informis/textfiles
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
textfiles/bbs/FIDONET/FIDONEWS/fido1045.nws
root@procul 278a90f7ce Initial commit
2021-04-15 13:31:59 -05:00

1467 lines
74 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.10 No.45 (07-Nov-1993)
+----------------------------+-----------------------------------------+
| A newsletter of the | |
| FidoNet BBS community | Published by: |
| _ | |
| / \ | "FidoNews" BBS |
| /|oo \ | +1-519-570-4176 1:1/23 |
| (_| /_) | |
| _`@/_ \ _ | Editors: |
| | | \ \\ | Sylvia Maxwell 1:221/194 |
| | (*) | \ )) | Donald Tees 1:221/192 |
| |__U__| / \// | Tim Pozar 1:125/555 |
| _//|| _\ / | |
| (_/(_|(____/ | |
| (jm) | Newspapers should have no friends. |
| | -- JOSEPH PULITZER |
+----------------------------+-----------------------------------------+
| Submission address: editors 1:1/23 |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Internet addresses: |
| |
| Sylvia -- max@exlibris.tdkcs.waterloo.on.ca |
| Donald -- donald@exlibris.tdkcs.waterloo.on.ca |
| Tim -- pozar@kumr.lns.com |
| Both Don & Sylvia (submission address) |
| editor@exlibris.tdkcs.waterloo.on.ca |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| For information, copyrights, article submissions, |
| obtaining copies and other boring but important details, |
| please refer to the end of this file. |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
========================================================================
Table of Contents
========================================================================
1. Editorial..................................................... 2
2. Articles...................................................... 3
Sysop Liability for Enroute (and/or Encrypted) Mail......... 3
Online Home Educator's Support Network...................... 8
TVNet is public/ALLFIX_REQ echo............................. 9
Consultants and Consulting Organizations Directory.......... 12
Hi!......................................................... 12
Reply to "The Spirit of Fidonet is Crying, Part 1".......... 13
The I95 (Interstate 95) and WHIRLYBIRDS Echoes.............. 14
Free Listings in the Encyclopedia of Associations........... 15
Glad to be of service....................................... 16
Just Say Yes to ",UUCP,".................................... 17
The Growth of Modern Trends in Organisational Control....... 17
A [for once brief] Response................................. 19
Articles of Faith........................................... 22
Reorganisation of UK Fido................................... 23
3. Fidonews Information.......................................... 25
FidoNews 10-45 Page: 2 07 Nov 1993
========================================================================
Editorial
========================================================================
We have a large issue this week, with many interesting
articles. The first article, written by Mike Riddle, was
accompanied by the file BBSLAW.ZIP. That file contains much of
interest to the average sysop, and is FREQable from our BBS.
Many thanks to Mike for lending us his expertise.
You may notice our snail mail address has changed. We're
still in the downtown core of Kitchener, but now have more room
for Bink and Squish [tiny fuzzies]. I hate moving. . And
sorry about the delay in correspondance, i'm a week behind, due
to moving and a fire at the gallery. All our paintings are
smoke-dammaged but no-body was hurt, thank goddess.
Accidental smoke colouring desn't bother me. Maybe i like
images more when they're weathered, affected by random
circumstance and fire. Fire is interesting as long as nothing
sensitive gets badly burned.
Recently we were reading "Small Fires Letters from the Soviet
People to Ogonyok Magazine 1987-1990" and thinking about the net.
Ogonyok was the name of a Soviet weekly magazine which published
extremely varied letters from readers, pushing the limits of
Perestroika and opening a forum for all kinds of previously suppressed
opinions. Kinda reminds me of Tom Jennings.
Even if issues of beurocratic/formal cencorship or social
taste/mores were humanely and non-repressively managed by big
wheels and little cogs, we would all still have to cope with
what the letters department of Ogonyok magazine refered to in
this book we were reading 'internal' cencorship. I love the
idea that anything goes and i can press a page down key or
whatever and be my own censor and not have to bully anyone into
saying only what i want to hear.
But i still have to wrestle with my own blindness and
stupidity and tendency to think in familiar patterns. I might
miss a lot if i don't try on a little bit various styles of
judgement to see whether or not i like them.
FidoNews 10-45 Page: 3 07 Nov 1993
========================================================================
Articles
========================================================================
Sysop Liability for Enroute (and/or Encrypted) Mail
Mike Riddle
1:285/27
[The following article is under submission. Reproduction on computer
bulletin boards is permitted for informational purposes only, provid-
ing that it remains intact with copy right notice and disclaimer.
Copyright (c) 1993 by Michael H. Riddle All other rights reserved.]
SYSOP LIABILITY FOR ENROUTE (AND/OR ENCRYPTED) MAIL
Recently email systems in general, and Fidonet in particular, have
seen a great deal of debate about the potential liability of sysops
for material entered on or passing through their systems. This
article attempts to discuss the laws, legal issues, and court deci-
sions known to bear on the subject.
While the law is unsettled on the liability of sysops for netmail on
their systems, enroute or otherwise, any liability attaches regardless
of enroute or encrypted status. Since liability, if any, increases
with actual sysop knowledge of the contents, encryption will not
increase any sysop liability and may, in fact, diminish it.
FACTS
Many individuals operate computer bulletin boards as a hobby. Many of
those bulletin boards (BBSes) are members of one or more networks,
passing messages in a store-and-forward manner using the public
switched telecommunications network. Many of those sysops have their
BBSes configured to allow private electronic mail to be routed through
their systems, either as a service to their users or as a requirement
of their membership and status in the network. Traditionally, such
"private" mail was stored on the system in a form that is readable by
the persons or entities operating the system. Depending on the
configuration and software involved, such private mail might be easily
read, or might be read only if a deliberate attempt to do so was made,
but in any event was available in ASCII format at some point, and/or
was stored using one of many compression schemes that could be read by
anyone with the proper software.
