1113 lines
55 KiB
Plaintext
1113 lines
55 KiB
Plaintext
Volume 7, Number 3 15 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
|
||
PARALEGAL Echo ........................................... 1
|
||
The IGP, or Let's Destroy Othernets ...................... 2
|
||
Quo Vadis, FidoNet? ...................................... 12
|
||
2. LATEST VERSIONS .......................................... 19
|
||
Latest Software Versions ................................. 19
|
||
3. NOTICES .................................................. 22
|
||
The Interrupt Stack ...................................... 22
|
||
FidoNews 7-03 Page 1 15 Jan 1990
|
||
|
||
|
||
=================================================================
|
||
ARTICLES
|
||
=================================================================
|
||
|
||
Loel Larzelere
|
||
1:226/70.1
|
||
|
||
The PARALEGAL Echo
|
||
|
||
Some of you who have checked the echos that are available on the
|
||
backbone since the first of the year may have noticed the new
|
||
PARALEGAL echo. This echo is (primarily) for legal assistants,
|
||
paralegals and others who work as support staff for attorneys.
|
||
|
||
I've felt that it is important for paralegals to have a place to
|
||
meet and share ideas. Our concerns are sometimes very much
|
||
different than those of the attorney's we might work for. This
|
||
may be surprizing, since a paralegal today will do almost
|
||
everything that an attorney does except to represent a client in
|
||
court. In fact, in a largely "paperwork practice" such as wills
|
||
and estates, an attorney will likely sign on as representation,
|
||
and then turn the whole estate over to the paralegal to
|
||
administer.
|
||
|
||
In many areas a paralegal has more experience than an attorney.
|
||
This works out best for everyone as it allows the attorney to do
|
||
what s/he does best, while the paralegal does what s/he does
|
||
best.
|
||
|
||
The PARALEGAL echo hopes to bring together those who work in the
|
||
profession to share our problems and experiences. The echo
|
||
originates from 1:226/180 and is on the backbone. NetMail to
|
||
either 1:226/70 or 1:226/180 will get to me should you have any
|
||
questions. I am happy to be the moderator of this echo, and hope
|
||
that all participants will have an enjoyable time.
|
||
|
||
~~\ Loel /~~
|
||
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
FidoNews 7-03 Page 2 15 Jan 1990
|
||
|
||
|
||
Joe Lindstrom
|
||
Fidonet 1:134/55
|
||
Network 8:7500/55, 8:7500/9600, 8:75/0
|
||
|
||
Why Does FidoNet Dislike Othernets?
|
||
===================================
|
||
|
||
Perhaps FidoNet doesn't have a problem with Othernets.
|
||
Perhaps certain MEMBERS of FidoNet have problems with Othernets.
|
||
Although I cannot for the life of me think why.
|
||
|
||
My name is Joe Lindstrom. I run "Farpoint Station VHST" BBS
|
||
here in Calgary Alberta Canada. My node numbers are shown above,
|
||
the last two are administrative numbers denoting my
|
||
responsibilities as Net Echo Coordinator for Net 7500 and as
|
||
Regional Coordinator for Region 75 (Canada + Alaska).
|
||
|
||
In FidoNews Issue 651, an article by Tim Pearson of node
|
||
1:286/703 appeared. It focused on a new document called the
|
||
InterNetwork Gateway Policy. His article and the Policy itself
|
||
are SEVERELY flawed, and operate on the basis that FidoNet is the
|
||
ONLY TRUE NETWORK and that all others are merely sham,
|
||
fly-by-night operations. The following appeared near the bottom
|
||
of page 6:
|
||
|
||
"The problem is compounded when more than one other network
|
||
attempts to use the same illicit zone number."
|
||
|
||
Why is a zone number not used by FidoNet deemed "illicit"?
|
||
Are we members of othernets criminals of some variety? And if
|
||
so, what is our crime? Refusal to think of FidoNet as "the only
|
||
way to fly"?
|
||
|
||
This policy attempts to "smoke one past us" (sorry, I rented
|
||
"Weekend At Bernie's" last night). On the surface, it appears to
|
||
openly embrace othernets, and seems to want to implement a policy
|
||
that will further the goal of more open communications between
|
||
FidoNet and othernets. As anyone here in Calgary can tell you,
|
||
this has been MY fervent goal for quite some time. As an
|
||
example, I can point to a few "shared" echo conferences between
|
||
FidoNet Net 134 and The Network Net 7500. We will, hopefully,
|
||
reach an agreement whereby we'll be allowing existing echoes to
|
||
be distributed by the opposite Net. Obviously, policies
|
||
regarding echo content and particularly a dispute mechanism must
|
||
be in place before we can take that step, but we are working on
|
||
it. Unfortunately, the Internetwork Gateway Policy threatens to
|
||
throw a monkey wrench into the whole deal.
|
||
|
||
In the paragraph "Administrative Objectives", Tim's article
|
||
laments the lack of accountability. If a user in The Network
|
||
behaves unruly in a FidoNet echo, how does FidoNet correct the
|
||
problem? The policy's solution is to appoint one person to serve
|
||
as the "official network gateway", to be fully responsible for
|
||
the actions of the members of his network. Period. The othernet
|
||
is relegated to the role of glorified POINTNET. And THAT is why
|
||
we gotta talk about it (to quote Kevin Pollak).
