informis/textfiles
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
textfiles/bbs/FIDONET/FIDONEWS/fido0805.nws
root@procul 278a90f7ce Initial commit
2021-04-15 13:31:59 -05:00

1857 lines
88 KiB
Plaintext
Raw Permalink Blame History

This file contains invisible Unicode characters

This file contains invisible Unicode characters that are indistinguishable to humans but may be processed differently by a computer. If you think that this is intentional, you can safely ignore this warning. Use the Escape button to reveal them.

Volume 8, Number 5 4 February 1991
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| _ |
| / \ |
| /|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 1991, 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 and for the Members of the
FidoNet (r) International Amateur Electronic Mail System. 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. EDITORIAL ................................................ 1
While I Was Out .......................................... 1
2. ARTICLES ................................................. 3
Who Runs the Show? ....................................... 3
ZEC Questionaire Response - Tony Davis ................... 6
ZEC Questionaire Response - Amnon Nissan ................. 11
ZEC Questionaire Response - Dean Lachan .................. 13
ZEC Questionnaire Response - Butch Walker ................ 15
Censoring news in the 'Information Age' .................. 19
ZEC Questionaire Response - John Roberts ................. 21
A NETWORK FOR MATERIEL MANAGERS .......................... 28
And more!
FidoNews 8-05 Page 1 4 Feb 1991
=================================================================
EDITORIAL
=================================================================
Hello, folks.
I'd just sit back and let this week's FidoNews do its magic, but
it happens that there are several things which I need to bring
to your attention.
First of all, I've changed the system which I am using as a
collection and routing point for 1:1/1. This change has been
made primarily because the old system was getting the worst of a
battle with the telephone company regarding line quality. You
know the story. In any event, we've changed over and the new
entry has already appeared in this week's Z1 nodelist segment.
Until we're fairly certain that all segments have been updated
we'll try to keep the other system up-to-date and will collect
submissions received there.
This business of using another person's system to do my "dirty
work" has been a moby nuisance. However, I expect to be
addressing this issue in about a month as I am finally going to
install a data line here and put up my own inhouse public access
system again. I'll keep you posted on that.
I received some netmail from an old friend who was concerned
about the article we printed last week regarding a BBS-oriented
publication. He felt that it might not be entirely appropriate
to print what amounts to an advertisement in FidoNews, which is
distributed gratis. His point is well taken. However, we have
already determined that articles from such vendors as System
Enhancement Associates and U.S. Robotics should be printed, as
their content is targeted specifically for sysops, and use of
their products enriche the experience of the sysop community as
a whole. By the same token, a publication specifically targeted
at sysops seemed appropriate, in my opinion. There are limits to
what will appear, however. I chose not to print an article of
the "get your users to buy from us and we'll send you a
kickback" kind (which had already been widely distributed in a
netmail bombing run anyway), as this type of article is clearly
commercial in nature and has little to do with sysops except as
middlemen in monetary transactions.
Some cleric in California said it was too late to pray for peace.
It's probably too late to pray for his soul, too. But I'll give
it a whack.
What do you think about the political model in FidoNet? I think
this democratic dictatorship model works pretty well. The mail
seems to get through, jerks get people pissed off in dreckomail,
people learn stuff in technical conferences -- in short, things
happen as expected, when expected. If we divided problems
encountered by messages transmitted, I think we'd be better than
any COMMERCIAL service (take that, Prodigy :-)
FidoNews 8-05 Page 2 4 Feb 1991
Now we're electing a new Zone 1 Echomail Coordinator. The field
of candidates is pretty impresssive, too. Lots of old war
horses, every one of which I can claim to have met and whose
company I have enjoyed. What a wonderful dilemma, choosing
between them. I feel they have all demonstrated their skills and
commitment in the past and would no doubt do so again as Z1EC.
However, I admit that I do have a favorite.
The gentleman I have in mind is probably the one you have heard
the least about. This is because he's the most unassuming of the
group. He quietly goes about his business, fixing a problem
here, smoothing ruffled feathers there, and just makes things
happen. He is also, in my opinion, the least political of the
group, and the technophile in me really appreciates that.
The gentleman I would most like to see as Z1EC is Dean Lachan. If
you've not had any dealings with him, give him a look-see. He's
an OK guy, and perhaps he is the kind of fresh blood we can use
in that position.
Of course, we win no matter who is chosen. That's the best news
in this field.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 8-05 Page 3 4 Feb 1991
=================================================================
ARTICLES
=================================================================
Who Runs the Show?
------------------
by Glen Johnson
NJ Net 269 Coordinator
It's a beautiful Sunday morning here in NJ, and because
there ain't no football on TV anymore, I decided to sit down
at the tube and read the SYSOP conference. Well, actually, the
Pro Bowl is on today, but that ain't really football.
Especially when you have a guy like Jeff Hostetler, the NY
Giants' backup quarterback that guided the Giants to, and won,
the Super Bowl, who doesn't even get to GO to the Pro Bowl as
a BACKUP, but that's a story for another day....
I happened across a message from Martin Pollard, 1:120/187
that lit my fuse, and I wanted to address that message here.
Actually, whenever I see this topic come up, it lights my fuse
:)
Here is what Martin said, asking about the upcoming vote on
WorldPol:
"Here's the $64,000 question: Are us lowly, grunt SysOps
going to be able to vote on it, or will it be yet another
"aristocracy" vote? If it's the latter, then why the hell are
we even bothering in the first place? (The more I read, the
more I'm dismayed at the fact that ordinary nodes don't seem
to have much voice in this network...) "
As far as I can tell, Martin doesn't hold any position of
"authority" in Fidonet. He's "just" a regular guy. And regular
guys in Fidonet have absolutely no control over who runs the
network, or how it develops. The fact is, that Fidonet Sysops
have no vote. As a matter of fact, NOONE in Fidonet has a vote
on anything. EVERYTHING that happens in Fidonet, according to
Policy 4, is dictated from the top down. The *C structure in
Fidonet makes ALL the decisions for the "regular guys".
Of course, noone seems to pay any attention to the fact that
if there were no "regular guys", there'd be NO FIDONET.
There has been megabytes of talk over the last year or so
about Fidonet moving toward a more democratic structure. But
talk is cheap folks. Some nets, even some regions, conduct
elections for NC, RC, or whatever, and that practice tends to
pacify the "regular guys" . They feel secure in the fact that
they, through their vote, have had a say in the network.
FidoNews 8-05 Page 4 4 Feb 1991
Make no mistake about it, elections are a good thing. But
they are, in fact, USELESS unless they are REQUIRED. You vote
for your NC (if you CAN vote for your NC) because your NC
FEELS that you should have a vote and your RC FEELS that he
should honor and recognize the election. But you know what?
They don't HAVE to. When your net elects an NC, your RC is
prefectly entitled to say "No, I don't like him. Elect someone
ELSE" or "No, I don't like him. THIS guy will be your NC" .
You might say that that would never happen, and maybe it
wouldn't. But the next time you vote for your NC, just don't
forget that Fidonet policy does NOT provide for the election
of anyone. Your NC is APPOINTED by the RC, period. Your NC
serves as long as the RC wants him to. Your vote means NOTHING
unless the *C structure about you WANTS it to. And that IS a
Here's a good example. A while back, Matt Whelan, the
International Coordinator, made GatePol the law of the land.
He did it, because he is the IC, and he CAN do that. Now
suppose 6000 of the 7000 nodes in Fidonet didn't like the
policy and didn't want to do what it says? You know what the
answer is?
