNet-- a communications network for Fido and
|
||
other message systems.
|
||
|
||
I have some comments and suggestions for improvement of the
|
||
FidoNet system.
|
||
|
||
-----
|
||
|
||
If FidoNet were to use a structure similar to DecNet, the
|
||
networking system for Digital computers, a person could send a
|
||
message using the syntax :
|
||
|
||
To : -F01 Tom Jennings
|
||
|
||
meaning "Send this message to FidoNet Node 1, addressed to Tom
|
||
Jennings". A message to all could be coded as :
|
||
|
||
To : -F01 All
|
||
|
||
and a message going to all systems could be coded as :
|
||
|
||
To : -F All
|
||
|
||
The originating Fido system could keep a log of all messages in
|
||
all areas that are flagged to other FidoNet nodes, and send them
|
||
with a record indicating there originating node, and area
|
||
description :
|
||
|
||
Message : 25
|
||
From : -F01 Tom Jennings
|
||
FidoNews 6-23 Page 17 5 Jun 1989
|
||
|
||
|
||
To : All
|
||
Subject : FidoNet List
|
||
(Area : General )
|
||
|
||
-----
|
||
|
||
In my opinion, the major drawback to the FidoNet system is the
|
||
reliance on the SysOp to foot the bill for the long distance
|
||
charges to all the FidoNet nodes he needs to send mail to. This
|
||
may make the system prohibitive to smaller users.
|
||
|
||
An alternate idea would be to send the FidoNet mail through an
|
||
alternate system such as MCI Mail or Compuserve. In this manner
|
||
each sysop would only be paying the charges of the various host
|
||
systems instead of the long distance charges to each FidoNet
|
||
node.
|
||
|
||
For example : If Tom (or some other willing volunteer) would
|
||
write a FidoNet mail system on Compuserve, a sample session might
|
||
run like this (with the FidoNet computer handling the
|
||
input/output) :
|
||
|
||
host : Welcome to Compuserve
|
||
|
||
User Id : XXXXX,XXX
|
||
Password : ____________
|
||
|
||
Compuserve Information Service
|
||
XX-XXX-XX at XX:XX:XX
|
||
|
||
FidoNet Host System
|
||
Login : FIDO-01
|
||
Pass : XXXXXXX
|
||
|
||
Welcome FIDO-01
|
||
Checking for mail
|
||
Ready to send mail
|
||
|
||
(CIS sends mail to FidoNet node)
|
||
|
||
Ready to recieve mail
|
||
|
||
(FidoNet node sends mail to CIS)
|
||
|
||
Thank you for using FidoNet
|
||
|
||
(logoff)
|
||
|
||
The disadvantages of this system (especially on CIS or the
|
||
Source) would be transmission speed. Unless you want to spend
|
||
the extra $12.00 per hour for 1200 baud service, your stuck with
|
||
300 baud.
|
||
|
||
But the advantages would be a central point for all FidoNet
|
||
messages, and probably much greater efficiency.
|
||
|
||
FidoNews 6-23 Page 18 5 Jun 1989
|
||
|
||
|
||
-----
|
||
|
||
Well, those are my comments. I think the idea of a national BBS
|
||
network is fabulous, but it's up to us to figure out the nit-
|
||
picking details!!!!!
|
||
|
||
Jim Ryan
|
||
|
||
|
||
From Richard P. Wilkes, in file FIDONET.RPW (May 26, 1984):
|
||
|
||
FIDONET: Response 5/24/84
|
||
|
||
Richard P. Wilkes
|
||
WILKES SOFTWARE SYSTEMS
|
||
|
||
With all due respect to Tom Jennings, I feel the FidoNet
|
||
implementation as described in the FIDONET.DOC file is not
|
||
practical. Let me explain, hopefully without becoming too
|
||
verbose.
|
||
|
||
I have been working on networking systems for seven years now.
|
||
One thing that truly amazes me is the effort by every implementor
|
||
to reinvent the wheel. Now, sometime when the wheel doesn't
|
||
exist, you have to create it. But in this case, there are
|
||
already MANY different ways to network computers together that
|
||
WORK; if a network is to be designed, let's chose one that won't
|
||
leave us isolated from the "rest of the world."
|
||
|
||
People in the micro BBS environ often are totally unaware that
|
||
there is a working, FREE, network of mini and microcomputers
|
||
exchanging gigabytes of mail around the country (by phone). Some
|
||
are part of the Arpanet, but the one we should examine is UUCP, a
|
||
network of machines running Unix.
|
||
|
||
The UUCP mailer is not small, but could be modified (with great
|
||
effort) to run on a PC. I know that vortex!lauren@RAND-UNIX is
|
||
working on an MSDOS version. Note that the address format shown
|
||
here is a standard. Messages addressed in this manner can be
|
||
gatewayed through many networks to finally reach its destination.
|
||
"vortex" is the UUCP machine; "lauren" is the username (for
|
||
Lauren Weinstein); RAND-UNIX is the Arpanet gateway.
|
||
|
||
Now, all of this may not seem like it has much to do with
|
||
FidoNet. But, the viability of such a network depends on several
|
||
vital points:
|
||
|
||
1) Virtually no cost or minimal cost that could be easily
|
||
absorbed by local administrations (as they do now).
|
||
|
||
2) Connectivity with other systems.
|
||
|
||
3) Personal mailboxes, a feature unsupported by Fido to date.
|
||
These also gobble disk space.
|
||
|
||
4) net.news: This is the equivalent of country-wide SIGs.
|
||
FidoNews 6-23 Page 19 5 Jun 1989
|
||
|
||
|
||
Messages are gatewayed through several hosts and utimately reach
|
||
all systems where they are posted in message areas. Note that
|
||
messages may range from 5 to 500 *lines*.
|
||
|
||
Now, I could go on for many pages on the capabilities of systems
|
||
like these. Right now, you can mail a message and have it
|
||
delivered free to almost any university or major technology
|
||
corporation in the country via this network. Other networks also
|
||
allow file transfer (FTP).
|
||
|
||
I don't want to throw so much cold water on this that it never
|
||
gets done. However, I have been around long enough to know that
|
||
this ain't no one man task. Please, consider how naive the
|
||
notion is of a "simple" routing scheme for 40,000 pc's! [UUCP
|
||
gets around this by chaining host names. For example,
|
||
brl-bmd!jhu!aplvax!joe is a message address. To deliver it, the
|
||
holder contacts brl-bmd (Ballistic Research Lab). It need not
|
||
know where it is headed after that. brl transfers the message to
|
||
jhu (Johns Hopkins) which passes it on the the Applied Physics
|
||
Lab (aplvax). "joe" is a user on aplvax; the message is put in
|
||
his mailbox. This scheme may sound clumsy, but it works with
|
||
small, fairly static routing tables.]