|
||
FidoNews 7-03 Page 3 15 Jan 1990
|
||
|
||
|
||
First off, the policy states that "FidoNet reserves the right
|
||
to reject any Other Network Gateway application for any reason."
|
||
This can, and probably will, be applied to networks that are in
|
||
some way "undesirable" to the Internetwork Coordinator. FidoNet
|
||
and Alternet have been at odds many times, is Alternet to be
|
||
disqualified because of this? "FOR ANY REASON", it says.
|
||
|
||
It gets better. "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.
|
||
|
||
Excuse me for asking... but who the hell CARES what node
|
||
number is on the PATH line!? As I recall, the PATH lines show
|
||
the actual path taken by this message, and that REMOVING nodes
|
||
from that path was against echo policy. How exactly is anyone
|
||
being hurt by this, or by an othernet address appearing anywhere
|
||
else in a message?
|
||
|
||
If an othernet address appears, it's probably because the node
|
||
does not have a FidoNet address. He ain't in your nodelist. So
|
||
you probably ain't gonna get a reply sent to him directly, no
|
||
matter what scheme these Internetwork Policy makers come up with,
|
||
short of a radical new method of moving the mail. The policy,
|
||
therefore, outlaws such node numbers, effectively removing such
|
||
nodes from FidoNet echo conferences. Hey, if they want FidoNet
|
||
echo conferences they should join FidoNet, right?
|
||
|
||
After taking great pains to convince us that FidoNet wants to
|
||
impose no policies on members of othernets, it proceeds to do
|
||
just that. What's the scoop here?
|
||
|
||
And here I was, naively believing that this Policy wanted to
|
||
SMOOTH the path of mail between two networks. Instead, all I see
|
||
are obstacles. Need I point out that some folks are unable or
|
||
unwilling to join FidoNet? For example, I'm the NEC for Net 7500
|
||
in The Network (incidentally, for the record, we're Zone 8, and
|
||
have been for a longer period of time than RBBS-NET has). I feed
|
||
about 25 or so nodes here their mail, owing to the fact that I
|
||
have an HST modem and that I was one of the founding members of
|
||
this network and kinda inherited the job. Of these, 6 or 7 are
|
||
"private" nodes. That is, they are listed in the nodelist but do
|
||
not have a dial-in telephone number. They do not observe the
|
||
ZMH, but rather poll me regularly for my mail. Essentially, a
|
||
glorified point. Now, under this plan, these people will have to
|
||
find a willing bossnode in Net 134 if they wish to continue
|
||
getting FidoNet echo conferences. Why? Because I have a FidoNet
|
||
node number. I'm their feed. I'm soon going to be ineligle to
|
||
feed them because, as a member of both networks, I will not be
|
||
allowed to get FidoNet echomail from my Network feed. I will be
|
||
expected - nay, required - to get my Fidonet echomail from a
|
||
FidoNet source. So they'll have to find another feed, and the
|
||
only other HST's in Net 7500 also have dual identities, so this
|
||
alternate feed will have to be a 2400 baud one, thereby
|
||
FidoNews 7-03 Page 4 15 Jan 1990
|
||
|
||
|
||
multiplying their costs by a factor of six. They cannot join
|
||
FidoNet themselves because they can't observe ZMH. In other
|
||
words, they're screwed. FidoNet is slipping them the cold steel.
|
||
|
||
Here's an interesting paragraph, bottom of page 16:
|
||
"Given the above advantages (of joining BOTH networks), the FTN
|
||
Other Network must provide evidence of overriding technical or
|
||
social considerations, must show cause why these considerations
|
||
justify the establishment of a Gateway instead of merely allowing
|
||
its individual nodes to use the 'dual identity' approach, and
|
||
must satisfy FidoNet that such an arrangement will be mutually
|
||
beneficial."
|
||
|
||
Again, we're faced with "join FidoNet, or provide a damned
|
||
good explanation of why we should allow you to participate in our
|
||
echoes via a different source".
|
||
|
||
Let me explain something. Right now, The Network gets a GREAT
|
||
deal of FidoNet echomail. Messages coming in from FidoNet are
|
||
modified slightly, as are messages going out. On an outbound
|
||
message, my origin line looks something like this:
|
||
|
||
--- ZmailQ V1.10 @8:7500/55.0
|
||
* Origin: Farpoint Station VHST (8:7500/55.0)
|
||
|
||
Once it hits our gateway, presently Bob Hoffman at 1:129/34 aka
|
||
8:70/0, it gets changed as follows:
|
||
|
||
--- ZmailQ V1.10 @8:7500/55.0 & No-Origin v3.6f
|
||
# Origin: Farpoint Station VHST (8:7500/55.0)
|
||
* Origin: The Network - G Rated Family Oriented (1:129/34.0)
|
||
|
||
No fuss, no muss, it works and works well. If you gotta send
|
||
me a reply, then do so and route it to 129/34. The fact that I
|
||
COULD get the same echomail from a FidoNet source IS IRRELEVANT.
