1261 lines
60 KiB
Plaintext
1261 lines
60 KiB
Plaintext
Volume 6, Number 41 9 October 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 submitted by a FidoNet SysOp will be rejected if it is
|
||
properly attributed and legally acceptable. We will publish
|
||
every responsible submission received.
|
||
|
||
|
||
Table of Contents
|
||
1. ARTICLES ................................................. 1
|
||
Make Your SEAdog Do Tricks ............................... 1
|
||
BinkleyTerm-SEAdog Accord Reached ........................ 3
|
||
SEAdog 4.51b To Ship Soon ................................ 7
|
||
On FidoNet Standards, SEAdog and BinkleyTerm ............. 8
|
||
Standards: The D'Bridge/FrontDoor perspective ............ 10
|
||
Code-Free Packet Radio (act NOW) ......................... 11
|
||
IFNA Plebescite, EchoMail, and Other Stuff ............... 13
|
||
Preliminary Draft of Rules for IFNA Vote ................. 15
|
||
2. LETTERS TO THE EDITOR .................................... 20
|
||
MakeNL bug found and corrected in Release 2.20 ........... 20
|
||
And more!
|
||
FidoNews 6-41 Page 1 9 Oct 1989
|
||
|
||
|
||
=================================================================
|
||
ARTICLES
|
||
=================================================================
|
||
|
||
System Enhancement Associates, Inc.
|
||
1:107/509@FidoNet, 520/1015@AlterNet
|
||
|
||
|
||
Make Your SEAdog Do Tricks
|
||
|
||
|
||
System Enhancement Associates, Inc. is pleased to announce the
|
||
release of the SEAdog Option Package, a set of utilities that
|
||
will enhance your mail system and expand the capabilities of your
|
||
SEAdog in directions you never imagined. Here's a sample of the
|
||
programs that are included:
|
||
|
||
|
||
SECURE1 At last you have a way to ensure the integrity and
|
||
privacy of your network mail! Secure1 provides
|
||
complete message authentication and encryption. We are
|
||
offering a $1000 REWARD to the first person who can
|
||
crack Secure1!
|
||
|
||
USNO Set your system clock to the correct time by calling
|
||
the U.S. Naval Observatory or the National Institute
|
||
of Standards and Technology. USNO can also be used to
|
||
let a SEAdog system set its clock from another SEAdog.
|
||
|
||
BOUNCE Are you tired of running up unneccesary phone bills
|
||
trying to send mail to people who just aren't
|
||
deliverable? Are you being deluged by mail for
|
||
conferences that you don't carry? BOUNCE can cure your
|
||
headache by sending undeliverable mail back to its
|
||
originator. BOUNCE is a must for any host, hub, or
|
||
conference mail system.
|
||
|
||
KITTEN A full-featured, script-driven BBS system for use with
|
||
or without SEAdog. Because of its powerful script
|
||
language, KITTEN is the most flexible BBS program
|
||
available, allowing you to do what you want the way you
|
||
want to do it. Three sample scripts are included in
|
||
the package, ranging from the simple to the ludicrous.
|
||
|
||
LANDOG At last! The power, flexibility, and ease of use of
|
||
SEAdog electronic mail on local area networks! LANDOG
|
||
replaces the SEAdog MAILER to send and receive mail on
|
||
ANY local area network. Multiple networks can be
|
||
linked with SEAdog to send mail from any point to any
|
||
point.
|
||
|
||
FidoNews 6-41 Page 2 9 Oct 1989
|
||
|
||
|
||
ENCLOSE Allows file attaches to be routed, allowing you to send
|
||
and receive files from laptops, private nodes, point
|
||
systems, and other systems which cannot be dialed
|
||
directly.
|
||
|
||
SLAVE Allows for offline remote control of distant systems.
|
||
SLAVE turns the text of a message into a batch file,
|
||
executes it, captures the output, and reports back with
|
||
the results. Many security features are provided,
|
||
including Secure1 authentication of orders before they
|
||
are executed.
|
||
|
||
The SEAdog Option Package includes over a dozen other utilities
|
||
to make your system do even more tricks. The list price for the
|
||
SEAdog Option Package is $125, but it's being offered for a
|
||
limited time at the introductory price of $75.
|
||
|
||
To order, send your check or money order for $75 to:
|
||
|
||
System Enhancement Associates, Inc.
|
||
21 New Street, Wayne, NJ 07470
|
||
|
||
or call us at 201-473-5153. We accept MasterCard and VISA.
|
||
|
||
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
FidoNews 6-41 Page 3 9 Oct 1989
|
||
|
||
|
||
Jack Rickard, 1:104/555
|
||
|
||
The following article will be published in the November issue of
|
||
Boardwatch Magazine. It is reprinted here by permission of the
|
||
publisher.
|
||
|
||
BINKLEYTERM-SEADOG ACCORD REACHED
|
||
|
||
A brewing imbroglio between various vendors of mailer software
|
||
used by most amateur BBS mail networks, including the
|
||
international Fidonet, was avoided early in October as the
|
||
proponents of two competing mailer programs reached an historic
|
||
agreement to share information on the SEAlink file transfer
|
||
protocol.
|
||
|
||
For nearly a year, BBS system operators had reported subtle but
|
||
vigorously annoying difficulties in passing files and echomail
|
||
between systems using the SEAdog mail program developed by System
|
||
Enhancement Associates of Wayne New Jersey and the BinkleyTerm
|
||
program developed by Bit Bucket Software Co. of Nashua New
|
||
Hampshire. It is estimated that over 90% of the International
|
||
Fidonet BBS systems use one or the other of these two programs
|
||
with BinkleyTerm, a free shareware program comprising the vast
|
||
majority of those systems. SEAdog, a $99 commercial program,
|
||
served many of the larger multiline TBBS- based systems and had
|
||
been in use for several years.
|
||
|
||
Normally, the two mailer programs pass files using what is known
|
||
as a BARK request and the SEAlink file transfer protocol. Two
|
||
basic problems arose in passing files between the two programs
|
||
when using high-speed modems such as the US Robotics HST 9600 and
|
||
14,400 models. In passing files from a SEAdog system to a
|
||
BinkleyTerm system, the BinkleyTerm would respond with a Negative
|
||
AcKnowledge (NAK) character repeatedly to the very first block of
|
||
the file sent. After about ten tries, the systems would give up
|
||
and disconnect the call but the calling party was still billed by
|
||
the telephone company despite the fact that the transfer had
|
||
failed.
