582 lines
28 KiB
Plaintext
582 lines
28 KiB
Plaintext
Volume 7, Number 7 12 February 1990
|
||
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
|
||
| _ |
|
||
| / \ |
|
||
| /|oo \ |
|
||
| - FidoNews - (_| /_) |
|
||
| _`@/_ \ _ |
|
||
| FidoNet (r) | | \ \\ |
|
||
| International BBS Network | (*) | \ )) |
|
||
| Newsletter ______ |__U__| / \// |
|
||
| / FIDO \ _//|| _\ / |
|
||
| (________) (_/(_|(____/ |
|
||
| (jm) |
|
||
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
|
||
Editor in Chief: Vince Perriello
|
||
Editors Emeritii: Thom Henderson, Dale Lovell
|
||
Chief Procrastinator Emeritus: Tom Jennings
|
||
|
||
Copyright 1990, Fido Software. All rights reserved. Duplication
|
||
and/or distribution permitted for noncommercial purposes only.
|
||
For use in other circumstances, please contact Fido Software.
|
||
|
||
FidoNews is published weekly by the System Operators of the
|
||
FidoNet (r) International BBS Network. It is a compilation of
|
||
individual articles contributed by their authors or authorized
|
||
agents of the authors. The contribution of articles to this
|
||
compilation does not diminish the rights of the authors.
|
||
|
||
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.
|
||
|
||
Fido and FidoNet are registered trademarks of Tom Jennings of
|
||
Fido Software, Box 77731, San Francisco CA 94107, USA and are
|
||
used with permission.
|
||
|
||
Opinions expressed in FidoNews articles are those of the authors
|
||
and are not necessarily those of the Editor or of Fido Software.
|
||
Most articles are unsolicited. Our policy is to publish every
|
||
responsible submission received.
|
||
|
||
|
||
Table of Contents
|
||
1. ARTICLES ................................................. 1
|
||
A Coherent Look At Gateways .............................. 1
|
||
READIT! - Version 1.00 Release Information ............... 5
|
||
Announcing the VOLUNTEER echo ............................ 7
|
||
2. COLUMNS .................................................. 8
|
||
A View from the Bridge ................................... 8
|
||
3. LATEST VERSIONS .......................................... 10
|
||
Latest Software Versions ................................. 10
|
||
4. NOTICES .................................................. 13
|
||
The Interrupt Stack ...................................... 13
|
||
FidoNews 7-07 Page 1 12 Feb 1990
|
||
|
||
|
||
=================================================================
|
||
ARTICLES
|
||
=================================================================
|
||
|
||
A Coherent Look At Gateways
|
||
By: Jason Steck
|
||
1:104/424@FidoNet
|
||
|
||
Over the past two or three years, many networks have
|
||
sprung up based, to varying extents, on the FidoNet technical
|
||
standards for session protocol and, more problematically,
|
||
addressing. With the establishment of built-in support for
|
||
zones in popular software, the so-called "OtherNets"
|
||
experienced a population explosion both in number of nets and
|
||
number of sysops belonging to them.
|
||
|
||
The primary device used to create an OtherNet was, and is,
|
||
the use of a unique zone number. FidoNet was already using
|
||
zones 1-3 (and is now up to 5 with rumors of a 6), therefore
|
||
OtherNets began utilizing zone numbers ranging from 7
|
||
(AlterNet) to the upper limit of the existing nodelist
|
||
processors (99 -- EggNet). This upper limit now stands at 255
|
||
(internal QuickBBS limit) and is poised to move upward to
|
||
Binkley's inherent limit of 4096.
|
||
|
||
While there is obviously little danger of running out of
|
||
zone numbers or even, with a modicum of coordination, the
|
||
duplication of a zone among two networks, the "pseudo-zone"
|
||
scheme of network creation fails badly when internetwork
|
||
communication is desired. The purpose of this article is to
|
||
address the previously proposed schemes in comparison to the
|
||
gateway concept as introduced by FidoNet Gateway Policy and as
|
||
in operation at UFGates around the world.
|
||
|
||
Under a pseudo-zone scheme, a sysop in one network is
|
||
often unable to respond to messages originating in another
|
||
network. For example, let's say a sysop in the current zone
|
||
1-5 FidoNet receives a message from a node in zone 98. Chances
|
||
are, the FidoNet sysop has no idea even what network zone 98
|
||
is, let alone how to respond. The sysop simply does not have,
|
||
and could not get without significant and unnecessary
|
||
investigation and effort, the zone 98 nodelist information.
