960 lines
46 KiB
Plaintext
960 lines
46 KiB
Plaintext
Volume 7, Number 2 8 January 1990
|
||
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
|
||
| _ |
|
||
| / \ |
|
||
| /|oo \ |
|
||
| - FidoNews - (_| /_) |
|
||
| _`@/_ \ _ |
|
||
| International | | \ \\ |
|
||
| FidoNet Association | (*) | \ )) |
|
||
| Newsletter ______ |__U__| / \// |
|
||
| / FIDO \ _//|| _\ / |
|
||
| (________) (_/(_|(____/ |
|
||
| (jm) |
|
||
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
|
||
Editor in Chief: Vince Perriello
|
||
Editors Emeritii: Dale Lovell
|
||
Thom Henderson
|
||
Chief Procrastinator Emeritus: Tom Jennings
|
||
|
||
FidoNews is published weekly by the International FidoNet
|
||
Association as its official newsletter. You are encouraged to
|
||
submit articles for publication in FidoNews. Article submission
|
||
standards are contained in the file ARTSPEC.DOC, available from
|
||
node 1:1/1. 1:1/1 is a Continuous Mail system, available for
|
||
network mail 24 hours a day.
|
||
|
||
Copyright 1989 by the International FidoNet Association. All
|
||
rights reserved. Duplication and/or distribution permitted for
|
||
noncommercial purposes only. For use in other circumstances,
|
||
please contact IFNA at (314) 576-4067. IFNA may also be contacted
|
||
at PO Box 41143, St. Louis, MO 63141.
|
||
|
||
Fido and FidoNet are registered trademarks of Tom Jennings of
|
||
Fido Software, 164 Shipley Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94107 and
|
||
are used with permission.
|
||
|
||
We don't necessarily agree with the contents of every article
|
||
published here. Most of these materials are unsolicited. No
|
||
article submitted by a FidoNet SysOp will be rejected if it is
|
||
properly attributed and legally acceptable. We will publish
|
||
every responsible submission received.
|
||
|
||
|
||
Table of Contents
|
||
1. ARTICLES ................................................. 1
|
||
Urgent News about Ben Baker .............................. 1
|
||
Help Others Have a Happy Holiday Season! ................. 2
|
||
CIMN DISKzine ............................................ 3
|
||
SIGnet and Other Networks ................................ 12
|
||
2. LATEST VERSIONS .......................................... 14
|
||
Latest Software Versions ................................. 14
|
||
3. NOTICES .................................................. 17
|
||
The Interrupt Stack ...................................... 17
|
||
Special Meeting of the IFNA Board ........................ 17
|
||
FidoNews 7-02 Page 1 8 Jan 1990
|
||
|
||
|
||
=================================================================
|
||
ARTICLES
|
||
=================================================================
|
||
|
||
Forwarded from the Alliance DUKES Conference by
|
||
Phil Buonomo, 1:107/583@FidoNet 520/583@AlterNet 9:807/1@PNet
|
||
|
||
Originally by Karl Schinke, Archduke of the ISA
|
||
|
||
Well, We have bad news and We have good news.
|
||
|
||
First, the bad news.
|
||
|
||
While on a windjammer cruise of the West Indies, The Grand
|
||
Wizard, Sir Ben Baker, was stricken with a heart attack.
|
||
Fortunately, the vessel was in harbor at St. Barts, and Sir Ben
|
||
was whisked to the small hospital there, and in short order to
|
||
the Island of Guadalupe to a larger hospital.
|
||
|
||
Now the good news.
|
||
|
||
Sir Ben was discharged from the hospital this morning, and is
|
||
resting comfortably in a hotel on Guadalupe.
|
||
|
||
We tracked him down, brushing the rust off Our French language.
|
||
Many thanks to the staff at the hospital for putting up with Our
|
||
"fractured French". We spoke with him, and he sounds well and
|
||
in good spirit. Lady Nora is with him, and they are remaining
|
||
on the island for a while until he's gained enough strength to
|
||
return.
|
||
|
||
Our best wishes for speedy recovery go out to him, as We are
|
||
sure do yours. We will speak with him again in a few days, keep
|
||
you posted.
|
||
|
||
|
||
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
FidoNews 7-02 Page 2 8 Jan 1990
|
||
|
||
|
||
Thinking about Others During the Holidays
|
||
|
||
Phil Buonomo, 1:107/583@FidoNet 520/583@AlterNet 9:807/1@PNet
|
||
|
||
During this holiday season, many of us would like to be in a
|
||
position to help others, but are just too busy, or can't make
|
||
enough time to do the things we'd like. Here is a very simple
|
||
way that YOU can help someone NOW, and all it'll cost you is a
|
||
postage stamp.