|
||
|
||
The second problem involved file transfers from BinkleyTerm
|
||
systems to SEAdog systems. The entire transfer would proceed
|
||
normally until the final block of the file. The SEAdog system
|
||
would never detect the End Of Text (EOT) character ostensibly
|
||
sent by BinkleyTerm to end the transfer. Although the file would
|
||
be intact and onboard, SEAdog assumes it failed and deletes the
|
||
file from the drive. The BinkleyTerm shows the file as
|
||
successfully sent, while SEAdog recorded it as a failure.
|
||
Telephone charges could be quite large since the entire file was
|
||
transferred before the failure. Worse, operators would get into
|
||
disagreements as to whether the file was ever sent.
|
||
|
||
FidoNews 6-41 Page 4 9 Oct 1989
|
||
|
||
|
||
The actual causes for these communication difficulties were
|
||
probably due to some rather subtle timing incompatibilities
|
||
that the authors of both programs wrestled with for many months
|
||
with mixed success. BBS system operators, incurring increasing
|
||
expenses and network difficulties were growing increasingly
|
||
aggressive in complaints to both companies. The matter was
|
||
brought to a head when a Fidonet sysop filed a policy complaint
|
||
with Fidonet authorities over his inability to get mail from
|
||
another system. Everyone seemed to have a bit different view of
|
||
"whose fault it was" while in truth, the technical vagaries of
|
||
advanced protocols preclude such easy answers and authors of both
|
||
programs, when pressed, admitted they were not sure precisely
|
||
what caused the problems. Additionally, communications between
|
||
the two companies was not particularly noteworthy.
|
||
|
||
Unable to "reverse engineer" a solution from the scant
|
||
information available on the SEAlink protocol, the BinkleyTerm
|
||
team of Vince Perriello, Bob Hartman, and Alan Applegate
|
||
announced during the first week in October their intention to
|
||
drop support for SEAlink in an October 12 release of BinkleyTerm
|
||
Version 2.40. This would have the effect of forcing BinkleyTerm
|
||
and SEAdog transfers to use the Fidonet Technical Standard (FTS)
|
||
001 communications method. While this would cure the problem, it
|
||
essentially meant dropping back to a now archaic XMODEM file
|
||
transfer algorithm which slows down transfers markedly. A 9600
|
||
bps transfer would effectively be forced back to an effective
|
||
transfer rate of perhaps 2500 bps. This is somewhat akin to
|
||
cleaning a baby's bottom with Comet Cleanser and a wire brush -
|
||
very effective, but a bit shy of an ideal solution and likely to
|
||
cause problems later on.
|
||
|
||
Thom Henderson, of System Enhancement Associates, is currently
|
||
releasing a maintenance update to SEAdog in an attempt to address
|
||
some of the problems. The new version 4.51B should be available
|
||
by the time you read this. Existing SEAdog users can obtain this
|
||
update by mailing in their original SEAdog diskette, a
|
||
self-addressed mailing label, and $1 to cover postage. According
|
||
to Henderson, this should cure most of the problems between
|
||
SEAdog 4.51 and BinkleyTerm 2.30.
|
||
|
||
But neither solution fully addresses the lingering difficulty in
|
||
engineering protocols in mail software. This is complicated by a
|
||
host of both technical and economic issues that are very real to
|
||
the parties involved and for which there simply are no easy
|
||
answers. Given the growing number of mailer protocols, coupled
|
||
with the use of ever higher modem speeds, and ever more exotic
|
||
protocol algorithms, writing a program to efficiently communicate
|
||
with someone else's proprietary protocol becomes virtually an
|
||
impossible task. And universal communications capability is not
|
||
only desireable in communications software, it is crucial. At the
|
||
same time, most authors are understandably reluctant to release
|
||
the source code to a program that may have taken years to
|
||
develop.
|
||
|
||
FidoNews 6-41 Page 5 9 Oct 1989
|
||
|
||
|
||
Fortunately, in this particular case the parties involved all
|
||
appear to have recognized the impact on the community as a whole
|
||
and taken some fairly dramatic steps to not only address the
|
||
current problem, but in a sense to set a model for the future. In
|
||
an unusual move, Thom Henderson provided source code for the
|
||
SEAdog mailer program to an unnamed third party who
|
||
volunteered to develop some general state-table documentation on
|
||
the SEAlink protocol and SEAdog session negotiation. In theory
|
||
any author will be able to use this forthcoming specification to
|
||
develop a SEAlink/BARK implementation in any programming
|
||
language.
|
||
|
||
And the BinkleyTerm team, who had already publicly announced the
|
||
October 12 release date of BinkleyTerm 2.40 and who in reality
|
||
"owns" the lion's share of the Fidonet market, recalled their
|
||
beta test copies and committed to support the SEAlink protocol in
|
||
Binkley in all future versions - an awkward and perhaps expensive
|
||
change in direction for a relatively young software company such
|
||
as Bit Bucket Software - and based on an as yet unseen
|
||
specification.
|
||
|
||
Chris Irwin, author of the commercial D'Bridge software, and
|
||
Joaquim Homrighausen, author of Front Door, took a more neutral
|
||
stance on the issue but also agreed to support SEAlink in future
|
||
releases "once the specification was completed and signed off by
|
||
both Henderson and the Fidonet Technical Standards Committee."
|
||
|
||
Squabbles in Fidonet have become so common that many poignantly
|
||
refer to it as the "International Fight-O-Net". The death of
|
||
Fidonet has been knelled so many times by so many pundits that
|
||
its very survival is widely considered a mystery. To outside
|
||
observers, the sometimes rabid infighting over what often amount
|
||
to scant pennies is both humorous and alarming.
|
||
|
||
Against that backdrop, it is encouraging to find gentlemen in
|
||
Fidonet who face very real and very substantial economic and
|
||
technical issues, but can still find a creative way to meet on
|
||
some common ground to the greater good of such a community. It is
|
||
no small task in itself to try to eek a living from such niche
|
||
products in the software world and we feel obligated to point out
|
||
that neither Henderson nor the BinkleyTerm team derives a
|
||
significant portion of their income from the Fidonet market. We
|
||
applaud the notable, and in some sense heroic efforts of Vince
|
||
Perriello, Bob Hartman, Alan Applegate, and Thom Henderson to
|
||
rise above their personal interests and view the landscape from a
|
||
higher vantage point. We would offer it as a model worthy of
|
||
emulation by the Fidonet as a whole.