As a result of relatively recent technological developments, individu-
als now have the capability to encrypt data using their personal
computers, without using extraordinary amounts of time. Public key
cryptography systems, such as PEM or PGP, have been publicly released
and are seeing increasing use. The obvious result has been the use of
encryption for the contents of routed mail packets. For perhaps the
first time, sysops who route mail have started inquiring about their
liability for such mail, since the perception of safety that came from
a technical ability to read the mail is not present with encrypted
mail.
FidoNews 10-45 Page: 4 07 Nov 1993
CRIMINAL LAW
Sysops providing "private" mail service operate under the terms and
limitations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986
(ECPA) (18 U.S.C. ss 2510 et seq.). This section will, of necessity,
be somewhat "legalese." I've tried to make it as readable as possible
and still discuss the technical (in a legal sense) points that ought
to matter to sysops investigating their legal status.
Whether or not the ECPA appears to allow providers of "electronic" (as
opposed to "wire") communications the legal ability to monitor the
messages on their systems is a matter of some dispute. The best
answer is that the law on the subject is unclear. From the act:
"'wire communication' means any aural transfer ...." 18 USC 2510 (1).
On the other hand, "'electronic communication' means any transfer of
signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data, or intelligence of any
nature...." 18 USC 2510 (12). "It shall not be unlawful under this
chapter for an operator of a switchboard, or an officer, employee, or
agent of a provider of wire *or electronic* [Note 1: see discussion
below] communication service, whose facilities are used in the trans-
mission of a wire [Note 2: see discussion below] communication, to
intercept, disclose, or use that communication in the normal course of
his employment while engaged in any activity which is a necessary
incident to the rendition of his service or to the protection of the
rights or property of the provider of that service, except that a
provider of wire communication service to the public shall not utilize
service observing or random monitoring except for mechanical or
service quality control checks." 18 USC section 2510(2)(a)(i)
(emphasis added). One of the drafters of the act has indicated that
the exception limiting "wire," but not "electronic," communication
stems from the drafters' knowledge of the state of the art at that
time; however, the distinction is present in the law.
From this two arguments can be (and have been) made. First, that by
prohibiting only providers of "wire" communications from service
observing or random monitoring, the drafters did not intend "elec-
tronic" communications to be subject to the same restrictions and that
service observing or random monitoring of electronic communications
are not prohibited. But the counter-argument is that while the law
exempts "providers of wire or electronic communication service, whose
facilities are used in the transmission of a ... communication, the
exemption does not specifically allow for "electronic" communications,
only wire. There is an internal inconsistency caused by the failure
either to omit the two words *or electronic* [Note 1] or to include
them [Note 2] in section 2511(2)(a) at the points indicated by my
insertion of [see discussion below].
One of the drafters of the ECPA recently commented that the legisla-
tive history supports the position that electronic communications were
exempted from the act's general prohibitions; that is, the drafters
intended to place special protections on voice, normally telephone,
communications while allowing real-time monitoring of electronic
communications as defined by the act.
It now seems clear to me that there is a glitch in ECPA with
FidoNews 10-45 Page: 5 07 Nov 1993
regard to real time access for security purposes to elec-
tronic messages. 2511(2)(a) was supposed to allow monitor-
ing of electronic communications for security purposes by
the sysop -- the legislative history makes that clear and
distinguishes monitoring of voice which is more limited.
But the amendments failed, for technical reasons, to add
"and electronic communications" after the single reference
to "wire" -- so that the literal text now appears to read to
allow this type of security- based monitoring only with
regard to wire communications. There are some other argu-
ments [that would allow it]--but none is as bullet proof as
the section would have been if it had been written as I
think all intended.
This ambiguity is what led to the Department of Justice recommendation
that system administrators at government computer sites place explicit
disclaimers at logon, warning that keystroke monitoring or service
observation might be used, if they thought they would ever want to use
this technique.
The above discussion applies primarily to real-time monitoring. In
the only known decision construing the ECPA, the distinction between
"interception" (i.e., real-time monitoring) and "access to stored
communications" was essential to the holding that no "interception"
had taken place. Steve Jackson Games, Inc., v. U.S. Secret Service,
816 F. Supp. 432 (W.D. Tex. 1993). However, due to the nature of
store-and-forward mail, the mail remains in storage for some period,
and it is clear that the sysops legally have access to the material in
storage. However, sysops are limited in what they can do with their
knowledge, if any, of the mail in storage. With some limited excep-
tions, they may only disclose it to the sender or to the intended
recipient. They are required to disclose it pursuant to court orders
and subpoenas, but the ECPA gives particular instructions on how such
are to be obtained. And the sysops *may*, with respect to stored
communications, disclose the contents to a law enforcement agency if
the contents were *inadvertently* obtained *and* appear to involve the
commission of a crime. 18 USC 2702 (b)(6). The sysop also may
disclose the contents of a communication "as may be necessarily
incident to the rendition of the service or to the protection of the
rights or property of the provider of that service." 18 USC
2702(b)(5). Deleting any mail that does not comply with the sysop's
ideas of propriety or appropriateness is *not* specifically autho-
rized.
CIVIL LAW
The ECPA also provides for civil remedies by the person aggrieved by
an illegal disclosure of the contents of a private message.