The answer is TOUGH SH*T.
It is policy, it is binding and it IS in effect because the
IC SAID SO. You don't HAVE to like it, and you have no
recourse under policy. You will abide by that document because
the IC said its in effect . How YOU feel about it means
nothing. You have no say. Pretty crazy, isn't it?
I am an elected NC, nearing the end of my second one-year
term. If I choose to run for reelection, and am defeated, my
net WILL have a new NC, because I WILL resign. But that's ME,
folks. The point I'm trying to get across to everyone is that
I don't HAVE to resign. I don't even have to run an election.
I can serve as the net coordinator for net 269 until I die or
until the RC kicks me out. I conduct an election in net 269
every year because it is the BEST I can do for the members of
our net. I WANT them to feel that they have a say. I WANT them
to participate. But the FACT is, that my successor may NOT
feel that way, and the annual election in net 269 could
INSTANTLY become a distant memory because Fidonet policy does
NOT provide sysops with the right to vote for anyone or
anything.
Now, I feel like I should close this article by saying
something profound like "We need to change Policy 4 right now
to give sysops the right to vote ". But guess what? "Regular
Guys" can't even do THAT! Nope, you cannot change policy.
Again, you have no say.
FidoNews 8-05 Page 5 4 Feb 1991
I'll concede to the argument that in many cases, it simply
is not practical to conduct a network wide vote and collect
7000 votes. If that's the way ALL votes were done, progress in
Fidonet would be pretty damn slow. Given that, there's nothing
wrong with collecting votes from NCs. Notice I said NCs, not
RCs. I'll explain why in a moment. But when your NC is asked
to vote on something, he should be REQUIRED by policy, to
conduct a vote of the membership of his net, and be REQUIRED
by policy, to cast HIS vote according to the results of that
net-wide vote. And of course, policy should dictate that that
NC be elected by the rank and file of the net he serves.
The reason I say that representative elections should
include only NCs is because NCs represent the people. If the
RC voted too, who would he be representing? The representative
who represents the people? Your voice as a sysop would get
reduced to a whisper real quick if we did that.
What I DO urge you to do, is send a netmail to your Region
Coordinator, Zone Coordinator, and the International
Coordinator, and tell them ALL that you want all coordinators
to be elected by the level below, and you want procedures in
place to recall coordinators in office. AND that you want
finite terms of office for all coordinators.
Of course, some coordinators might deem it a dangerous thing
if sysops could vote, because some of them might LOSE THEIR
JOBS. But you know what?
TOUGH SH*T.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 8-05 Page 6 4 Feb 1991
Tony Davis
Fidonet 1:147/100
The following is my response to the questions asked by the ZC
of candidates in the ZEC Election. I have attempted to answer
all the requested questions, and have also attempted to not be
vague in my answers. They have been answered in my normal
tactful manner (A standing joke in R19 is that I have the tact
of a Mack Truck, speeding down a steep hill, with defective
brakes). My answers are not meant to offend anyone, but since
I have answered specific questions asked of me about procedures
either now in place, or proposed to be adopted, I am sure that
some will be offended. To the sysops I offend, I apologize.
But please understand, just as you may feel strongly on an
issue, so do I; and it is the issues we are discussing, not
personalities.
1> What are your qualifications? What FTN positions have you
held?
A> A member of Fidonet since 1985
B> Former NEC 147 & Net 147 Echomail Hub (Appointed)
C> Former Region 19 Echomail Hub (Appointed)
D> Former Backbone Star (Appointed)
E> Former IFNA Board of Directors (Appointed Once, Elected
Once)
F> Former Inter-Network Netmail & Echomail Gate (Appointed)
G> Current RC 19 (Elected Twice)
H> Current Fidonet Domain Gate Help Node & Operational Domain
Gate (Appointed)
I have not, at any time, held any position in any other network
besides Fidonet.
2> If elected ZEC, would you continue with other currently held
FTN positions?
No, I would honor the "suggestions" of Policy4, and would not
wear "Dual Hats". I would resign the RC19 position that I now
currently hold.
3> What changes, if any would you make to the Backbone?
The Fidonet Backbone is an extremely well run, organized
entity. My only concern in its present configuration is its
dependence on one man and one system. We all have seen the
destruction to Fidonet that can happen when one central point
just disappears, as when the original Midwest Star vaporized. I
believe there should be three stars, with each region having
two connections to the stars (each of these connections to a
different star). I believe the stars should not act as a
regional hubs. I also believe that the ZEC should not be one of
the stars. The ZEC needs to be able to sit back and look at
the overall backbone operation, and not be influenced as to how
any decision that he makes would effect his own system. The
FidoNews 8-05 Page 7 4 Feb 1991
RECs should also not be stars due to the fact that they could
be influenced by their own region's distribution, rather than
having the best interest of Fidonet, as a whole, as their
primary function.
4> How do you feel about Echo Policy? What modifications, if
any would you like to see made to it?
Fidonet has had restrictive policies in place too long, and
adding this document would just be a continuation of the "NO!"
attitude Fidonet has practiced, rather then the "Why Not?"
attitude it needs to have.
As for modifications, I believe the document has too many flaws
to be salvaged.
The argument normally used, is that it is better then no
document, and we can change it later. This is the same argument
used in the adoption of Policy4. No changes have been made to
Policy4, and if this document is put into effect, I would not
expect to see the trend change. If we allow a flawed document
to be put in place, we will have to live with it.
I would not like to see another all encompassing Echomail
document. The operation of the echomail distribution chain is
much to diverse. The capabilities of a NEC in a 3 node net with
no cost sharing plan can not even closely relate to the
capabilities of a NEC is a 100 node net with cost sharing in
place. The responsibility of the next step, a REC responsible
for distribution to 800+ node region are again totally
different. Then the next link in the chain, the stars, have to
operate in yet another different mode. A single set of rules
can not apply to all in any equatable manner.
I would support (and help create) a backbone policy that
covered the ZEC, the Stars and the RECs (only in their
relationship to backbone operation). As for the RECs and NECs
in their local distribution methods, those procedures should be
decided locally. No universal policy can cover their needs, for
all their needs are different.
5> How do you feel about the Gateway Policy? What modifications
if any, would you like to see made to it?
This document makes the October 21 Version of Echopol look
good. I have never seen a written document so one sided since
Fidonet began. It is written as if Fidonet was "King" and every
other network in existence is a "peon" that is supposed to bow
in Fidonet's presence. Fidonet needs to work with other
networks to remove the red tape currently in place for
inter-network communications. There are enough technical
problems concerning communications between networks that use
different addressing methods that we don't need the political
problems that mis-guided policies add to these difficulties.
The domain technology now being implemented is an example of
how this can be avoided. It needs no formal agreements, just a
FidoNews 8-05 Page 8 4 Feb 1991
single sysop (or as many as are willing) operating a gate and
running a program to convert the messages to the receiving
networks addressing format.
Since the Gateway Document was placed in effect by the IC, I
will follow it (at least until someone convinces Matt how
ridicules it is), but I do not like it, and wish it would just
go away; just as I wish all restrictions of communications
between networks would go away.
6> How do you see the relationship between the *ECs and the
*Cs?
I see very little relationship between the two. The functions
of their jobs are very different. A *C needs as his primary
strength the ability to deal with people. A *EC needs as his
primary strength a solid technical ability in order to deal
with the technical needs of distribution.
The two organizations are different and separate, and should
stay that way.
7> How do you see the relationship between the *ECs and
Moderators?