|
||
|
||
BinkleyTerm 2.30, Bit Bucket Software, Co., 427-3 Amherst St.,
|
||
Suite 232, Nashua, NH 03063.
|
||
|
||
FidoNews 6-41 Page 6 9 Oct 1989
|
||
|
||
|
||
SEAdog 4.51B, System Enhancement Associates, 21 New Street,
|
||
Wayne, NJ 07470; (201)473-5153 voice; (201)473-1991 data.
|
||
|
||
Jack Rickard is Editor of Boardwatch Magazine, a $28 per year
|
||
monthly print publication covering online information services
|
||
and electronic bulletin board systems. Boardwatch Magazine, 5970
|
||
South Vivian Street, Littleton, CO 80127; (303)973-6038 voice;
|
||
(303)973-4222 data; Fidonet 104/555.
|
||
|
||
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
FidoNews 6-41 Page 7 9 Oct 1989
|
||
|
||
|
||
System Enhancement Associates, Inc.
|
||
1:107/509@FidoNet, 520/1015@AlterNet
|
||
|
||
|
||
SEAdog 4.51b To Ship Soon
|
||
|
||
|
||
It has been brought to our attention that there exists a minor
|
||
discrepancy between FTS-0001 and how SEAdog handles a mail
|
||
session. Accordingly, we will be releasing a new version of
|
||
SEAdog in the near future. While we're at it, this version of
|
||
SEAdog will also take steps to work around the bugs in
|
||
BinkleyTerm 2.30 relating to SEAdog requesting files from BT and
|
||
to SEAdog=>BT file transmission.
|
||
|
||
Shipment may be delayed if any problems are found in beta test,
|
||
but we expect to begin shipping sometime in October. FidoNet
|
||
sysops with SEAdog versions 4.50, 4.51, or 4.51a may obtain a
|
||
free upgrade by sending their disk with a self-addressed return
|
||
mailer or a self-addressed address label plus one dollar to cover
|
||
postage and handling to:
|
||
|
||
System Enhancement Associates, Inc.
|
||
21 New Street, Wayne NJ, 07470
|
||
|
||
Normal upgrade policies apply to earlier versions of SEAdog.
|
||
FidoNet sysops with maintenance contracts will receive this
|
||
upgrade automatically as soon as it is available.
|
||
|
||
This is a maintenance release related to SEAdog operation within
|
||
the FidoNet amateur electronic mail system. Hence, SEAdog users
|
||
within corporate mail networks do NOT need this version.
|
||
|
||
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
FidoNews 6-41 Page 8 9 Oct 1989
|
||
|
||
|
||
Vince Perriello, 1:141/491
|
||
Alan Applegate, 1:104/36
|
||
Bob Hartman, 1:132/101
|
||
|
||
On FidoNet Standards, SEAdog and BinkleyTerm
|
||
|
||
In Fidonews issue 640, we told you about problems we were having
|
||
in "enhanced" mail sessions with other mailer software. At the
|
||
time we told you that on October 12, 1989 we were going to
|
||
release new software which adhered directly to established
|
||
specifications in order to alleviate those problems. We also
|
||
stated that we would not implement the "enhancements" that were
|
||
causing most of the problems until there were established
|
||
standards describing them accurately.
|
||
|
||
Well, now we are here to tell you that the documentation we (and
|
||
others) have asked for is going to be written! It has been a
|
||
long time in coming, but it looks like it is going to happen.
|
||
All of us are really pleased at this turn of events. What did
|
||
it take to make this come about? It has involved a lot of
|
||
talking, and some give and take from several parties.
|
||
|
||
What we, the BinkleyTerm developers, have agreed to is to forgo
|
||
releasing our strict FTS-0001 implementation for a short time.
|
||
What the authors of SEAlink and "bark" have agreed is to support
|
||
a documentation effort which will result in an FTSC standard.
|
||
This effort has in fact already begun. When the standard is
|
||
complete and agreed to by SEA and by the FTSC, it will be
|
||
implemented in BinkleyTerm and released as part of our
|
||
highly-compliant update. Provided that this effort proceeds at a
|
||
reasonable pace, we will not release a version of BinkleyTerm
|
||
without SEAlink and "bark" support.
|
||
|
||
This is probably the best possible solution to what had become a
|
||
really serious problem. We fervently hope we will never find
|
||
ourselves in a situation like this again. In this case, our
|
||
expectation is that the FidoNet Technical Standards Committee
|
||
will have suitable documentation to act on well before year's
|
||
end.
|
||
|
||
That was the good news. Now for more good news. At the same
|
||
time, several implementation problems with SEAlink sessions have
|
||
been tracked down. System Enhancement Associates will be
|
||
releasing a new version of SEAdog for FidoNet sysops that will
|
||
solve many of the problems with SEAdog talking to BinkleyTerm.
|
||
In general, these are workarounds in SEAdog for problems with
|
||
BinkleyTerm's reverse-engineered software. However, the changes
|
||
will probably also improve reliability with other systems also.
|
||
|
||
This combination of occurrences lends even more support to the
|
||
proposition that FidoNet standards must be carefully documented
|
||
and vigorously enforced. This singular issue has managed to
|
||
unite network mailer authors to an extent never before seen.
|
||
The authors of Fido, BinkleyTerm, D'Bridge, FrontDoor, Isis and
|
||
QMM have all agreed that having a proper implementation of
|
||
FTS-0001 standard is something that we should all strive for.
|
||
FidoNews 6-41 Page 9 9 Oct 1989
|
||
|
||
|
||
Each of these programs is capable of communicating with the
|
||
others using other protocols (be it WaZOO or SEAlink or
|
||
whatever), but that is not helping other authors wishing to join
|
||
FidoNet with their programs. Someone currently implementing to
|
||
FTS-0001 would have serious problems talking to some of our
|
||
implementations, and that is a situation we all agree should be
|
||
quickly addressed.
|
||
|
||
Hopefully, with the software writers' new insistence that
|
||
standards should be adhered to, the FTSC will now be able to get
|
||
actively involved in compatibility issues which have troubled us
|
||
for years. In one united voice, we have declared that not only
|
||
are these standards the only thread that keeps us together, but
|
||
they are so critical to our continued existence that
|
||
non-compatible mailers cannot be allowed in FidoNet.
