informis/textfiles
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
textfiles/bbs/FIDONET/FIDONEWS/fido0938.nws
root@procul 278a90f7ce Initial commit
2021-04-15 13:31:59 -05:00

1239 lines
56 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.

F I D O N E W S -- | Vol. 9 No. 38 (21 September 1992)
The newsletter of the |
FidoNet BBS community | Published by:
_ |
/ \ | "FidoNews" BBS
/|oo \ | (415)-863-2739
(_| /_) | FidoNet 1:1/1
_`@/_ \ _ | Internet:
| | \ \\ | fidonews@fidonews.fidonet.org
| (*) | \ )) |
|__U__| / \// | Editors:
_//|| _\ / | Tom Jennings
(_/(_|(____/ | Tim Pozar
(jm) |
|
| Newspapers should have no friends.
| -- JOSEPH PULITZER
----------------------------+---------------------------------------
Published weekly by and for the Members of the FidoNet international
amateur network. Copyright 1992, Fido Software. All rights reserved.
Duplication and/or distribution permitted for noncommercial purposes
only. For use in other circumstances, please contact FidoNews.
Electronic Price: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . free!
Paper price: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $10.00US
For more information about FidoNews refer to the end of this file.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Table of Contents
1. EDITORIAL ..................................................... 1
Editorial: Here we go again ................................... 1
2. ARTICLES ...................................................... 3
FCC Requests Additional Comments in Docket 89-79 .............. 3
WORLDPOL non-involvement disclaimer #1 ........................ 5
WORLDPOL non-involvement disclaimer #2 ........................ 7
WORLDPOL non-involvement disclaimer #3 ........................ 7
Do *C's have really power ? (A reply) ......................... 8
Let's End This ................................................ 13
The End of All Problems in Fidonet ............................ 15
Job Offerings Available as FREQ'able file ..................... 17
ISIG's Mission ................................................ 18
3. FIDONEWS INFORMATION .......................................... 21
FidoNews 9-38 Page 1 21 Sep 1992
======================================================================
EDITORIAL
======================================================================
Editorial: Here we go again...
by Tom Jennings (1:1/1)
Another week, another... snooze? Hardly, this week. Oh boy, somebody
started another scandal!
The "Zone 2 war" seems to have fizzled, with the victims seemingly
unwilling or unable to defend themselves or even tell us what the
exact problem is. Good luck, I say. Those frozen in inaction and
internal quibbling will always fall prey to those willing to organize
their creepy desires. If it's unclear as to who is whom, then I've
merely made my point. End of story. The remaining articles I had
on-hold awaiting the deluge-that-never-happened are in this issue.
Unless someone comes up with a very coherent article, I would like to
consider this "zone 2 war" closed, over and out.
* * * * *
On a more positive note, I hear PGP 2 is out. PGP is "Pretty Good
Privacy", an implementation of RSA's patented public key encryption
system, for DOS machines, complete with source. PGP 1 worked fine, but
was user-at-the-keyboard. I hear that PGP2 is batchable, and therefore
usable in echomail or regular FidoNet netmail.
I have not seen a copy. I would like to. If anyone knows where I can
get one out in my part of the physical world (San Francisco
California) please let me know...
I would love to see encryption become routine in FidoNet! We have
privacy in our postal mail, guaranteed by all International Postal
Union countries; we should have it in FidoNet.
BIG PS: RSA, the company that holds the patent on the public key
encryption method (and is quite annoyed with PGPs existence) last
year offered a complete implementation, with legal license, for $25
for two years! I've not heard anything about it in our BBS world. If
anyone knows how to contact them, and get the word on that, I'd love
to run it here in FidoNews.
* * * * *
From: Arjen Lentz on 2:283/512
Talking about your 2400 modem, please set it to answer in B0 mode.
That goes for almost any brand including US-Robotics. In B0 they any
incoming call will go okay, but with B1 the CCITT answertone is
missing and then it is absolutely implossible to get a connect,
especially if you're calling from abroad. Setting my modem to B1
doesn't make a difference. One either gets a 1200 connect with
FidoNews 9-38 Page 2 21 Sep 1992
garbage, or no connect at all. Perhaps you could turn this note into
a big yell in FidoNews? Please anyone anywhere on earth, answer with
settings B0 and &G1. &G1 is the guard-tone, only applicable when
answering calls, saves some long-distance links (via satelite for one)
while not hindering others. B0 always works okay from whereever the
call comes, B1 is unusable most of the time. It's costing foreign
callers heaps of money, and it makes direct communications totally
impossible. Don't be misguided by the notes in the modem manual (set
B1 for US use), that's just plain balony. TJ, free for you to edit
any way you like to get the msg through, I just scribbled down all the
information. Thanks....
TJ here again. I've set my modem to B0, and nothing bad happens. I
was getting occasional 1200 connects, with long pauses then
disconnect. Haven't seen one in a few days of checking (admittedly
small sample).
North America is physically very large, and our telephone system is so
consistent end to end, we don't have the experience here of having to
deal with a dozen radically different phone schemes like most people
on the planet do. "Most calls" work so we ignore the few that don't.
In Germany, for example, there's far more "out of the country" calls,
and they're more aware of these kind of problems.
Thanks Arjen for the information.
* * * * *
Thanks to Mike Riddle for staying on top of "our" legislators here in
the U.S. and keeping us informed! It's readers like Mike that make
FidoNews worthwhile. Readers == reporters in FidoNews. (Hint hint.)
* * * * *
Enough for today.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 9-38 Page 3 21 Sep 1992
======================================================================
ARTICLES
======================================================================
Mike Riddle
1:285/27
"Modem Tax" -- NOT!!
Expensive--YES!!