The moderators "own" the echos, the *ECs transport them. If we
can remove the *ECs from having any say in the selection of the
moderators, and remove *ECs from having any say or control
concerning the content of the echos; there will be no need for
the relationship between the two groups to be any more than the
relationship each of us presently has with the guy that
delivers the Snail Mail to our home; *ECs are mailmen, not
policemen.
8> How do you feel about new technology (Groupmail, routed
netmail, domains, EMSI, etc.,)?
GroupMail:
Groupmail technology is presently the best available technology
for shared conferences between networks, since it does not make
use of origin lines, paths, or seen-bys. I would hope that the
Fidonet would begin a more widespread usage of the technology,
especially in the conferences that we share with other
networks.
Domains:
Since I operate as the Fidonet Domain Gate Help node, I would
assume that my feelings on this question would be obvious.
Domains are the next step in the future of FTN networks.
FidoNews 8-05 Page 9 4 Feb 1991
Routed Netmail:
Since R19 was one of the first regions to implement routed
netmail along the echo distribution channels while I was
acting as both RC19 and R19 Distribution Hub, I assume that my
answer is also obvious. I am all for it, when used for low
priority netmail. The routing scheme was not designed to
replace Crash Netmail, just to supply an alternative way to
communicate.
EMSI:
This technology allows great advantages when, as present,
sysops are using so many different node numbers to operate in
different networks simultaneously. As Domain addressing becomes
more dominant the need for EMSI will become less. It is not
that I do not like EMSI, it is that I feel it is a band-aid for
a problem that needs a lot more then a band-aid.
In the past 6 years, the most enjoyment I have had, has been
implementing the new technologies that our developers have
given us. Without the ever changing technologies, Fidonet would
have crashed long ago. It is the new technologies that allow
our continued growth.
9> What goals would you set as ZEC?
1> De-centralization of the backbone; with in-place disaster
recovery methods.
2> Make it easier for new echos to be placed on the backbone
3> Removal of the *EC structure from ALL policy enforcement
or policy interpretation.
4> Education of all Cs concerning the damage the current
"curmudgeon" mode of thinking and operation is doing to
our ability to communicate.
5> Implementation of new technologies as they are available.
6> Working with other networks to facilitate communications
between Fidonet and the rest of the world.
From my statements above, I would hope that all readers of this
questionnaire would realize that I believe that Fidonet is
being policed to death. This is a network that was started to
allow communications. We need to get back to that main premise,
not the never-ending policies that keep coming up to hinder
communications.
We started with:
Do not be excessively Annoying.
Do not be too easily Annoyed.
FidoNews 8-05 Page 10 4 Feb 1991
These are the only rules that matter, the rest are restrictions
that we just don't need.
10> Any other comments?
I would like to thank the RECs for selecting me as a candidate.
Win, Lose, or Draw, just being a candidate is an honor.
If elected, I would do my best. And if not elected, I will
support whichever candidate that is selected. I feel all of
them could, and would be a credit to this hobby.
The main assets that I would bring to the job are:
1> A track record of Fidonet involvement.
2> A track record of proven technical ability.
3> A track record of Democratic operation.
I was the first RC in Zone 1 to be elected by a general
election vote open to all sysops in the nodelist. To the best
of my knowledge, I am the only RC in Zone 1 that has been
democratically reelected to a second term; I also implemented
the first general election for a REC. Region 19 is only region
in Zone 1 where both the RC and REC have been elected by a one
sysop - one vote general election. I am proud that I was able
to give each sysop a strong voice in R19, and hopefully I will
be able to carry on these democratic principals to more Fidonet
areas nationwide.
Respectfully,
Tony Davis
RC19
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 8-05 Page 11 4 Feb 1991
Amnon Nissan, REC18. ZEC candidate questionnaire
Well, here I go again, answering one more questionnaire :-)
I will try my best.
1) What are your qualifications? What FTN positions have you
held?
I have been REC for region18 for the last two+ years. Befor
that I was involved with the PCP distribution system. I was
NC of net 158, NEC for net 151, and am the HUB for the Raleigh
portion of net 151.
2) If elected ZEC, would you continue with other currently-held
FTN positions?
I will not continue being REC, I already called for elections in
the region, in which I am not a candidate (has nothing to do
with the ZEC elections, just a promiss I made the region last
year). I will continue being the HUB for Raleigh, yes.
3) What changes, if any, would you make to the Backbone (Stars,
Regional Hubs, feeds to other Zones, etc.)?
I would like to add more regional/national HUBs, and whould like
to see an orderly fasion in which echos will be exchanged
between ZONE1 and other ZONEs/Networks. Alternate distribution
systems should be developed, to sattisfy the ever growing demand
of echomail. I would like to see the ZEC not involved as a STAR,
and devote his\her time to answering mail and educating those
who seek to know more.
4) How do you feel about Echo Policy? What modifications, if
any, would you like to see made to it?
The list is too long. In general, I would like to separate the
*EC duties and the moderator duties. *EC should have no say in
the way a moderator moderates her/his echo. I would like to
take all references which suggest enforcement over moderators,
out of it completely, and turn it into a backbone policy, where
it will only address the technical points of distribution. But
again, that should be done by the net as a whole, and not a one
person opinion forced on others.
5) How do you feel about the Gateway Policy? What modifications,
if any, would you like to see made to it?
Frankly, it is not my idea of a policy.
6) How do you see the relationship between *ECs and *Cs?
FidoNews 8-05 Page 12 4 Feb 1991
I always had good relations with the *C structure (well....
almost always). We -- the *EC structure -- should not tell
them how to run the net, and they in turn should not tell us how
to distribute echomail. I know there are clashes between NECs
and NCs here and there, and there will always be some, but
talking it out and educating those involved, always seem to solve
the problem.
7) How do you see the relationship between *ECs and Moderators?
Again, they should be separated. I see no problem with
developing relationships between the two bodies (makes good
working relations), but we cannot/should_not force them to do one
thing or another. I found most moderators will listen if I
listen, and we could always work out a good solution which will
not leave either of us with a bad feeling towards the other.
(And I know how one feels and what one does, when cornered :-)
8) How do you feel about new technology (groupmail, routed net
mail, domains, EMSI, etc.)?
Any new technology should be encouraged. Groupmail is great,
but it will take a complete revolution to implement it in Fidonet
right now. I routed netmail from day one, and all for it.
Domains are the up and coming thing, and that is one thing that
I beleive will help communications between the different
networks. I have no comment about emsi and etc. :-)
9) What goals would you set as ZEC?
To better the flow of echomail, to make the flow more efficient,
and to develope the trust of the net in the backbone and the *EC
structure.
10) Any other comments?
Vote for me :-)
Shalom Y'all
Amnon Nissan, REC18
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 8-05 Page 13 4 Feb 1991
Dean Lachan 1:124/4115
Zone 1 EC Election Questionaire Response
1) What are your qualifications?
What FTN positions have you held?
I am currently NEC for Net 124. Echomail distribution was
becoming impossible. By breaking up the setup into HUBS,
and distributing the load among the HUBs, the mail moved,
efficiently. This same setup was placed into use for the
Region 19 SDS. I am currently a Regional Hub for Region 19.
2) If elected ZEC, would you continue with other currently-held
FTN positions?
I would pass on the job of R19SDS Coord and would evaluate the
NEC position, since it has become mainly a mail-moving position.
3) What changes, if any, would you make to the Backbone (Stars,
Regional Hubs, feeds to other Zones, etc.)?
The same changes that are currently being looked at being done
now. Break the system up into HUBs for backup redundancy and
efficiency.