|
||
|
||
Don't throw away your used Christmas/Chanuka cards. They mean a
|
||
lot to the children of St. Jude's Ranch for Children in Boulder
|
||
City, NV. They have a card-recycling program and would love to
|
||
have your cards.
|
||
|
||
Please take advantage of this simple way of helping others.
|
||
Most people throw their used cards in the trash. To the
|
||
children of St. Jude's, thats the same as throwing money away.
|
||
Please take a moment to take those cards off the wall, put them
|
||
in an envelope, and send them in. You'll feel better!
|
||
|
||
So do some good, please, and help others have a happy holiday!
|
||
|
||
Send your used cards to:
|
||
|
||
St. Jude's Ranch for Children
|
||
PO Box 1426-AL
|
||
Boulder City, Nev. 89005-1426
|
||
|
||
|
||
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
FidoNews 7-02 Page 3 8 Jan 1990
|
||
|
||
|
||
It has been brought to my attention I failed to provide a
|
||
Net/Node Number for the Article about the Computer Information
|
||
Monthly News Magazine, which will be here after refered to as a
|
||
DISKzine. So I would like to let all of you know the Node # is
|
||
301/1. The program is now FReq in both ARC and ZIP under the
|
||
title of CIMN.ARC or CIMN.ZIP each month. This will preclude
|
||
requestors from having to remember which month they would like
|
||
to have. It will also be available in the previous mentioned
|
||
versions of CIMN-V##.ARC OR CIMN-V##.ZIP for those who will
|
||
be interested in back issues.
|
||
|
||
Jake Hargrove
|
||
301/1
|
||
High Mesa Ranger's BBS
|
||
Los Lunas, NM 87031
|
||
|
||
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
FidoNews 7-02 Page 4 8 Jan 1990
|
||
|
||
|
||
*What the Hell is THIS!!!!!
|
||
Jerry Hindle 1:123/7 (just a user there)
|
||
|
||
I believe that those of you who wrote this document need a
|
||
little education in the finer art of politics. The main reason I
|
||
say this is enumerated below on a paragraph by paragraph basis.
|
||
I have cut the first part of the original article off as in it
|
||
there was nothing that really matters since it was mostly
|
||
definitions and such. What is left is what I am making comments
|
||
on.
|
||
|
||
|
||
*****************************************************************
|
||
GATEWAY POLICY DOCUMENT
|
||
|
||
Duplicate Message
|
||
-----------------
|
||
Because of the technology employed by some FidoNet
|
||
Conference Mail distribution systems, improper routing
|
||
information or topology can cause multiple copies of the same
|
||
message text to be delivered to FidoNet systems. A duplicate
|
||
message is defined as any message arriving at a FidoNet node
|
||
whose message body (the text entered by the human originator of
|
||
the message) is identical to the message body of a previously
|
||
received message. Messages manually forwarded to another
|
||
recipient are not considered duplicates for the purposes of this
|
||
document.
|
||
|
||
END OF QUOTED SECTION
|
||
*****************************************************************
|
||
|
||
|
||
While I agree that duplicates are a major headache in echomail, I
|
||
do not see why you seem to think that FidoNet is free of dupes. A
|
||
look at the backbone systems logs will show that this is far from
|
||
true. While you say here that it is up to the other network to
|
||
keep duplicate messages from entering Fidonet, what is Fidonet
|
||
going to do to keep dupes from entering the other network (which
|
||
is a more realistic threat in my view)??????
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
*****************************************************************
|
||
GATEWAY POLICY DOCUMENT
|
||
|
||
Section 3 - Administrative Guidelines
|
||
=====================================
|
||
|
||
This section is intended to outline the administrative
|
||
framework under which Other Networks may connect to FidoNet.
|
||
FidoNet reserves the right to reject any Other Network Gateway
|
||
application for any reason.
|
||
|
||
FidoNews 7-02 Page 5 8 Jan 1990
|
||
|
||
|
||
END OF QUOTED SECTION
|
||
*****************************************************************
|
||
|
||
|
||
And just who died and appointed you the ruler of the universe???
|
||
Hummm I for one have no desire to connect to FidoNet for echomail
|
||
(in fact I do not carry a FidoNet address simply because FidoNet
|
||
"decided" that independent nodes had no reason for existence and
|
||
my node number was "abolished". You want me to agree to this crap
|
||
simply so you can talk to me, ha, I can already send mail to any
|
||
node within fidonet and I don't even need a fidonet address for
|
||
that. If you wanna reply I suggest you figure out a way to connect
|
||
to us without all this legalize mumbo-jumbo. Remember we are a
|
||
HOBBY network and if it takes this to run a hobby then I want no
|
||
part of it.