|
||
Even now, without this new policy, we've been operating under the
|
||
assumption that Bob is responsible for messages generating in The
|
||
Network, and has on occasion had to remove users from FidoNet
|
||
conferences. I myself have removed users from conferences on two
|
||
occasions, after being asked to do so by the conference
|
||
moderators. No problem, I understood THAT going in.
|
||
|
||
So along comes this new policy which, logically, asks for all
|
||
these things, yet at the same time actively encourages that FTN
|
||
Othernets join FidoNet as an "aka"? Failure to do so means you
|
||
can't get your FidoNet echomail from your Zone Coordinator (Bob
|
||
Hoffman), so I will soon be left with the choice of either
|
||
resigning my position as NEC of Net 7500 (thereby screwing a lot
|
||
of local nodes) or resigning my FidoNet node number (thereby
|
||
screwing MYSELF and a lot of local nodes).
|
||
|
||
FidoNews 7-03 Page 5 15 Jan 1990
|
||
|
||
|
||
There was nothing WRONG with the existing setup. But along
|
||
comes FidoNet, who, like engineers, like to change things.
|
||
Whether they need changing or not. The result of this Policy is
|
||
that The Network is teetering on the brink of utter collapse.
|
||
Bob Hoffman has issued a letter to all nodes stating that by
|
||
January 15th 1990, all Network nodes must either drop their
|
||
FidoNet aka's or be disconnected from FidoNet mail feeds. He
|
||
didn't want to make this choice, and in fact has always tried to
|
||
keep his nose OUT of our business. Network nodes are cutting
|
||
their Network ties and going FidoNet-only. FidoNet nodes are
|
||
cutting their FidoNet ties and going Network-only. This whole
|
||
thing is POLARIZING us, not bringing us together!!
|
||
|
||
So as a member of The Network and as a member of FidoNet, I
|
||
state that the Internetwork Gateway Policy, in its present form,
|
||
does far more damage to me and you than any previous FidoNet
|
||
policy to date. It is draconian, restrictive, and shows a desire
|
||
on the part of FidoNet to control all network activities, be they
|
||
FidoNet or Othernet.
|
||
|
||
All is not, however, lost. With a bit of work, and a heap of
|
||
respect for othernets, this policy COULD be reworked into
|
||
something we can live with. I'm already living with something
|
||
SIMILAR to it. I would suggest that the authors of this policy
|
||
consult with Bob Hoffman and find out exactly what it is we're
|
||
doing here that works so well, and USE IT. Don't fix what ain't
|
||
broke.
|
||
|
||
Failing that, I strongly urge that the issue be put to a vote
|
||
of all nodes. A failure to win a clear majority consensus would
|
||
indicate a preference for the status quo.
|
||
|
||
Do you really believe FidoNet will go for that, especially
|
||
with the "no vote means vote no" policy used in the IFNA vote? I
|
||
don't, but maybe they'll surprise me.
|
||
|
||
I have been working very hard to tear a few holes in the
|
||
Berlin Wall that seperates us. Here in Calgary, the issue was
|
||
compounded by the fact that when Net 7500 was formed, it was
|
||
comprised of many "undesirable" nodes (that Net 134 wanted
|
||
nothing to do with). It is a credit to BOTH Nets that we've
|
||
managed to get a bit of cooperation, and an upcoming vote in Net
|
||
134 will determine how far that cooperation is extended. I'm
|
||
confident that they will wish to continue with the echo sharing
|
||
we're doing here. The feeling here is that there are good people
|
||
in both nets, and that your preference of network should be
|
||
viewed the same as your preference for BBS software, mailer,
|
||
etc., that being one of personal preference only. We should not
|
||
discourage communications just because we happen to use different
|
||
zone numbers. I sincerely hope that this feeling is prevalent
|
||
throughout FidoNet, because I don't want to leave it. But if
|
||
leave it I must, then leave it I shall. It's your choice.
|
||
|
||
FidoNews 7-03 Page 6 15 Jan 1990
|
||
|
||
|
||
If you feel as I do, contact your *EC and MAKE YOUR FEELINGS
|
||
KNOWN! Tell him or her that you feel the Internetwork Gateway
|
||
Policy is restrictive and destructive, and should not be adopted
|
||
in its current form. It will prevent you from talking to many
|
||
people in othernets, who will simply not stand for this garbage
|
||
and will stop participating in your favorite echo conferences.
|
||
This hurts us ALL, each and every one of us.
|
||
|
||
Sincerely,
|
||
|
||
[~] Joey Philip Lindstrom, Sysop 1:134/55 & 8:7500/55 [~]
|
||
|
||
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
FidoNews 7-03 Page 7 15 Jan 1990
|
||
|
||
|
||
Reply on the InterNetwork Policy
|
||
Steven K. Shapiro
|
||
LoneStar CBCS
|
||
1:382/35
|
||
7:49/382
|
||
8:7102/35
|
||
99:9100/35
|
||
|
||
In the 651 issue of FidoNews, Tim Pearson 1:286/703 presented
|
||
an article regarding the adoption of an InterNetwork Policy.
|
||
Since then I have read several messages about this proposed
|
||
policy and have given consideration to it as well as some of its
|
||
ramifications.
|
||
|
||
In the 652 issue of FidoNews, Jack Decker 1:154/9 replied to
|
||
specific points of the document as well as the intent of the
|
||
FidoNet members who have proposed this policy.