4) How do you feel about Echo Policy? What modifications, if
any, would you like to see made to it?
I feel it needs work. I feel the 'backbone' needs their own
defined document as to the movement of mail. How to deal with
Dupes, creating areas, deleting areas, etc. As for telling
individual nets how to run their nets, that belongs in the
Nets own policies. If the Net has no policies, then maybe they
don't need one - but personally believe each net should have
their own guidelines on how to interface with the world
outside of their net.
Current Echo Policy is more 'do this and don't do that' rather
than being a descriptive document about what echomail
distribution is all about.
5) How do you feel about the Gateway Policy? What modifications,
if any, would you like to see made to it?
Don't feel anything about it. Should I?
6) How do you see the relationship between *ECs and *Cs?
I see that in our area, they work fine. They should remain
seperate. The *EC tends to be more technical in nature, while
the *C tends to lean towards the people aspect. However, it
should be noted that their is a mixture in both positions.
Both should be able to work with the others.
FidoNews 8-05 Page 14 4 Feb 1991
7) How do you see the relationship between *ECs and Moderators?
*ECs move and coordinate echomail areas. Moderators coordinate
the individual echomail areas they moderate.
8) How do you feel about new technology (groupmail, routed net
mail, domains, EMSI, etc.)?
Great. If it works and people are willing to work with it, then
go for it. If it shuts out folks, then it needs to be reworked.
9) What goals would you set as ZEC?
- Define Echomail Technical Document for Backbone distribution
- Define and Setup Regional Hubs and their distribution for
backup redundancy and efficiency.
- Work on better exchange of echomail from Domain-Domain and
Network-Networks.
10) Any other comments?
If selected, I'll do the best I can do. I won't promise that
people will always be happy, or that everyone will be happy,
because they will not.
Take Care, Dean.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 8-05 Page 15 4 Feb 1991
Butch Walker
1:157/3
The following are my responses to the questionnaire that
George Peace sent out to the candidates for the ZEC 1 position.
I'll be glad to answer any specific questions either in
the Z1_ELECTION conference or via netmail. I will only respond
to questions directed to me. I won't be debating other
candidates nor commenting on their positions. I will answer
questions as they relate to my position on issues.
Butch Walker 1:157/3
1) What are your qualifications? What FTN positions have you
held?
I am one of the founders of the Backbone and one of the
first Sysops outside of Dallas to use echomail. I founded Net
161 in Region 10, was the first NC of 161 (from 1986 through
1989), spun off Net's 203, 205, & 208, appointed the first female
NC in Fidonet, and served as NEC of 161 during the same time
period.
I was the first REC of Region 10, and the first
'official' ZEC of Zone 1 (Jon Sabol preceded me before the
echomail coordinator positions were officially recognized).
Until the spring of '89 I was the NorCal Star feeding the Nets in
Northern California, Regions 14, 17 & 19, Hawaii, part of the
U.K., and Malaysia.
I currently moderate 15 echomail conferences.
2) If elected ZEC, would you continue with other currently-held
FTN positions?
I have no current FidoNet positions. I do act as an
echomail hub for the Cleveland hub of Net 157 and would continue
to do so.
3) What changes, if any, would you make to the Backbone (Stars,
Regional Hubs, feeds to other Zones, etc.)?
I would encourage the 'Backbone' to come up with a
Backbone policy that applies to all conferences distributed via
that channel. Any moderator of a conference not agreeing with
the policy should then remove their conference from the backbone
and take it to private distribution or another "backbone'. I
would also encourage the backbone to find additional Regional
distribution systems, to reduce the current bottleneck.
FidoNews 8-05 Page 16 4 Feb 1991
By encouraging alternative distribution systems and
increasing regional outlets traffic flow could be improved. Let
me say however, that 'cross distribution' must be coordinated. A
conference should only be available on one distribution system
unless there is a great deal of communication to reduce the
possibility of dupes, and should not be on any distribution
system without some type of communicated agreement between the
moderator and the distribution system.
4) How do you feel about Echo Policy? What modifications, if
any, would you like to see made to it?
I would move to separate the policy into two separate
documents. One document would be specific to 'Backbone'
distribution. The second would be a smaller, more general
document establishing very limited guidelines. Those guidelines
would be established by a committee representing the various
distribution systems within FidoNet and moderators.
For example, distribution specific policies would address
the questions of when a conference would be dropped from
distribution, how moderators are to be succeeded, how users or
systems are to be dropped if requested by the moderator, etc.
The FidoNet Zone 1 policy would then be a policy of
coordination between distribution systems, inter-regional and
inter-zonal coordination.
5) How do you feel about the Gateway Policy? What modifications,
if any, would you like to see made to it?
Gateway Policy should cover netmail. The ZEC should work
out arrangements with other zones that suit the individual needs
of the parties involved. The ZEC should also encourage software
developers to either start supporting zones
(tossers/scanners/packers/mailers/readers) or move toward
domains. Other Zones/Domains are now a fact of life and the
exchange of information between them should be encouraged.
6) How do you see the relationship between *ECs and *Cs?
I may be spoiled, but I have never seen a problem between
the ?EC's and ?C's. We certainly had none in Region 10 (at least
the Northern half) and I have only seen cooperation in Net 157.
I guess there are some problems in some nets or regions (and
certainly there was in Region 18 for a time). I guess my answer
is that I see them as equal but separate. They should work
together to simplify life, not make it more difficult.
FidoNews 8-05 Page 17 4 Feb 1991
7) How do you see the relationship between *ECs and Moderators?
If the distribution portion of policy is removed from
FidoNet Zone 1 Echomail Policy then I see very little
relationship between the *EC's and the Moderators. I would only
see them become involved if a dispute could not be settled
between the moderator and the distribution system, or if both the
moderator and the distribution system requested their assistance
in dealing with another distribution system or Sysop/user.
8) How do you feel about new technology (groupmail, routed net
mail, domains, EMSI, etc.)?
New technology should be pursued and encouraged. After
all Scanmail and Tossmail were new technology in 1986. The
backbone was new technology, Arcmail, Confmail, QMail, Areafix,
etc. were all new technology at some point.
9) What goals would you set as ZEC?
1) Remove the ZEC/REC's from a specific distribution
system. That's not to say that cannot continue to operate as a
Star or regional distribution system for the 'Backbone', but to
move the *EC more to a coordination position and less of a
distribution position.
2) To promote alternative distribution systems within
FidoNet Zone 1.
3) To promote information exchange between Zones, whether
the Zone is part of FidoNet or any other Net.
4) As part of the above, the splitting of 'EchoPol' into
separate pieces. One distribution specific (each distribution
system would have their own), and one limited umbrella Zone 1
policy.
10) Any other comments?
I am not really campaigning for the position. If elected
I'll do the job to the best of my ability. If not elected, I
won't lose a minute of sleep.
I'm only human. I make mistakes, I over react sometimes
and probably under react at times as well. I've made decisions
in the past that were unpopular with some, but I believe that
under the set of circumstances at the time, they were the best
of the available alternatives.
FidoNews 8-05 Page 18 4 Feb 1991
The other candidates ( Tony, John, Dean & Amnon) are all
qualified, have experience, are dependable. All have made
contributions to FidoNet over the years. Either way you go
folks, you should end up with a quality ZEC. It's just a matter
of what direction you think the position should go.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 8-05 Page 19 4 Feb 1991
Censoring news in the 'Information Age'
By Randy Edwards
Sysop, 1:141/552
I had heard a lot of stories about the U.S. government
censoring our media during the recent Middle East crisis and
following the attack on Iraq and the start of the war.