|
||
|
||
The idea of a network is terrific. As a matter of fact, I was
|
||
working on interfacing with a UUCP host myself for a BBS that I
|
||
use to publish, CompuCenter. I came to these conclusions: 1)
|
||
you need at least a 33M hard drive at the major nodes, perhaps
|
||
more. This is expensive. 2) You need nodes that are
|
||
multi-caller. I mean, most of these systems are busy for HOURS.
|
||
You don't want mail delayed like that. And, major nodes would
|
||
have to spend so much time transferring that they would not be
|
||
usable for anything else. If you had one line dedicated to MAIL
|
||
with another for file transfer and another for messages, maybe it
|
||
would work. But hey, an IBM PC at 4.77MHz just ain't the baby
|
||
for that kind of load.
|
||
|
||
All in all, I'd say... wait. The technology is coming. With a
|
||
good multiprocessing environment with 5-6 serial lines, a high
|
||
speed processor (80286?), and 86M drives on the major nodes, we
|
||
can start to really work at making it a reality.
|
||
|
||
For the time being, I strongly urge that those that are strongly
|
||
interested in this type of system start doing some research.
|
||
When you can hold a reasonable discussion on file transfer
|
||
protocols (real ones, of course--NOT XMODEM), message headers and
|
||
formats, routing algorithms, connectivity analysis, delivery
|
||
systems and scheduling, plus some of the more intricate cost
|
||
analyses, we can join the work that is already advancing in the
|
||
"other world" so we are not left out once again.
|
||
|
||
I welcome any reasonable comments. I frequent Fido CLP --
|
||
Baltimore, only. [Other addresses mentioned by author removed
|
||
from this paragraph -- ed.]
|
||
|
||
Please, let's keep up the talk. But more importantly, we must
|
||
approach this formidable task with a little humility and a lot of
|
||
FidoNews 6-23 Page 20 5 Jun 1989
|
||
|
||
|
||
good, solid knowledge.
|
||
|
||
Sincerely,
|
||
|
||
Richard P. Wilkes
|
||
|
||
|
||
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
FidoNews 6-23 Page 21 5 Jun 1989
|
||
|
||
|
||
Jack Decker
|
||
Fidonet 1:154/8 LCRnet 77:1011/8
|
||
|
||
|
||
HERE WE GO AGAIN!
|
||
|
||
One of the major problems we have in Fidonet is that of *C's
|
||
and *EC's trying to impose new policies before they have even
|
||
been formally adopted.
|
||
|
||
Last year about this time, they came out with ECHOPOL. Now,
|
||
Echopol was an extremely overly-restrictive document that
|
||
hardly anyone cared for, except the folks that helped write it
|
||
(and I think some of them weren't too sure about parts of it).
|
||
It has NEVER been formally adopted as policy in Fidonet, but
|
||
that hasn't stopped some *EC's from trying to enforce it as
|
||
though it has been voted on and formally adopted by the sysops
|
||
of Fidonet. Many sysops lost feeds of one or more echo
|
||
conferences as a direct result of premature enforcement of a
|
||
policy that was still in the draft stage (and that even now, a
|
||
year later, has not gained acceptance among the sysops of
|
||
Fidonet).
|
||
|
||
Well, here we go again. Now they've come out with POLICY4,
|
||
another overly-restrictive document that hardly anyone seems to
|
||
like. And guess what... although it's still in the draft
|
||
stage, and although the very first sentence states that "This
|
||
policy document has been released for vote by the coordinator
|
||
structure ..., AND IS NOT YET IN FORCE" (emphasis added), we
|
||
have at least one Regional Coordinator that is trying to
|
||
enforce the draft policy as though it had been signed, sealed,
|
||
and approved.
|
||
|
||
Someone in our net asked me recently why it always seems like
|
||
Spring is when things crawl out from under rocks.
|
||
|
||
The message bearing the bad news was as follows:
|
||
|
||
From: Steve Bonine
|
||
Subject: Misplaced systems in net 154
|
||
|
||
* Original to Affected systems and coordinators @
|
||
1:115/777.0
|
||
|
||
cc: Ted Polczynski 154/0
|
||
Mike Bader 120/0
|
||
Bruce Casner 139/0
|
||
Mario D'Ulisse 222/0
|
||
Tom Kashuba 12/0
|
||
David Dodell 1/0
|
||
Jack Decker 154/8
|
||
Robert Kubichek 154/11
|
||
Mike Musolf 154/969
|
||
|
||
Examination of net 154 indicates that the following
|
||
systems should be in other nets:
|
||
FidoNews 6-23 Page 22 5 Jun 1989
|
||
|
||
|
||
154/8 in Sault Ste Marie should be in net 222, the
|
||
Sault Ste Marie net.
|
||
|
||
154/11 in Manitowoc should be in net 139.
|
||
|
||
154/969 in Gwinn, MI should probably be in net 120,
|
||
although I can't seem to find Gwinn on my map (there
|
||
is a misprint in the index).
|
||
|
||
Ted, please contact the appropriate NC's and get
|
||
these systems moved. I have no problem with
|
||
duplicate listings for three weeks, but I would
|
||
expect these systems to be in their correct nets and
|
||
removed from 154 no later than the end of June.
|
||
|
||
Thank you.
|
||
|
||
Now, there are a few interesting you should know about the
|
||
above:
|
||
|
||
First, the affected nodes are not really in the area of another
|
||
net. Two of the mentioned nodes are in the 906 area code,
|
||
which is the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. The U.P. is "no
|
||
man's land" as far as Fidonet is concerned, as there is no
|
||
active net operating in this area. Historically, Michigan's
|
||
Upper Peninsula has always had economic ties with Wisconsin
|
||
(most of our supermarkets are supplied from Wisconsin, for
|
||
example) and even telephone calls between Michigan's Upper and
|
||
Lower Peninsulas are routed through Wisconsin and around Lake
|
||
Michigan. So one could easily justify placing nodes in
|
||
Michigan's Upper Peninsula in a Wisconsin net (particularly
|
||
since intrastate calls within Michigan are billed at a MUCH
|
||
higher rate than interstate calls). Also, for the Gwinn node,
|
||
Net 154 IS geographically closer than any Michigan net.
|
||
|
||
Second, there is no way that node 154/8 should be in net 222,
|
||
according to strict interpretation of Fidonet Policy. The
|
||
reason is simple. Node 154/8 is located in Sault Ste. Marie,
|
||
Michigan, which is in Region 11. Net 222 is located in Sault
|
||
Ste. Marie, Ontario, Canada, which is in Region 12 and which is
|
||
NOT a local call from the Michigan Sault. Now, admittedly, if
|
||
it weren't for all this geographic nonsense that the *C's are
|
||
pushing, it might make a lot of sense for a node in Sault Ste.