|
||
|
||
We're excited about what has happened here. It has been one heck
|
||
of a week.
|
||
|
||
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
FidoNews 6-41 Page 10 9 Oct 1989
|
||
|
||
|
||
Chris Irwin, 1:18/68
|
||
Joaquim Homrighausen, 1:135/20
|
||
|
||
Last week, the authors of BinkleyTerm, FrontDoor and D'Bridge
|
||
told you about a problem with the undocumented extensions that
|
||
are commonly used in Fidonet. We are, of course, referring to
|
||
those extensions to FTS-0001 created by System Enhancement
|
||
Associates and used in the SEAdog EMAIL package. Much has
|
||
happened over the last week; compromises and agreements have
|
||
been made by several parties. We are not directly a part of
|
||
such agreements, thus we have a slightly different point-of-view
|
||
than Bob and Vince.
|
||
|
||
Much has been accomplished by the stand that we have taken.
|
||
It appears that the SEAlink and "Bark" standards will be clearly
|
||
documented and approved by their creator. When this happens,
|
||
we will support them in our software. Unfortunately, until such
|
||
documentation exists, we are forced to remove all undocumented
|
||
extensions for the sake of reliability. Because of all that has
|
||
happened, we have decided to delay the release of our software
|
||
until October 31st. We would wait until the standards have been
|
||
established, but frankly our marketplace demands a new release
|
||
sooner than we anticipate that happening.
|
||
|
||
We wish to assure you that we truly have the best interests of
|
||
Fidonet in mind as we make this decision. We think that the
|
||
reliability of a mailer is more important that the speed at
|
||
which it communicates with the systems that use undocumented
|
||
extensions. We hope you agree.
|
||
|
||
The bottom line is that until both SEA and the FTSC give their
|
||
official endorsement to the standards documents, we can not
|
||
continue to support these extensions. In fact, we can assure
|
||
you that in the future, FrontDoor and D'Bridge will not use any
|
||
internal transport mechanisms that are not documented clearly.
|
||
|
||
We hope you understand our point-of-view. We're not trying to
|
||
be the "Bad guys," but we have to listen to our customers'
|
||
comments and make rational decisions about what is best for our
|
||
marketplace. We sincerely hope that the FTSC documents that we
|
||
require will be written and approved quickly.
|
||
|
||
"The ball is no longer in our court."
|
||
|
||
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
FidoNews 6-41 Page 11 9 Oct 1989
|
||
|
||
|
||
Jack Decker 154/8
|
||
|
||
CODE-FREE PACKET RADIO
|
||
(NOW IS THE TIME TO ACT)
|
||
|
||
If you are a modem user, you may have wished at times that you
|
||
could "cut the cord" and use the radio waves instead. Amateur
|
||
radio users do this regularly, using what is known as "packet
|
||
radio." Instead of modems and phone lines, you use
|
||
transceivers, radio waves, and devices known as "Terminal Node
|
||
Controllers." It's more fun and quite often much less expensive
|
||
than using the phone lines. The only problem is that you have
|
||
to be a licensed amateur (ham) radio operator to do this, and
|
||
at present, in order to get an amateur license you have to
|
||
demonstrate proficiency in Morse Code! This is a requirement
|
||
that seems to discourage many potential amateurs from getting a
|
||
license (some have commented that it reminds one of having to
|
||
pass a test on proper buggy whip technique before being issued
|
||
an automobile operator's license).
|
||
|
||
According to The W5YI Report (an amateur radio newsletter), the
|
||
Federal Communications Commission is taking steps toward
|
||
restructuring the Amateur Radio Service in such a manner that
|
||
it would be possible to obtain an amateur radio license without
|
||
the necessity of passing a test in Morse Code. No less than
|
||
twelve different proposals have been submitted to the FCC, all
|
||
of which propose the creation of a no-code amateur radio
|
||
license to a greater or lesser degree.
|
||
|
||
"On September 14th, the FCC Secretary's office circulated a
|
||
Public Notice (Report No. 1794) entitled 'Petitions for
|
||
Rulemaking Filed' asking the public whether the Commission
|
||
should further proceed toward amateur restructuring.....
|
||
Interested parties should now file a statement in support of or
|
||
in opposition to the further consideration of the issue." The
|
||
W5YI Report also points out that at this stage of the
|
||
proceedings it is not yet appropriate to debate the relative
|
||
merits of the various proposals. That will come later, but for
|
||
now the FCC is simply looking for a for a show of support to
|
||
their going forward on the proposals to restructure the Amateur
|
||
Radio Service to include a code-free license.
|
||
|
||
If you would like to see a code-free license become a reality,
|
||
you should file a declaration with the FCC as follows. Include
|
||
your name, address, and the date, and if you are already an
|
||
Amateur Radio operator, you should include your call sign (and
|
||
club affiliation if applicable). You may also include a short
|
||
(*not to exceed one paragraph*) statement as to why you feel
|
||
the petitions should be further considered. The W5YI Report
|
||
again emphasizes that now is not the time to get into a debate
|
||
on the details of the various proposals. All you are
|
||
indicating now is that the petitions should go forth and a
|
||
"Notice of Proposed Rule Making" (the next step in the process)
|
||
should be issued. Please note that the FCC must receive your
|
||
declaration ON OR BEFORE OCTOBER 14! That means time is *VERY*
|
||
short!
|
||
FidoNews 6-41 Page 12 9 Oct 1989
|
||
|
||
|
||
Your declaration should read as follows. The heading should be
|
||
copied verbatim, but you may vary the text in the body a bit if
|
||
you wish. Please consider sending this in today if you are at
|
||
all interested in a code free Amateur Radio license.
|
||
|
||
|
||
Before the
|
||
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
|
||
Washington, D.C. 20554
|
||
|
||
In the Matter of )
|
||
)
|
||
A Class of Operator License )
|
||
In the Amateur Radio Service ) RM 6984 through 6995
|
||
That Does Not Require a )
|
||
Demonstration of Proficiency )
|
||
in Morse Telegraphy )
|
||
|
||
DECLARATION OF SUPPORT
|
||
|
||
On September 14, 1989, the Federal Communications
|
||
Commission gave public notice to the filing of RM-6984 through
|
||
6995, Petitions for Rule Making. These petitions contain
|
||
various proposals for restructuring either the classes of
|
||
operator licenses in the Amateur Radio Service or the
|
||
qualifying requirements for such licenses or both.