|
||
|
||
I have also read several messages in various echos which are
|
||
discussing some of the ramifications of this proposed policy.
|
||
|
||
Well now it's my turn.
|
||
|
||
As you can see from my byline, I am a member of probably the 4
|
||
most commonly recognized FTNs. I joined these nets in an effort
|
||
to be able to communicate more readily with as many SysOps as I
|
||
could here in Austin. In Austin we have an organization named the
|
||
Central Texas SysOps Association (CTSA). The CTSA is a rather
|
||
lame organization whose sole purpose in life seems to be nothing
|
||
more than to bring SysOps together once a month to meet, discuss
|
||
BBS related topics, and go to the local IHOP (International House
|
||
Of Pancakes) for a snack.
|
||
|
||
Anyway, not all members of the CTSA are members of FidoNet, but
|
||
they are members of OtherNets. So, to keep in touch via netmail
|
||
and echomail with my fellow local SysOps, I joined all of the
|
||
various nets here in Austin.
|
||
|
||
So now I get 4 nodediff/nodelists every week (plus I add in an
|
||
old RBBSNet nodelist just for completeness). When I last watched
|
||
my Parselst batch program run, the statistics claimed just over
|
||
8,000 unique nodes. Hmmmm. Of that number about 6,000 were
|
||
FidoNet. Simple statistics indicate that about %75 are FidoNet,
|
||
and about %25 are OtherNets. In my book, %25 is non-trivial.
|
||
|
||
Now, when I run the QSORT program, the statistics tell me that
|
||
there are just somewhat over 4,000 unique SysOps in these nets.
|
||
That seems to indicate that a good percentage of FidoNet SysOps
|
||
desire membership in other networks in addition to FidoNet
|
||
itself. Maybe their reasons are the same as mine, maybe they
|
||
aren't. It doesn't matter what the reasons. It just matters that
|
||
for some reason FidoNet SysOps want to belong to ADDITIONAL
|
||
networks.
|
||
|
||
FidoNews 7-03 Page 8 15 Jan 1990
|
||
|
||
|
||
One thing that I noticed in all this is that unless the actual
|
||
zone was duplicated, there was no duplication of net/node
|
||
numbers. (RBBSNet and Network share zone 8, so 8:1/0 was a
|
||
duplicate last I checked). Anway, the point I am trying to make
|
||
here is that there is a very valid argument to combine every
|
||
node number from every net into a single nodelist. The list
|
||
could be broken into blocks, or domains (as some people have
|
||
started calling them).
|
||
|
||
The most recent attempt at this was the OPCN. I viewed the OPCN
|
||
as basically a phone book of nodes.
|
||
|
||
One of the arguments for the need to implement the InterNet gates
|
||
is that people want to be able to send netmail in response to
|
||
echomail. Also that echo moderators want to be able to have
|
||
control and have accountability on the part of all participants.
|
||
IE: if a message is entered by a node which has a node number
|
||
unknown to a reader, then the node which originated the message
|
||
is not accountable and should be.
|
||
|
||
I felt that the OPCN list would satisfy this concern. IE: if all
|
||
nodes in all nets were included in this list, then everyone would
|
||
be able to communicate with everyone else.
|
||
|
||
Alas the OPCN was met with tremendous opposition. So it is pretty
|
||
much evident that even though we have the ability to support this
|
||
method of addressing the situation with a single nodelist
|
||
solution, too many people are opposed to it. In my mind it was
|
||
more a political issue rather than a technical (or technological)
|
||
issue.
|
||
|
||
So now we are left with having to figure out a way to allow each
|
||
network to maintain it's autonomy. Rather than a single nodelist,
|
||
we have (had) to find a way to get all of the individual nets to
|
||
communicate in a method which was consistent, effective and
|
||
technologically possible, ie: which could be done with current
|
||
software rather than having to develop an entirely new generation
|
||
of software.
|
||
|
||
So here comes the the InterNetwork Gateway Policy Committee. I
|
||
truly believe that this committee has the best interests of all
|
||
networks at heart and was endeavoring to develop a method
|
||
whereby all of the nets could communicate in a coherent and
|
||
consistent manner.
|
||
|
||
Now, the FidoNews article itself was about 42k characters in
|
||
length. A little utility I have analysed this article and the
|
||
proposed policy and my little utility claims that there are 5092
|
||
words, in 205 sentences, with an average of 24.8 words per
|
||
sentence with an average of 5.3 characters per word yielding a
|
||
document which requires a reader to have an 18th grade education
|
||
to understand properly. Whew!
|
||
|
||
FidoNews 7-03 Page 9 15 Jan 1990
|
||
|
||
|
||
Now in all that, I found just 3 sections which I oppose, request
|
||
clarification to, or request modication of. For brevity I am
|
||
just excerpting the pertinent fragments from each article. Here
|
||
we go:
|
||
|
||
3.2 - Connectivity Only Through Mutually Recognized Gateways
|
||
------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
|
||
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.