Strangely, I never heard the media complaining much about it.
It never dawned on me as to how much our government was
censoring *MY* news until I saw an discussion on CNN with one
of my favorite reporters, Bill Moyers.
During that interview Bill Moyers told of a reporter in the
Middle East who reported for the Detroit Free Press newspaper.
The reporter wrote a story that told about U.S. pilots
returning from a bombing mission over Iraq.
The reporter used the word "giddily" to describe the pilots
when they returned alive from the mission. The reporter
specifically wrote "The pilots giddily slapped each other on
the back" after the successful mission.
That was enough for the Pentagon censors to go into action.
The Pentagon censored the story, replacing the single word
"giddily" with "proudly" -- as in, "The pilots proudly slapped
each other on the back." Our pilots don't giddily slap each
others backs after a bombing mission it seems -- they proudly
slap each others backs.
I began to think that if the Pentagon is censoring the news
to include things like a single adjective, what ELSE are they
censoring or not telling us?!
I've found some startling information. Here's a sample:
* Members of the German Parliament and retired German Air
Force Generals have stated they have reliable sources indicating
between 100,000 and 300,000 Iraqis have been killed since
George Bush ordered the bombing attacks on Iraq.
* The report of the Iraqi helicopters defecting to Saudi
Arabia before the war was actually a military psychological
disinformation campaign designed to convince other Iraqis to
defect. The media got wind of this propaganda and reported it
in the U.S. as fact.
* There have been reports of armed clashes between Western
and Moslem "coalition" forces fighting amongst themselves, with
many deaths resulting from the fighting.
FidoNews 8-05 Page 20 4 Feb 1991
* Large anti-war protests and demonstrations are occuring
worldwide in many, many countries and on a huge scale.
Despite my own political views on the war (as a veteran, I'm
very much anti-war/pro-peace) I find censorship by our (or any)
government disgusting at best.
In the so-called "information age" it seems we should have a
higher standard than to allow the military to censor our civil
news media. And I would hope the media would scream long and
loudly about any imposition of censorship. But this hasn't
happened. Opposition to the Pentagon censorship is not coming
from ABC, CBS or AP or UPI, but instead it is coming in the
form of a lawsuit by several small alternative news
publications.
Our military is not censoring the media for military security
purposes -- but instead for propaganda purposes.
I'm quite sure that the Iraqis would not have found much
military intelligence value in the Detroit "Free" Press'
reporting about pilots "giddily" slapping each other. But this
is the extent of the censorship of our news by the Pentagon, in
addition to our media's own tendency towards self-censorship.
It is during repressive times like this where one can see
how vital things like the FidoNet are. The FidoNet was founded
to allow EASIER communciation between people -- and it does.
I read several news-oriented echomail conferences where
information flows freely -- the only restriction on the
conferences are the individual conference moderator and the
individual BBS's Sysop.
I've read many uncensored reports from other nation's
shortwave radio stations that appear in the FidoNet routinely.
These news reports are uncensored by the U.S. government and
they tend to put the responsibility of the information on where
it belongs -- on the individual organization reporting the news,
and most importantly, on the individual person reading the news.
Pat yourself quickly on the back FidoNet -- and in
particular all the people working to disseminate alternative
news and information -- and then start wondering ... how long
will it be before our "big brother" decides that we're too big
for our own good?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 8-05 Page 21 4 Feb 1991
John Roberts
1:385/49@fidonet
1:1091/0@starnet
7:49/2004@alternet
ZEC Questionnaire - John Roberts
Before I get into answering the questions, I'd like to say a few
words. You see, when I was asked if I'd consider running for
Zone 1 EchoMail Coordinator, I wasn't quite sure how to reply.
I was remembering when I used to operate an echomail hub system -
remembering all the nights of sitting up watching the machine to
make sure the mail went through, and all the hours put in
changing hardware and software to speed the system up and make
things process faster, or better, or for any number of other
reasons. I'm sure that those of you who operate hub systems, and
especially those of you who did so before the technology got as
reliable as it is these days, know exactly what I'm talking
about. I'll be completely honest and tell you I don't miss that
part at all.
However, it only took a few minutes for me to realize that the
function of the ZEC isn't to operate the largest hub system in
the Zone. Rather, it's to help coordinate the operation of the
distribution system, with the goal of getting the mail around in
as effective and efficient a manner as possible. And, also
completely honestly, that was the part I enjoyed, and that's the
reason I agreed to the nomination.
So, that said - on with the questions. Since they're fairly
general, and since a lot of people are paying to carry this
around, I'm not going into real detail. I'll be happy to answer
any direct questions in more detail in the Z1_ELECTION
conference.
1) What are your qualifications? What FTN positions have you
held?
Qualifications - that's a bit tough, since as far as I know
there's no real, concrete definition of what the function of a
Zone Echomail Coordinator is. However, going with my previous
statement (that it's to help coordinate the operation of the
distribution system with the goal of getting the mail around
in as effective and efficient a manner as possible), I'll make
a stab at it.
First, it requires a certain intimacy with the mechanisms
involved. I believe I have that part, based on experience
which I'll cover in a minute. It also needs more than a
little objectivity and the ability to see issues and problems
FidoNews 8-05 Page 22 4 Feb 1991
from more than one perspective. It's been my observation that
most of the folks who move lots of mail don't do it for the
high wages, glory, or esteem from others. In general, they do
it because they want to. To devote the kind of time, effort,
and expense that's required, a person really has to love what
they're doing. This isn't a bad thing - quite the contrary.
But I feel that it can have a tendency to cloud some of the
perspective - the ability to stand back at a distance and
observe a situation from another viewpoint - and make it
difficult to maintain the necessary objectivity. Some of you
may have wondered what I'm even doing on the ballot, since I'm
not an REC, and don't operate a hub system. But I believe
that it's precisely for that reason that I can provide some
additional balance to the position simply by not being so
intimately involved in the daily "nuts and bolts" part of the
operation. Oh - and yes, I do answer my netmail.
As for experience - I've held FidoNet NC, NEC, and REC
positions at various times in the past few years, was part of
the SDN system in its early stages, and operated net and
regional echomail hub systems for some time as well. I've
operated netmail and echomail gateways between FidoNet and
other FTN's, between EchoMail and GroupMail technologies, and
between Domains.
2) If elected ZEC, would you continue with other currently-held
FTN positions?
While I currently hold no position within FidoNet, I'd have to
answer the question with the qualification that it would
depend on what the other position(s) were, and whether there
would be any likelihood of conflict between the functions of
the positions. For instance, I don't feel that it's
appropriate for an individual to hold ?C and ?EC positions
within the same network. I do hold positions in FTN's other
than FidoNet. However, my personal feeling is that since the
ZEC position is a FidoNet responsibility, and that the
majority (if not all) of the alternative networks are
independent entities, it's not actually important at the
present time.
However, to go on record - should there come a time when there
would develop a conflict of interest, or more importantly, a
negative impact on either FidoNet or any of the other FTN's of
which I may be a part at the time, then I would remove myself
from that conflict or impact by whatever means was most
appropriate to avoiding the problem, including resigning from
whatever position(s) necessary. This includes resigning the
ZEC position, should I be elected and should that appear to be
the most beneficial course of action in the case such
conflicts were to develop.
FidoNews 8-05 Page 23 4 Feb 1991
3) What changes, if any, would you make to the Backbone (Stars,
Regional Hubs, feeds to other Zones, etc.)?