|
||
Marie, Michigan to be in the Sault, Ontario net. But here we
|
||
have an RC that's trying to break a node out of a net because
|
||
he feels that node is not geographically entitled to be there,
|
||
and put it into another net in another region, where it is
|
||
definitely not supposed to be, according to the "standards"
|
||
he's trying to use!
|
||
|
||
Third, Node 154/8 is a private node, with the phone number not
|
||
even listed in the nodelist. I could put ANY city down for a
|
||
location, and no one would know the difference. Actually, it
|
||
is a "sister system" to 154/7, which IS located in Milwaukee
|
||
(actually in the suburb of Cudahy). The whole reason for the
|
||
existence of 154/8 is to allow easy remote control of 154/7,
|
||
FidoNews 6-23 Page 23 5 Jun 1989
|
||
|
||
|
||
since the actual sysop of 154/7 is out of town most of the
|
||
time. The two systems run the same software, and even have (in
|
||
effect) common netmail areas. It's a pretty unique setup, but
|
||
one that pretty much dictates that both nodes be in the same
|
||
net.
|
||
|
||
Someone is bound to ask why 154/8 isn't a point. Glad you
|
||
asked. For one thing, I do receive some echo conferences
|
||
directly from a different BBS in Net 154, that are not carried
|
||
on 154/7. For another thing, I have a point user (that uses a
|
||
Commodore Amiga, no less) that operates off of 154/8, and
|
||
receives echoes from here. So I do need to have full node
|
||
status, albeit private because my system is not up 24 hours a
|
||
day.
|
||
|
||
Anyway, our RC didn't make much of an attempt to discover any
|
||
of these facts. Apparently, he was just sitting around one day
|
||
and on his own initiative, decided to see who he could make
|
||
trouble for. I say that because no one had complained about
|
||
the placement of these nodes. He just decided he didn't like
|
||
the situation and wanted to force a change.
|
||
|
||
Now, the truth of the matter is that I don't think he had to
|
||
think too long or hard about who he wanted to bother. Make no
|
||
mistake, there are other nets in Region 11 that are much more
|
||
geographically diverse than ours. One other net in particular
|
||
has nodes in FOUR different area codes (and one of those area
|
||
codes is NOT technically in Region 11, although it is logical
|
||
for those nodes to be in that net), and covers a radius of
|
||
approximately 450 miles. But the RC has been looking to pick a
|
||
fight with Net 154 for quite some time. Why? I'm not sure.
|
||
But last year, he tried (unsuccessfully) to forcefully replace
|
||
Ted Polczynski, the Net 154 NC. He failed in this because no
|
||
one in Net 154 wanted to take Ted's job away from him!
|
||
|
||
Now, Ted has been in Fidonet longer than most NC's, and is an
|
||
At-Large member of the IFNA Board of Directors... he is not
|
||
some greenhorn kid who just got the NC post, and as far as I
|
||
can tell, Ted is well liked and highly respected by everyone in
|
||
Net 154. But, he is not the sort to take dictates from an RC
|
||
who bends Policy to suit his own convenience. So, Ted and
|
||
Steve have had some disagreements in the past. Not only that,
|
||
but Steve and I have also had a few differences of opinion.
|
||
So, there's no doubt in my mind why Net 154 was singled out for
|
||
"selective enforcement."
|
||
|
||
But the purpose of this article is not to air our Regional
|
||
"dirty linen" nationally. Rather, it's a living example of the
|
||
type of abuse and heavy-handed regulation that we can probably
|
||
expect on a regular basis if POLICY4 is approved.
|
||
|
||
You see, Policy4 contains the following language:
|
||
|
||
1.3.2 Geography
|
||
|
||
Each level of FidoNet is geographically contained by
|
||
FidoNews 6-23 Page 24 5 Jun 1989
|
||
|
||
|
||
the level immediately above it. A given geographic
|
||
location is covered by one zone and one region within
|
||
that zone, and is either in one network or not in a
|
||
network. There are never two zones, two regions, or
|
||
two networks which cover the same geographic area.
|
||
|
||
If a node is in the area of a network, it should be
|
||
listed in that network, not as an independent in the
|
||
region. (The primary exception to this is a node
|
||
receiving inordinate amounts of host-routed mail; see
|
||
section 4.2). Network boundaries are based on
|
||
calling areas as defined by the local telephone
|
||
company...
|
||
|
||
What does the phrase "Network boundaries are based on calling
|
||
areas as defined by the local telephone company" mean? There
|
||
are at least two possible definitions I can think of offhand:
|
||
|
||
1) It means that if you're a local call from a net host, you
|
||
should be in his net, and if you're not in his local calling
|
||
area, you should not be.
|
||
|
||
2) It means that if you're in the same LATA (or maybe area
|
||
code?) as a net host, you should be in his net, otherwise you
|
||
should not be.
|
||
|
||
Now, under either definition, the two of the three Net 154
|
||
nodes that our RC is complaining would not qualify to belong to
|
||
ANY net. The third node, the one in Manitowoc, would not
|
||
qualify to belong to any net under definition 1, and WOULD
|
||
qualify to belong to Net 154, but NOT to Net 139 under
|
||
definition 2 (Manitowoc is in the Southeast Wisconsin LATA, as
|
||
is Milwaukee, while the Net 139 NC is in Neenah, which is in
|
||
the Northeast Wisconsin LATA).
|
||
|
||
Now of course, any *C could come along at any time and
|
||
interpret the above policy section in yet another way, but then
|
||
that would just be his opinion. Another *C could interpret the
|
||
same phrase in a completely different manner. "Calling areas
|
||
as defined by the local telephone company" could be interpreted
|
||
in a lot of different ways, I guess.
|
||
|
||
But, as I pointed out earlier, there are LOTS of nets around
|
||
that contain nodes that are not within the local calling area,
|
||
or even the same area code, as the net host. YOUR net may have
|
||
a few such nodes. I know for a fact that other nets in Region
|
||
11 have such nodes. But, our RC has been looking for a reason
|
||
to "get" Net 154, so I'm sure he'd notice things here that he'd
|
||
overlook in other nets... FOR NOW.
|
||
|
||
But if Net 154 falls, YOUR NET COULD BE NEXT! There is a
|
||
saying that "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts
|
||
absolutely." If the RC has the right to dictate which nodes
|
||
may or may not be in nets, there are several nets in Region 11,
|
||
and in all the other regions, that may have nodes added or
|
||
taken away without their consent.