18 U.S.C. 2707 et seq.
Over and above those limitations, the civil laws of forfeiture gener-
ally allow the government (state or federal) to seize property for
which probable cause exists to believe is the instrumentality of a
crime, and the lawful owner may attempt to recover in a civil action.
The burden of proof is upon the person claiming the interest in the
FidoNews 10-45 Page: 6 07 Nov 1993
property to prove the property was *not* the instrumentality of a
crime.
ANALYSIS
Many sysops post some kind of disclaimer, either as a bulletin or as
part of a service contract, formal or implied, that no "private" mail
exists on their system. A threshold question is "what is 'private
mail' for the purpose of the ECPA or any other law or civil action?"
Notwithstanding any bulletin or disclaimer, almost all mail software
asks or treats some messages as "private." In the Fidonet protocols,
there is a defined bit in the message which gives the privacy status,
thus giving rise to an expectation of privacy. Also, netmail is
generally readable only by the sender, intended recipient, and the
sysops involved.
Interestingly, the law does not protect "private" messages. It
protects *any* message that is "not public," in the words of the law,
any message not "readily accessible to the general public." "'Readily
accessible to the general public' means...that such communication is
not (A) scrambled or encrypted; [or] (B) transmitted using modulation
techniques whose essential parameters have been withheld from the
public with the intention of preserving the privacy of such communica-
tion...." 18 U.S.C. 2510(16).
This protection would, in my opinion, include all "netmail" or
"email," notwithstanding any disclaimers that "we don't have private
mail." The existence of areas for public discussion, using most of
the "bandwidth" of hobby BBSes, obscures the fact that the basis of
the system, be it Fidonet or Internet, is electronic mail. To refer
again to the ECPA: "A person or entity providing electronic communi-
cation service to the public may divulge the contents of any such
communication... (i) as otherwise authorized in section 2511(2)(a)
[readily accessible to the general public], (ii) with the lawful
consent of the originator or any addressee or intended recipient of
such communication; [or] (iii) to a person employed or authorized, or
whose facilities are used, to forward such communication to its
destination.... 18 U.S.C. 2511(3)(b).
Thus, except for messages in public discussion areas, all communi-
cations stored on a BBS (that is, netmail or email) are protected, the
nature of the software raising an expectation of privacy and that
privacy being protected by law. Note that exception (iii) covers
forwarding routed mail to the next link in the process.
A thorough reading of the ECPA reveals no requirement for a sysop to
voluntarily disclose the contents of a message to anybody. The law
does, as noted above, allow such disclosures under limited circum-
stances. What then are the sources of liability for sysops for
messages stored on their systems?
In the area of criminal law, liability might attach as a conspirator,
co-conspirator, accessory or accomplice. Note, however, that a "mens
rea," a criminal intent, is generally required for criminal liability.
FidoNews 10-45 Page: 7 07 Nov 1993
In the area of civil forfeitures, the mere fact that probable cause
existed to believe the system was an instrumentality of a crime is all
that is required for the seizure; however, as a practical matter,
seizures seem almost always to occur when there is probable cause (as
seen by the judicial system) to believe the owner is guilty of some-
thing.
How might a sysop protect themselves? First, note that disclosure to
law enforcement requires that the contents be inadvertently obtained.
An argument might exist that disclosure to law enforcement is also
allowed by the language that the sysop may disclose the contents of a
communication "as may be necessarily incident to the rendition of the
service or to the protection of the rights or property of the provid-
er of that service," 18 USC 2702(b)(5). The fact exists, however,
that the statute in other places specifically says the contents must
be inadvertently obtained to allow disclosure to law enforcement. As
a practical matter it might not matter, but one argument might be that
the sysop should *not* routinely monitor the contents, since disclo-
sure to law enforcement is only specifically authorized when knowledge
is inadvertent.
The argument can be made that, with respect to netmail, routed, direct
or crash, BBSes look most like common carriers, and therefore are, or
should be, exempt from liability for their contents. This argument is
strengthened when the BBS routinely gives access to routed netmail to
all users, or to any user who asks for it. This is because a true
common carrier has an obligation to handle traffic for anyone who
meets the requirements of the tariffs. Conversely, the BBS looks less
like a common carrier if relatively few users can access netmail. If
routed mail is added into the equation, the BBS begins to look more
like a relay point in a common carrier scheme when it grants relay
privileges to more and more other systems.
Note that in Cubby v. Compuserve, 776 F. Supp. 135 (S.D.N.Y. 1991),
the court held Compuserve not liable for material on their system
unless they were shown to have actual knowledge and did not take
appropriate action. The court found them to be like booksellers, who
are similarly immune unless actual knowledge is shown. If sysops make
a practice, or state as their practice, the routine viewing of all
material on their system, the qualified immunity they arguably have is
destroyed.
ENCRYPTION (finally)
Note that whether or not the message was encrypted did not figure in
any of the above analysis, except that there is a reasonable presump-
tion that if it were encrypted it was not "readily accessible to the
general public." As applied to PEM and PGP, this would, it seems,
exclude "signed" mail as long as it was not "encrypted" as well. When
considering the impact of encryption, we must note that normally for
criminal law to attach, knowledge (intent) is a prerequisite. For
seizure, there must at least be probable cause that the system was
used in the planning or commission of a crime. In either of those
cases, with respect to the sysop, encrypted messages tend to disprove
the elements: you can't show knowledge if the sysop can't read the
FidoNews 10-45 Page: 8 07 Nov 1993
traffic, and you can't prove the system was used in a crime if you
can't read the traffic.