Last year I wrote an article requesting the Fidonet community
support a "Petition for Reconsideration" in Docket 89-79. The
issue was the same one that caused such a ruckus back in 1987 on
Docket 87-215, being the level of "access charge" that ought to be
paid by enhanced service providers.
In 1987, faced with the prospect of significant increases for
services such as PC Pursuit, Starlink, Compuserve, Prodigy, and
GEnie, the modeming community responded at an unprecedented level,
and the FCC dropped their action. Unfortunately, the 1987 docket
became "Modem Tax: The Rumor that Wouldn't Die!" Files are still
resurfacing that tell us someone from radio station KGO needs our
help to oppose a "modem tax." Anyone who's been on the nets longer
than about eleven seconds is tired of seeing them. It's become
like the fable about the boy who cried "Wolf!" When the wolf
finally came, no one believed him. The way to tell the difference
between a "modem tax" rumor and a real issue is to look for docket
numbers, dates, and contact people to call at the FCC. The rumors
invariably omit them, since they simply don't exist.
The 1987 action has been revisited, but they hid the wolf in
sheep's clothing. Using the structure of Open Network
Architecture, the FCC fairly quietly enacted a "Final Rule" that
will ultimately accomplish the same thing that the 1987 docket
would have done. This isn't a rumor. It has docket numbers and
dates, and while the FCC hasn't yet rescinded their action, enough
people responded to cause them to reconsider some aspects of the
access charge pricing issue within the Open Network Architecture
proceedings, and to ask for further comments from the public.
Now's you chance to identify the wolf and chase him away again.
The Open Network Architecture Basic Service Element Pricing scheme,
adopted on July 11, 1991, as part of docket 89-79, will require
usage-based access charges be imposed on the enhanced service
providers using the new, unbundled, "basic service elements" of
open network architecture. This will be a per-minute charge that
is paid by the ESP to the LEC and will not be any form of a "tax"
levied directly upon the end user.
ESP's are folks like GEnie, Compuserve, PC Pursuit, and Starlink,
to name the ones common modem users might be concerned with.
Since these companies are in business to make money, the increased
access charge will be ultimately passed on to the end user--the
public. But again, it's /not/ a tax, and it doesn't go to the
government. It is a federally mandated charge that goes to the
local exchange carrier.
FidoNews 9-38 Page 4 21 Sep 1992
My personal assessment is that this change is ill-conceived and
should not be implemented. As long as the charge is cost-based,
the LEC is going to do okay financially, and the public will not
be gouged. But it seems to me that the FCC, particularly with its
relaxation of the accounting rules in several "ONA price cap"
decisions over the last year, has demonstrated its fondness for the
telcos rather than the public.
While it is true that the "current exemption for ESPs has been
retained," that is, the ESPs may continue to use the bundled
feature groups to buy the services they need and not pay increased
charges, an obscure part of the 1991 ruling requires "feature
groups to be eliminated at a future date."
When that future date arrives, the ESPs will be forced to buy the
Basic Service Elements they need, at a much higher price, which
will be passed on to consumers.
The impact will also be to non-modem users, since these charges
affect data systems used a lot more widely than might be imagined.
For example, the credit card verification terminals use data-packet
networks that involve local dial-ins, and thus will incur the
higher charges. Exactly how that charge will be distributed among
the carriers, the credit card companies, the service bureaus, and
the stores is open to conjecture, but you're probably safe in
assuming the consumer will hold the bag when it's all over.
Anyone who uses data packet services, such as Starlink, PC Pursuit,
Compuserve, GEnie, Prodigy, or America Online, has an interest in
opposing the current "Final Rule." ESPs should only pay "cost-
based" charges, and the best action for the FCC to take at the
moment is to grant the "Petition to Reconsider the Final Rule in
Docket 89-79." Write to the FCC today, to the addresses in their
Request for Comments, to express your support for the Petition to
Reconsider. Be sure to include the docket number 89-79, and be
sure NOT to call it a "modem tax." They're as tired of it as we
are.
Here's a copy of the press release from the FCC:
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS SOLICITED
WITH RESPECT TO ISSUES RAISED
IN PETITIONS FOR RECONSIDERATION
OF THE PART 69/ONA ORDER
CC DOCKET 89-79
Released: August 14, 1992
On July 16, 1992, the Commission adopted a Memorandum Opinion &
Order on Second Further Reconsideration, FCC 92-325, released Aug.
6, 1992. That decision addressed the Docket 87-313 price cap new
services test issues raised in petitions for reconsideration of the
Part 69/ONA Order, 6 FCC Rcd 4524 (1991). It did not address the
other issues raised in the petitions for reconsideration of the
Part 69/ONA Order. These issues include the pricing standard for
basic service elements (BSEs), the elimination of bundled feature
FidoNews 9-38 Page 5 21 Sep 1992
groups, and maintenance of the status quo with respect to access
charge treatment of enhanced service providers (ESPs). Before
acting on the remaining issues raised by the petitions for
reconsideration, we give parties an opportunity to update the
record in light of intervening events, such as the effectiveness
of federal ONA tariffs.
Interested parties should file comments on the request by September
30, 1992, and reply comments by October 30, 1992, with the
Secretary, FCC, 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554. A
copy should also be sent to Mark S. Nadel, Common Carrier Bureau,
FCC, Room 544, 1919 M St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554, and to
the Commission's contractor for public service records duplication:
Downtown Copy Center, 1114 21st Street, N.W., Washington, D.C.
20036. Copies of the petitions can be obtained from the Downtown
Copy Center at (202) 452-1422.
We will treat this proceeding as non-restricted for purposes of
the Commission's ex parte rules. See generally, 47 C.F.R. 1.1200-
1.1216. For further information contact Mark Nadel, Policy and
Program Planning Division of the Common Carrier Bureau, at (202)
632-6363.