|
||
|
||
------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
|
||
Since SeenBys are non-'active' information as far as the actual
|
||
delivery of the mail is concerned, I feel that including your AKA
|
||
in a SeenBy is acceptible. ie: Suppose you enter an echo
|
||
mail message in a multinet echo such as SYSOP. Suppose a person
|
||
wants to netmail you a reply, but your primary node number is in
|
||
EggNet while his is in Network. Now suppose both of you are also
|
||
members of FidoNet, but it is not your primary network. If the
|
||
AKA's were in the SeenBys, then it would be possible for the
|
||
person who wants to netmail you a reply to do so directly via
|
||
the net common to both of you, FidoNet in this case.
|
||
|
||
Also, as moderator of the Telix echo, sometimes I wish to do a
|
||
topography analysis. I have a utility which will read the Origin
|
||
and SeenBy lines of echomail and produce a sorted listing of
|
||
the nodes which the echo traverses. If the node numbers
|
||
subordinate to the internet gate are stripped, then I cannot get
|
||
an accurate topography of the echo.
|
||
|
||
3.7 - Other Criteria (FTN Other Networks)
|
||
-----------------------------------------
|
||
|
||
Given the above advantages, the FTN Other Network must
|
||
provide evidence of overriding technical or social
|
||
considerations, must show cause why these considerations justify
|
||
the establishment of a Gateway instead of merely allowing its
|
||
individual nodes to use the "dual identity" approach, and must
|
||
satisfy FidoNet that such an arrangement will be mutually
|
||
beneficial.
|
||
|
||
-----------------------------------------
|
||
|
||
Now just what the heck is this supposed to mean anyway?
|
||
'Overriding technical or social considerations'?? What kind of
|
||
doublespeak is this? I think that this needs to be eliminated or
|
||
reworded in such a way as to eliminate the complete ambiguity of
|
||
the statement.
|
||
|
||
FidoNews 7-03 Page 10 15 Jan 1990
|
||
|
||
|
||
4.4 - FidoNet to Other Network Addressing (Netmail)
|
||
---------------------------------------------------
|
||
|
||
FidoNet netmail arriving at a Gateway with improper
|
||
Other Network addressing information must either be corrected and
|
||
forwarded to the proper Other Network address or returned to the
|
||
FidoNet sender with text inserted notifying the sender that the
|
||
message was undeliverable.
|
||
|
||
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
|
||
Hmmm. This is interesting. Does FidoNet agree to reciprocate in
|
||
kind? IE: if I send a netmail message to the Zone 3 Zonegate and
|
||
it is of an improper format, will the zonegate notify me?
|
||
|
||
Using a US Mail example: If I send a letter to someone, but I
|
||
address it incorrectly, the post office will either forward it if
|
||
possible ie: in the case of them having a forwarding order on
|
||
file, or they will return it to me. Depending on the class of
|
||
mail, sometimes the post office will bill be for returning the
|
||
undeliverable letter back to me.
|
||
|
||
The difference between Netmail and US Mail is that when I place
|
||
a stamp on the envelope, I have purchased services from the US
|
||
Postal service. When I make a phone call to a Gateway, I have
|
||
not paid the Gateway for anything. If I make a mistake, it is
|
||
my responsibility. I feel it is unreasonable to require a
|
||
member of an amateur net to incur additional expenses for the
|
||
mistake of another individual.
|
||
|
||
I would like to see this section modified in such a way that
|
||
if a Gateway determines a netmail message to be unforwardable,
|
||
that it create a HOLD message for the node which sent the
|
||
erroneous message. If the sending node does not receive a
|
||
reply in a reasonable amount of time, it would be his
|
||
responsibility to contact the Gateway and obtain any HOLD
|
||
messages. This puts the burden on the node which sends the
|
||
undeliverable message.
|
||
|
||
I also feel that it is not the responsibility of the Gateway
|
||
to actually deliver the netmail message. All networks have a
|
||
SysOp echo which all members of the network can/should subscribe
|
||
to. I think that the Gateway should merely post a message in this
|
||
echo stating that mail has arrived for node XXX.
|
||
|
||
Thank you for your attention and consideration to this matter.
|
||
|
||
Regards,
|
||
Steve.
|
||
|
||
|
||
FidoNews 7-03 Page 11 15 Jan 1990
|
||
|
||
|
||
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
FidoNews 7-03 Page 12 15 Jan 1990
|
||
|
||
|
||
Mike Riddle
|
||
1:285/666.6 FidoNet
|
||
1:30102/6 FidoNet assigned Private
|
||
Net Number, (Dare I Say It?)
|
||
OPCN Listed
|
||
|
||
|
||
Quo Vadis, FidoNet?
|
||
-------------------
|
||
|
||
The recent article by Tim Pearson and accompanying draft Inter-
|
||
network Gateway Policy Document, Fido News 6:51 at 6, prompted me
|
||
to release what is perhaps a diatribe in our local community open
|
||
echo conference. At the request of some local sysops, I rein-
|
||
serted, my thoughts in the Net 285 sysops conference, and the
|
||
NC 285 asked that I prepare this article for Fido News. The NC
|
||
indicated that he did not agree with all, or even most, of what I
|
||
had said, but that criticism of any sort was preferable to blindly
|
||
jumping over a cliff (well, he didn't put it /quite/ that way, I
|
||
guess).