|
||
|
||
We believe that continued growth in the Amateur Radio Service
|
||
would be promoted by the modification or creation of a class of
|
||
operator license that does not require a demonstration of Morse
|
||
code proficiency as a qualifying element. To the extent that
|
||
the captioned petitions propose such an Amateur Radio operator
|
||
license, we submit this declaration of support, pursuant to
|
||
Section 1.405(a) of the Commissions's Rules.
|
||
|
||
Signed: _______________________________________________________
|
||
|
||
|
||
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
FidoNews 6-41 Page 13 9 Oct 1989
|
||
|
||
|
||
Steve Bonine, 115/777
|
||
Zone 1 Coordinator
|
||
|
||
I apologize for my absence from FidoNews. In a sense, no news is
|
||
good news. However, there are several important issues which I
|
||
wish to address in this short article.
|
||
|
||
IFNA Plebescite
|
||
---- ----------
|
||
|
||
If you're a reader of FidoNews, you know that the IFNA Board of
|
||
Directors decided at the annual meeting in San Jose to hold a
|
||
netwide vote to decide the future of IFNA. The basic idea is
|
||
that if IFNA does not receive a majority approval from the nodes
|
||
in FidoNet, it will dissolve.
|
||
|
||
Matt Whelan, the IC, pledged the support of the FidoNet coordina-
|
||
tor structure for this effort. Last week, I agreed to serve as
|
||
the chair of the IFNA Nominations and Elections committee for the
|
||
purpose of conducting the election. Plans are under way.
|
||
|
||
Details will be available soon. Current plans, subject to
|
||
change, are to open the polls in early November and close them on
|
||
December 1. Voting will be done through the coordinator struc-
|
||
ture; local nodes will vote to their NC and the vote totals will
|
||
be passed up through RC to ZC to IC. In addition to tallying the
|
||
vote, NC's will be requested to provide a total for eligible
|
||
voters in the local net, which will be used to calculate the 50%
|
||
requirement.
|
||
|
||
An important aspect of this project is that the FidoNet coordina-
|
||
tors have responsibility for CONDUCTING the vote. They do not
|
||
have any responsibility for explaining the issue, defending IFNA,
|
||
or answering questions on which way to vote. They are collectors
|
||
of votes; nothing more. This does not preclude individual
|
||
coordinators from expressing their opinions, but they are just
|
||
that -- opinions. Coordinators are not empowered to speak for
|
||
IFNA, and should not be asked for official opinions.
|
||
|
||
Full details will be available by the end of October.
|
||
|
||
|
||
EchoMail and Excommunicated Sysops
|
||
-------- --- -------------- ------
|
||
|
||
Some months ago, David Dodell issued a policy ruling which stated
|
||
that excommunicated sysops are not allowed to participate in any
|
||
echomail conferences. Policy4 states that such interpretations
|
||
may be changed, and the zone-1 ruling will be as follows.
|
||
|
||
The content of echomail conferences is the responsibility of the
|
||
moderator of the specific conference. In some cases (for exam-
|
||
ple, the national SYSOP conference), membership in FidoNet is not
|
||
a requirement for participation in the conference. I am unwill-
|
||
ing for the *C structure to become "echomail police". The
|
||
establishment and enforcement of rules for conferences should be
|
||
FidoNews 6-41 Page 14 9 Oct 1989
|
||
|
||
|
||
done by the moderators and by the *EC structure.
|
||
|
||
The *C structure will act on any formal policy complaint.
|
||
Policy4 treats echomail as a special case of netmail, thus it IS
|
||
possible to be annoying in echomail. If the moderator of a
|
||
specific conference does not wish participation by non-FidoNet
|
||
nodes, then that should be a part of the rules for the confer-
|
||
ence. Persons who violate that rule should be handled using the
|
||
same mechanism as is used for anyone who violates the rules for
|
||
any echomail conference. If it becomes necessary to file a
|
||
formal Policy4 complaint, then the *C structure will become
|
||
involved. Until that point, this is the responsibility of the
|
||
*EC structure.
|
||
|
||
This does NOT mean that I condone the participation in echomail
|
||
by systems which have been removed from the FidoNet nodelist. In
|
||
my OPINION, if the FidoNet backbone is being used to distribute a
|
||
conference, that conference should be populated by FidoNet
|
||
sysops. But I do not spend my money to move this traffic, and if
|
||
those individuals who DO spend their money choose to subsidize
|
||
other networks, then that is their decision.
|
||
|
||
In short, I will support the *EC structure when requested, but I
|
||
will not put the *C structure in the position of doing their job
|
||
for them.
|
||
|
||
Other Stuff
|
||
----- -----
|
||
|
||
Work continues on a document to formalize gateways between
|
||
FidoNet and other networks, both those which use FidoNet (FTS-
|
||
0001) technology and those which do not.
|
||
|
||
At least four groups are working on revisions to Policy4, not
|
||
counting IFNA. It promises to be an interesting Winter. Or
|
||
Summer, depending upon your hemisphere.
|
||
|
||
The October 12 release of D'Bridge, FrontDoor, and BinkleyTerm
|
||
has been cancelled, pending the establishment of an FTSC standard
|
||
for the protocols used by SEAdog. This we call "progress".
|
||
|
||
Rick Moore tells me that FTSC is moving towards a certification
|
||
program for software. This is something we have needed for
|
||
years.
|
||
|
||
A first in zone 1: A Regional Coordinator was elected by vote of
|
||
the sysops. Welcome to Tony Davis, new RC for region 19.
|
||
|
||
One last note. I have always prided myself on answering 100% of
|
||
my netmail. I still do a pretty good job of that, but I've been
|
||
rather busy lately, so if your response is delayed, please
|
||
understand. But one way to insure that you will NOT get a
|
||
response is to send me mail from a non-FidoNet address. I do not
|
||
respond to those. Please be sure your mail has a FidoNet address
|
||
if you expect a response.