|
||
|
||
|
||
*****************************************************************
|
||
GATEWAY POLICY DOCUMENT
|
||
|
||
3.1 - Other Network Connectivity to FidoNet Through "MultiNets"
|
||
---------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
FidoNet may elect to seek and obtain connectivity to various
|
||
multinet host facilities for the purposes of communicating with a
|
||
wide range of Other Networks. Any Other Network that desires to
|
||
communicate with FidoNet may elect to facilitate such
|
||
communication via the multinet. However, FidoNet reserves the
|
||
right to refuse to deliver incoming message traffic arriving via
|
||
such an arrangement based upon the guidelines set forth in this
|
||
document.
|
||
|
||
END OF QUOTED SECTION
|
||
*****************************************************************
|
||
|
||
Does this mean what I think it means......ie you want more then
|
||
one gateway to any particular network. Well then the reverse is
|
||
true, the other network should have the right to "turn down" this
|
||
request if they feel it is not necessary.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
*****************************************************************
|
||
GATEWAY POLICY DOCUMENT
|
||
|
||
An Example:
|
||
|
||
FidoNet is now gated into Internet via UUCP. It has agreed
|
||
to the terms and conditions necessary for membership in and
|
||
connectivity to the Internet multi-network "umbrella". One
|
||
obvious method for achieving connectivity to FidoNet (and a whole
|
||
host of other wide area networks) is for the Other Network to
|
||
apply to Internet for a gateway. Under this scenario, the Other
|
||
Network is bound by the terms and conditions of Internet just as
|
||
FidoNet is. In this peer relationship, the terms and conditions
|
||
stated in this document are used by FidoNet to determine if Other
|
||
Network message traffic arriving at a FidoNet/Internet gateway
|
||
FidoNews 7-02 Page 6 8 Jan 1990
|
||
|
||
|
||
will be accepted into FidoNet.
|
||
|
||
|
||
END OF QUOTED SECTION
|
||
*****************************************************************
|
||
|
||
I don't see where FidoNet made UUCP sign an agreement to these
|
||
rules....and I bet UUCP would tell FidoNet where to leap if you
|
||
tried it too. In fact UUCP told FidoNet that if they wanted to
|
||
tie in that FidoNet had to abide by "their" rules. I do not see
|
||
FidoNet mandating the seenby,origin,addressing stuff to UUCP....
|
||
why not????? Also if the message meets UUCP standards and FidoNet
|
||
has agreed to accept those standards, then what gives Fidonet the
|
||
right to refuse the message(s)?
|
||
|
||
|
||
*****************************************************************
|
||
GATEWAY POLICY DOCUMENT
|
||
|
||
3.2 - Connectivity Only Through Mutually Recognized Gateways
|
||
------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
While FidoNet has no desire to inhibit experimentation or
|
||
connectivity between consenting systems it must maintain the
|
||
technical and administrative integrity of its network.
|
||
Henceforth, FidoNet will not permit non-FidoNet addresses to
|
||
appear in any addressing or routing control fields (Some current
|
||
examples include: the "From" or "To" address fields, the "*
|
||
Origin" lines, the "seen-by" fields, and the "^APath" fields.) of
|
||
any netmail or echomail messages traveling on any portion of
|
||
FidoNet's wide area network. This restriction applies to all
|
||
present and future FidoNet nodes. FidoNet nodes who wish to
|
||
participate in Other Networks may do so but must insure that all
|
||
message traffic transmitted to other FidoNet systems contain only
|
||
valid FidoNet addresses in the addressing and routing control
|
||
fields. The FidoNet coordinators will enforce this requirement
|
||
and are authorized by the International Coordinator to take
|
||
whatever action may be necessary to prevent non-FidoNet addresses
|
||
from entering Fidonet, including without limitation, referring
|
||
the offending nodes to this document and to the InterNetwork
|
||
Coordinator for information on how to establish proper Gateways.
|
||
The sole exception to this requirement is set forth in the
|
||
following paragraph:
|
||
|
||
|
||
The exchange of message traffic, on an experimental or
|
||
private and closely controlled basis, between an Other Network
|
||
and a system or systems that happen to be members of FidoNet is
|
||
permitted and encouraged if such message traffic is confined to
|
||
the consenting FidoNet systems and is not allowed to travel on or
|
||
to any portion of FidoNet's wide area network that has not
|
||
previously consented to carry such traffic and if such
|
||
connectivity does not prohibit the FidoNet system(s) from
|
||
fulfilling the technical and policy requirements necessary for
|
||
membership in FidoNet. FidoNet requests that the INC be informed
|
||
of such arrangements so that any unintentional "leakage" of Other
|
||
Network message traffic into FidoNet's wide area network may be
|
||
FidoNews 7-02 Page 7 8 Jan 1990
|
||
|
||
|
||
rapidly isolated and corrected.
|
||
|
||
The exchange of message traffic between any Other Network
|
||
and FidoNet on any basis other than the one mentioned in the
|
||
paragraph above shall only be done through mutually recognized
|
||
and proper Gateways meeting the requirements set forth in this
|
||
document.