|
||
|
||
This article will explain what my concerns are and then include a
|
||
slightly edited text of the debate in our local echo. I speak as
|
||
one involved in telecommunications, as an operator, maintainer, and
|
||
manager, for some twenty-plus years. The last seven of them have
|
||
been in, among other areas, personal computer communications
|
||
(BBSes). I apologize in advance for the length of the following,
|
||
but after reviewing it I feel it sums up the debate, in the words
|
||
of some of the participants, much better than I could.
|
||
|
||
Please note that the concerns are NOT about the technical issues,
|
||
such as duplicates in echomail, or smooth interoperability with
|
||
other networks. The real issues are how the current coordinators
|
||
acceded to their positions, how they remain there, the management
|
||
and personal attitudes they represent within and without FidoNet,
|
||
and how subordinate sysops can, or cannot, replace a coordinator
|
||
who has not violated policy, but in whom they no longer have
|
||
confidence.
|
||
|
||
Let me say at the outset that I consider the major issue facing
|
||
Fido Net to be one of direction, both in the sense of where the
|
||
network is headed and in the sense of who is heading the network.
|
||
The recent turmoil over POLICY4, followed by the IFNA plebiscite,
|
||
and now by the draft Gateway document, lead me to wonder if very
|
||
many of the operators in FidoNet have given much thought lately to
|
||
the nature and purpose of the network they belong to. I have also
|
||
wondered if the *C structure has done the same. (The *C structure
|
||
is a convenient shorthand for coordinators at all levels. It is
|
||
not pejorative in nature.)
|
||
|
||
POLICY 4, in my own mind, started the current difficulties.
|
||
Whether or not it represents sound policy, the *C structure adopted
|
||
it outside of the recognized means. The IFNA BOD didn't adopt it,
|
||
nor did the network under the established process for amendment
|
||
contained in POLICY 3. From where I sat (assistant sysop and long-
|
||
time user), the two most controversial changes were mandatory
|
||
FidoNews 7-03 Page 13 15 Jan 1990
|
||
|
||
|
||
membership in the local net (instead of being an independent node)
|
||
and the selection of coordinators. In some cases, the exact number
|
||
is unknown, most sysops in a network were forced into the network
|
||
under POLICY 4. As a result, they never had any meaningful input
|
||
in the selection of the NC. (I know this may start a rehash of the
|
||
top-down v. bottom-up debate, but it's a real and valid concern.)
|
||
|
||
To repeat what I said at the start of the last paragraph, the
|
||
complaint has absolutely nothing to do with the wisdom of the
|
||
policy changes. The complaint is about the process of change and
|
||
what it said to many of us about the nature of the *C structure.
|
||
|
||
This arguably autocratic bureaucracy now apparently intends to
|
||
force itself onto other networks, both "Fido Technology Networks"
|
||
and others, even as the only legal structure for Fido Net is
|
||
winding up operations.
|
||
|
||
This begs the question, what happens next? Does FidoNet, the
|
||
network, continue as an unincorporated association, governed only
|
||
by control of the nodelist? How, if at all, can sysops and users,
|
||
the heart of Fido Net, have a voice in its management? Will the
|
||
degeneration (and confusion) started by alternative networks,
|
||
formed in response to perceived abuses by the *C structure,
|
||
continue?
|
||
|
||
As I say below, and as a fellow sysop says below, we need the *C
|
||
structure. Someone has to insure that the system operates in a
|
||
technically acceptable manner. Someone has to insure that
|
||
addresses remain specific to the intended system. Those someones,
|
||
however, have to be responsive, and the sysops and users they serve
|
||
have to perceive them as responsive. The following discussion
|
||
reflects some of the thoughts expressed recently in our local area.
|
||
|
||
My Comments:
|
||
|
||
FIDO702.NWS has an interesting non-cataloged article about the
|
||
proposed Internet Gateway Policy which first appeared in
|
||
FIDO651.NWS.
|
||
|
||
I say non-cataloged, since the article is on page 4 but does
|
||
not appear in the table of contents.
|
||
|
||
While specifically addressed to the *C structure's proposed
|
||
internet gateway policy document, the comments have broader
|
||
applicability. The same narrow-minded and short-sighted,
|
||
arguably ego-tripping, conduct that led to the proposed
|
||
gateway document may have led to the demise of the International
|
||
Fido Net Associate (IFNA).
|
||
|
||
Those of you who follow the "politics" have noted the recent
|
||
vote on the future of IFNA. The board of directors established
|
||
that 50% of all listed nodes would have to vote "YES"
|
||
to continue the organization. Not even 50% voted, so even
|
||
though an overwhelming majority of those voting supported the
|
||
reorganization and continuation of IFNA, the vote failed.
|
||
FidoNews 7-03 Page 14 15 Jan 1990
|
||
|
||
|
||
The Chairman of the IFNA Board, as required by the resolution
|
||
from the previous meeting and as mandated by the results of
|
||
the vote, has called a special board meeting for later this
|
||
month to WIND UP THE AFFAIRS OF THE ASSOCIATION. See the last
|
||
page FIDO702.NWS, just following the "current systems"
|
||
listing.