|
||
This problem is especially significant in the netmail response
|
||
to echomail in which case both parties are likely to be unknown
|
||
to each other and separated by large (and expensive) geographic
|
||
distances.
|
||
|
||
As the OtherNets have grown, a number of suggested
|
||
solutions have been put forward. To wit:
|
||
|
||
1) Set up zonegates between FidoNet and the OtherNets.
|
||
|
||
FidoNews 7-07 Page 2 12 Feb 1990
|
||
|
||
|
||
Rationale: With this system, no node number is truly
|
||
unknwon so long at that network's number is unique and is
|
||
listed in the FidoNet nodelist as a zonegate. For example,
|
||
zone 98 mail could be sent to 1:1/98 for forwarding into
|
||
Mil-Net (that's who it is, by the way). The zonegate, by being
|
||
"known" to both networks, would function as the interface
|
||
point.
|
||
|
||
Disadvantages: First, there is a serious problem with
|
||
cost. Why should a FidoNet sysop (me) in Denver wishing to
|
||
contact an AlterNet node in Denver (say, Larry Kayser) be
|
||
required to route through a zonegate in, say, New York (the
|
||
likely site of such a zonegate)? Such a system is too limited
|
||
in scope and rigid for internetwork operation. Zonegates are
|
||
designed, and function quite well, as ocean-spanning cost
|
||
savers. However, they are NOT designed to handle internetwork
|
||
connectivity in cases where the two networks exist in the same
|
||
broad geographic area.
|
||
Secondly, a zonegate arrangement FORCES OtherNets to be
|
||
dependant and parasitical on FidoNet. True independance is not
|
||
possible when a network's communication depends entirely on the
|
||
goodwill of ANOTHER network's nodelist prodcution and on the
|
||
development of another network's technology base. A zonegate
|
||
system, by its design, is OWNED by the administrators of the
|
||
network where it is listed. A superior system would allow for
|
||
internetwork implementations on a diversified, local sysop
|
||
level rather than at the network administrative level.
|
||
|
||
2) Destroy OtherNets or cut them off from FidoNet
|
||
|
||
Rationale: The rationale for this "solution" is based on
|
||
two basic assumptions: First, that FidoNet is the "one true
|
||
network" and that OtherNets are inherently parasitical.
|
||
Historically, at least, this assumption has some basis in fact.
|
||
FidoNet did exist FIRST in the amateur networking field and the
|
||
OtherNets were dependant on FidoNet for maintainence of the
|
||
technology base and, later, for echomail. The second
|
||
assumption is that OtherNets are totally political "SchismNets"
|
||
established solely as a reaction to personal or political
|
||
problems in FidoNet. If both assumptions are accepted, then
|
||
the "solution" becomes natural.
|
||
|
||
Disadvantages: Obviously, both assumptions are not always
|
||
true. However, the larger problem with this "solution" is the
|
||
judgementalism inherent in it. The entire object of networking
|
||
in the first place was to enhance communication. The above
|
||
"solution" to the internetwork problem is somewhat
|
||
understandable at times, but is ultimately counter to the
|
||
entire spirit of FidoNet and networking in general as it seeks
|
||
to LIMIT communications on the basis of some vague and subjective
|
||
political or social judgement which is passed. With such a
|
||
"Final Solution" to OtherNets, the debate leaves the technical
|
||
realm of HOW to communicate and enters an unpleseant political
|
||
realm where whole networks are condemned as criminals of a sort
|
||
or are required to pass personal, social, or political muster
|
||
with individual network administrators.
|
||
FidoNews 7-07 Page 3 12 Feb 1990
|
||
|
||
|
||
Furthermore, in recent times, various OtherNets have begun
|
||
to disprove the assumptions inherent in the above "solution".
|
||
OtherNets have developed unique personalities and atmospheres
|
||
in their own right, totally distinct from FidoNet. They have
|
||
extended old technology and occasionally developed new
|
||
standards and many have specifically endeavored to maintain
|
||
friendly, rather than schismatic relations with FidoNet and its
|
||
administrators.
|
||
|
||
3) Gateway Operations
|
||
|
||
Advantages: Although often confused with zonegates,
|
||
gateways operate quite differently and, ultimately, more
|
||
powerfully than zonegates while allowing for internal
|
||
sociopolitical independance not allowed by the "nuke 'em
|
||
solution". Zonegates are limited by design to a single system
|
||
at a single location. Gateways, on the other hand, can exist
|
||
in many locations simultaneously, each serving a smaller, more
|
||
managable area and providing local-call gateway access in more
|
||
cases. This leads to a couple of major advantages over the
|
||
zonegate solution: First, gateways are more reliable. If a
|
||
zonegate system goes down, the link is cut. If a gateway
|
||
system goes down, links only need to be switched to another,
|
||
already operating, gateway to the same network. 2) Gateways
|
||
are cheaper. A zonegate would only be a local call to the
|
||
immediate area of its physical location. However, since
|
||
gateway systems can be numerous and physically diversified,
|
||
gateways would be local calls to every area they existed in.