|
||
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
FidoNews 6-41 Page 15 9 Oct 1989
|
||
|
||
|
||
Steve Bonine, 1:115/777
|
||
Election Rules Version 0.10
|
||
FidoNet Plebescite Oct. 7, 1989
|
||
***** DRAFT ******
|
||
|
||
Please be aware that this is a draft document. I wanted to share
|
||
it with the entire sysop community in this early stage of its
|
||
development to solicit your input and to show you that progress
|
||
is, indeed, being made.
|
||
|
||
I will be surprised if this doesn't change in some pretty
|
||
important ways by the end of October. If you have questions or
|
||
input, feel free to send them to 1:1/11, and I will move them
|
||
into the temporary echomail conference that has been set up to
|
||
handle the discussions. Or direct your comments to a member of
|
||
the discussion group, which includes myself, Bill Bolton, Phil
|
||
Buonomo, Randy Bush, Jim Deputy, Fabian Gordon, Jim Grubs, Thom
|
||
Henderson, Les Kooyman, Harry Lee, George Peace, John Summers,
|
||
and Matt Whelan. And probably someone I've forgotten, since I
|
||
just made up that list from my AREAS.BBS, and I don't feed
|
||
everyone direct.
|
||
|
||
Now, on to the actual document:
|
||
|
||
1. What we're voting on.
|
||
|
||
The International FidoNet Association Board of Directors, at the
|
||
1989 annual meeting at FidoCon in San Jose, passed a resolution
|
||
which calls for a vote to be conducted throughout the entire
|
||
FidoNet network to decide the future of IFNA. The text of this
|
||
resolution is as follows:
|
||
|
||
We, the representatives of the International FidoNet
|
||
Association, have heard a cry for democracy in the
|
||
administration of the network. As IFNA is supposed to
|
||
represent the interests of the sysops, and as such
|
||
representation is deemed to have failed, be it hereby
|
||
resolved that:
|
||
|
||
Without a mandate from the sysops of FidoNet, IFNA has no
|
||
purpose or reason for existence.
|
||
|
||
THEREFORE, the board proposes the following action, of which
|
||
failure to pass will mean the dissolution of IFNA:
|
||
|
||
It is hereby resolved that a special election be held
|
||
for consideration by the Sysops of FidoNet of the
|
||
following:
|
||
|
||
IFNA shall be empowered to re-draft the bylaws of IFNA
|
||
and to draft a Policy document for FidoNet. Such
|
||
FidoNews 6-41 Page 16 9 Oct 1989
|
||
|
||
|
||
documents are to include:
|
||
|
||
1. An independent judicial system.
|
||
|
||
2. A reduced size Board of Directors, to be
|
||
completely reseated in an election on or before
|
||
FidoCon 1990.
|
||
|
||
3. Better representation from outside the United
|
||
States.
|
||
|
||
4. Make each sysop in FidoNet a member in IFNA
|
||
with all rights and privileges of membership.
|
||
|
||
Voting for referendum of this document shall be completed on
|
||
or before December 1, 1989. The rules of the election shall
|
||
make it clear that failure of the election to approve the
|
||
questions presented shall result in the current Board of
|
||
Directors acting under Article XII to dissolve the
|
||
corporation.
|
||
|
||
In addition, it shall be made clear that approval must be
|
||
gained from a majority of the eligible nodes in the nodelist
|
||
in effect at the time of the election.
|
||
|
||
(End of resolution.)
|
||
|
||
2.0 Eligibility.
|
||
|
||
The sysop of each node in the FidoNet nodelist issued on October
|
||
27 (NODELIST.300) is eligible to vote.
|
||
|
||
2.1 Definition of "sysop".
|
||
|
||
Each person receives only one vote, regardless of how many
|
||
systems he or she runs, and what names are used in the nodelist.
|
||
For example, Steve Bonine runs two separate FidoNet systems,
|
||
115/444 and 115/777, with slightly different sysop names, but
|
||
this entitles Steve Bonine to only one vote.
|
||
|
||
Network Coordinators (Regional Coordinators for independent
|
||
nodes) will, to the best of their ability, enforce the one-
|
||
person-one-vote rule. These are the individuals at the best
|
||
level to know the sysops.
|
||
|
||
2.2 Definition of "nodelist".
|
||
|
||
For purposes of determining eligibility, the nodelist segment
|
||
from a given zone will be used. In other words, NODELIST.300 as
|
||
it exists in zone 1 is used to determine whether a given sysop in
|
||
zone 1 is eligible; NODELIST.300 as it exists in zone 2 is used
|
||
to determine eligibility for a zone-2 sysop, and so on. This
|
||
negates any effects of non-synchronization of nodelists for that
|
||
particular edition.
|
||
|
||
FidoNews 6-41 Page 17 9 Oct 1989
|
||
|
||
|
||
2.3 Definition of "sysop of record".
|
||
|
||
Only the sysop listed in the nodelist is eligible to vote. No
|
||
co-sysops or point sysops associated with the system may vote.
|
||
The voting right is not transferable; the person listed in the
|
||
nodelist may vote but may not transfer the right to another
|
||
person.
|
||
|
||
|
||
3.0 Voting procedure.
|
||
|
||
3.1 Ballot
|
||
|
||
The official ballot will be published in the nodelist difference
|
||
file (and thus will appear in the nodelist) for NODELIST.300.
|
||
The ballot will contain the official text of the resolution in
|
||
question. The ballot and resolution will also be published in
|
||
the October 30 FidoNews.
|
||
|
||
3.1 Collection of votes.
|
||
|
||
Network Coordinators will collect votes from their nets.
|
||
Regional Coordinators will collect votes from independent nodes
|
||
in their region. Sysops vote by sending netmail to their NC
|
||
(independents to the RC) with a CLEAR INDICATION of a vote of YES
|
||
or NO. The voter will also provide a password (8 characters or
|
||
less) to be used in a public list of votes. See sections 3.4 and
|
||
7.0.
|
||
|
||
3.2 Acknowledgement of votes.
|
||
|
||
The coordinator will acknowledge the votes received using
|
||
netmail. Network Coordinators will handle this netmail in the
|
||
same manner as if it had been received as normal host-routed
|
||
mail, that is, if the sysop normally polls to pick up host-routed
|
||
mail then that is how it will be delivered. Regional
|
||
Coordinators will send an acknowledgement to independents unless
|
||
prior arrangements are already in place for the independent to
|
||
poll the RC (for example, an arrangement to pick up the
|
||
NodeDiff).