I'm a strong proponent of the "if it ain't broke, don't fix
it" philosophy. I don't believe in change strictly for the
sake of change, so I'd have to answer this question with
others - such as asking what doesn't work, and what needs to
be done to fix it? In any case, any such changes shouldn't be
done unilaterally by a single individual. They should be
discussed at length and agreed upon by at least all the major
participants, with opportunity for comments from everyone that
may be affected by any such changes.
4) How do you feel about Echo Policy? What modifications, if
any, would you like to see made to it?
I feel that basically it's a good document - at least, the
original draft. There are certainly some details that need to
be worked out, especially in the area of definitions of terms.
There needs to be some work in the area of intention - whether
it's to be an operational document for the distribution of
EchoMail, primarily for the use of the backbone, or whether
it's intended to be an all-encompassing policy that covers all
aspects of EchoMail. Either way, I believe certain things
such as the authority of conference moderators, the rights of
conference participants, and more specific guidelines on how
to have conferences added to and removed from the backbone
should be addressed - whether in the general EchoMail Policy
or elsewhere.
As for the current drafts for a new version, I'm unable to
comment on them directly as I haven't been in direct
communication with those working on them. I see things I
like, and I see things I don't like. However, there are some
ambiguous passages that I'd like to have a better
understanding of the intent of, preferably through direct
discussion with those who authored them, before I comment or
make any suggestions for modification that could be considered
either supportive or negative.
5) How do you feel about the Gateway Policy? What modifications,
if any, would you like to see made to it?
As with the Echo Policy document, I feel like it's essentially
good, but needs work on the details. There are some
ambiguities in it which, again, may be able to be rectified
simply through more detailed definition of certain terms used
within the document. I'm not completely comfortable with a
few of its provisions, but I understand some of the reasons
that led the authors to believe they were necessary. However,
I feel that in some cases the result is that of making the
FidoNews 8-05 Page 24 4 Feb 1991
"symptoms" go unnoticed without any real impact on the actual
causes of the problems. I could wish for a bit more
flexibility to be built in, but I really have no concrete
suggestions on how it could be done within the current
document. It's quite possible that any fix would require a
more extensive rework than is initially evident.
6) How do you see the relationship between *ECs and *Cs?
I believe that it has to be something of a peer relationship,
with a good deal of symbiosis. The *EC's need to have the
support of the *C's, and the *C's need to be able to trust the
judgment of the *EC's, all the way up and down the chain. In
an ideal world, conflicts would never arise - but we just
don't live in an ideal world. It's in the cases of those
conflicts where the *EC's and *C's have to be able to work
together. I think, in general, that the system as established
works pretty well - but with as many people involved as are,
there are bound to be occasional disagreements and disputes -
personality clashes, as it were. It's for these cases that we
may perhaps need to define this relationship in more concrete
terms than has been done previously - be it in Policy, Echo
Policy, or just in some sort of overall gentlemen's
(gentlefolk's?) agreement.
7) How do you see the relationship between *ECs and Moderators?
I'm concerned about this one. While things generally seem to
work pretty well most of the time, we really have no assurance
built into the system to avoid capricious decisions and
possible abuses. I think that the *EC's have to support the
Moderators in cases of clear cut abuse. I also believe that
there has to be some sort of mechanism for protecting the
conference participants from abuse of the system by a given
Moderator. I'm sure that there's some definable, workable
middle ground - it's just that we haven't really stumbled
across the words to delineate these authorities (and
responsibilities) just yet.
What I mean in this answer and the one previous is not that
the ?EC structure should necessarily have any direct
administrative control over FidoNet itself - that is the job of
the ?C structure. What I'm speaking of here is coordination
within the ?EC structure itself, as concerns cooperation with
moderators. For instance, should links to a given system be
removed for cause, it should be the responsibility of the
rest of the ?EC structure to attempt to ensure that those
links not be reestablished via some other routing. If they
are reestablished, and the problem persists, then it should
be handed off to the ?C structure for any further action, and
the ?C structure should be willing to work with the ?EC
FidoNews 8-05 Page 25 4 Feb 1991
structure to accomplish the desired result - that of
eliminating the problem, whatever it may be or whatever
actions may ultimately become necessary.
8) How do you feel about new technology (groupmail, routed net
mail, domains, EMSI, etc.)?
New technology is wonderful - as long as we're careful not to
break what we already have. FidoNet is large enough that what
may appear to be relatively minor changes can have serious
effects on a significant number of people. While this is
primarily within the realm of the FTSC, it's important to
maintain backward compatibility. On the other hand, when new
and beneficial capabilities come along, it's important that we
get the word out and provide some sort of positive
encouragement for the adoption of those changes. I'd have to
say that my general opinion on the introduction of new
technology would be that as long as it doesn't break something
else, by all means give it a try - at least for a reasonable
period to find out if it really works or if it's just a bell
or whistle that is of little use or functionality as far as
the network as a whole is concerned.
As an example of a "bell or whistle", some of the uses of
^Akludge lines come immediately to mind. I see many echomail
messages where the body of the text is much shorter than the
size of the ^Akludge lines that are inserted into it. These
are, quite simply, costing people money to drag about, and in
some cases I wonder about the actual usefulness of the
information conveyed in them. Among some of the ones that do
appear to have valid uses, some are implemented enough
differently from one software package to another that it
would seem that some of their usefulness is negated as well.
I'd like to see some sort of standardization of formats as
well as a requirement for FTSC review as to the overall
potential of their usefulness before too many more of these
are unleashed on the network.
9) What goals would you set as ZEC?
That's another tough one. I'm not a software author, and as I
said earlier, don't believe in making unilateral decisions.
I'm also realistic enough to not make bets on other folks'
tricks. Instead of concrete goals, let me just say that I'd
like to see FidoNet and the use of FidoNet technology continue
to expand, and to realize more of the potential that so many
have been working toward for so long. I'd like to see us
realize more of that potential in not only the good we can do
for ourselves and for all the FTN's, but in the benefits that
could be realized by a truly global amateur communications
network that's within the reach of anyone.
FidoNews 8-05 Page 26 4 Feb 1991
Of course, that's the "pie in the sky", or overall viewpoint.
To be a bit more specific, I feel that there are two major
accomplishments that need to be worked toward: increasing the
efficiency of distribution where possible, and decreasing
both overall and individual costs for both distribution and
participation. There are others that are desirable and
important, such as taking care that we're not legislated out
of existence, and increasing capabilities for communications
between FidoNet and other networks, both FTN and non-FTN. I
have ideas and suggestions for all of these, some of which may
be workable, and others of which in all probability are not.
More importantly, I'd certainly be willing to listen to and
give serious consideration to the opinions of other people, as
well.
10) Any other comments?
Just this - EchoMail, like FidoNet, isn't a one-man show, and
should never be allowed to become one. Should I be elected to
fill the position of ZEC, _I_ am not going to do *anything*.
However, with the help of all the really good people who are
directly involved in the moving of those megabytes of mail on
a day to day basis, and with the advice and assistance of all
the various ?C's and ?EC's, _we_ might just be able to
accomplish a few things that are of benefit to everyone.
If you managed to read through all that, congratulations - you've
got a *lot* of patience. I won't go on much longer, but I do
want to make some final comments.
First, I want to thank the REC's for the serious thought and
consideration that was obviously put into the selection of the
other candidates, and more personally for the vote of confidence
in including me - whether or not I'm elected, it's a pleasure to
be considered with such a quality group of individuals. I also
want to thank George Peace for giving the REC's the opportunity
to come up with the list of eligibles themselves. Lastly, I want
to sneak in a quick "thanks" to each of you, the FidoNet sysops,
who have made this hobby both possible and enjoyable over the
years.