Law enforcement might be able to show the encrypted contents were
illegal if they could obtain the decrypted messages and trace back the
route; however, if a system ran in "pass-through" mode there would at
least be a question of proving the system was actually used. If the
system ran in toss and rescan, and if the message hadn't deleted due
to age or number of messages, then you could show the message was on
the system. But you still couldn't show the sysops had knowledge,
making it less likely they would be perceived as somehow "guilty" of
something. This last point is enhanced if it can be shown that the
system routinely routed mail for any and all parties.
CONCLUSION
The question of sysop liability for messages stored on or passing
through their system is unsettled. Sysop liability might attach as
part of a criminal act, but knowledge is required and the fact of
encryption would, when the sysop could not read the message, tend to
disprove knowledge. Liability might attach in the form of civil
forfeiture, but again lack of knowledge makes the sysop appear less
"blameworthy." While guilt is not an element of civil forfeiture, the
conventional wisdom is that forfeiture is only used when guilt of some
kind has attached, at least in the mind of law enforcement, to the
owner of the property. The more a sysop and system look like a common
carrier, handling traffic without knowledge of the contents, the less
likely they are to be subject to some sort of liability for their
actions. Finally, the use of public key encryption does not appear
increase their liability, and might in some circumstances decrease it.
For the reasons stated above, it is my conclusion that systems routing
mail should use pass-through where available, and should specifically
allow, and even encourage, the use of public key encryption as a
measure to limit their liability in case they are used in some ques-
tionable manner.
[The author is an attorney licensed to practice in the state and
federal courts of Nebraska. While he has studied the issues fairly
extensively, the comments apply generally to persons within the United
States and he is not giving legal advice to any particular person.
Finally, this memorandum does not address International Traffic in
Arms Regulations (ITAR) (22 CFR 120 ff) applicable to the export
and/or import of cryptographic software. No one should rely upon the
following without consulting their own attorney for advice on their
particular question or problem.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Online Home Educator's Support Network
by Ronald J. Bowden
FIDO 1:207/210
As Home Education grows, the needs and goals of those involved are
changing. Imagine - a few years ago, one of the primary goals of
FidoNews 10-45 Page: 9 07 Nov 1993
a support group was to locate another Home Educator in the same
county, and what an astounding find if one were actually in the same
city. Now several groups of Home Educators exists in most major
cities and the need is one of learning how to assist one another
and get along together in a relationship of support and understanding.
Just a few years ago, most people in our communities had never heard
of Home Education. Now it is difficult to find anyone that doesn't
personally know at least one Home Schooling family. We are past the
point of introducing Home Schooling to our communities; now we must
become a viable part of them!
As home education grows, so does the burden of those in leadership.
Leaders have a special mission: constantly giving of ones self to
guide others. This guidance may be in the form of counseling on
how to home educate, working to develop a good image of home
education in the community, organizing group events and setting
policies and keeping track of legal issues, or just listening and
encouraging a new home schooling parent.
HomeNet - the Online Support Network - offers encouragement and help
to Home Educators. Each leader has different needs, depending on his
area of the world, type of group, leadership experience and how much
help from within their own group is available. Our focus is to
provide information and encouragement, and most of all, a connection
to others that share your call to leadership. It is impossible for
us to meet all the needs of each leader or home educator but by
joining together we can meet those needs.
HomeNet offers a variety of information to aid Home Educators. We
are developing and maintaining a list of Home Education related
BBSs across the world. If you are a Home Education focused BBS or
if Home Education plays a part on your system please forward
information so when we receive inquiries from your area they can
be referred. We are attempting to gather the best in educational
shareware and public domain programs to aid the Home Educator. We
are constantly on the look out for programs and products that will
benefit home schoolers. We offer several conferences from different
networks on Home Education and are presently in the infant stages of
establishing the Home Educators Network dedicated to the support
of Home Schoolers.
If you are interested in becoming a part of this new but soon
to be viable source of information in the Home Education Community
FREQ HOMENET.APP from 1:207/210 or mail a self-addressed stamped
envelope to 14962 Bear Valley Road, Suite G-242, Victorville, CA
92392 for a hard copy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
TVNet is public/ALLFIX_REQ echo
by Todd Vierling (1:371/46, 2001:2001/0)
Of course you probably wonder what the 2001:2001/0 is. Zone 2001 is
where "my own" private network lives. But due to a few sysops and
FidoNews 10-45 Page: 10 07 Nov 1993
users here and there wanting these specialised echos, TVNet has gone
public.
TVNet is a Fido/QWK technology based network that is not meant to
preempt FidoNet or any other network. Mainly, TVNet is just a
smaller network to hold echos that "just aren't good enough yet" for
the FidoNet backbone. Sysops in TVNet that do not have a FidoNet node
number are seriously frowned upon; TVNet is meant as a supplement of
FidoNet only.
So why say this in the Snooze? (This is not a good term; Sylvia,
Don, and Tim put together a VERY nice newsletter...) Mainly to
publicize TVNet's ALLFIX_REQ echo. The moderator of the FILE_REQ
echo has declared that Allfix search requests are not allowed in
that echo. The ALLFIX_REQ echo has been in TVNet since before TVNet
went public, but it seems that this echo may become popular.
What is Allfix? Allfix handles mail and file networks like most
tossers and Tick programs but the feature mentioned above that many
other Allfix-clone programs now have the ability to do is search
filelists from requests posted in an echomail area and automatically
reply back stating where the files are available for FREQ. This can
seriously clutter an echo not designed for it and so ALLFIX_REQ was
created, but was not originally intended to become public. But the
availability of such a feature can also greatly increase
communication (isn't it those Newton commercials that say all we
need is more communication?).