|
||
|
||
Any sysop who votes and does not receive an acknowledgement
|
||
within 48 hours should follow up with the coordinator to be sure
|
||
that the vote was not lost. (Note: Coordinators take vacations,
|
||
usually with the knowledge of the systems in the local net. This
|
||
may explain a delay in acknowledgement.)
|
||
|
||
3.3 Responsibility of coordinators.
|
||
|
||
The responsibility of the coordinator structure is to conduct the
|
||
election. Coordinators answer questions on voting procedure, but
|
||
are not authorized to speak for IFNA on policy questions.
|
||
Coordinators are free to state their opinion, but may not
|
||
pressure the sysop to vote in a particular way (YES or NO).
|
||
|
||
FidoNews 6-41 Page 18 9 Oct 1989
|
||
|
||
|
||
Coordinators have a responsibility to inform the nodes in their
|
||
net (or independents) of the election. In fact, this is an
|
||
excellent opportunity to make sure that all nodes in the net (or
|
||
independents) are still capable of receiving netmail. However,
|
||
voting cannot be imposed as a condition of being in FidoNet. If
|
||
an individual prefers not to vote, that is their right.
|
||
|
||
3.4 Public posting of votes.
|
||
|
||
At the end of the voting period, each coordinator is to make
|
||
available the results of the vote in their jurisdiction. The
|
||
normal method of doing this is to publish the information in a
|
||
local echomail conference. If no such local conference exists,
|
||
the coordinator should include in the acknowledgement message for
|
||
votes the method to obtain the results.
|
||
|
||
In addition, the coordinator must respond to any netmail
|
||
requesting the results. Coordinators are encouraged to provide
|
||
the information in a file-requestable file named VOTEnnnn.TXT
|
||
where nnnn is the net or region number.
|
||
|
||
The results to be posted are:
|
||
|
||
(a) A list, by node number, of who voted.
|
||
|
||
(b) A list, by password (see item 3.1) of the individual
|
||
votes.
|
||
|
||
(c) A count of the number of eligible voters in the net, or
|
||
for RC's a count of the number of eligible votes from regional
|
||
independent nodes.
|
||
|
||
|
||
4.0 Tabulation.
|
||
|
||
Using the schedule in item 5, results will be reported up the
|
||
coordinator structure. The three items in 3.4 will be reported.
|
||
|
||
5.0 Schedule.
|
||
|
||
October 27: NODELIST.300 is published. Coordinators begin
|
||
accepting votes.
|
||
|
||
December 1: Polls close at midnight local time at the collection
|
||
point. NO LATE VOTES WILL BE ACCEPTED.
|
||
|
||
December 4: Coordinators post final vote detail (see 3.4).
|
||
|
||
Note: Coordinators are encouraged to post interim lists of which
|
||
nodes have voted each week during the voting period, but should
|
||
not post actual vote counts until the polls close.
|
||
|
||
FidoNews 6-41 Page 19 9 Oct 1989
|
||
|
||
|
||
December 11: Deadline for challenges. Any questions based upon
|
||
the public posting of votes must be received by the collection
|
||
system no later December 11 at midnight local time.
|
||
|
||
December 15: Deadline for NC's to report their totals to RC's.
|
||
|
||
December 18: Deadline for RC's to report their totals to ZC's.
|
||
|
||
December 22: Results published in NODELIST.356.
|
||
|
||
|
||
6.0 Miscellaneous.
|
||
|
||
6.1 Changing votes
|
||
|
||
Changing votes is NOT ALLOWED. Tabulating each vote once is
|
||
enough work for the *C structure.
|
||
|
||
|
||
6.2 Cheating
|
||
|
||
An attempt by any individual to cast more than one vote will
|
||
disqualify that individual from this election.
|
||
|
||
|
||
6.2 Appeals
|
||
|
||
The decision of the NC or RC can be appealed to the IFNA Election
|
||
and Nomination Committee by sending netmail to 1:1/11.
|
||
|
||
|
||
6.3 Irregularities and Difficulties
|
||
|
||
Any problems with the voting process should be reported to
|
||
1:1/11. Please report problems as early in the voting process as
|
||
possible, so that they can be addressed while the polls are still
|
||
open.
|
||
|
||
|
||
7.0 Sample Ballot
|
||
|
||
My vote on the IFNA resolution published via NODEDIFF.300 is:
|
||
|
||
_____ YES _____ NO
|
||
|
||
Post this vote using the following password: _______________
|
||
|
||
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
FidoNews 6-41 Page 20 9 Oct 1989
|
||
|
||
|
||
=================================================================
|
||
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
|
||
=================================================================
|
||
|
||
From: Ben Baker of 7:44/76@Alternet
|
||
To: FidoNews Editor of 1:1/0@Fidonet
|
||
Subj: New MakeNL
|
||
|
||
Please publish a notice at your earliest convenience that a
|
||
serious bug in MakeNL has been discovered and fixed. The new
|
||
version is 2.20. It is important for ZCs and RCs to upgrade
|
||
ASAP. The bug probably doesn't affect NCs. It can be obtained
|
||
from 1:1/0, 7:7/0 and 7:44/76 (the latter supports bark at 14.4
|
||
KB).