I've had the pleasure of working very closely with Butch and
Tony, to a lesser extent with Dean, and though I've never met or
spoken directly with Amnon, I've been quite aware of his efforts
and capabilities via direct contact with others in his region.
Any one of them certainly has the technical competence needed to
perform the functions of a ZEC, and in my opinion, at least,
they're also all "good people". Though each of us has different
views and ideas about what may be the best way to achieve it, I
have no doubt that each of us has the ultimate goal of doing the
best we can for the enrichment of FidoNet. I believe that
whomever you should elect will be reliable, responsive, and do
his best to continue the trend established by the current and
past ?EC's and hub operators to make things easier, more
effective, and better for FidoNet as a whole.
FidoNews 8-05 Page 27 4 Feb 1991
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 8-05 Page 28 4 Feb 1991
MATERIEL IMPACT RESOURCES
The purpose of this article is to promote the development of a
materiel management network - "MATERNET" - which is currently in
the design phase. The network will encompass a range of echo
conferences, for example the following are some considerations:
GENERAL DISCUSSION (MATERIEL MANAGEMENT AFFAIRS)
USED MEDICAL EQUIPMENT
USED EQUIPMENT (NON MEDICAL)
HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE ANALYSIS
GROUP PROCUREMENT
DISTRIBUTION
TRANSPORTATION
INVENTORY CONTROL
WASTE MANAGEMENT
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
LOGISTICS
HEALTHCARE
UNIVERSITIES
MUNICIPALITIES
SCHOOL BOARDS
GOVERNMENT (FEDERAL, STATE, PROVINCIAL)
CORPORATIONS
BUYER SUPPLIER DIALOGUE
These are only some of the echoes being considered and we hope
with input from interested parties and in particular managers
of materiel, we will be able to customize echoes to serve the
needs of all potential participants.
It is expected that this network will reach around the globe
and allow materiel managers and other interested parties to
communicate and share the most current state of the art
information and data. While there are distinct and specific
needs from country to country, there is also the potential for
a common base of interest for all participants. For example,
in the Canadian healthcare system, there is the Goods and
Services Tax (GST) and the relatively new Management Information
System (MIS) which is replacing the old Canadian Hospital
Accounting Manual (CHAM). While these new systems may be unique
to the Canadian environment, there maybe benefits for materiel
managers in other countries at least to share common interests
and needs.
Another area of interest will be used equipment, in particular
medical equipment which so frequently needs an outlet either for
the third world or within another facility having the potential
need for use. Finding meaningful outlets in the short term has
frequently been a problem for those with a responsibility for
disposal of such equipment. Rapid communication through the
bulletin board process can serve to expedite the process of
disposal.
FidoNews 8-05 Page 29 4 Feb 1991
We will follow up with more specific information and data as we
progress with the development of MATERNET and in the interim
woud appreciate hearing from any materiel managers or other
interested parties out there in the electronic data transmission
heartland. This is only the beginning of a project which can reap
a multitude of benefits for materiel managers. If you would like
to join us in this venture, please contact me and let me know
your specific areas of interest and location. I look forward to
hearing from all interested parties and welcome all constructive
input.
Herb Baldwin
FIDONET @ 1:134/201
DATALINE (403) 347-8214
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 8-05 Page 30 4 Feb 1991
=================================================================
COLUMNS
=================================================================
Henry Clark
1:124/6120
While Away the Hours Dept. --
Missed me ? I thought not. I can't believe my systems stayed
up for so long without me being home to watch em. Well, one
quit the last week on a disk error, but it wasn't critical. I
was in Europe for 3 weeks and had a great time. Primarily
because Denmark has legalized casinos. Naturally, we saw all
the family extremities, and drank a lot more than normal.
Normal is none for me. Damn those Danes, they live hard and
eat hard and party hard.
I took the hefty Compaq with 100 MB of games and such. It
provided hours of enjoyment for everyone, because you know the
TV is just horrible over there. Over there. It also gave me a
modem to use.
After obtaining a BBS list for Denmark, I proceed to organize a
Pizza Party for the whole of Region 23. It was a huge affair
which cost me no small sum, since I had promised a beer to all
the attending sysops. We all had a great time, and I want to
thank Morton Joench and Stig Jacobsen for introducing me to
Fidonet life in Denmark. I heard a lot about Region 23 and the
whole of Zone 2 in reference to elections and democracy in
Fidonet, Policy complaints and just all the usual stuff that we
get over here - and your little dog too.
Follow the Yellow Sign with the Tank On It ? --
What a trip home. The family and I drove from Copenhagen to
Frankfurt. The speed limit in Denmark is some 100 km/h but in
Germany, "oh look out". From Hamburg to Frankfurt it was
mostly foot to the floor. Our little 1.8 liter motor was good
for about 190 without really thrashing it. ( For all you
'mileage' guys, NO, I'm lazy this year and I ain't gonna
convert for you. ) Even at 190, you have to stay out of the
left lane, or the occasional big BMW will run you over. I've
decided the best BMWs are the ones with no number on the back.
We spent the night in Frankfurt, at one of the many empty
apartments left by servicemen in Saudi. This unit had 7 (
count-em ) stories, which was OK if you liked stairs. Those
Germans, they work hard. Green and white police cars... geez.
FidoNews 8-05 Page 31 4 Feb 1991
The next morning we tried to get on the Frankfurt-Dallas
flight, but it was overloaded, so we went to Chicago. And from
there, a packed and horrible flight to Dallas. At least we
flew first class, which, would be nice for all the services,
but really only matters in that you get enough room to sleep
all the way.
The Great and Powerful --
Young sysop ( and keyboard MTBF sampling device ) Kevin now
alternates between Windows and Desqview to get his games
played. Yeah, Desqview, you know I make him at least try to
keep the board up ! Actually, we have the best luck running
Windows under a Desqview window.
What is the fascination with Mahjong type games? I have seen
him run two different ones. I tell him "Duh, I found two that
matched. Duh-uh do it again ?" He doesn't get it.
He's five now, and of course, he got his first set of golf
clubs. He practices in the yard, and we play nine holes every
week, so far. I let him go from the 150 yard marker, after he
pounded home a 23 on his first hole ( a 400 par 4 ). He shoots
about 10 from 150. He has more fun than anyone else on the
course.
If I Only Had a Brain Dept. --
Honey comes home from work now, not me. She gets home late,
she's on the phone and doesn't spend enough time with her
family. A workaholic. Doesn't do a damn thing around the
house, I have to pick up for her, throws her socks on the
floor. Come's home, "Where's dinner." "This house is a
mess." "I work hard all day and I just want to come home and
relax." "That damn Bill lost the IFX-3 report."
One day I washed all the laundry, changed the sheets, washed
the dishes, cleaned the kitchen, washed the floors, vacuumed
the whole house, cleaned out the fireplace, picked up Kevin's
room ( an hour right there ), made three meals, cleaned my
office ( two hours ! ) and fed the cat. She comes home and
has nothing to complain about, so she doesn't speak to me.