- F C C -
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WORLDPOL non-involvement disclaimer #1
by Tom Jennings (1:125/111)
I try to keep out of local issues, and to stay uninvolved in peoples'
pet projects, regardless of merit; I have too much to do in my own
life, and I realize how much "weight" people in FidoNet attribute to
what I say. While I don't really like this, it seems to be fact, and I
try to act responsibly.
I'll get to the point:
Pablo Kleinman (4:4/50) put my name on his WORLDPOL document not only
WITHOUT MY PERMISSION, but after repeated demands that he not do so,
in which he acknowledged that he realized I had no real involvement,
but he kept insisting that it be there anyways. He insisted that
because he had asked me about it (He asked me to endorse it; I said
NO. He asked me to take part in a conference about it; I said NO.)
that was enough for him to consider me "involved". I disagree. This
was on his previous attempt at a WORLDPOL. I did not even know that
this one existed.
Since my name appears on it, I feel free to air my views of it.
FidoNews 9-38 Page 6 21 Sep 1992
Not only did I not have, nor want to have, anything to do with it, I
think it is a TERRIBLE "policy". It is yet another attempt to foist
top-down control on everyone. It is just more bureaucracy we don't
need.
The author should practice what he preaches. There is no "goal" worthy
enough to justify dishonest "means". The process *is* the goal; any
global set of rules will take years to work out, and during those
years, there will be many conflicts, and we'll collectively have to
live with that process and those people. Do you want to be told what
to do by someone simply in a hurry to get their way; or would you
rather work with people dedicated to take as much time as required,
even years, to accomplish the goal, including sacrificing their own
personal desires? THE PROCESS IS THE GOAL. I think it is telling that
the author of such a far-reaching document cannot seem to use an
honest, inclusive process; I'm quite certain I do not want this person
defining *my* "policy".
Let me make this perfectly clear:
I DO NOT NOW, AND HAVE NEVER IN THE PAST, NOR EVER WILL I IN THE
FUTURE, HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH 'WORLDPOL'. Thank you.
I know for fact (direct conversation) with other "signatories" that
they are in the same boat as me, in addition to the ones whose
disclaimers follow this one.
It would be best for Pablo Kleinman, and anyone else associated with
this project, to write a public apology to all the people whose name
appears on that document, and publish it here in FidoNews, where the
WORLDPOL document first appeared. Here's the list that appeared at the
end of last week's WORLDPOL article:
Raul Artaza, Don Benson, Bill Bolton, Steve Bonine, Randy
Bush, Billy Coen, Phillip Dampier, Jack Decker, David
Deitch, Daniel Docekal, Ron Dwight, Luis Garcia-Barrio,
Hector Gomez, Tomas Gradin, Jackson Harding, Rob Hoare,
Jesse David Hollington, Alejandro Hopkins, Tom Jennings,
Glen Johnson, Daniel Kalchev, Raymond Lowe, Rick Moore, Bob
Moravsik, George Peace, Vince Perriello, Bob Satti, Jan
Stozek, Erik van Riper, Matt Whelan, and Gustavo Zacarias.
---
In case there is any doubt as to the damage this false inclusion does
me, here are two example message fragments I received in the last two
days:
Original Message Date: 19 Sep 92 10:58:04
From: (name deleted)
To: Tom Jennings on 1:125/111
Subj: Policy Who?
FidoNews 9-38 Page 7 21 Sep 1992
[Pablo] sent me a copy of WorldPol and asked to me vote on [...].
Shall I ask him if it has your endorsement, seeing as your name is on
it and all?
[Truncated]
Original Message Date: 17 Sep 92 21:10:07
From: (name deleted)
To: Tom Jennings on 1:125/111
Subj: WorldPol 3???
Tom,
I have a question: In FidoNews 9-37, there appeared an article
concerning "World Policy 3" or something like that...Your name was
listed in the credits, and I'd like to know two things...
First: Do you have any REAL involvement in this document? Or did
someone just list your name there because of the mention of
FidoNews...
[Truncated]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WORLDPOL non-involvement disclaimer #2
by Randy Bush 1:105/42
TJ, in reading the latest Snooze, I found someone attributing my
help in devlopment of yet another loooong and stoopid policy for
FidoNet. I DID NO SUCH THING. IN NO WAY DO I SUPPORT THIS
DOCUMENT. Nor did I assist in its development, except to tell the
authors that I thought it was stooopid.
I believe many others' names have been similarly taken in vain, in
fact the majority of those listed but I will let them speak for
themselves.
Sorry to shout, but I have written these fools many times to ask
them to remove my name from this latest attempt to impose yet
another complex and hierarchical policiy on FidoNet.
What a load of crap! ( for those who might doubt this is I :-)
randy
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WORLDPOL non-involvement disclaimer #3
FidoNews 9-38 Page 8 21 Sep 1992
by Rick Moore on 1:115/333
> TJ, in reading the latest Snooze, I found someone attributing my
> help in devlopment of yet another loooong and stoopid policy for
> FidoNet. I DID NO SUCH THING. IN NO WAY DO I SUPPORT THIS
> DOCUMENT. Nor did I assist in its development, except to tell the
> authors that I thought it was stooopid.
Same here. In fact, the only thing I ever did to deserve my name on
this and previous drafts from Pablo was tell him I thought he was
doing things all wrong.
I have three times requested that Pablo remove my name from his
document. The first two, he ignored me. The third, he outright
refused.
My idea of the perfect policy contains three sentences:
Be not excessively annoying.
Be not too easily annoyed.
If you can't abide with the above, start your own network.
Everything else is bureaucratic bullshit.
Rick
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do *C's have really power ? (A reply)
===========================
By Ron Dwight (2:220/22)
Hi Folks,
Well it seems that I have to sit down and compose yet another
reply in order to keep the record on an even keel. Hopefully TJ will
see fit to give equal "air time" to all sides in this dispute and that
in the end, concrete improvements will result for FidoNet. I guess it's
called "growing pains".