|
||
|
||
Hey folks! It's only a hobby. Why and how did we get to this
|
||
point? I hate to think of the potential for abuse in the
|
||
future by the self-appointed and self-perpetuating "*C"
|
||
structure if the board really goes through with this. Also,
|
||
since IFNA owns the copyright and trademark to "FIDO," and we
|
||
all use it by general permission and license from Tom
|
||
Jennings, what happens legally, if not technically, in the
|
||
future?
|
||
|
||
I may just be a doom-sayer, but I see degeneration and anarchy
|
||
if the *C's continue down their present path and no structured
|
||
organization, such as IFNA, exists to stop them.
|
||
|
||
It may be too late, but I encourage anyone who cares about the
|
||
future of this HOBBY to contact a valid board member and
|
||
suggest the vote was flawed, that the percentage of those
|
||
voting should be sufficient to do it over in a manner that
|
||
wasn't doomed to apathetic failure from the start.
|
||
|
||
***{flame off}***
|
||
|
||
To this a sysop replied:
|
||
|
||
> The same narrow-minded and short-sighted, arguably ego-
|
||
> tripping, conduct that led to the proposed gateway document
|
||
> may have led to the demise of the International Fido Net
|
||
> Associate (IFNA).
|
||
|
||
> Hey folks! It's only a hobby. Why and how did we get to
|
||
|
||
> this point....
|
||
|
||
It's unfortunate, but there are **STILL** quite a few out
|
||
there who put their own personal needs and interests ahead of
|
||
the collective needs of the network as a whole. That is the
|
||
mentality that turned Fidonet into Fight-o-net and even though
|
||
it's becoming unfashionable,it still persists.
|
||
|
||
> It may be too late, but I encourage anyone who cares about
|
||
> the future of this HOBBY to ... suggest the vote was flawed,
|
||
|
||
Unfortunately, neither 'yes' nor 'no' held the majority.
|
||
'Don't give a damn' won handily. {following from Fidonews
|
||
701}
|
||
FidoNews 7-03 Page 15 15 Jan 1990
|
||
|
||
|
||
> YES votes received: 1417
|
||
> NO votes received: 480
|
||
> Total eligible voters: 5010
|
||
|
||
Although there were some improprieties that I know of, I don't
|
||
think there was any wide-scale rigging. Some that I have
|
||
talked to are so p*ssed off at the whole scene that they
|
||
refused to participate. Also,in years past, the IFNA BOD (a
|
||
term we seldom hear anymore) gained the same reputation that
|
||
the current *C's have. To some, anarchy was the lesser evil.
|
||
|
||
A user commented:
|
||
|
||
Will somebody tell me what the big deal is? When I started
|
||
using these BBS'es, you people were doing all kinds of good
|
||
things with your networking and your file transfer. Now all
|
||
I hear is bickering and lawsuits and power-playing. If
|
||
somebody wants to be an ass, just tell him to find somebody
|
||
else's BBS to be an ass on. It's getting to be as bad as CB
|
||
radio. When I call a new BBS I can tell in about 1 minute if
|
||
it will be worth it. If the opening says "Welcome" and tells
|
||
you about all the features, I'll stay and look around. If they
|
||
start off with "Rules, NO this and NO that" then I figure the
|
||
guy is on an ego-trip and just hang the heck up.
|
||
|
||
I further commented:
|
||
|
||
> ...all sorts of good things with your networking and file
|
||
> transfers and stuff....
|
||
|
||
Charlie, the problem is that the structure ("topology" is the
|
||
current buzzword) that makes/lets it happen efficiently is,
|
||
arguably, now controlled by the ego-tripping folks we can't
|
||
seem to work with. FidoNet is broken down into Zones (North
|
||
America, Australia, Europe, etc.),Regions (Midwest, New
|
||
England, whatever), Nets (Tri-City, here in Omaha)and finally
|
||
Nodes (this BBS). There are also things called Points, which
|
||
FIDO tolerates but doesn't really like, since they normally
|
||
aren't publicly accessible BBSes. Current Policy is that the
|
||
lowest form of life in FIDO is the Sysop and associated BBS.
|
||
(Double entendre absolutely intentional.) Thus, I operate
|
||
more or less at the tolerance of the system as:
|
||
|
||
1:285/666.6.
|
||
| | | |- Point 6 (The Inns of Court)
|
||
| | |---- Node 666 (DRBBS Technical BBS)
|
||
| |-------- Net 285 (Tri-City: Omaha, CB + ?)
|
||
| | (Regions are here, but they don't mean much
|
||
| | in the traffic routing. Their main contri-
|
||
| | bution is in the (mis)management of the net)
|
||
|----------- Zone 1 (North America)
|
||
FidoNews 7-03 Page 16 15 Jan 1990
|
||
|
||
|
||
Each level above Sysop, i.e., Net, Region, and Zone, have
|
||
Coordinators.The "*C" structure, since they are referred to
|
||
as ZC, RC, and NC.
|
||
|
||
The *C structure controls the NODELIST, which is how they get
|
||
their power. If you aren't in the NODELIST, other systems
|
||
can't route to you and some systems won't accept incoming
|
||
traffic from you.
|
||
|
||
The current *C structure, in just enough places and at just
|
||
enough levels, is extremely difficult for many (mere) sysops
|
||
to work with.Imagine, to use your example, if EVERY BBS you
|
||
called started the log-on screen with RULES, RULES, DEMANDS
|
||
and RULES. You wouldn't have any place to call. If we are
|
||
to continue to network, we have to comply with the demands of
|
||
the *C structure or find a way around it.