|
||
|
||
END OF QUOTED SECTION
|
||
*****************************************************************
|
||
|
||
AHA! Here's the real "meat" of the whole thing. Echomail control
|
||
fields. I can understand the TO:/FROM: fields needing changing.
|
||
In fact they are routinely changed by the echomail processors from
|
||
one node to the next. I might also be convinced that the ^APATH
|
||
line might need to be pruned back to just the gateway system. I DO
|
||
NOT HOWEVER SEE ANY NEED TO STRIP THE SEENBYS DOWN since they are
|
||
not used by anyone other then humans. They are not used in any form
|
||
of addressing. They are used to control dupes by some of the echo-
|
||
mail processors however and should be left alone so they can do
|
||
what they were intended to do....specifically control dupes. I
|
||
"might" also see where an Origin Line might need changing, BUT ONLY
|
||
the Net Node number in the () needs changing nothing else. From the
|
||
looks and reading of the above paragraph it appears as though
|
||
FidoNet is scared to admit that "other networks" even exist (we do)
|
||
and that by "sticking your collective heads in the sand" FidoNet
|
||
can "make them go away (we won't).
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
*****************************************************************
|
||
GATEWAY POLICY DOCUMENT
|
||
|
||
3.4 - Application of FidoNet Administrative Policy
|
||
--------------------------------------------------
|
||
For the purposes of applying FidoNet policy, FidoNet will
|
||
view the entire Other Network as a single FidoNet "node" under
|
||
the control of the individual named as the "Administrative
|
||
Contact / Responsible Party" (or an authorized agent thereof) in
|
||
the administrative agreement outlined in paragraph 3.3 above.
|
||
All other systems and their users will be viewed by FidoNet as
|
||
users on the "responsible party's" node for the purposes of
|
||
FidoNet official policy application.
|
||
|
||
|
||
FidoNet holds the operator of a FidoNet node responsible
|
||
(from an administrative policy standpoint) for the actions of
|
||
that node's users, subordinate "point" systems, and the "point"
|
||
system's users. FidoNet views single or multiple Other Network
|
||
Gateways as a single "boss" node under the control of the
|
||
"responsible party" and will apply FidoNet official policy
|
||
accordingly. FidoNet reserves the right to sever links to one or
|
||
more of the Other Network's Gateways as its final remedy for
|
||
violations of administrative policy. (see the paragraph titled
|
||
"Points" in the "Overview" section and the paragraph titled
|
||
FidoNews 7-02 Page 8 8 Jan 1990
|
||
|
||
|
||
"Responsible for All Traffic Entering FidoNet Via the Node" in
|
||
the "Sysop Procedures" section of FidoNet's official policy
|
||
document, for further information).
|
||
|
||
|
||
END OF QUOTED SECTION
|
||
*************************************************************
|
||
|
||
Does the "internetwork coordinator" in FidoNet have the power
|
||
to remove from fidonet any node who refuses to abide by your
|
||
policy??? Nope...They can only file "policy complaints" and
|
||
even at that the past track record of Fidonet is such that
|
||
a policy complaint is fast becoming the local joke. Also if
|
||
a node in another network violates fidonet policy and is
|
||
removed where does the other network policy come into play?
|
||
What happens to a fidonet node that violates the policy in
|
||
the other network? Does that violation carry the same weight
|
||
as a violation of FidoNet policy even though there may be no
|
||
rule against it within FidoNet. If FidoNet truly wants to
|
||
be fair about all this then the same set of rules need to be
|
||
applied to both sides of the equation (even Algebra teachers
|
||
will tell you this).
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
***************************************************************
|
||
GATEWAY POLICY DOCUMENT
|
||
|
||
3.5 - Supported Message Types
|
||
-----------------------------
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
FidoNet will grant Gateway interconnection for the purposes
|
||
of exchanging messages of the type defined above as "Netmail" and
|
||
optionally for the purposes of exchanging messages of the type
|
||
defined above as "Echomail". FidoNet will not grant Gateway
|
||
interconnection for the purposes of exchanging "Echomail" only.
|
||
The ability to generate a private and personal "Netmail" reply to
|
||
an "Echomail" message is one of the basic facets of FidoNet and
|
||
cannot be compromised.
|
||
|
||
|
||
END OF QUOTED SECTION
|
||
*****************************************************************
|
||
|
||
This I agree completely with. EchoMail Only gateways are a true
|
||
waste of time. If they have room for processing echomail then
|
||
they have room for processing a few netmail messages too.....