-----------
A lot has happened after last weeks article. The international
coordinator has written a message to the zone 2 coordinator to
immediately restore the situation in zone 2 to the state it was before
the 'wars' started. Also the new RC28 that was appointed by Ron
Dwight should be removed.
The next thing that happened was that the zone 2 coordinator Ron
Dwight refused to go back to the pre 'war' status. He removed the guy
he just appointed to RC28 and tried to find another standin. No one
was available so the zone coordinator made himself the regional
coordinator of region 28. This will be a surprice for people trying to
communicate with the RC28 when their mailer calls long distance
FidoNews 9-38 Page 9 21 Sep 1992
instead of the expected regional call.
-----------
My response to the orders issued by the IC was to remove the RC
which I had appointed and restore the region 28 nodelist segment to the
state it was in, prior to the week that Hanno van der Maas was replaced.
It should be noted that the orders issued by the IC, were done so with
absolutely no consultation with ZC/2. In other words he had heard ONE
side of the story and that was enough to be able to make rational
judgements! It is to be hoped that FidoNet, currently viewing this
fiasco, can do better.
This is, of course, unsatisfactory to the region 28 "junta" as
one or more SysOps who had been "expelled", under the new "5 minute
excommunication" procedure which Henk Wevers seems to be so proud of,
were automatically restored. The *Cs of region 28 were informed that NO
(=ZERO) excommunications would be allowed from the official FidoNet
nodelist.
Now I would have thought that having a situation in which NO
excommunications were allowed would be acceptable to all parties! The
response was yet more abuse from region 28 NCs, insisting that the only
"true" region 28 segment is the one being released by Henk Wevers.
One exception was made to the nodelist restoration in that
Hanno van der Mass was not replaced as RC/28. As detailed in last
week's reply, Hanno was removed (from the RC position only) for
incompetance, deliberate lying and deception. The messages detailing
this have been distributed in ENET.SYSOP, but appear not to have been
circulated within region 28.
I am still searching for a SysOp willing and capable of
undertaking the post of RC/28 but it seems that in these days of threats
and mail links being cut, it is hard to find someone willing to
undertake the task. As a local replacement could not be found, I warned
the entire *C structure in region 28, that I would be putting my own
name in the RC slot as a temporary measure. I am under the impression
that instead of warning their own SysOps of the danger of incurring long-
distance telephone charges, most of the region 28 NCs are actively
encouraging their own SysOps to make calls to 2:28/0 and then complain
about the additional costs.
----------
As you will be aware, the attitude of the sysops in region 28 is that
no *C should interfere in a lower level unless invited to do so. The
IC has been asked to help by us, we never asked the ZC2 to reorganize
our region.
Personally I have been telling people that there is no real power in
fidonet. The only action a ZC for instance can take against you is to
remove you from the nodelist. If you are alone in your struggle you
have a problem, but if enough people support you there is an easy way
out. Just distribute your part of the nodelist. This is exactly what
region 28 is doing at the moment. We are producing our region segment
and distribute it to every sysop, net, region or zone that wants it.
----------
FidoNews 9-38 Page 10 21 Sep 1992
Please be aware that if you follow this practice,
As a *C, you are:-
1) Violating policy, in not carrying the nodelist. This is perhaps not
a serious problem but could have implications for other FidoNet SysOps.
It can be avoided, in a reasonable manner by carrying either two
versions (Gawd!) or Henk Wevers's region 28 segment and a copy of
DELMERGE (or similar).
2) Allowing Henk Wevers to freely excommunicate, using his new and
improved "5 minute policy complaint procedure" any and all SysOps who
fail to obey his wishes. As temporary RC/28 I have warned ALL region 28
NCs that NO vindictive excommunications will be permitted. Instead of
being greeted with an acceptance that this is a reasonable way to
behave, this procedure has been treated with contempt, and thus far NO
region 28 net segments have been delivered to 2:28/0 (TEMPORARILY in
Finland). The conclusion to be drawn from this is obvious.
----------
This fails if no-one asks for it, but in the current situation there
is much demand. As Ron is finding out at the moment this effectively
neutralizes his 'power' as a ZC. If you think about it, this is a
perfectly balanced situation. The power of a *C can be effectively
made zero by distributing your nodelist segment.
---------
I can understand that there is much demand, but I would ask
those of you who are currently carrying Henk's version of the region 28
segment, to simply examine it. The official nodelist is available at
your ZC's system and you can compare for yourself whether the region 28
segment issued at 2:2/0 has excommunicated nodes or the one being issued
by Henk Wevers. Don't take MY word for it, go check for yourself.
----------
The last article I asked for help. A lot of people from different
zones have asked how. Here is the first suggestion: ask your *C to
distribute the region 28 nodelist segment. We can make it available in
your zone if you want. If they cannot or will not do so, help us
spreading it.
----------
Before you do so, please check just which nodes have been
removed. I cannot overemphasise this enough, as it is very easy to be
led into believing everything you read. Supporters of what I say will
tend to believe what I write, supporters of Henk Wevers will tend to
believe what he writes. This is natural and to be expected. DON'T DO
IT. Go check for yourself.
Here's an example which you could check on:-
FidoNews 9-38 Page 11 21 Sep 1992
One of henk's "gang members", a network coordinator (NC), was
recently the subject of a policy complaint. He was accused of
manufacturing a mail-bomb and sending it to other region 28 SysOps. He
denied sending the mail bomb to another SysOp but admitted creating it.
He also admitted to encouraging other SysOps to download the mailbomb
from his system, where it was File-requestable. This is in fact hard to
deny as he made this encouragement in EchoMail.