TVNet still has <10 nodes but is growing. Of course, TVNet has more
than just the ALLFIX_REQ echo. Others available:
[List updated 31-Oct-93]
Current message echos (all currently low traffic, of course):
ALLFIX_REQ Allfix and allfix-clone file requests
CLASSIC_COMP Classic Computers (C64/128, TI, Atari XL,
Apple II, etc)
CLASSIC_SALE Classic computers for sale or trade
COMPUTER_WAR Computer war! Let it all out, as long as it's
CLEAN.
ECHO_SUGGEST New echo suggestions and TVNet comments
INTER_PLAT Inter-platform development/programming
ODD_PROG_LANG Odd programming languages
TVNET_SYSOPS TVNet sysops echo. For SYSOPS only; required
reading 8^) (new echos, other announcements)
Current file echos:
CLASSIC_C64 C64/C128 file distribution network
INTER_FILES Inter-platform development files
For a more complete information package about TVNet, FReq magic-name
TVNET from 1:371/46. I don't anticipate linkupos outside the U.S.
until hubs become established, but if you want to hookup anyway I'd
be glad to feed. Also until hubs are established nodes will have to
distribute echos amongst themselves or by once a week polls to
1:371/46 (2001:2001/0). Hopefully in the near future some Usenet
FidoNews 10-45 Page: 11 07 Nov 1993
newsgroups can be gated in for the Fido community to read, and maybe
other ehos from different networks can be gated too. But whatever
the case, TVNet has room for expansion.
And, as a last note, TVNet's credo:
"We will never forget Tom Jennings."
----------------------------------------------------------------------
+-----ADVERTISEMENT-----------ADVERTISEMENT-----------ADVERTISMENT-----+
| |
| ICEA ECHO NOW AVAILABLE |
| |
| This echo is part of the communications network of the |
| International Computer End-Users' Alliance |
| and is to provide a means for all computer users, personal |
| and corporate to voice concerns about unfair trade and marketing |
| practices within the industry, standards and compatibilities, |
| support issues and like subjects of interest to computers users. |
| |
| The International Computer End-Users' Alliance is a newly founded |
| membership-driven organization, committed to establishing uniform |
| standards, practices and policies to ensure fair treatment of the |
| computer consumer, thus ensuring a marketplace that is fair for |
| manufacuters/publishers and consumers alike. |
| |
| MEMBERSHIP IS NOT REQUIRED IN ICEA TO CARRY OR PARTICIPATE IN THE |
| ICEA ECHO ON FIDONET. AS IS FIDONET, ICEA ECHO IS FREELY AVAILABLE. |
| |
| ICEA Echo is now available to interested sysops simply who wish to |
| poll for it and it is hoped to have ICEA on the backbone within |
| the next six months. An ICEA membership information pakage file |
| is available for FREQ at 1:252/120 with the magic name ICEA |
| should you wish to learn a bit more about ICEA before arranging |
| to carry the echo. If you do, it is hoped you will also re-post |
| this file for your users, but this posting is not necessary. |
| |
| To arrange a session password, contact me by Netmail at 1:252/120 |
| and I will respond via DIRECT netmail with your session password. |
| You will be polling for the echo at 1:252/100, a Hub in the |
| Georgian Bay Net, located in Barrie, Ontario. |
| |
|Your interest and support is most appreciated. Thanks for considering|
| the ICEA Echo! |
| |
| Don Kettle, Moderator |
| ICEA |
| |
+----------------------A D V E R T I S E M E N T-----------------------+
FidoNews 10-45 Page: 12 07 Nov 1993
Consultants and Consulting Organizations Directory
by Nigel Allen (1:250/438)
Consultants and Consulting Organizations Directory
If you run a consulting business in the United States or
Canada, you may want to get it listed free of charge in the
Consultants and Consulting Organizations Directory.
To request a questionnaire for the directory, just write
to the following address:
Consultants and Consulting Organizations Directory
Editorial Services Limited
P.O. Box 6789
Silver Spring, Maryland 20916
telephone (301) 871-5280
fax (301) 871-9538
If you run a training business, contact the Training and
Development Organizations Directory at the same address and
request a questionnaire for that directory.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: andrzej bacinski (2:480/33.17)
Hi!
I am a young (ooops... I was young when I started to use my modem,
now I am just 18) SysOp at 2:480/31. I would like to tell something
to FIDONEWS' readers. I would like to tell you my recent story which
has started not so long ago and it is still happening!!!
I started OPEN THE SKY BBS about more than a year ago in one of the
secendary schools in Warsaw. Note, I has never been a student of that
school. I lent my own private modem 2400, installed required
software, organised a line etc. (you know, what makeing a BBS is). I
had one boy from that school to help me - Piotr Kaczorowski. He knew
nothing about modeming and just a bit about computers. The BBS became
a FIDO NODE. It was a great day, but that boy was really upset there
was my, not his, name in NODELIST. I started to teach him about the
idea of FidoNet, about using modem, mailer etc. We, it means Warsaw
SysOps, organised even an examination for him for becaming a SysOp!
He had to know that the most important thing (for me!) in FidoNet is
- WE ARE TO HELP EACH OTHER.
Now, I see how blind I was! His biggest wish was to have HIS name in
NODELIST. Poor guy, thought (and thinks now!) everybody in FidoNet is
looking at NODELIST thinking: "Oooo! There is a _Sir_ SysOp in
Warsaw, his name is X.Y. He must be a wise man...". We know it is
rubbish. For him it was not important that he had the same rank in
Remote Access.