|
||
|
||
FidoNews 7-02 Page 9 8 Jan 1990
|
||
|
||
|
||
*****************************************************************
|
||
GATEWAY POLICY DOCUMENT
|
||
|
||
3.6 - Acceptance Criteria (All Other Networks)
|
||
----------------------------------------------
|
||
The granting of Other Network Gateways into FidoNet is not
|
||
automatic nor is it based solely on the Other Network's ability
|
||
to demonstrate technical compliance with the objectives set forth
|
||
in section 4 below. Some other criteria include:
|
||
|
||
END OF QUOTED SECTION
|
||
*****************************************************************
|
||
|
||
Why are you limiting other networks. After all to get into FidoNet
|
||
to begin with all a node need do is sent a netmail message a be
|
||
able to recieve a reply. Why should you be any harsher on networks
|
||
since you stated earlier that the entire network would be treated
|
||
as a point net off of the gateway system.
|
||
|
||
*****************************************************************
|
||
GATEWAY POLICY DOCUMENT
|
||
|
||
3.8 - Shared Echomail Conferences
|
||
---------------------------------
|
||
Echomail conferences shared between networks must be
|
||
registered with the appropriate FidoNet echomail coordinator. It
|
||
is the responsibility of the Other Network and its Echomail
|
||
source(s) within FidoNet to insure that proper topology is
|
||
observed between the FidoNet / Other Network Gateway(s) and that
|
||
duplicate echomail messages do not enter FidoNet. It cannot be
|
||
overemphasized that all message traffic emanating from a Gateway
|
||
must contain only valid FidoNet addresses in the message's
|
||
addressing and routing fields. Current examples include, without
|
||
limitation, the "from" and "to" addresses in the message header,
|
||
the *ORIGIN line address, the SEEN BY addresses and the ^APath
|
||
addresses.
|
||
|
||
|
||
END OF QUOTED SECTION
|
||
******************************************************************
|
||
|
||
Now this is pure bull, plain and simple. Dupes are more likely to
|
||
emenate from FidoNet to the other network then from the other net-
|
||
work back to FidoNet. Also as I stated earlier these "rules" are
|
||
for the most part an attempt by fidonet to "stick their head in
|
||
the sand" to make other networks "go away".
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
*****************************************************************
|
||
FidoNews 7-02 Page 10 8 Jan 1990
|
||
|
||
|
||
GATEWAY POLICY DOCUMENT
|
||
|
||
3.9 - Network Integrity
|
||
-----------------------
|
||
In the event that FidoNet determines that significant harm
|
||
is being caused to the technical or social integrity of its
|
||
network, it may immediately sever links between the Other Network
|
||
Gateway(s) and FidoNet. FidoNet will make all reasonable
|
||
attempts to contact the "Responsible Party" as soon as possible
|
||
(before the severing of links if possible) to inform the Other
|
||
Network of the problem and to work toward its resolution.
|
||
|
||
END OF QUOTED SECTION
|
||
*****************************************************************
|
||
|
||
Social integrity?????? I see that FidoNet has finally adopted
|
||
the "holier then thou" attitude officially. FidoNet could not be
|
||
socially harmed since in order for it to be "socially harmed" it
|
||
would first need to be social, which FidoNet, by simply writing
|
||
this "document" has proved it is not...
|
||
|
||
|
||
*****************************************************************
|
||
END OF COMMENTS END OF COMMENTS END OF COMMENTS
|
||
*****************************************************************
|
||
|
||
Well, that is all I have to say on this matter. I for one will be
|
||
the absolute first to veto any attempt to "gateway" to fidonet if
|
||
it is to be done under the above referenced document as it is
|
||
published in FidoNews Issue # 651. I feel that, as I stated, if
|
||
FidoNet wants to dictate the entire show....I DON'T NEED IT !!!
|
||
|
||
I think some serious thought should be given by FidoNet to write
|
||
a set of rules that are fair and equitable to BOTH sides of the
|
||
gateway(s) and not slanted so much toward this "it's my ball and
|
||
we will play by my rules" attitude that FidoNet seems to have
|
||
adopted of late. This is the end of the eightys....let's make it
|
||
the end of the "me generation" also.....OK?
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Jerry Hindle
|
||
|
||
PS: for those who really wish to flame me personally I do have a
|
||
mail system up and running 24hrs a day. The phone number is:
|
||
|
||
1-901-683-5410 and it is 9600bps with an HST using SEAdog 4.51a
|
||
|
||
if you just wanna flame me in fidonews.....go ahead I really don't
|
||
care. I amy or may not read it. I will read any and all netmail and
|
||
if you are in zone 1 I will even reply via netmail, that is if your
|
||
system allows mail from "unlisted nodes". If your system does not
|
||
allow this feature then you miss out on half of the fun in this
|
||
HOBBY, mail from the unexpected. Bill Paul (sysop of the THINK
|
||
TANK 1:123/7 is simply acting as a system for fidonews to
|
||
contact me should they need to before publication of this article.
|
||
FidoNews 7-02 Page 11 8 Jan 1990
|
||
|
||
|
||
He is in no way responsible for this article or it's contents.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
FidoNews 7-02 Page 12 8 Jan 1990
|
||
|
||
|
||
Jamie Penner
|
||
FidoNet 1:153/169
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
SIGnet and Other Networks
|
||
-------------------------
|
||
|
||
|
||
(or: Are We Getting Squeezed Out?)