I am afraid that my credibility doesn't stretch to believing
that an NC would create a mail-bomb, encourage others to download it and
use it without using it himself. The first few mail bombs sent out
actually contained this NCs name (CRC-32) in the packet header but this
was quickly changed when he was informed that his misdeeds were noticed.
The complaint was apparently dismissed on the grounds that it
could not be proven that the NC actually sent the mail-bomb to another
node and he was given A WARNING. The complaint was handled by Hanno van
der Maas, the ex-RC/28.
This is not mind-boggling in itself, but contrasts seriously with
another case in which a SysOp quoted a message (from me) in which I
quoted messages from Hanno van der Maas. The SysOp quoting this message
has apparantly had his EchoMail feed cut from that particular
conference. This is in fact contrary to the zone 2 EchoMail policy
which insists upon a number of warnings being issued. Still, if you're
going to ignore FidoNet policy, why not ignore EchoMail policy as well?
Don't take my word for it, go check it for yourself.
----------
A very nice touch would be if the Zone coordinator would compile our
segment into his worldlist. Ask him to do so. After all a ZC should be
there for the sysops, right ? Wrong ! At least in zone 2 for the
moment. Maybe your ZC is different, try to find out.
----------
I am hopeful that the zone coordinators of FidoNet are more
sensible than that. A better approach, and one that IS being used in
parts of zone 2, is to publish Henk's regional segment and keep it
available for download/file request as a seperate entity. You can use
DELMERGE or some other program to include this segment IF YOU WISH. The
choice becomes YOURS and not mine or Henk's. This is, of course, not
what Henk wants, is it?
Thank you for your time and attention. I am hopeful that this
will be resolved for the long-term benefit of FidoNet.
DELMERGE is available for file request at 2:220/22 and other sites
around the world.
Keep an eye on the activities in region 25 (The UK) for some REAL
improvements to FidoNet. More news soon.
FidoNews 9-38 Page 12 21 Sep 1992
Ron Dwight, ZC/2
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Zone 2 - Policy (Yes more)
2:256/117
2:256/118
Yes this is more of the same. A few lines in FidoNews about policy etc.
POLICY4 is about someone's obcession with legal definition. The *C
structure invites the idea that some "positions" exist within the
network and those positions have "power".
Henk Wever's was right to send out nodediff's for his region in Holland
to anyone that wants them. Bluntly the *C structure is about
co-ordination and edicts from the *C structure only make sense if they
they are a result of senisible co-operative effort.
However what Henk failed to mention was the real power invested in every
sysop. If I want to get a conference from another system I don't ask my
*C structure's permission - I just do it. I tell other nodes as a
courtesy so that routes are CO-ORDINATED not controlled.
If I really don't like the net politics I join another net. If I don't
like the region politics I stop taking REGION25. If I want out I just
pull the plug from the phone line. Hey I have real power!
Hell if I don't like REGION 25 I could email Henk and ask him to join
REGION 28 - as long as I polled for mail. I polled Henk for the IFNA
conference in 1987 so why not now.
The bottom line, as the American's like to say, is nothing to do with
elections, democracy, who is RC, NC or ZC. Sysop's just sort out your
own links in any way you want. Be subversive and do your own thing. If
you get on well in your net, region and/or zone - great.
From a technical viewpoint you are only required to run zone mail hour.
From a human viewpoint you are only required to be friendly and not
annoy others.
So lets communicate and forget the rest. If God made do with ten
commandments to run the planet surely FidoNet can make do with less.
Steve
FidoNews 9-38 Page 13 21 Sep 1992
----------------------------------------------------------------------
By: Sean Peoples @ 1:124/7026
"Let's End This"
For those of you who lead an overtly mundane existence, as I
do, and as a result make a habit of reading all of the
FidoNews, as I have, you've seen two articles posted here
concerning the way that Net 124 issues its node numbers.
You've seen Rob Butler tell of his difficulty in entering the
net as a node, and also of mine, when I was 1:124/3109.1.
You've seen Tracy Perry's (Net 124 NC) rebuttal, stating, in
essence, that Mr. Butler is full of a brown, gooey substance
with a rather pungent odor. So, I thought I'd make the
circle complete, and post my own views on the matter in the
same open forum as these two gentlemen have.
First off, I originally entered FiodNet and Net 124 as an
unofficial point of The Music Connection @ 1:124/3109, around
December '91 or January '92, at which time I'd been running a
BBS for about three months. Robert Eskridge was the NC at
that time, and I had NODELIST.361 of that year. Well, I went
on to have a long and fulfilling stint as a point off of
3109, and two other nodes in Net 124. When the flow of
EchoMail, and the routing thereof became too much for me or
my system to handle reliably, I decided it was time to go all
the way and become a node.
Policy 4 states that a system that wishes to become a node,
that system must send a netmail request providing key
information about the system and the SysOp to Node 0 of the
nearest Net, or if there is no net in that area, the nearest
region (I'll leave out the rest, we've all read it!). After
submitting the request, it is stated that two weeks should be
given for the NC to process the application. No where in the
document does it state that a system will be subject to a
netmail "test" if you will, where a connect must be made
within two days or the application won't get processed, nor
was I given any notice of this practice. Also, as a point, I
was not by policy obligated to have my mailer functional and
available during ZMH.
I sent off my request to what my nodelist said was 1:124/0,
and BOOM! wrong node. Well, I found this out second hand
via one of my other bossnodes, so "Oops! Guess I'd better
resend!" Which I proceeded to obtain a recent nodelist (not
an easy task at [ick!] 2400bps) and do. However, strike two,
I mis-read my nodelist and swapped the Net 124 NEC's name for
the NC's name (all these damned abbreviations! <grin>) So,
again, it got sent to the wrong node, BUT, I did receive a
netmail response to this message from Mr. Perry, quoting to
me the same block of Policy I'd read about ten times to be
sure I wasn't wreaking havoc with the net. "No problem"
thinks I, "I'll send ONE more just to be sure." which I did.