And no, I ain't gonna have her find out I sent her picture in
Fidonews. No way.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 8-05 Page 32 4 Feb 1991
=================================================================
LATEST VERSIONS
=================================================================
Latest Software Versions
MS-DOS Systems
--------------
Bulletin Board Software
Name Version Name Version Name Version
DMG 2.93 Phoenix 1.3 TAG 2.5g
Fido 12s+ QuickBBS 2.66 TBBS 2.1
GSBBS 3.02 RBBS 17.3B TComm/TCommNet 3.4
Lynx 1.30 RBBSmail 17.3B Telegard 2.5
Kitten 2.16 RemoteAccess 0.04a TPBoard 6.1
Maximus 1.02 SLBBS 1.77A Wildcat! 2.55
Opus 1.14+ Socrates 1.10 WWIV 4.12
PCBoard 14.5 XBBS 1.15
Network Node List Other
Mailers Version Utilities Version Utilities Version
BinkleyTerm 2.40 EditNL 4.00 ARC 7.0
D'Bridge 1.30 MakeNL 2.31 ARCAsim 2.30
Dutchie 2.90C ParseList 1.30 ARCmail 2.07
FrontDoor 1.99c Prune 1.40 ConfMail 4.00
PRENM 1.47 SysNL 3.14 Crossnet v1.5
SEAdog 4.51b XlatList 2.90 DOMAIN 1.42
TIMS 1.0(Mod8) XlaxDiff 2.35 EMM 2.02
XlaxNode 2.35 4Dog/4DMatrix 1.18
Gmail 2.05
GROUP 2.16
GUS 1.30
HeadEdit 1.15
InterPCB 1.31
LHARC 1.13
MSG 4.1
MSGED 2.06
MSGTOSS 1.3
Oliver 1.0a
PK[UN]ZIP 1.10
QM 1.0
QSORT 4.03
Sirius 1.0x
SLMAIL 1.36
StarLink 1.01
TagMail 2.41
TCOMMail 2.2
Telemail 1.27
FidoNews 8-05 Page 33 4 Feb 1991
TMail 1.15
TPBNetEd 3.2
TosScan 1.00
UFGATE 1.03
XRS 4.00*
XST 2.2
ZmailH 1.14
OS/2 Systems
------------
Bulletin Board Software Network Mailers Other Utilities
Name Version Name Version Name Version
Maximus-CBCS 1.02 BinkleyTerm 2.40 Parselst 1.32
ConfMail 4.00
EchoStat 6.0
oMMM 1.52
Omail 3.1
MsgEd 2.06
MsgLink 1.0C
MsgNum 4.14
LH2 0.50
PK[UN]ZIP 1.02
ARC2 6.00
PolyXARC 2.00
Qsort 2.1
Raid 1.0
Remapper 1.2
Tick 2.0
VPurge 2.07
Xenix/Unix
----------
BBS Software Mailers Other Utilities
Name Version Name Version Name Version
BinkleyTerm 2.30b Unzip 3.10
ARC 5.21
ParseLst 1.30b
ConfMail 3.31b
Ommm 1.40b
Msged 1.99b
Zoo 2.01
C-Lharc 1.00
Omail 1.00b
FidoNews 8-05 Page 34 4 Feb 1991
Apple CP/M
----------
Bulletin Board Software Network Mailers Other Utilities
Name Version Name Version Name Version
Daisy v2j Daisy Mailer 0.38 Nodecomp 0.37
MsgUtil 2.5
PackUser v4
Filer v2-D
UNARC.COM 1.20
Macintosh
---------
Bulletin Board Software Network Mailers Other Utilities
Name Version Name Version Name Version
Red Ryder Host 2.1 Tabby 2.2 MacArc 0.04
Mansion 7.15 Copernicus 1.0 ArcMac 1.3
WWIV (Mac) 3.0 LHArc 0.33
Hermes 1.01 StuffIt Classic 1.6
FBBS 0.91 Compactor 1.21
TImport 1.92
TExport 1.92
Timestamp 1.6
Tset 1.3
Import 3.2
Export 3.21
Sundial 3.2
PreStamp 3.2
OriginatorII 2.0
AreaFix 1.6
Mantissa 3.21
Zenith 1.5
Eventmeister 1.0
TSort 1.0
Mehitable 2.0
UNZIP 1.02c
Amiga
-----
Bulletin Board Software Network Mailers Other Utilities
Name Version Name Version Name Version
Paragon 2.082+ BinkleyTerm 1.00 AmigArc 0.23
TransAmiga 1.05 TrapDoor 1.50 AReceipt 1.5
FidoNews 8-05 Page 35 4 Feb 1991
WelMat 0.42 booz 1.01
ConfMail 1.10
ChameleonEdit 0.10
ElectricHerald1.66
Lharc 1.30
MessageFilter 1.52
oMMM 1.49b
ParseLst 1.30
PkAX 1.00
PK[UN]ZIP 1.01
PolyxAmy 2.02
RMB 1.30
RoboWriter 1.02
Skyparse 2.30
TrapList 1.12
Yuck! 1.61
Zippy (Unzip) 1.25
Zoo 2.01
Atari ST
--------
Bulletin Board Network Node List
Software Version Mailer Version Utilities Version
FIDOdoor/ST 2.11* BinkleyTerm 2.40jt ParseList 1.30
QuickBBS/ST 1.02 The BOX 1.20 Xlist 1.12
Pandora BBS 2.41c EchoFix 1.20
GS Point 0.61
LED ST 1.00
MSGED 1.96S
Archiver Msg Format Other
Utilities Version Converters Version Utilities Version
LHARC 0.60 TB2BINK 1.00 ConfMail 4.03*
ARC 6.02 BINK2TB 1.00 ComScan 1.02
PKUNZIP 1.10 FiFo 2.12* Import 1.14
OMMM 1.40
Pack 1.00
FastPack 1.20
FDsysgen 2.16*
FDrenum 2.10
Trenum 0.10
Archimedes
----------
FidoNews 8-05 Page 36 4 Feb 1991
BBS Software Mailers Utilities
Name Version Name Version Name Version
ARCbbs 1.44 BinkleyTerm 2.03 Unzip 2.1TH
ARC 1.03
!Spark 2.00d
ParseLst 1.30
BatchPacker 1.00
+ 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 8-05 Page 37 4 Feb 1991
=================================================================
NOTICES
=================================================================
The Interrupt Stack
16 Feb 1991
Fifth anniversary of the introduction of Echomail, by Jeff Rush.
30 Mar 1991
Jim Grubs (W8GRT) was issued his first ham radio license forty
years ago today. His first station was made from an ARC-5
"Command Set" removed from a B-17 bomber.
12 May 1991
Fourth anniversary of FidoNet operations in Latin America and
second anniversary of the creation of Zone-4.
15 Aug 1991
5th annual Z1 Fido Convention - FidoCon '91 "A New Beginning"
Sheraton Denver West August 15 through August 18 1991.
8 Sep 1991
25th anniversary of first airing of Star Trek on NBC!
7 Oct 1991
Area code 415 fragments. Alameda and Contra Costa Counties
will begin using area code 510. This includes Oakland,
Concord, Berkeley and Hayward. San Francisco, San Mateo,
Marin, parts of Santa Clara County, and the San Francisco Bay
Islands will retain area code 415.
1 Feb 1992
Area code 213 fragments. Western, coastal, southern and
eastern portions of Los Angeles County will begin using area
code 310. This includes Los Angeles International Airport,
West Los Angeles, San Pedro and Whittier. Downtown Los
Angeles and surrounding communities (such as Hollywood and
Montebello) will retain area code 213.
1 Dec 1993
Tenth anniversary of Fido Version 1 release.
5 Jun 1997
David Dodell's 40th Birthday
If you have something which you would like to see on this
calendar, please send a message to FidoNet node 1:1/1.
FidoNews 8-05 Page 38 4 Feb 1991
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Reference in New Issue View Git Blame Copy Permalink