One day, just a few days ago, I was given a note, that I am stupid,
he (that boy) doesn't want me at all, he is much better in computers
FidoNews 10-45 Page: 13 07 Nov 1993
than I am, and he wrote I am not a SysOp at 2:480/31 no more. I think
it is called "rebellion" or "revolt" in English, isn't it?! The thing
everybody of you would do is sending him out of BBS (Rank 0)
forever... My problem is I have no phisical access to BBS computer
now. (As I said I am not a student in that school). He changed every
single password in the system and set my rank very low...
What can I do? I informed all SysOp in Poland about that thing and
asked them not to process UDRQ nor FREQ from that system.
I would like to say SORRY to every FidoNet member. Sorry, I failed. I
didn't teach him enough for him to understand the idea of FidoNet.
Now, I feel like a small child. I was chetead because I trusted
somebody!!!
I hope all of you understand, that I am not upset because of loosing
BBS I built myself but because of being useless to my own pupil!
People who read this article/letter, please, HELP EACH OTHER!!!
(P.S. For every single word in this article I have a proof.)
Andrzej Bacinski
2:480/31 ???????
2:480/33.17
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply to "The Spirit of Fidonet is Crying, Part 1"
Curtis Jewell, 1:296/7
I don't see Tony Dunlap's reasoning (in Fidonews 10-44) about why public
key cryptography programs should not be used to clear-sign echomail
messages, and allow convienent verification, as suggested in Mike
Riddle's proposal in FidoNews 10-42. His reasons seem to be three in
number.
1: Clear-signing would not be useful to many echomail users.
Answer: This is the one point I can see being correct. The use of
clear-signing is not appropriate for all users or on all echos. This is
why the proposal as drafted allows the moderator to state if he allows
or requires clear-signing of messages, or does not want clear-signed
messages in his echo.
2: Clear-signing would increase long-distance fees by an inordinate
amount because of the additional clear-signing information.
Answer: If you had a large amount of traffic in an echo where clear-
signing is required, it probably would, but then, a sysop can vote with
the feet and not carry the echo. The most common case, however, would be
an echo that allowed clear-signing, but didn't require it. I am going to
assume Tony Dunlap's example of a 300 message packet, but with 10% (a
guess) of the messages being clear-signed. In this case, only 9,450
FidoNews 10-45 Page: 14 07 Nov 1993
bytes would be added to his message packet. A good compressor should
decrease this to less than 5,000 bytes, which shouldn't be a real
problem unless a sysop was calling long-distance at 2400 baud, and then
it would only add one minute to the long-distance bill every so often.
2: Clear-signing would increase long-distance fees by an inordinate
amount because of the neccessity for transmission of public-keys.
Answer: Public keys can also be made available through file-request or
through echos (file or message) that are dedicated for the purpose. A
sysop would not be required to carry these echos, so long-distance fees
would be increased by this method only if a system operator wanted to
get a public keys echo or request public keys.
This is my humble opinion. Send messages of support or (nice)
disagreements to 1:296/7. If you have a SecureMail hub in your net, send
it via him, as I support the SecureMail concept, and am a SecureMail hub
myself. Send flames to a:\dev\nul, 1:18/98, 2:2/0, 2:24/0, or 2:25/0.
Those last four addresses deserve whatever flames they get for their
previous actions, IMHO. (I was kidding about sending them mine.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The I95 (Interstate 95) and WHIRLYBIRDS Echoes
By Rick Lembree (1:326/209.0)
I95 (Short for Interstate 95) is a "chat" echo that was initially
conceived by some Maine and Massachusettes SysOps to attempt a link
of the Eastern states along I-95 for informal discussion.
Good idea, I think, but the only problem was the SysOps who started
all this either dropped out of Fido or disappeared off the face of the
Earth, essentially leaving the echo abandoned and in sorry shape. The
links between Massachusettes and New Hampshire/Maine were broken for
a long time, and I was trying to figure out why. When that problem was
solved and I got the links restored, I took it upon myself to enter it
into the Elist and try to get some activity going again. The good
news is, it worked! Maine, New Hampshire and Massachusettes are now
enjoying a flame free chat echo with pleasing, friendly conversation
about anything under the sun (Within reason, of course... flames are
'nipped in the bud' and no vulgarities are allowed.). Because I have
operated Harbour Lights since 1984, you can rest assured that this is
not a fly-by-night echo, or that I will abandon this anytime soon. I
am as serious about this as one can be about getting an echo on the
backbone and maintaining it.
The bad news is, I'm having trouble linking the rest of the states
along "The Big Road" without attempting to go backbone. We want to
try to keep this as exclusive to the BBS's along Interstate 95 as
possible (for what may or may not be obvious reasons). Nevertheless,
I have requested backbone status (I think - my feed's hard drive
went `South' and I'm not sure if even my areafix went through before
I sent in the request via ZEC. If that's the case, I'll do it
again...)
FidoNews 10-45 Page: 15 07 Nov 1993
Please feel free to contact me if you are interested in this echo and
would like to participate until we are able to get this backboned. It
is available now via NET101 and NET326.
If you are interested, in helping us get this on the backbone,please
contact your NEC to forward your request to the REC.
While I am at it and hopefully have your attention, I am also making
an attempt to get WHIRLYBIRDS on the backbone. This is an echo for
helicopter enthusiasts, from the full size "war birds", to the radio
controlled variety and everything in between. We currently have about
fifteen BBS's linked up and the major players here are mostly pilots
and Vietnam Veterans who either rode or flew in the war.