FidoNews 9-38 Page 14 21 Sep 1992
Time goes by, still no node number, no notification of
anything, and more and more mail routing difficulties. Even
though, as stated earlier, as a point, I'm not obligated to
have my mailer available during ZMH, nor is it stated in
policy that to obtain a node number I must do so. More time
went by, more frustration as I still do not have a node
number.
Two weeks (14 days) almost to the hour after I sent my third
(and correctly routed) application to 124/0, I sent an
inquiry asking what had happened to my application, to my
understanding, another of my bossnodes who was going down and
subsequently cutting my feed, had forwarded a message to Mr.
Perry concerning my node number application before I sent
my own inquiry. I never got a response to either.
Finally, after four weeks, twice as long as Policy 4 states
it SHOULD take, Mr. Butler got tired of hearing me complain
(patience has never been one of my strong points, but I do
try), he posted his article in the FidoNews. Approximately
two days later, I awoke to find my node number waiting for
me.
The point I'm attempting to make (besides correcting
misinterpretations in BOTH articles) is that it shouldn't
take an article in an international publication to get a
simple node number, nor should I have to unknowingly subject
my system to any "testing" by the NC. If notification had
been given to me that I would have to have my mailer
operational during ZMH to obtain a node number, I would've
done so (It was available anyway, I run a CM node, and who in
their right mind BBSes at 4am?) but the very least I expected
was to be told what was needed for me to become a node.
As for Mr. Butler, I appreciate his concern for my standing
in the net, and for the fairness of the NC and people
involved. I have my node number, my setup works, and works
well, and I'm happy. As to Mr. Perry, I would've liked SOME
notice that my system would be "tested" during ZMH (is there
something wrong here?), but again, I got my node number, and
I'm happy. Personally, I do not feel that this issue needs
to be taken any farther, and for the sake (and what's left of
the sanity) of the rest of the Net, and the readers here,
let's consider it ended.
And as for policy, when is that document going to be re-
written, if it's as outdated as Mr. Perry claims, why hasn't
it been revised yet?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 9-38 Page 15 21 Sep 1992
Jack Decker
Fidonet 1:154/8
THE END OF ALL PROBLEMS IN FIDONET
I keep reading about all the conflicts that arise in Fidonet, and I've
been around long enough to realize that these are the same old
conflicts with new people. Do you want to know how to end these
conflicts once and for all? Everyone's looking for the one solution
to these problems, when in fact there is no one solution. Rather, the
following needs to happen:
1) New message packet type designed and put into use netwide. This
packet type should have ALL control information at the TOP of the
message (no SEENBY's, PATH lines, VIA lines or anything else at the
bottom), and should not limit "envelope" information to a certain
format - in particular, no fixed-length binary headers such as we
have now. History has proven that if you try to pre-define a header,
it won't be long until someone will figure out a new type of control
information that just has to be in messages, and we'll wind up right
back with kludge lines. I'd like to see something that is at very
least easily convertible to, if not totally compatible with, UseNet
message headers, since there is more and more interest in exchanging
conferences between Fidonet and UseNet. In any case, we need to get
rid of SEENBY's and use a better method of duplicate message
detection/prevention.
2) Some way to enforce software compatibility. Right now, folks, a
LOT of the messages that YOU have spent precious hours typing are
going into the bit bucket because each software author does things a
little differently, and many software program will "throw away" any
message that doesn't meet its particular idea of what a "real"
message should look like. In part this is due to the royally screwed
up message format we are now using, as mentioned above... nobody
seems to be able to code to specifications! We need to be able to
tell software authors things like "your program WILL handle extra
long messages without truncating them, inserting 'funny' bytes into
them, grunging the packet they are written to, or crashing and
destroying the entire message base, or it will NOT be used in
Fidonet."
3) Address any other technical problems that we may have at the
technical level, so that the political types don't feel obliged to
pass rules to protect us from things that the software should guard
against (e.g. "dupe loops"). Then we can have...
4) A *short* and *simple* Policy document, that imposes as few
burdens on sysops as possible, and that clearly defines our amateur
status. It should be made very clear that you are not REQUIRED to do
anything in Fidonet (other than perhaps be up for Zone Mail Hour,
should we decide that is still necessary) but if you VOLUNTEER, that
does NOT give you the right to strong-arm anyone else into doing
ANYTHING... not paying you money, not getting mail from you, nothing.
We've tried forcing people to associate with other people in certain
circumstances and it just doesn't work, at least in many cases. And,
people simply WILL NOT READ a long Policy document, let alone
FidoNews 9-38 Page 16 21 Sep 1992
remember what it says. Policy should be one page or less, two at the
absolute maximum, and should mainly deal with enforcing technical
compliance and the procedure for banning incompatible software from
the net!
5) An end to geographic territories and/or other restrictions that
force sysops to join a certain net or get mail from a particular
source. Think about it, folks... which large company do many of you
hate the most (if some of the messages I see are any indication)?
For many sysops, it's the local phone company, and the big gripe is
that because there's no competition, the phone company doesn't have
to care. In many cases the phone service isn't even all that bad,
but many of us resent the fact that we are forced to deal with only
one supplier of that service and don't have the opportunity to take
our business elsewhere if our local telco isn't nice to us, or gives
poor service, or doesn't fix problems, or charges rates that are too
high.
Yet in Fidonet we have a system that presents exactly the same
problems... we set up geographic nets and then tell sysops that they
must obtain "service" only from the net serving their geographic
area, and that even if they feel that the service is poor, the rates
are too high, or the folks providing the service are mean or
incompetent, they can't go elsewhere. UseNet doesn't do this, and
they are much larger than we are, and thewy certainly aren't falling
apart or drowning in duplicate messages.