|
||
Where there is a need, there could be a gateway. People who
|
||
would be long (expensive) distance to a zonegate would be able
|
||
to call the gateway just down the road.
|
||
A further advantage is technical. With a zonegate
|
||
arrangement, the OtherNet is dependant on FidoNet technology.
|
||
Under a gateway system, ONLY the gateway(s) need "speak the
|
||
FidoNet language". In this way, the OtherNets are freed to
|
||
pursue extensions to FTSC technology or to even abandon it
|
||
altogether in favor of a totally different system while, at the
|
||
same time, utilizing gateways as "translators" to ensure
|
||
continued connectivity with the venerable FidoNet.
|
||
|
||
While it may not idealize each individual set of
|
||
preferences, prejudices, and opinions, the gateway option has
|
||
clear technical and sociopolitical advantages over the more
|
||
expensive and draconian "solutions" previously proposed.
|
||
Additionally, it is a supremely valid compromise to a seemingly
|
||
endless quagmire of internetwork political warfare over the
|
||
"ownership" of communications mediums and over the viability or
|
||
status of various networks or their internal administrative
|
||
techniques. Instead of arguing over "who's show is better" in
|
||
a futile attempt to hash out a uniform set of internal "rules"
|
||
for all networks, the gateway solution allows each network to
|
||
develop and maintain a unique identity without having to
|
||
undergo judgement from another network and without having to
|
||
reduce or eliminate connectivity options. The simple maxim of
|
||
the gateway is: "When in Rome, speak Latin". Quite simply,
|
||
messages in FidoNet have FidoNet addressability and obey
|
||
FidoNews 7-07 Page 4 12 Feb 1990
|
||
|
||
|
||
FidoNet technical standards. Similarly, messages in another
|
||
network follow THAT network's technical and addressing
|
||
standards.
|
||
|
||
A properly implemented gateway system will act as a
|
||
bridge, not a barrier, between networks. And, as such,
|
||
organizations (such as the FreeNet Project -- you didn't think
|
||
you'd get away without a plug, did you?) and individuals
|
||
interested in expanding network communications should at least
|
||
welcome the gateway concept and work towards its successful
|
||
establishment in FidoNet and elsewhere.
|
||
|
||
(For more information on the FreeNet Project, feel free to
|
||
contact me by netmail at 1:104/424@FidoNet. A future FidoNews
|
||
article will introduce the FNP and cover some gateway
|
||
procedures.)
|
||
|
||
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
FidoNews 7-07 Page 5 12 Feb 1990
|
||
|
||
|
||
Bill Brendel
|
||
1:19/210
|
||
|
||
READIT! - The Nodelist Analyzer and Search Utility
|
||
|
||
READIT! Version 1.00 is a totally rewritten, newly formatted
|
||
version of the original Nodelist Search/Browse Utility. It is a
|
||
comprehensive, fast nodelist analyzer with multiple search and
|
||
match options. Sysop names are searched and matched via a
|
||
separate compiled sysop name file.
|
||
|
||
Version 1.00 has some exciting new features and dramatically
|
||
increased search speed over all previous releases.
|
||
|
||
READIT! is being released as three different programs for use
|
||
with the more common nodelist structures.
|
||
|
||
1) READIT_6! is designed to use pre-compiled "Version 6"
|
||
Nodelists (Nodelist.Idx and Nodelist.dat) commonly used with
|
||
BinkleyTerm and OPUS 1.10.
|
||
|
||
2) READIT_5! supports "Version 5" nodelists used with OPUS
|
||
1.03b (Nodelist.Idx and Nodelist.Sys).
|
||
|
||
3) READ_DOG! searches and analyzes SEAdog(tm)-style nodelists.
|
||
|
||
READIT! allows the Sysop to search nodelists with a variety of
|
||
keys, such as Sysop name, BBS name, Cities/States, Regions,
|
||
Hosts, individual nodes (and zone-sensitive information with
|
||
READIT_6!). Categorization of the nodelist by Region, Net (and
|
||
Zone, where applicable) is available through separate functions.
|
||
|
||
A new option allows simple nodelist editing giving the sysop the
|
||
ability to quickly update node information (node name, phone
|
||
number, continuous mail flag, password, etc...) without having to
|
||
recompile the nodelist.