Again, you are all cordially invited to pick up this echo from either
NET 101 or NET 326. We have many other BBS's linked throughout the
U.S. so contact me via NetMail and I will try to find a BBS closer to
you, that is already linked up. As with I95, this hopefully will be a
temporary link, until you are able to obtain this through the
backbone.
Thanks.
Rick Lembree,
Harbour Lights BBS - Oldest BBS in the State of Maine - Est. 1984
(207) 967-3719 16.8K DHST - 1:326/209.0@FidoNet.org
Moderator of:
GEOWORKS, I95, BOS_AMIGA, NE_AMIGA, NEAMY_SYSOP
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Listings in the Encyclopedia of Associations
by Nigel Allen (1:250/438)
Free Listings in the Encyclopedia of Associations
People who start new new non-profit associations (including
othernets, lobbying groups and associations having nothing to do
with BBSes) should get their group listed, free of charge, in
the Encyclopedia of Associations, so that prospective members,
journalists and researchers can get in touch with them.
Groups based in the U.S. should write to the following address
and ask to be listed:
Editor
Encyclopedia of Associations
Gale Research Inc.
835 Penobscot Building
Detroit, MI 48226-4094
Telephone (313) 961-2242
Fax (313) 961-6815
Groups based outside the United States should instead get listed
in International Organizations, a directory published by the same
company. Its address is:
Editor
International Organizations
FidoNews 10-45 Page: 16 07 Nov 1993
Gale Research Inc.
835 Penobscot Building
Detroit, MI 48226-4094
U.S.A.
Telephone +1 313 961-2242
Fax +1 313 961-6815
As well, groups based outside the United States may also want to
get listed in single-country association directories published
in their own country, such as the Directory of Associations in
Canada. Any librarian should be able to tell you how to get in
touch with your country's national association directory, if
one exists.
Most large libraries have a copy of the Encyclopedia of
Associations in hard copy or CD-ROM, but it is probably too
expensive for someone to buy for home use.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Glad to be of service
This is kind of funny. David Cupp (1:2215/150.2) suddenly finds
himself in the wrong forum, whines rather pendantically about it, and
then acts dismayed when the Moderator fixes his problems for him. If
I said that it's kind of cute, it wouldn't be so badly incorrect.
dc> It appears that this echo is nothing more than an excuse for
dc> foul mouthed teens and children, who want to use FidoNet as
dc> an Adult Equivalent Echo for Minors..
dc> I for one can't understand how this has happened and why it
dc> has been permitted to continue..
Relax, David. Moderator merely provided the service of delinking you
from a forum you didn't want to be linked to in the first place. The
Moderator is to be commended for helping people who find themselves
in the wrong echo to quickly find the exit.
"Glad to be of service" is the phrase, I believe.
dc> However, there is an issue that needs to be dealt with by
dc> FidoNet Officials..
These "FidoNet Officials" wouldn't be of the "Corrupt" variety, by
any chance? I merely ask. I'm also curious why you couldn't just
file a policy complaint somewhere. <smile> Hopefully the point has
not been lost in the rhetoric. For someone who wanted out and was
shown the door, you sure do complain greatly about getting exactly
what you asked for.
The Skeptic Tank. 1:102/890.0
Rev Fredric L. Rice, RCSG.
"The use of pepper is the only blasphemy." - Robert Curry
FidoNews 10-45 Page: 17 07 Nov 1993
Just Say Yes to ",UUCP,"
Stanton McCandlish, 1:109/1103, NitV-DC
I'd like to say I am fully supportive of the use of UUCP in the
"sysop name" field. Without this, gating mail to Internet
through the UUCP gates is a major hassle. I don't think anyone
really cares if the sysop's real name is in that field. *I* for
one could care less who J. Random Sysop is when I am using the
UUCP gates; they are not their for socializing, but, like
anonymous remailers and Internet email --> Usenet conference
gateways, are there for a specific, utilitarian purpose.
It strikes me as odd that in this week's nodelist, Jim
Northrup's name appears as "Jim Northr up"; this is certainly
not his real name, yet I don't see anyone having fits about it.
:)
To sum up, use of UUCP as a name field will save many people a
lot of time, and I'd like to point out that a precedent has
already been set by Editor (1:1/23) and some other "alias" nodes
that are well established and quite useful. FidoNet "names"
should be functional first, and "policy correct" last, IMNERHO.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Growth of Modern Trends in Organisational Control
OR
My bitch about fanatics, censorship and the hole
FIDO's currently falling into
russell cook 3:713/801@fidonet
Well people this is the first note I've ever written here. Being
a generally apathetic person I've never bothered to have my 2
cents worth at the crap that goes on in here. But ...... FIDO is
falling apart.... Everyone seems more interested in telling
others what to do than running their own system.
In the US in particular it seems everyone is more concerned about
having a nice set of rules so that they can tell everyone else
what to do. You poor guys have too many intolerants like Steve
Winters and too many intefering do-gooders like David Cupp for
your own good.
To Steve I have nothing to say - I hate fanatics end of story.
To David. Wake up man.. I've never seen or want to see the Flame
echo but I don't condemn it. What happened to it's a free
country/world ? If you don't like what is going on there go home.
But don't become the big brother that has to decide what's ok
for others and tell them how to run their shop.
I hate censorship next to fanaticsm (;-). What one person
believes is immoral, bad or destructive another may love. Just
because YOU don't like doesn't make it bad.