|
||
FidoNews 6-23 Page 25 5 Jun 1989
|
||
|
||
|
||
Please stop for a moment and think about those nodes in your
|
||
net that are NOT a local telephone call from your Net
|
||
Coordinator. If POLICY4 passes, just about any of these nodes
|
||
could be subject to being pruned from your net, depending on
|
||
how the RC decides to interpret POLICY4 on a given day (and
|
||
whether or not he's holding a grudge against you, or someone in
|
||
your net).
|
||
|
||
You may not agree with me about Echopol, or any of other
|
||
numerous matters on which I've expressed an opinion. I can
|
||
live with that. But do you really want the RC to be able to
|
||
come in and prune and graft on your net, with you or your NC
|
||
having no say at all in the matter?
|
||
|
||
Some folks thought I was tilting at windmills when I sounded
|
||
the alarm about all this geographic nonsense while Echopol was
|
||
under consideration. Now that you see where it's leading, are
|
||
you still in favor of it? Do you really want the day to come
|
||
when the *C structure tells you exactly how you're going to run
|
||
your system, and all you get to do is pay the phone bills?
|
||
|
||
I feel that the potential for heavy-handed regulation by the *C
|
||
structure (particularly at the RC level and above) is
|
||
sufficient reason to:
|
||
|
||
1) Vote down POLICY4, if and when we ever get to vote on it
|
||
(and IGNORE IT if we DON'T get to vote on it... by the way, the
|
||
same applies to ECHOPOL).
|
||
|
||
2) Let other sysops (particularly those in other regions) know
|
||
the dangers in POLICY4 (that's a hint to any of you who still
|
||
have access to echoes such as IFNA or SYSOP... I don't!)
|
||
|
||
3) Push ever harder for a truly democratic and representative
|
||
structure in Fidonet, so that we can get rid of the petty
|
||
dictators. (This isn't Communist China, and we shouldn't have
|
||
to sit still for this type of dictatorship!).
|
||
|
||
4) Teach our *C's the difference between geography and network
|
||
topology, or get some new *C's who have the mental capacity to
|
||
understand the difference!
|
||
|
||
5) Get rid of Regions in Fidonet altogether (okay, I know
|
||
a lot of folks don't want to go that far... but please consider
|
||
the benefits vs. the disadvantages of the "Region" level of
|
||
Fidonet government. It seems that this is the level where most
|
||
of the real problems in Fidonet originate!).
|
||
|
||
I would also ask those of you who communicate regularly with
|
||
Net 154 to use a text editor and clip the Net 154 segment of
|
||
the nodelist some time in the next week or two, so that if our
|
||
RC decides to slash our whole net from the nodelist, you'll
|
||
still be able to talk to us by placing our nodelist segment in
|
||
a private nodelist.
|
||
|
||
Speaking of the nodelist... the only real "club" that the *C
|
||
FidoNews 6-23 Page 26 5 Jun 1989
|
||
|
||
|
||
structure has over any net or node is the ability to remove
|
||
them from the nodelist. I feel it is high time we had a
|
||
nodelist that is NOT used for disciplinary purposes. In other
|
||
words, you have a node that's Fidonet compatible, you get to be
|
||
in the nodelist, no matter what the *C structure thinks of you.
|
||
Obviously, this will never happen with the "official" Fidonet
|
||
nodelist. But, suppose that one fine day all of the NC's,
|
||
instead of sending their nodelist updates to their RC's, sent
|
||
them to a new organization whose sole purpose for existence was
|
||
to compile a Fidonet-compatible nodelist without regard to
|
||
politics, and who were pledged to NOT use the nodelist listing
|
||
for disciplinary purposes?
|
||
|
||
I've seen similar cooperative efforts spring up in Fidonet. We
|
||
now have a Software Distribution System and a Software
|
||
Distribution Network. Perhaps we also need a Nodelist
|
||
Distribution Network, that would simply distribute a St. Louis
|
||
format nodelist, not aligned with any particular group, but
|
||
simply dedicated to giving people the ability to communicate.
|
||
The only problem is that few people have access to the software
|
||
that creates the nodelists and nodediffs, and fewer still know
|
||
how to use it (I'd be tempted to write something myself if I
|
||
could figure out how to calculate that doggone checksum,
|
||
preferably using compiled BASIC).
|
||
|
||
ADDENDUM
|
||
|
||
I was going to write an article for Fidonews regarding a
|
||
message I had seen that was apparently received by David
|
||
Dodell, and then forwarded out to the *C structure. David was
|
||
apparently worried enough about this message to forward it out.
|
||
It read:
|
||
|
||
After giving the matter serious thought, I'm unable
|
||
to resolve (in my mind) why there is such a negative
|
||
feeling among the FidoNet higher ups against
|
||
democratic process. We are an amatuer organization.
|
||
To my knowledge, FidoNet is the only international
|
||
organization of its type WITHOUT ANY ELECTED
|
||
OFFICERS.
|
||
|
||
At this point I would want to ask all SysOps if there
|
||
is any interest in becoming part of a CLASS ACTION
|
||
against the ZONE and REGION structure of FidoNet? I
|
||
personally feel that I'm being DENIED my RIGHT to
|
||
select our officers. Even the corporate structure in
|
||
American business has to answer to the stockholders
|
||
<GRIN>
|
||
|
||
What I'm asking for is support in SUEing the
|
||
operators of all '/0' addresses above the network
|
||
level. The amount can be $1.00 but the issue is the
|
||
drafting of rational documents and election
|
||
procedures. I'm tired of 'good old boy' appointments
|
||
and 'pork barrel politics.'
|
||
|
||
FidoNews 6-23 Page 27 5 Jun 1989
|
||
|
||
|
||
Think about it..... Let the campaign slogan be:
|
||
Litigation '89
|
||
|
||
After what I've read in 2 years, there is no other
|
||
way!
|
||
|
||
Now, I have to admit that the thought of sysops bringing
|
||
lawsuits against other sysops scares me plenty, and I had
|
||
planned to write something along those lines. But after this
|
||
most recent unprovoked attack by our RC, I now have a new
|
||
appreciation of the frustration that the author of the above
|
||
message must have felt. We have an unpopular hierarchy that
|
||
simply refuses to yield to the call for reform and democracy in
|
||
Fidonet. These people weren't elected... in fact, most of us
|
||
aren't quite sure just how these people managed to achieve
|
||
their status in Fidonet. In more than one instance, one of the
|
||
most unpopular people in a region has managed to get himself
|
||
appointed RC or REC. And under present policy, there is no way
|
||
for the average sysop to have any input into this appointment
|
||
process!