|
||
Ben
|
||
|
||
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
FidoNews 6-41 Page 21 9 Oct 1989
|
||
|
||
|
||
=================================================================
|
||
LATEST VERSIONS
|
||
=================================================================
|
||
|
||
Latest Software Versions
|
||
|
||
MS-DOS Systems
|
||
--------------
|
||
|
||
Bulletin Board Software
|
||
Name Version Name Version Name Version
|
||
|
||
Fido 12n+ Phoenix 1.3 TBBS 2.1
|
||
Lynx 1.30 QuickBBS 2.04 TComm/TCommNet 3.4
|
||
Kitten 2.15* RBBS 17.2A TPBoard 5.2
|
||
Opus 1.03b+ Wildcat! 2.00P
|
||
|
||
|
||
Network Node List Other
|
||
Mailers Version Utilities Version Utilities Version
|
||
|
||
BinkleyTerm 2.30* EditNL 4.00 ARC 6.02
|
||
D'Bridge 1.21 MakeNL 2.20* 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 2.15*
|
||
SEAdog 4.51A XlaxDiff 2.32 LHARC 1.13
|
||
XlaxNode 2.32 MSG 3.3
|
||
MSGED 1.99
|
||
PK[UN]ZIP 1.01*
|
||
QM 1.0
|
||
QSORT 4.03*
|
||
TCOMMail 2.2
|
||
TMail 1.11
|
||
TPBNetEd 3.2
|
||
UFGATE 1.03
|
||
XRS 3.0*
|
||
ZmailQ 1.09
|
||
|
||
Macintosh
|
||
---------
|
||
|
||
Bulletin Board Software Network Mailers Other Utilities
|
||
|
||
Name Version Name Version Name Version
|
||
|
||
Red Ryder Host v2.1b3 Tabby 2.1 MacArc 0.04
|
||
Mansion 7.12 ArcMac 1.3
|
||
WWIV (Mac) 3.0 StuffIt 1.51
|
||
TImport 1.331
|
||
TExport 1.32
|
||
FidoNews 6-41 Page 22 9 Oct 1989
|
||
|
||
|
||
Timestamp 1.6
|
||
Tset 1.3
|
||
Timestart 1.1
|
||
Tally 1.1
|
||
Mehitabel 1.2
|
||
Archie 1.60
|
||
Jennifer 0.25b2g
|
||
Numberizer 1.5c
|
||
MessageEdit 1.0
|
||
Mantissa 1.0
|
||
PreStamp 2.01
|
||
R.PreStamp 2.01
|
||
Saphire 2.1t
|
||
Epistle II 1.01
|
||
Import 2.52
|
||
Export 2.54
|
||
Sundial 2.1
|
||
AreaFix 1.1
|
||
Probe 0.052
|
||
Terminator 1.1
|
||
TMM 4.0b
|
||
|
||
Amiga
|
||
-----
|
||
|
||
Bulletin Board Software Network Mailers Other Utilities
|
||
|
||
Name Version Name Version Name Version
|
||
|
||
Paragon 1.00+* BinkleyTerm 1.00 ConfMail 1.10*
|
||
ChameleonEdit 0.10
|
||
RMB 1.30
|
||
|
||
|
||
Atari ST
|
||
--------
|
||
|
||
Bulletin Board Software Network Mailer Other Utilities
|
||
|
||
Name Version Name Version Name Version
|
||
|
||
Star-Net 2.00 BinkleyTerm 1.03g ConfMail 1.00
|
||
EchoDoor 0.11 ParseList 1.30
|
||
GS Point 0.61 ARC 5.21
|
||
FoReM Door 1.00 TurboArc 1.1
|
||
LHARC 0.40
|
||
PKUNZIP 1.00
|
||
MSGED 1.96S
|
||
SRENUM 6.2
|
||
OMMM 1.30
|
||
Timestop 1.00
|
||
|
||
FidoNews 6-41 Page 23 9 Oct 1989
|
||
|
||
|
||
+ Netmail capable (does not require additional mailer software)
|
||
* Recently changed
|
||
|
||
Utility authors: Please help keep this list up to date by
|
||
reporting new versions to 1:1/1. It is not our intent to list
|
||
all utilities here, only those which verge on necessity.
|
||
|
||
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
FidoNews 6-41 Page 24 9 Oct 1989
|
||
|
||
|
||
=================================================================
|
||
NOTICES
|
||
=================================================================
|
||
|
||
The Interrupt Stack
|
||
|
||
|
||
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.
|
||
|
||
23 Nov 1989
|
||
26th Anniversary of "Dr. Who" - and still going strong
|
||
|
||
30 Dec 1989
|
||
Telephone area codes (5, 3 and 0) are abolished in Hong Kong
|
||
|
||
If you have something which you would like to see on this
|
||
calendar, please send a message to FidoNet node 1:1/1.
|
||
|
||
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
|
||
FidoNews 6-41 Page 25 9 Oct 1989
|
||
|
||
|
||
OFFICERS OF THE INTERNATIONAL FIDONET ASSOCIATION
|
||
|
||
Thom Henderson 1:107/583 Chairman of the Board
|
||
Les Kooyman 1:204/501 President
|
||
Fabian Gordon 1:107/323 Vice President
|
||
Bill Bolton 3:3/0 Vice President-Technical Coordinator
|
||
Kris Veitch 1:147/30 Secretary
|
||
Kris Veitch 1:147/30 Treasurer
|
||
|
||
|
||
IFNA COMMITTEE AND BOARD CHAIRS
|
||
|
||
Administration and Finance *
|
||
Board of Directors (CoB) Thom Henderson 1:107/583
|
||
By-laws and Rules John Roberts 1:385/49
|
||
Executive Committee (Pres) Les Kooyman 1:204/501
|
||
International Affairs *
|
||
Membership Services *
|
||
Nominations and Elections Steve Bonine 1:1/0
|
||
Public Affairs *
|
||
Publications Irene Henderson 1:107/9
|
||
Technical Standards Rick Moore 1:115/333
|
||
Ethics *
|
||
Security and Privacy *
|
||
Grievances *
|
||
|
||
* Position awaiting confirmation by appointee.
|
||
|
||
|
||
IFNA BOARD OF DIRECTORS
|
||
|
||
DIVISION AT-LARGE
|
||
10 Courtney Harris 1:102/732 Don Daniels 1:107/210
|
||
11 John Rafuse 1:12/700 Phil Buonomo 1:107/583
|
||
12 Bill Bolton 3:711/403 Mark Hawthorne 1:107/238
|
||
13 Fabian Gordon 1:107/323 Tom Jennings 1:125/111
|
||
14 Ken Kaplan 1:100/22 Irene Henderson 1:107/509
|
||
15 Scott Miller 1:128/12 Steve Jordan 1:206/2871
|
||
16 Ivan Schaffel 1:141/390 Robert Rudolph 1:261/628
|
||
17 Kathi Crockett 1:134/30 Dave Melnik 1:107/233
|
||
18 Andrew Adler 1:135/47 Jim Hruby 1:107/536
|
||
19 Kris Veitch 1:147/30 Burt Juda 1:107/528
|
||
2 Henk Wevers 2:500/1 Karl Schinke 1:107/516
|
||
3 Matt Whelan 3:54/99 John Roberts 1:147/14
|
||
|
||
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
FidoNews 6-41 Page 26 9 Oct 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.
|
||
|
||
FidoNews 6-41 Page 27 9 Oct 1989
|
||
|
||
|
||
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
|