|
||
|
||
Results may be saved as commented disk files or sent to printer
|
||
output.
|
||
|
||
The three versions of READIT! may be found on the SDS nodes or
|
||
directly from 1:19/210 or 7:764/2036 under the following names:
|
||
|
||
READIT_6.ZIP ==> Version 6 nodelists (OPUS 1.10 and BT)
|
||
READIT_5.ZIP ==> Version 5 nodelists (OPUS 1.03b and BT)
|
||
READ_DOG.ZIP ==> SEAdog-style nodelists (SEAdog and TBBS)
|
||
|
||
File requests and update are available from 1:19/210 or
|
||
7:764/2036 under the following magic-filenames:
|
||
|
||
READIT6 ==> READIT_6.ZIP
|
||
FidoNews 7-07 Page 6 12 Feb 1990
|
||
|
||
|
||
READIT5 ==> READIT_5.ZIP
|
||
READDOG ==> READ_DOG.ZIP
|
||
|
||
READIT! is released as shareware.
|
||
|
||
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
FidoNews 7-07 Page 7 12 Feb 1990
|
||
|
||
|
||
Ralph Merritt, 1:269/111
|
||
|
||
ANNOUNCING THE VOLUNTEER ECHO
|
||
|
||
Intro
|
||
-----
|
||
VOLUNTEER is a new echo which for the dissemination of information
|
||
related to volunteer work. The scope of this echo will cover
|
||
Federal, State, County, Local, Public and Private volunteer work
|
||
(basically any volunteer work). If you have time to volunteer,
|
||
hopefully this echo will help you find an organization to assist.
|
||
If you are a volunteer, you can share your knowledge with readers
|
||
of this echo. If you are not a volunteer, hopefully this echo will
|
||
provide a level of awareness and insight regarding volunteer work.
|
||
|
||
Backround
|
||
---------
|
||
What made me form this echo? Well, perhaps it can be called a case
|
||
of self-realization. In my family, my sister is a volunteer member
|
||
of our town's First Aid Squad, and besides riding calls she teaches
|
||
CPR and keeps the squad's books; my father volunteers his time as a
|
||
hunter safety instructor and keeps our church's books; my mother
|
||
works the information desk as a volunteer at the local hospital; my
|
||
brother just joined the First Aid Squad and has been active in many
|
||
of the service clubs in High School and church.
|
||
|
||
What do I do as a volunteer? Nothing. Something I hope to correct
|
||
shortly. Many of us receive so much, but don't return much. So as
|
||
I educate myself on volunteer work and find some organization that
|
||
can put up with me for my free time, I'd like to share the informa-
|
||
tion I gather with the Fidonet network through the echomail media.
|
||
|
||
Initial Availability
|
||
--------------------
|
||
VOLUNTEER will initially be available for linkage via. 1:269/111;
|
||
this system, which I sysop, is mail-only, running Front Door (I am
|
||
using the "old" version that supports SEAlink), with a 9600 HST
|
||
modem, open 24 hours a day. Hopefully volume will rise to a level
|
||
that enables this echo to be carried on the Fidonet backbone.
|
||
|
||
As a side note, although as of now I am not PC-Pursuitable, I am
|
||
moving in March 1990 and the new phone number (as of NODELIST.068)
|
||
will be accessible via. PC Pursuit (my node address will NOT change).
|
||
|
||
Questions, comments, requests for linkages, co-moderators, volunteers,
|
||
et. al. welcome of course. I can be reached at 1:269/111, 6:6001/5,
|
||
7:520/953 or 99:9220/202.
|
||
|
||
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
FidoNews 7-07 Page 8 12 Feb 1990
|
||
|
||
|
||
=================================================================
|
||
COLUMNS
|
||
=================================================================
|
||
|
||
A View from the Bridge
|
||
Phil Buonomo, 1:107/583
|
||
|
||
"Captain's Log, Stardate 9002.10"
|
||
|
||
Howdy. I was going to parody an Andy Rooney column this week,
|
||
but considering the trouble he's been in recently, I guess I'll
|
||
skip it.
|
||
|
||
Do you ever wonder why some celebrities keep getting caught with
|
||
their foot in their mouth? I do.
|
||
|
||
I mean, does it taste good to them, or something? ;-)
|
||
|
||
I'd like to talk a little about internetwork messaging. It
|
||
seems that there's been a lot of hullabaloo about all this since
|
||
the first 'alternate' network popped up. Sysops tend to be a
|
||
very over protective breed about their network, their bbs
|
||
software, their unpacker, their front end mailer...