|
||
|
||
I'm not printing the name of the author of the message, because
|
||
I'm still afraid that such a lawsuit might destroy Fidonet
|
||
entirely (sort of like cutting off your head to cure a
|
||
headache). But if the *C structure doesn't soon begin to
|
||
understand that most sysops do NOT approve of the dictatorial,
|
||
top-down government of Fidonet, I fear that an action such as
|
||
the one mentioned above is bound to occur sooner or later.
|
||
|
||
I'll tell you one thing, though. After this most recent
|
||
occurrence of getting the shaft from our RC, I have to admit
|
||
that the temptation to send this guy a a few bucks toward his
|
||
legal expenses is much stronger now!
|
||
|
||
|
||
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
FidoNews 6-23 Page 28 5 Jun 1989
|
||
|
||
|
||
1:115/982
|
||
CURTIS SAHAKIAN
|
||
|
||
THE FIDONET DEMOCRACY ECHO
|
||
|
||
THE FIDONET DEMOCRACY ECHO.....The purpose of this Echo is
|
||
to discuss the best way to implement a fully representative
|
||
democracy within FidoNet. This is not a *C bashing area.
|
||
This is not a place to keep saying 'You can't do this.",
|
||
"Democracy in FidoNet is impossible.", or "You are
|
||
preaching treason and will be excommunciated." This area
|
||
is for rational discussion and debate on HOW we will make
|
||
FidoNet democratic not IF we will. When you enter this
|
||
Echo and participate, you accept the premise that making
|
||
FidoNet fully representative is a foregone conclusion and
|
||
your purpose here is to discover HOW it will be done and
|
||
WHEN it will be done. Personal attacks of any kind are
|
||
not tolerated. Name calling, libelous or slanderous
|
||
pronouncements, deliberate distortion of facts or insertion
|
||
of misinformation are not tolerated. No shouting matchs
|
||
or ego contests. Everyone is welcome and encouraged to
|
||
make constructive comments and to offer solutions. We all
|
||
know what the problems are. Everyone is encouraged to use
|
||
their common sense and to offer well thought out plans of
|
||
action.
|
||
|
||
At present, you may link into DEMOCRACY in the Midwest
|
||
(Chicago) at 1:115/982, and in Southeast (Florida) at
|
||
1:135/14, 1:135/10, or 1:133/302. We are looking for
|
||
Denver, Texas, California and New England Hubs. The Echo
|
||
is open to anyone with a REAL interest in the goals stated
|
||
above and the intent to observe the simple conference
|
||
guidelines. If you are interested in picking it up and
|
||
distributing it call any of the above hubs. It is
|
||
intentionally being kept off the backbone. We need more
|
||
hubs to spread the word! The echo is has only just
|
||
recently started and is already is filling up with a great
|
||
deal of constructive comment and discussion. Lets hear
|
||
your thoughts!
|
||
|
||
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
FidoNews 6-23 Page 29 5 Jun 1989
|
||
|
||
|
||
Jacek Szelozynski
|
||
Quick Cat BBS, 2:286/201.10
|
||
xx48-58-523319
|
||
Gdansk, Poland
|
||
|
||
Something Exotic - Polish traffic in Net/Echo Mail
|
||
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
||
|
||
Poland is a country in Europe placed between USSR, East Germany,
|
||
Czechoslovakia and Baltic Sea. And I am one of three Polish BBSes
|
||
SYSOP. Just few weeks ago we joined the Net/Echo Mail as a point
|
||
of AINEX-RBBS in Holland. Now we exchange netmail and joined
|
||
COMMS, CLONE, C_ECHO, PENPAL, INTERNAT, TELIX and ZMODEM echoes.
|
||
Soon it turned out that messages from Poland in worldwide echoes
|
||
are quite a sensation so I decided to drop you all a line an
|
||
enlighten you a bit on "BBSes in communist country".
|
||
|
||
First some history. Our adventure with BBS has started in March
|
||
1988 from WILDCAT! 1.03 brought from USA by Stach Roth, my fellow
|
||
sysop and programmer in our company. There has been one BBS in
|
||
Poland at that time but it worked very irregularly and we did
|
||
want to create something better and more reliable. Soon Polish
|
||
adaptation of WILDCAT! was ready (the knowledge of English is not
|
||
too popular in Poland). We started our run on the 12th of August
|
||
1988. Browsing various BBSes in Europe I have met Arjen Lentz and
|
||
very soon it was clear that our software can not do everything we
|
||
would like our BBS to do. There was urgent need to implement Z-
|
||
Modem (a must on poor Polish lines) and the version of WILDCAT!
|
||
we used could not work with Net and Echo Mail.
|
||
|
||
So what could we do? One day we got Quick BBS version 2.03 and
|
||
from 10th of March 1989 we continue our activity as Quick Cat
|
||
BBS connected to The Box mailer.
|
||
|
||
The most often asked question in the messages is "Do commies
|
||
allow for such an activity as using modems?". I am sorry if my
|
||
reply does not agree with certain prejudices, but we are not
|
||
at all restricted in anything we do. At least nowadays. We only
|
||
had to register our modem in the Main Post Office and check if it
|
||
meets Polish homologation. Anyway... The condition of Polish
|
||
telephone lines is in some places so poor that commies do not
|
||
have to be afraid one day their monopoly will be threatened by
|
||
thousands of modem transmissions. We have some 500.000 PC's in
|
||
Poland (even buying true-blue COCOM registered IBM PS2/80 or
|
||
Honeywell or HP is not a problem at all) but the idea of modem
|
||
communication is not very popular as yet. Most of the computers
|
||
are used in working places and they rather do book-keeping or
|
||
accounting jobs than send/exchange messages. The latter are
|
||
rather transmitted by faxes. However there ARE few fanatics in my
|
||
country for whom connecting Poland into European modem net is not
|
||
just a mere hobby.
|
||
|
||
Why do I say "European", not "worldwide"? The reason is simple.
|
||
Poland (as by now) only has direct telephone links with Europe...
|
||
If I want to call to USA or Australia I have to wait about 2 - 3
|
||
days for the operator-made call. There's probably another good
|
||
FidoNews 6-23 Page 30 5 Jun 1989
|
||
|
||
|
||
reason why Polish government doesn't have to be afraid of
|
||
modems. All in all THEY (not modems!) control the telephone
|
||
network and switching it all off is very easy.
|
||
|
||
Well, back to the subject. As I mentioned there are two other
|
||
BBSes in Poland too, one in Warsaw and one in Krakow. All use
|
||
Quick BBS. Being an echo pioneer in Poland is quite difficult and
|
||
very expensive. If say (proportionally to your wages) you pay one
|
||
dollar per minute of Holland - Poland call, then I my costs are
|
||
at least twice as high. I am alone so I have to download all the
|
||
support I need from abroad on my sponsor expenses. Necessity
|
||
however is the mother of invention, so we create the utils we
|
||
need too. E.g. Stach (writes in C) created extended log-viewer
|
||
utility and now he writes dBase format data base utility to
|
||
browse and search any records you wish ON-LINE!