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
I've been seeing comments flying around like 'who owns the
|
||
echomail?', 'does anyone OWN the echomail?', 'does a gate have
|
||
to be authorized?', 'can the mail be ported out?', 'does policy
|
||
really mean what it says?'...
|
||
|
||
With the proposed InterNetwork GateWay Policy being currently
|
||
tossed about, these questions are flying fast and furious, and
|
||
they seem to be getting a little more furious.
|
||
|
||
About 8 months ago, I started a network called SIGnet. Its
|
||
basic purpose was to bring echomail in that the local FidoNet
|
||
network couldn't. It was created as a supplement to the
|
||
already existing FidoNet mail flow in my local area. The
|
||
concept of SIGnet quickly caught on and grew to be nearly 200
|
||
systems within a few months. The mail flow has been VERY
|
||
tightly controlled and never has there been a single complaint
|
||
about duplicate messages from us yet. When the year turned
|
||
over, I look at my report and saw that as the SIGnet
|
||
International GateHost, I had passed-on just over 100,000
|
||
echomail messages in less than 3 months. Out of that, my system
|
||
nabbed about 70 dupes. Not bad.
|
||
|
||
As I see things happening, our sources of echomail are going to
|
||
be drying up rather quickly unless EVERYONE in SIGnet has a
|
||
FidoNet number. Well, it just so happens that not everyone in
|
||
SIGnet wants one to be in FidoNet, or for that matter, sees a
|
||
need for the extra administrative or technical problems caused
|
||
by being multi-network.
|
||
|
||
I fail to see the problems with the current policy regarding
|
||
gating mail. Policy 4 (v4.07) states in 2.1.3 that a sysop is
|
||
responsible for all traffic entering FidoNet via the node.
|
||
What was wrong with this? If I choose to gate mail into
|
||
SIGnet from FidoNet and port mail back out, what is the big
|
||
problem?
|
||
|
||
A couple of days ago, I met with the local honchos of FidoNet in
|
||
my area to discuss this whole arrangement with echomail. It
|
||
turned out that we could better each other's arrangments by
|
||
cooperating with each other so long as I, as the gateway system,
|
||
conformed to policy. The meeting went well and everyone went
|
||
away happy and not feeling compromised.
|
||
FidoNews 7-02 Page 13 8 Jan 1990
|
||
|
||
|
||
It seems that this policy is a muscle-flex and will shake off
|
||
the 'other networks'. Why can't we face the fact that the
|
||
'other networks' are here stay and may not be politically
|
||
motivated? Some of us aren't! We can't FidoNet see (like
|
||
the locals here do) that some of the 'other networks' may be
|
||
able to better things and with cooperation, everyone is better
|
||
off?
|
||
|
||
Recently there were a couple of incidents whereas there was a
|
||
system in at least 5 different networks that was committing
|
||
questionable acts via his node numbers. Each network was
|
||
building a case against him and had no idea about the actions of
|
||
the other networks around him. I proposed at the time, that we
|
||
form a committee of the 'heads' of the 'other networks' to
|
||
address these issues and other inter-network issues. I have
|
||
gotten favourable response from nearly everyone. FidoNet
|
||
appears to want to go this one alone. IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE!
|
||
I am planning to continue with the forming of this committee,
|
||
with or without the involvement of FidoNet. I can only hope
|
||
that we can act together on this.
|
||
|
||
Is FidoNet's InterNetwork Policy really for the better of all
|
||
sysops or is FidoNet running with its tail between its legs?
|
||
Only time will tell. I hope that a vote comes to be on this
|
||
issue and that the sysops of FidoNet realize that you can catch
|
||
more flies with honey than with acid.