If there was ever any rationalle for making an idol out of geography,
it was as a way of trying to limit the spread of duplicate echomail
messages. Get the software fixed to kill dupes properly, and the
argument for geographic divisions of Fidonet (which was pretty thin
to start with) evaporates completely. So you do away with the
geographic restrictions, and suddenly the tyrants know that they
can't force anyone to do anything or to follow their every edict.
I will say once more that the current system DOES NOT WORK. The best
proof is the amount of mail (both echomail and netmail) that simply
does not get delivered properly. If you enjoy spending precious
hours typing to nobody, this may not bother you. But it sure bothers
a lot of us. I'm at the point where I try to send mail via the
Internet wherever possible because Fidonet netmail is SOOOO
unreliable (unless you send it direct via crashmail, and why do you
even need Fidonet if you have to send messages direct?).
Anyway, I've been saying all this for years and no one listens. No
one ever listens, which is why we'll probably be reading about these
political disputes well into the 21st century. As for me, I'm taking
only a small fraction of the number of Fidonet echoes that I used to,
and a lot more UseNet newsgroups. Draw your own conclusions.
FidoNews 9-38 Page 17 21 Sep 1992
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Zwaschka
JOBS_BBS
Portland, Oregon USA
1:105/54
About four years ago, the JOBS-NOW echo was established to provide
a source of job listing to the members and users of FidoNet. The
echo rules allow job listings only, so readers need not sift through
discussion, resumes, etc. to identify employment opportunities. The
echo is also closely moderated to minimize posts that are scams, or
not genuine job openings.
The JOBS-NOW echo's volume has increased significantly in the last few
weeks. Bona fide job offerings have increased from a monthly low of
less than 200 (Spring of '92) to over 950 as of today (9-19- 92).
This gives me some cause for optimism -- folks are getting hired
and the economy might be crawling back on it's feet.
This also presents a problem.
JOBS-NOW is now a high traffic echo. It is not reasonable to expect
sysops to keep a hundreds of offerings available on their systems.
The chance that the "offer you can't refuse" will get deleted
before you see it is high.
I have decided, after YEARS of refusal, to make the entire JOBS-NOW
message base available for download here at the JOBS-BBS. It can be
FREQ'd (points and non-Fido nodes welcome), or downloaded manually.
The file contains ALL messages in JOBS-NOW for the last thirty days
-- including off topic posts, moderator's rules, etc. For now it
will be in *.msg format, but I will be looking at other options.
The JOBS_BBS does not accept file requests from 00:01 to 02:15 PST.
The most current file (compiled at 12:15 am daily) is called
JOBOFFER.ARJ. I will also make each months files available in this
format: jobsxxyy.arj, where xx=year and yy = month. The September
file (8-15 to 9-19-92) is called JOBS9209.ARJ. Future files will be by
calendar month.
First time callers should be able to download the file if they are
calling with high speed modems. The BBS is too busy to allow dial up
downloads at speeds lower than 9600.
Sysops who make these files available for FREQ or to dial up users
may post that information in JOBS-NOW or JOBS no more than every
thirty days.
FidoNews 9-38 Page 18 21 Sep 1992
Questions, comments, ideas to improve or make the service more
automagic? Please post them in the JOBS echo or netmail. NOT in
JOBS-NOW. Let's keep JOBS-NOW as close as possible to 100% job
offerings only.
******EMPLOYERS -- HEADHUNTERS -- PERSONNEL MANAGERS******
If you have a current, or soon to be open bona fide (as defined by
the rules of the JOBS-NOW echo) job opening, JOBS-NOW is a viable
place to list it. Most listings are for computer
professionals, but that is changing, and folks with many other
vocations read the echo. Be sure to list a way other than netmail
or in the echo for applicants to contact you -- it is against the
rules to apply in the public echo. It also helps to read the echo
rules before posting <grin>.
There are a lot of motivated, highly skilled, hard working folks
here in Fidoland -- Why not hire one of them for YOUR team? After
all, you can't beat the advertising cost!
********************************
To the skeptics in the crowd: Yes, I am a headhunter. Yes, I make
my living placing folks in jobs. No, I don't profit from the BBS or
the JOBS or JOBS-NOW echo. I don't even list my searches on 'em.
Thinking about sending me your resume? I specialize in searches for
the FOOD PROCESSING industry. Unless you have 3 or more years
recent experience IN THE FOOD PROCESSING INDUSTRY or a food processing
oriented degree, you are wasting your money, hopes and my time.
Ken Zwaschka
Certified Personnel Consultant
Moderator, JOBS-NOW
Co-Moderator, JOBS
Sysop, JOBS_BBS, Portland, Oregon USA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Penner
95:95/0@isig
1:351/410@fidonet.org
ISIG - A Vision of the Future
Having started SIGnet a few years ago and watched it grow at an
unbelievable rate and then watching some of the dark folds appear
in it, I decided to leave SIGnet and form ISIG. ISIG was
created with the concept that it could be a major supplement to
FidoNet and provide an easy access to visible change and
innovation that FidoNet, due to its massive size, can not always
supply. The following is a small introduction to the ISIG
vision. We are looking to grow and we are looking for your
participation.
FidoNews 9-38 Page 19 21 Sep 1992
Second wave organizations are built for growth, with a
more-of-the-same attitude and no appreciation for change. They
lack flexibility, creativity and innovation. It is this kind of
organization that generally has a high turnover of members, low
to moderate moral, and no innovation. Very seldom do these
organizations pioneer anything anymore. Instead, they follow
the tried and true method of operation.
To assist in success, ISIG must adopt the strategies of a third
wave organization. The source of ISIG's strength lies in change
- in the ability to transform our services and organization in
response to changes in the economy, in social habits, and in
member interests. ISIG should not become trapped into trying to
capture interest, but instead, we must create interest.