|
||
|
||
In fact I have two sponsors. The other one in Holland sends my
|
||
netmail all over the world if I have a bug report for someone. I
|
||
do not have a phone at home, so the BBS is in my working place.
|
||
There are some 8 (yes, eight, not a mistake) phones per 100
|
||
people in Poland and one have to wait about 15 years to get one
|
||
connected. Crazy, eh? But I am not guilty of that situation so I
|
||
do not have to be ashamed. All the troubles and difficulties do
|
||
not make me feel like giving it up either, I am really a fanatic
|
||
of all the mailing beasts and the ROYAL troubles they can cause.
|
||
Installing the new BBS I used to work on it day by day from 5 pm
|
||
till midnight for over a month and even longer. It is not a
|
||
problem for a night killer like me.
|
||
|
||
The users of our BBS (we have 72 participants) are mainly
|
||
programmers. As I said modeming idea in Poland is not very
|
||
popular as yet and we do work hard to convince people that it
|
||
is faster and cheaper to use modem sometimes. I am sure
|
||
connecting Gdansk to worldwide FidoNet is a step in right
|
||
direction.
|
||
|
||
If you have any questions you are welcome! I'll try to reply all
|
||
messages (if there will be any :)). You can leave messages to us
|
||
in the Echoes mentioned above or call directly, and of course by
|
||
Netmail to 2:286/201.10 (or 2:2/102.10).
|
||
We run our Quick Cat everyday from 22:00 till 09:00 GMT+1, number
|
||
is: xx48-58-523319.
|
||
|
||
Happy modeming!
|
||
|
||
Jacek Szelozynski, Quick Cat BBS, Point of AINEX RBBS.
|
||
|
||
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
FidoNews 6-23 Page 31 5 Jun 1989
|
||
|
||
|
||
=================================================================
|
||
COLUMNS
|
||
=================================================================
|
||
|
||
The Veterinarian's Corner
|
||
Excerpts from the ANIMED GroupMail Conference
|
||
|
||
by Don Thomson, 1:102/1005
|
||
|
||
> The problem .... was that it was CONSTANTLY using the couch for
|
||
> a toilet. He was always spraying it, and it smelled horrible...
|
||
|
||
You bring up a good, albeit difficult, topic on cats and
|
||
elimination problem behavior. The first step towards arriving at
|
||
a solution is to make a distinction between spraying (which is
|
||
delivering a forceful urine stream to a vertical surface - the
|
||
tail is held erect, quivering, while the behavior occurs) and
|
||
innapropriate elimination - the basic squatting and leaving the
|
||
results on a horizontal surface.
|
||
|
||
Generally the approach to spraying behavior is different than the
|
||
approach to innapropriate elimination behavior, although with
|
||
some cats the two may occur in the same area.
|
||
|
||
Let me first address the 'easier' of the two behaviors-
|
||
inappropriate elimination - or truely 'using the couch as the
|
||
sandbox.' Here I will address generalities on the subject, some
|
||
of which may not be germain to your parents plight, but need to
|
||
be considered in other similar instances.
|
||
|
||
Urinary tract infections which create a sensation of urgency to
|
||
eliminate is a cause that must first be ruled out. Not all
|
||
bladder infections (cystitis) are accompanied by blood, so a
|
||
urinalysis and/or urine culture may be warrented in certain
|
||
instances to make sure this is a behavioral rather than medical
|
||
problem. There are also age-related 'senile' or 'weakness'
|
||
related causes in geriatric cats that may contribute to
|
||
elimination problems in some cats.
|
||
|
||
Behaviorally, though, we have two general categories, each of
|
||
which have an approach. There are 'Aversions' to the litterbox,
|
||
or 'Attractions' to the innapropriate area. Lastly, there are the
|
||
'Emotional' disturbances that may effect an elimation problem.
|
||
|
||
Aversions: This may in some cases be as simple as not cleaning
|
||
out the litterbox frequently enough. Other times it may be that
|
||
one particular cat will not use the catbox that another cat has
|
||
eliminated in. For some reason a cat may find the smell of
|
||
certain litters offensive - this may be the case in those who use
|
||
certain chlorophyll containing kitty litters or the use of strong
|
||
deodorizors or perfumes. Some cats find kitty litter itself
|
||
aversive and require actual sand. Fortunatly, sand is cheeper
|
||
than kitty litter anyway. Interrupting the cat while using the
|
||
litterbox to administer medications etc may create an 'aversion
|
||
by association' to using the litterbox. Sometimes, too, the
|
||
owners preferred location of the litterbox may be the cause of
|
||
FidoNews 6-23 Page 32 5 Jun 1989
|
||
|
||
|
||
the adversion and a change in location may be in order.
|
||
|
||
Attractions: One of the biggest problem with urinating in the
|
||
wrong spot is that it quickly becomes self perpetuating by virtue
|
||
of the scent left behind. Cats and dogs have a tremendous
|
||
interaction between smell and certain behaviors, such that even
|
||
the scent of urine triggers a behavioral elimination response. It
|
||
is of absolute importance that the area be completely cleansed of
|
||
the urine smell. There are improved commercial products on the
|
||
market, and some people find that carbonated soda water works
|
||
well. Feeding a cat in the previously soiled area may also reduce
|
||
the likelyhood of using the spot again.
|
||
|
||
Emotional Disturbances: This may be the result of early trauma
|
||
and individual 'personality' of the cat. We have reasonably good
|
||
luck in treating this type of behavior with mood altering
|
||
medications, actually synthetic progesterone derivatives. (Megace
|
||
or Ovaban, or injectable Depo-Provera). This medical approach is
|
||
not without a degree of risk of certain side effects, and for
|
||
this reason, the previously mentioned factors should be addressed
|
||
first.
|
||
|
||
After the causative factors have been addressed, then the cat
|
||
needs to 're-learn' to use the litterbox. Initially this may mean
|
||
confinement in a relatively small area of the house with the
|
||
litterbox placed where there is the highest likelyhood that it
|
||
will use it. Usually the bathroom is the most convenient place
|
||
because of tile or linoleum floor. As the cat learns to use the
|
||
box regularly, it can gradually be re-introduced into other parts
|
||
of the house. It should be watched fairly closely to make sure it
|
||
doesn't break training. Slowly through 'successive approximation'
|
||
it may be given more and more area, and the cat box slowly moved
|
||
to a place that is more convenient for the owner. Both changes
|
||
(increased area, and movement of the catbox should be gradual.