|
||
|
||
|
||
- Jamie Penner -
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
FidoNews 7-02 Page 14 8 Jan 1990
|
||
|
||
|
||
=================================================================
|
||
LATEST VERSIONS
|
||
=================================================================
|
||
|
||
Latest Software Versions
|
||
|
||
MS-DOS Systems
|
||
--------------
|
||
|
||
Bulletin Board Software
|
||
Name Version Name Version Name Version
|
||
|
||
Fido 12q+ Phoenix 1.3 TBBS 2.1
|
||
Lynx 1.30 QuickBBS 2.61* TComm/TCommNet 3.4
|
||
Kitten 2.16 RBBS 17.2B TPBoard 6.0
|
||
Opus 1.03b+ RBBSmail 17.2 Wildcat! 2.10*
|
||
|
||
|
||
Network Node List Other
|
||
Mailers Version Utilities Version Utilities Version
|
||
|
||
BinkleyTerm 2.30 EditNL 4.00 ARC 6.02
|
||
D'Bridge 1.30* MakeNL 2.20 ARCA06 2.20*
|
||
Dutchie 2.90C ParseList 1.30 ARCmail 2.0
|
||
FrontDoor 1.99b* Prune 1.40 ConfMail 4.00
|
||
PRENM 1.47 SysNL 3.01* EMM 2.02
|
||
SEAdog 4.51b XlatList 2.90 Gmail 2.01
|
||
XlaxDiff 2.32 GROUP 2.16
|
||
XlaxNode 2.32 GUS 1.30*
|
||
LHARC 1.13
|
||
MSG 4.0
|
||
MSGED 1.99
|
||
PK[UN]ZIP 1.02*
|
||
QM 1.0
|
||
QSORT 4.03
|
||
StarLink 1.01
|
||
TCOMMail 2.2
|
||
TMail 1.12
|
||
TPBNetEd 3.2
|
||
UFGATE 1.03
|
||
XRS 3.10
|
||
ZmailQ 1.10*
|
||
|
||
Macintosh
|
||
---------
|
||
|
||
Bulletin Board Software Network Mailers Other Utilities
|
||
|
||
Name Version Name Version Name Version
|
||
|
||
Red Ryder Host v2.1b3 Macpoint 0.91* MacArc 0.04
|
||
Mansion 7.12 Tabby 2.1 ArcMac 1.3
|
||
WWIV (Mac) 3.0 StuffIt 1.51
|
||
FidoNews 7-02 Page 15 8 Jan 1990
|
||
|
||
|
||
TImport 1.331
|
||
TExport 1.32
|
||
Timestamp 1.6
|
||
Tset 1.3
|
||
Timestart 1.1
|
||
Tally 1.1
|
||
Mehitabel 1.2
|
||
Archie 1.60
|
||
Jennifer 0.25b2g
|
||
Numberizer 1.5c
|
||
MessageEdit 1.0
|
||
Mantissa 1.0
|
||
PreStamp 2.01
|
||
R.PreStamp 2.01
|
||
Saphire 2.1t
|
||
Epistle II 1.01
|
||
Import 2.52
|
||
Export 2.54
|
||
Sundial 2.1
|
||
AreaFix 1.1
|
||
Probe 0.052
|
||
Terminator 1.1
|
||
TMM 4.0b
|
||
UNZIP 1.01*
|
||
Amiga
|
||
-----
|
||
|
||
Bulletin Board Software Network Mailers Other Utilities
|
||
|
||
Name Version Name Version Name Version
|
||
|
||
Paragon 2.00+* BinkleyTerm 1.00 AmigArc 0.23
|
||
TrapDoor 1.11 booz 1.01
|
||
WelMat 0.35* ConfMail 1.10
|
||
ChameleonEdit 0.10
|
||
Lharc 1.00*
|
||
ParseLst 1.30
|
||
PkAX 1.00
|
||
RMB 1.30
|
||
UNzip 0.86
|
||
Zoo 2.00
|
||
|
||
|
||
Atari ST
|
||
--------
|
||
|
||
Bulletin Board Software Network Mailer Other Utilities
|
||
|
||
Name Version Name Version Name Version
|
||
|
||
FIDOdoor/ST 1.5c* BinkleyTerm 1.03g3 ConfMail 1.00
|
||
Pandora BBS 2.41c The BOX 1.20 ParseList 1.30
|
||
QuickBBS/ST 0.40 ARC 6.02*
|
||
GS Point 0.61 LHARC 0.51
|
||
FidoNews 7-02 Page 16 8 Jan 1990
|
||
|
||
|
||
PKUNZIP 1.10
|
||
MSGED 1.96S
|
||
SRENUM 6.2
|
||
Trenum 0.10
|
||
OMMM 1.40
|
||
|
||
|
||
+ Netmail capable (does not require additional mailer software)
|
||
* Recently changed
|
||
|
||
Utility authors: Please help keep this list up to date by
|
||
reporting new versions to 1:1/1. It is not our intent to list
|
||
all utilities here, only those which verge on necessity.
|
||
|
||
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
FidoNews 7-02 Page 17 8 Jan 1990
|
||
|
||
|
||
=================================================================
|
||
NOTICES
|
||
=================================================================
|
||
|
||
The Interrupt Stack
|
||
|
||
|
||
1 Feb 1990
|
||
Deadline for IFNA Policy and Bylaws election
|
||
|
||
5 Jun 1990
|
||
David Dodell's 33rd Birthday
|
||
|
||
5 Oct 1990
|
||
21st Anniversary of "Monty Python's Flying Circus"
|
||
|
||
|
||
If you have something which you would like to see on this
|
||
calendar, please send a message to FidoNet node 1:1/1.