ISIG, due to its size and attitude, must resist a hierarchy and
create a management network. Organization should be a process
rather than a structure. Modular groups should be established
to take on specific tasks such as advertising campaigns, new
service development, service enhancements, technical structures,
and even basic operating policies.
Management in third wave organizations are still responsible for
setting the agenda. They decide what is going to be important
and decide where resources will go. The leader's job is to
empower their sub-networks, and to establish and inspire these
powerful think groups.
The following points are the positive results of ISIG adopting
the third wave organization strategy:
Traditional organization becomes sub networks of the
organization
Resultant output from the organization shall come from
interest creation instead of interest share
Operation focus is deinstitutionalized and is more
individualized
Style is not structured and is more flexible
The source of strength is from change instead of stability
Structure is not successful by self-efficiency but instead
by network interdependencies
Culture is not traditional but changes with the people and
attitudes
Leadership is inspirational instead of dogmatic
The advantage is by having a meaningful difference, not by
a better sameness
Motivation is not to complete but to build
Set directions instead of goals
Don't define ISIG's identity, instead, make it
recognizable
FidoNews 9-38 Page 20 21 Sep 1992
Second wave organizations are simply in the business of getting
bigger. Third wave organizations are more interested in
finding a better way. ISIG, simply put, has a chance to
completely change the world. With innovative ideas and an
innovative strategy, there is absolutely no limit as to what it
can do.
Innovation must be constant in order to keep the member's
attention. Changes and innovation are by-products of networks
and think groups. ISIG must exist for their people, the
lifeblood, not the other way around. Product think groups which
include high standing members of the customer base have proven to
be highly successful and usually result in some of the best
selling ideas in their field.
Second wave people are motivated by power. Third wave people are
motivated by commitment to an ideology, the chance to change the
world, the chance to grow as a person. As a result, third wave
people are more likely to take the risks that produce innovation.
They are playing according to their own standards, and these new
high standards become the organization's standards. Giving
people the trust and freedom to be creative and to make a
difference will cause them to raise their standards and will
more often than not, produce exciting results. Their attitudes
are based on the possible, not the actual. In order for this
idea to succeed, basic goals must be given to the network
managers and they must be left to create their think groups and
produce results. Again, it allows for individualism and
creativity.
This kind of structure is called buy-in management. It is a
group decision making process that recognizes individuals
regardless of where they reside in the organization. Buy-in
doesn't allow for compromise. If someone has an idea, he or
she is obligated to sell and persuade others that it's important.
It causes people to think and work hard to get their ideas
across. Ideas and decisions can originate anywhere - not from
the top down as in second wave organizations. Because think
groups form the participation for buy-in, no one person is more
superior than another. Buy-in encourages unfettered group
discussion of attitudes, policies, and ideas. Ideas,
discussions and concerns are not squelched. Success is
inevitable because everyone has a stake in all decisions and a
vital role in them. Along with the privilege to make a
difference goes the responsibility to make a difference -
everyone has got to make a contribution.
For more information, freq ISIGKIT from 1:351/410@fidonet.org.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 9-38 Page 21 21 Sep 1992
======================================================================
FIDONEWS INFORMATION
======================================================================
------- FIDONEWS MASTHEAD AND CONTACT INFORMATION ----------------
Editors: Tom Jennings, Tim Pozar
Editors Emeritii: Thom Henderson, Dale Lovell, Vince Perriello
"FidoNews" BBS
FidoNet 1:1/1
Internet fidonews@fidonews.fidonet.org
BBS (415)-863-2739 (2400 only until further notice!)
(Postal Service mailing address) (have patience)
FidoNews
c/o World Power Systems
Box 77731
San Francisco
CA 94107 USA
Published weekly by and for the members of the FidoNet international
amateur electronic mail system. It is a compilation of individual
articles contributed by their authors or their authorized agents. The
contribution of articles to this compilation does not diminish the
rights of the authors. Opinions expressed in these articles are those
of the authors and not necessarily those of FidoNews.
Authors retain copyright on individual works; otherwise FidoNews is
copyright 1992 Tom Jennings. All rights reserved. Duplication and/or
distribution permitted for noncommercial purposes only. For use in
other circumstances, please contact the original authors, or FidoNews
(we're easy).
OBTAINING COPIES: The-most-recent-issue-ONLY of FidoNews in electronic
form may be obtained from the FidoNews BBS via manual download or
Wazoo FileRequest, or from various sites in the FidoNet and Internet.
PRINTED COPIES may be obtained from Fido Software for $10.00US each
PostPaid First Class within North America, or $13.00US elsewhere,
mailed Air Mail. (US funds drawn upon a US bank only.)
BACK ISSUES: Available from FidoNet nodes 1:102/138, 1:216/21,
1:125/1212, 1:107/519.1 (and probably others), via filerequest or
download (consult a recent nodelist for phone numbers).
INTERNET USERS: FidoNews is available via FTP from ftp.ieee.org, in
directory ~ftp/pub/fidonet/fidonews. If you have questions regarding
FidoNet, please direct them to fidoinfo@fidoinfo.fidonet.org, not the
FidoNews BBS.
SUBMISSIONS: You are encouraged to submit articles for publication in
FidoNews. Article submission requirements are contained in the file
ARTSPEC.DOC, available from the FidoNews BBS, or Wazoo filerequestable
from 1:1/1 as file "ARTSPEC.DOC".
FidoNews 9-38 Page 22 21 Sep 1992
"Fido", "FidoNet" and the dog-with-diskette are U.S. registered
trademarks of Tom Jennings of Fido Software, Box 77731, San Francisco
CA 94107, USA and are used with permission.
Asked what he thought of Western civilization,
M.K. Gandhi said, "I think it would be an excellent idea".
-- END
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Reference in New Issue View Git Blame Copy Permalink