|
||
|
||
> Was there anything they could have done to keep this cat
|
||
> from ruining their furniture?
|
||
|
||
Maybe, Phil. But as you know, the process is difficult at times,
|
||
and there are, sadly, failures.... As your folks' cat sounds as
|
||
though it had a combination of factors acting, possibly a
|
||
combination of medical and behavoral modifaction would be needed.
|
||
|
||
Spraying behavior is another story......
|
||
|
||
DB Thomson, DVM
|
||
1:102/1005
|
||
9:871/16
|
||
|
||
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
FidoNews 6-23 Page 33 5 Jun 1989
|
||
|
||
|
||
=================================================================
|
||
LATEST VERSIONS
|
||
=================================================================
|
||
|
||
Latest Software Versions
|
||
|
||
Bulletin Board Software
|
||
Name Version Name Version Name Version
|
||
|
||
Fido 12m+* Phoenix 1.3 TBBS 2.1
|
||
Lynx 1.30 QuickBBS 2.03 TComm/TCommNet 3.4
|
||
Opus 1.03b+ RBBS 17.1D TPBoard 5.2*
|
||
|
||
+ Netmail capable (does not require additional mailer software)
|
||
|
||
|
||
Network Node List Other
|
||
Mailers Version Utilities Version Utilities Version
|
||
|
||
BinkleyTerm 2.20 EditNL 4.00 ARC 6.02*
|
||
D'Bridge 1.18 MakeNL 2.12 ARCmail 2.0
|
||
Dutchie 2.90C ParseList 1.30 ConfMail 4.00
|
||
FrontDoor 2.0 Prune 1.40 EMM 2.02*
|
||
PRENM 1.47* XlatList 2.90 GROUP 2.10*
|
||
SEAdog 4.51* XlaxDiff 2.32 MSG 3.3*
|
||
XlaxNode 2.32 MSGED 1.99
|
||
TCOMMail 2.2*
|
||
TMail 1.11*
|
||
TPBNetEd 3.2*
|
||
UFGATE 1.03
|
||
XRS 2.2
|
||
* Recently changed
|
||
|
||
Utility authors: Please help keep this list up to date by
|
||
reporting new versions to 1:1/1. It is not our intent to list
|
||
all utilities here, only those which verge on necessity.
|
||
|
||
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
FidoNews 6-23 Page 34 5 Jun 1989
|
||
|
||
|
||
=================================================================
|
||
NOTICES
|
||
=================================================================
|
||
|
||
The Interrupt Stack
|
||
|
||
|
||
15 Jul 1989
|
||
Start of the SAPMFC&LP (Second Annual Poor Man's FidoCon and
|
||
Lake Party) to be held at Silver Lake Park on Grapevine Lake
|
||
in Arlington, Texas. This started as an R19-only thing last
|
||
year, but we had so much fun, we decided to invite everybody!
|
||
We'll have beer, food, beer, waterskiing, beer, horseshoes,
|
||
beer, volleyball, and of course beer. It's an overnighter,
|
||
so bring your sleeping bag and plan to camp out. Contact one
|
||
of the Furriers (Ron Bemis at 1:124/1113 or Dewey Thiessen at
|
||
1:130/24) for details and a fantastic ASCII map.
|
||
|
||
2 Aug 1989
|
||
Start of Galactic Hacker Party in Amsterdam, Holland. Contact
|
||
Rop Gonggrijp at 2:280/1 for details.
|
||
|
||
24 Aug 1989
|
||
Voyager 2 passes Neptune.
|
||
|
||
24 Aug 1989
|
||
FidoCon '89 starts at the Holiday Inn in San Jose,
|
||
California. Trade show, seminars, etc. Contact 1:1/89
|
||
for info.
|
||
|
||
5 Oct 1989
|
||
20th Anniversary of "Monty Python's Flying Circus"
|
||
|
||
11 Oct 1989
|
||
First International Modula-2 Conference at Bled, Yugoslavia
|
||
hosting Niklaus Wirth and the British Standards Institution.
|
||
Contact 1:106/8422 for more information.
|
||
|
||
11 Nov 1989
|
||
A new area code forms in northern Illinois at 12:01 am.
|
||
Chicago proper will remain area code 312; suburban areas
|
||
formerly served with that code will become area code 708.
|
||
|
||
|
||
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
|
||
FidoNews 6-23 Page 35 5 Jun 1989
|
||
|
||
|
||
OFFICERS OF THE INTERNATIONAL FIDONET ASSOCIATION
|
||
|
||
Mort Sternheim 1:321/109 Chairman of the Board
|
||
Bob Rudolph 1:261/628 President
|
||
Matt Whelan 3:3/1 Vice President
|
||
Bill Bolton 3:711/403 Vice President-Technical Coordinator
|
||
Linda Grennan 1:147/1 Secretary
|
||
Kris Veitch 1:147/30 Treasurer
|
||
|
||
|
||
IFNA COMMITTEE AND BOARD CHAIRS
|
||
|
||
Administration and Finance Mark Grennan 1:147/1
|
||
Board of Directors Mort Sternheim 1:321/109
|
||
Bylaws Don Daniels 1:107/210
|
||
Ethics Vic Hill 1:147/4
|
||
Executive Committee Bob Rudolph 1:261/628
|
||
International Affairs Rob Gonsalves 2:500/1
|
||
Membership Services David Drexler 1:147/1
|
||
Nominations & Elections David Melnick 1:107/233
|
||
Public Affairs David Drexler 1:147/1
|
||
Publications Rick Siegel 1:107/27
|
||
Security & Individual Rights Jim Cannell 1:143/21
|
||
Technical Standards Rick Moore 1:115/333
|
||
|
||
|
||
IFNA BOARD OF DIRECTORS
|
||
|
||
DIVISION AT-LARGE
|
||
|
||
10 Courtney Harris 1:102/732 Don Daniels 1:107/210
|
||
11 Bill Allbritten 1:11/301 Mort Sternheim 1:321/109
|
||
12 Bill Bolton 3:711/403 Mark Grennan 1:147/1
|
||
13 Irene Henderson 1:107/9 (vacant)
|
||
14 Ken Kaplan 1:100/22 Ted Polczyinski 1:154/5
|
||
15 Scott Miller 1:128/12 Matt Whelan 3:3/1
|
||
16 Ivan Schaffel 1:141/390 Robert Rudolph 1:261/628
|
||
17 Neal Curtin 1:343/1 Steve Jordan 1:206/2871
|
||
18 Andrew Adler 1:135/47 Kris Veitch 1:147/30
|
||
19 David Drexler 1:147/1 (vacant)
|
||
2 Henk Wevers 2:500/1 David Melnik 1:107/233
|
||
|
||
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
FidoNews 6-23 Page 36 5 Jun 1989
|
||
|
||
|
||
__
|
||
The World's First / \
|
||
BBS Network /|oo \
|
||
* FidoNet * (_| /_)
|
||
FidoCon '89 in San Jose, California _`@/_ \ _
|
||
at The Holiday Inn Park Plaza | | \ \\
|
||
August 24-27, 1989 | (*) | \ ))
|
||
______ |__U__| / \//
|
||
/ Fido \ _//|| _\ /
|
||
(________) (_/(_|(____/ (tm)
|
||
|
||
|
||
R E G I S T R A T I O N F O R M
|
||
|
||
|
||
Name: _______________________________________________________
|
||
|
||
Address: ____________________________________________________
|
||
|
||
City: _______________________ State: ____ Zip: ______________
|
||
|
||
Country: ____________________________________________________
|
||
|
||
|
||
Phone Numbers:
|
||
|
||
Day: ________________________________________________________
|
||
|
||
Evening: ____________________________________________________
|
||
|
||
Data: _______________________________________________________
|
||
|
||
|
||
Zone:Net/
|
||
Node.Point: ___________________________________________________
|
||
|
||
Your BBS Name: ________________________________________________
|
||
|
||
|
||
BBS Software: _____________________ Mailer: ___________________
|
||
|
||
Modem Brand: _____________________ Speed: ____________________
|
||
|
||
What Hotel will you be Staying at: ____________________________
|
||
|
||
Do you want an in room point? (Holiday Inn only) ______________
|
||
|
||
Are you a Sysop? _____________
|
||
|
||
Are you an IFNA Member? ______
|
||
|
||
Additional Guests: __________
|
||
(not attending conferences)
|
||
|
||
Do you have any special requirements? (Sign Language translation,
|
||
handicapped, etc.)