|
||
Unfortunately, this all means that we talk a lot less to each
|
||
other. ("You're not in my nodelist, therefore you don't exist.
|
||
POOF!") This is just plain silly.
|
||
|
||
Now, it seems like 2 or 3 guys 'at the top' want to see this
|
||
document put in place for FidoNet. I asks meself, "Self... why
|
||
is this necessary?" You know what? I couldn't find an answer.
|
||
|
||
There aren't tons of dupes coming thru the echo feeds. No one
|
||
seems to be dumping tons of netmail on the gateways, so WHY all
|
||
this nonsense about signing agreements, and stuff? If the
|
||
messages aren't compatible, the software won't pass them on, so
|
||
what's the big deal? I think it has to do with "CONTROL".
|
||
|
||
Well, anyway, this document is supposed to be "put up to a
|
||
vote". A vote of who? Are you and I going to vote on it?
|
||
Don't bet on it. IFNA was probably the last chance on getting
|
||
any sort of legitimate democracy put in place in this network,
|
||
and you can kiss that goodbye. (Whatever happened to Jason
|
||
Steck, anyway? He had a proposal "all set" to go in place on
|
||
12/3/89. Maybe he sent it thru one of those gateways the
|
||
document talks about, and it got deleted 'cause the gate didn't
|
||
like his looks?)
|
||
|
||
Well, I just don't think its necessary, so I'm sure *I* won't
|
||
have a say in whether we put it in place or not.
|
||
|
||
BTW, just for the record, NO, I don't hang up on someone because
|
||
they're not in my network. That's the same as hanging up on
|
||
someone because they're black, jewish, gay, or poor, no matter
|
||
what anybody else says. Private clubs are a thing of the past.
|
||
|
||
FidoNews 7-07 Page 9 12 Feb 1990
|
||
|
||
|
||
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
FidoNews 7-07 Page 10 12 Feb 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 1.03c+ RBBSmail 17.2 Wildcat! 2.10*
|
||
TAG 2.5d1*
|
||
|
||
|
||
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
|
||
TagMail 2.11b*
|
||
TCOMMail 2.2
|
||
TMail 1.12
|
||
TPBNetEd 3.2
|
||
TosScan 1.00*
|
||
UFGATE 1.03
|
||
XRS 3.10
|
||
ZmailQ 1.10*
|
||
|
||
Macintosh
|
||
---------
|
||
|
||
Bulletin Board Software Network Mailers Other Utilities
|
||
|
||
FidoNews 7-07 Page 11 12 Feb 1990
|
||
|
||
|
||
Name Version Name Version Name Version
|
||
|
||
Red Ryder Host v2.1b4 Tabby 2.1 MacArc 0.04
|
||
Mansion 7.15 Copernicus 1.0d* ArcMac 1.3
|
||
WWIV (Mac) 3.0 StuffIt 1.51
|
||
TImport 1.331
|
||
TExport 1.32
|
||
Timestamp 1.6
|
||
Tset 1.3
|
||
Import 2.52
|
||
Export 2.54
|
||
Sundial 2.1
|
||
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*
|
||
oMMM 1.43b*
|
||
ParseLst 1.30
|
||
PkAX 1.00
|
||
PK[UN]ZIP 1.01*
|
||
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
|
||
PKUNZIP 1.10
|
||
MSGED 1.96S
|
||
SRENUM 6.2
|
||
Trenum 0.10
|
||
OMMM 1.40
|
||
|
||
FidoNews 7-07 Page 12 12 Feb 1990
|
||
|
||
|
||
+ 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 7-07 Page 13 12 Feb 1990
|
||
|
||
|
||
=================================================================
|
||
NOTICES
|
||
=================================================================
|
||
|
||
The Interrupt Stack
|
||
|
||
|
||
17 Mar 1990
|
||
Release date for Opus v1.10
|
||
|
||
5 Jun 1990
|
||
David Dodell's 33rd Birthday
|
||
|
||
12 Jun 1990
|
||
Fifth anniversary of FidoNet's switch to multiple nets.
|
||
|
||
1 Aug 1990
|
||
Start of FidoCon '90. Contact Bill Vanglahn at 1:1/90 for
|
||
details.
|
||
|
||
5 Oct 1990
|
||
21st Anniversary of "Monty Python's Flying Circus"
|
||
|
||
14 Nov 1990
|
||
Marco Maccaferri's 21rd Birthday. Send greetings to him at
|
||
2:332/16.0
|
||
|
||
|
||
If you have something which you would like to see on this
|
||
calendar, please send a message to FidoNet node 1:1/1.
|
||
|
||
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
|
||
|