|
||
|
||
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
|
||
Thom Henderson, c/o 1:107/528
|
||
Chairman, International FidoNet Association
|
||
|
||
|
||
Special Meeting of the IFNA Board
|
||
|
||
By my authority as Chairman of the Board of the International
|
||
FidoNet Association, Inc. under Bylaw 19 of the Association, and
|
||
in accordance with the wishes of the Board of Directors as
|
||
established by the Board Meeting concluded on 27 August 1989 and
|
||
the wishes of the membership as established by the referendum
|
||
concluded on 1 December 1989, I hereby call for a SPECIAL MEETING
|
||
of the Board of Directors to be held in Lyndhurst, New Jersey on
|
||
the 26th through the 28th of January 1990 for the purpose of
|
||
winding down the affairs of the International FidoNet Association,
|
||
Inc.
|
||
|
||
I hereby require that all chairmen of all IFNA committees submit
|
||
to the Secretary prior to that date their Final Reports on the
|
||
affairs of their committees. Each Final Report shall include
|
||
recommendations from the committee on how to conclude any ongoing
|
||
business of that committee and reccommendations on how to dispose
|
||
of any assets of the IFNA that are within the realm of
|
||
responsibility of that committee.
|
||
|
||
Motions to be made at this SPECIAL MEETING, in accordance with
|
||
Bylaw 20 of the Association, may ONLY deal with matters related to
|
||
the purpose of this meeting as stated herein. Further, in
|
||
accordance with Bylaw 22 of the Association all motions must be
|
||
received by me no later than 19 January 1990 in order to be
|
||
included on the agenda so that they may be distributed to the
|
||
Board members in advance.
|
||
|
||
FidoNews 7-02 Page 18 8 Jan 1990
|
||
|
||
|
||
Board members who will be attending should contact Irene Henderson
|
||
at 201-473-5153 as soon as possible to arrange room reservations
|
||
and travel arrangements.
|
||
|
||
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
|
||
FidoNews 7-02 Page 19 8 Jan 1990
|
||
|
||
|
||
OFFICERS OF THE INTERNATIONAL FIDONET ASSOCIATION
|
||
|
||
Thom Henderson 1:107/528 Chairman of the Board
|
||
Les Kooyman 1:204/501 President
|
||
Fabian Gordon 1:107/323 Vice President
|
||
Bill Bolton 3:3/0 Vice President-Technical Coordinator
|
||
Kris Veitch 1:147/30 Secretary
|
||
Kris Veitch 1:147/30 Treasurer
|
||
|
||
|
||
IFNA COMMITTEE AND BOARD CHAIRS
|
||
|
||
Administration and Finance *
|
||
By-laws and Rules John Roberts 1:385/49
|
||
Executive Committee (Pres) Les Kooyman 1:204/501
|
||
International Affairs *
|
||
Membership Services Jim Vaughan 1:226/300
|
||
Nominations and Elections Steve Bonine 1:1/0
|
||
Public Affairs David Drexler 1:147/30.20
|
||
Publications Irene Henderson 1:107/9
|
||
Technical Standards Rick Moore 1:115/333
|
||
Ethics *
|
||
Security and Privacy *
|
||
Grievances *
|
||
|
||
* Position in abeyance pending reorganization
|
||
|
||
|
||
IFNA BOARD OF DIRECTORS
|
||
|
||
DIVISION AT-LARGE
|
||
10 Courtney Harris 1:102/732 Don Daniels 1:107/210
|
||
11 John Rafuse 1:12/900 Phil Buonomo 1:107/583
|
||
12 Bill Bolton 3:711/403 Mark Hawthorne 1:107/238
|
||
13 Fabian Gordon 1:107/323 Tom Jennings 1:125/111
|
||
14 Ken Kaplan 1:100/22 Irene Henderson 1:107/509
|
||
15 Kevin McNeil 1:128/45 Steve Jordan 1:206/2871
|
||
16 Ivan Schaffel 1:141/390 Robert Rudolph 1:261/628
|
||
17 Kathi Crockett 1:134/30 Dave Melnik 1:107/233
|
||
18 Andrew Adler 1:135/47 Jim Hruby 1:107/536
|
||
19 Kris Veitch 1:147/30 Burt Juda 1:107/528
|
||
2 Henk Wevers 2:500/1 Karl Schinke 1:107/516
|
||
3 Matt Whelan 3:54/99 John Roberts 1:147/14
|
||
|
||
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
FidoNews 7-02 Page 20 8 Jan 1990
|
||
|
||
|
||
__
|
||
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 7-02 Page 21 8 Jan 1990
|
||
|
||
|
||
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
|