|
||
FidoNews 6-23 Page 37 5 Jun 1989
|
||
|
||
|
||
______________________________________________________
|
||
|
||
|
||
Comments: ______________________________________________________
|
||
|
||
______________________________________________________
|
||
|
||
______________________________________________________
|
||
|
||
|
||
Costs How Many? Cost
|
||
--------------------------- -------- -------
|
||
|
||
Conference fee $60 .................... ________ _______
|
||
($75.00 after July 15)
|
||
|
||
Friday Banquet $30.00 ................ ________ _______
|
||
|
||
======== =======
|
||
|
||
Totals ................................ ________ _______
|
||
|
||
You may pay by Check, Money Order, or Credit Card. Please send
|
||
no cash. All monies must be in U.S. Funds. Checks should be
|
||
made out to: "FidoCon '89"
|
||
|
||
|
||
This form should be completed and mailed to:
|
||
|
||
Silicon Valley FidoCon '89
|
||
PO Box 390770
|
||
Mountain View, CA 94039
|
||
|
||
|
||
You may register by Netmailing this completed form to 1:1/89 for
|
||
processing. Rename it to ZNNNXXXX.REG where Z is your Zone
|
||
number, N is your Net number, and X is your Node number. US Mail
|
||
confirmation is required within 72 hours to confirm your
|
||
registration.
|
||
|
||
If you are paying by credit card, please include the following
|
||
information. For your own security, do not route any message
|
||
with your credit card number on it. Crash it directly to 1:1/89.
|
||
|
||
|
||
Master Card _______ Visa ________
|
||
|
||
|
||
Credit Card Number _____________________________________________
|
||
|
||
|
||
Expiration Date ________________________________________________
|
||
|
||
|
||
Signature ______________________________________________________
|
||
|
||
FidoNews 6-23 Page 38 5 Jun 1989
|
||
|
||
|
||
No credit card registrations will be accepted without a valid
|
||
signature.
|
||
|
||
|
||
Rooms at the Holiday Inn may be reserved by calling the Hotel at
|
||
408-998-0400, and mentioning that you are with FidoCon. Rooms
|
||
are $60.00 per night double occupancy. Additional rollaways are
|
||
available for $10.00 per night. To obtain these rates you must
|
||
register before July 15.
|
||
|
||
The official FidoCon '89 airline is American Airlines. You can
|
||
receive either a 5% reduction in supersaver fares or a 40%
|
||
reduction in the regular day coach fare. San Jose is an American
|
||
Airlines hub with direct flights to most major cities. When
|
||
making reservations, you must call American's reservation number,
|
||
800-433-1790, and reference Star number S0289VM.
|
||
|
||
|
||
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
FidoNews 6-23 Page 39 5 Jun 1989
|
||
|
||
|
||
__
|
||
The World's First / \
|
||
BBS Network /|oo \
|
||
* FidoNet * (_| /_)
|
||
_`@/_ \ _
|
||
| | \ \\
|
||
| (*) | \ ))
|
||
______ |__U__| / \//
|
||
/ Fido \ _//|| _\ /
|
||
(________) (_/(_|(____/ (tm)
|
||
|
||
Membership for the International FidoNet Association
|
||
|
||
Membership in IFNA is open to any individual or organization that
|
||
pays a specified annual membership fee. IFNA serves the
|
||
international FidoNet-compatible electronic mail community to
|
||
increase worldwide communications.
|
||
|
||
Member Name _______________________________ Date _______________
|
||
Address _________________________________________________________
|
||
City ____________________________________________________________
|
||
State ________________________________ Zip _____________________
|
||
Country _________________________________________________________
|
||
Home Phone (Voice) ______________________________________________
|
||
Work Phone (Voice) ______________________________________________
|
||
|
||
Zone:Net/Node Number ____________________________________________
|
||
BBS Name ________________________________________________________
|
||
BBS Phone Number ________________________________________________
|
||
Baud Rates Supported ____________________________________________
|
||
Board Restrictions ______________________________________________
|
||
|
||
Your Special Interests __________________________________________
|
||
_________________________________________________________________
|
||
_________________________________________________________________
|
||
In what areas would you be willing to help in FidoNet? __________
|
||
_________________________________________________________________
|
||
_________________________________________________________________
|
||
Send this membership form and a check or money order for $25 in
|
||
US Funds to:
|
||
International FidoNet Association
|
||
PO Box 41143
|
||
St Louis, Missouri 63141
|
||
USA
|
||
|
||
Thank you for your membership! Your participation will help to
|
||
insure the future of FidoNet.
|
||
|
||
Please NOTE that IFNA is a general not-for-profit organization
|
||
and Articles of Association and By-Laws were adopted by the
|
||
membership in January 1987. The second elected Board of Directors
|
||
was filled in August 1988. The IFNA Echomail Conference has been
|
||
established on FidoNet to assist the Board. We welcome your
|
||
input to this Conference.
|
||
|
||
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
|