|
||
|
||
The battle has been for control of this structure, with the
|
||
incumbents,controlling the NODELIST, wanting "top-down"
|
||
organization, and many local sysops wanting "bottom-up"
|
||
organization. Several alternative networks have sprung up,
|
||
and at least one attempt to issue an alternative nodelist with
|
||
no rules at all.
|
||
|
||
The technical problem is that the *C structure, at the least,
|
||
deconflicts addressing conflicts. There /is/ a valid reason
|
||
for it to exist, and many, perhaps most, of the *Cs are good
|
||
people, trying hard to do their(volunteer, unpaid) jobs and
|
||
please both their sysops and their 'superior' *Cs. But it
|
||
doesn't take more than a few misguided RCs, or one or two ZCs,
|
||
to ruin it all.
|
||
|
||
The International FidoNet Association has been the legal
|
||
structure for this network of hobbyists. The recent plebiscite
|
||
was directed by the IFNA Board of Directors to see if the
|
||
association should continue. At the present, it looks like
|
||
it will cease operations, leaving FIDONET, the network, as an
|
||
unincorporated association of individuals with only"POLICY"
|
||
as rules. That would make it a virtual fiefdom of the *C
|
||
structure and further anarchy (and probably technical problems
|
||
with the network) will likely follow.
|
||
|
||
What does this mean to the average local BBS user? Not much
|
||
unless you do echomail, such as the CP/M Technical Echo on
|
||
this BBS, or the Genealogy Echo on Friends, or the MJCN Echo
|
||
on Firm Foundation, or the Amiga Echos, or .... The routing
|
||
for those is difficult enough at present, and it will probably
|
||
get worse. The NETMAIL, for those who use it, might get all
|
||
messed up.
|
||
|
||
Then maybe some of us are doomsayers and the net will continue
|
||
to function perfectly--with sometimes self-appointed czars in
|
||
charge. Perestroika is succeeding in Eastern Europe, but
|
||
failing in FIDONET Zone 1.
|
||
FidoNews 7-03 Page 17 15 Jan 1990
|
||
|
||
|
||
A sysop replied:
|
||
|
||
> The second is a reply from a user (remember them) ...
|
||
|
||
We sysops (myself included, sometimes) tend to forget that
|
||
it's really the USERS, and not us who make a BBS what it is.
|
||
Carry this one level upward, and ... Let's face it, without
|
||
users, we are nothing. If someone isn't operating his/her
|
||
system to the benefit of the users,he/she might as well just
|
||
pull the plug. Everybody knows what happens when a sysop
|
||
behaves like a jerk -- word gets out and he soon ends up
|
||
counting his callers on one hand with fingers left over.
|
||
|
||
> many, perhaps most, of the *Cs are good people, trying hard
|
||
> to do their (volunteer, unpaid) jobs and please ...
|
||
|
||
Yes! I know a lot of damn good people who are *C's in
|
||
Fidonet. Names such as George Peace, Fred Armantrout,
|
||
Merrilyn Vaughan, and Ted Polczynski (sp?) come to mind
|
||
immediately and there are others.These are people who will do
|
||
almost anything to help another sysop,in his/her net or out
|
||
of it, to keep things running smoothly. I've had people such
|
||
as these send me test messages (at their own expense)across
|
||
the country to help get two modems talking, and send countless
|
||
dumps and logs to help debug a quirky dupe-loop. This is what
|
||
a coordinator is supposed to be. A lot of Fidonet sysops
|
||
speak very highly of their coordinators, and they have good
|
||
reasons for doing so.
|
||
|
||
What seems like interminable *C bashing is not without cause,
|
||
how-ever. From what I have seen it's almost always aimed at
|
||
those who abused their positions. I would think that the *C's
|
||
would want to apply a bit of peer pressure to those who do not
|
||
operate toward the best interest of their networks.
|
||
|
||
|
||
CONCLUSION
|
||
|
||
Well folks, there you have it. My thesis is that the *C structure,
|
||
for what I am sure were, to them, good reasons, has become
|
||
nonsupportive of the network they serve. They have forced
|
||
managerial changes on the network, to the point where an overwhelm-
|
||
ing majority said "the hell with it" in the IFNA vote. Sysops who
|
||
really care are joining alternative networks. In response, the *C
|
||
structure is floating more ideas to consolidate their power over
|
||
whoever is left.
|
||
|
||
I sincerely hope I've got it all wrong, but . . . . I would
|
||
appreciate knowing comments from those of you who have been around
|
||
longer than I, who perhaps can put everything in a better perspec-
|
||
tive. Until then, Quo Vadis, Fido Net ?
|
||
FidoNews 7-03 Page 18 15 Jan 1990
|
||
|
||
|
||
[quo vadis: Latin, "where are you going?"]
|
||
|
||
|
||
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
FidoNews 7-03 Page 19 15 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 7-03 Page 20 15 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 7-03 Page 21 15 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 7-03 Page 22 15 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.
|
||
|
||
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
|
||
FidoNews 7-03 Page 23 15 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
|
||
|
||
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
|