FidoNews 10-45 Page: 18 07 Nov 1993
And, David as for a veiled threat to suit someone because you
don't like the content of an echo - that's pathetic.
Can't anyone in the US [and yes I'm pickin on you guys cos' you
lead the word in this - and the rest of stupid world is following
you - us included :-(] live your life without calling for a
lawyer every 5 minutes.
I thought the best "democracy" in the world was supposed to be
the land of the free. Free to do what ? Cower in behind your
screens because you can't do what you want in you own home
without some stupid bastard wanting to suit ya ?
David excercise some common sense turn the echo off. Raise your
children to be *reasonable* and responisble people who'll have
their little flings/experiments with life as they're growing up
but turn out all right with decent guidance. Don't expect
everyone else to assume responsibility for your kids though. They
didn't have them :-).
But please don't resort to forcing YOUR views on others. If you
believe swearing/pornography/religon or whatever is not suitable
teach your kids that and why. But don't expect everyone else to
agree or to want to help you teach them. That's part of what
being an individual in a free country's about - free to have your
own views hobbies etc. And free to be responsible for yourself
but not everyone else.
Now to Zone 2. What a croc of shit. I think the best thing for
FIDO is to fragment into an internet style network but with NO
control. That'll remove the need for either the Classic versus
Wrestlemania FIDOs from Europe and maybe do away with half the
calls for rules coming out of the US.
It'll even allow breaking of the hallowed geographic rule.
Interpretation and application of this rule has caused more upset
and debate in Z3 and now Z2 than anything else.
At least we didn't have the struggles Z2 is having though. Our
Z3C may be a lawyer but he ain't half bad <g> (well Trev we have
actually agreed on a couple of things this year :-).
What's wrong with people? FIDO itself does very little. It
doesn't control echoes - the moderators do. It doesn't control
where you get echoes from - not in policy 4 anyway - that's your
choice for who you ring. FIDO doesn't exist on netmail as all the
echos far outstrip it. So why do we actually need FIDO ? Well I
can't see that we do really. As long as someone maintains the
nodelists, and I can get my echo mail then I wouldn't really know
what happened to FIDO. Hang on isn't that waht FIDO is supposed
to be anyway ?
Why all this drama within Z2 ? A few control freaks and egos and
a mass rebellion - sad isn't it when all it's about is half a
FidoNews 10-45 Page: 19 07 Nov 1993
dozen numbers and who can supply e-mail to someone else.
Back to the US, for a country that fought a revolution to be free
of outside control you guys seem to have spent the last few
hundred years trying to re-impose worse control on yourselves -
are you lot masochistic or what ?
Can't people work together on what they can agree on
and agree to disagree on the rest ? But generally leave each
other the hell alone. If you don't like what Fred is doing then
don't have anything to do with him.
Why is this such a big thing with me ? Well I don't care what
anyone else does as long as it doesn't injure me. Consequently I
don't want anyone else interfering in my right of free speech and
expression either.
Well this is my bitch for the last decade. I've got it out of my
system and it may not have made sense but *I* feel better :-). I
just hope there's a few other anarchists/free thinkers out there
that also agree - censorship is BAD in any form period!
Because once it starts it never stops - look at the debate re:
the US Federal Gov't and data encryption. Once it was Reds under
the beds now it's anything that moves.
Final point - Why did I pick on the US so bad ? Well much to *my*
concern it seems that rest of the world is copying all the
mistakes you guys have already made :-(. All the stupid lawsuits
about nothing are starting to appear here. The increase in crime,
street violence you name it. It's not bad here but it's not
getting better or staying the same and I think FIDO is suffering
the same symptoms as society in general.
I just hope it all hangs together till I'm outta here 'cos I can't
see it getting fixed in a hurry :-(. Why won't I fix it? Hell I
know that you can't get 3 people in the same room to agree on
anything and you expect a country to ? :-)
Final final point :-). Matt Whelan has resigned as IC -
apparently as he felt he'd done his bit (no argument there we in
OZ have been lucky to have Matt's input to FIDO). But did he also
see the writing on the wall for the current FIDO structure ?
regards russell cook 3:713/801@FIDOnet
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A [for once brief] Response
to A Few Articles from FidoNews 10.44
Stanton McCandlish, EFF Online Activist, mech@eff.org
NitV-DC BBS SysOp, 1:109/1103
Says David Cupp <1:2215/150.2> in "For the Record", in reference to the
FLAME echo:
FidoNews 10-45 Page: 20 07 Nov 1993
"I would like to see measures taken to insure that only Adults
and those with Parental or Guardian Consent are found on this
'R' rated Flame echo!", and "Sorry John [Clifton], I just don't
see it that way. The children I teach are my own and they will
learn and respect the English Language rather than Slang! (Street)"
First off, why do people presume that the use of puerile scatological
talk is somehow "adult" in nature? If anything, it's rather juvenile.
Secondly, what is "Street"? That is not a language I've ever heard of.
Slang is as much a part of the English language as anything else. Slang
is simply a modern term for "new words that aren't in the dictionary yet,
and which are not confined to a technical or professional subculture,
and thus do not qualify as jargon". Using or not using what you term
"slang" has nothing to do with respect for a language. Learning slang is
in fact one of the most difficult and important parts of learning any
language, since slang is the way people, rather than text books, use
language. I strongly recommend some anthropology and linguistics courses
if you find the time.
Secondly "R ratings" are an artifact of the Motion Picture Industry
Association of America, and apply only to movies. Such ratings have
nothing to do with online communication.
At any rate, I can attest the utter veracity of FLAME moderator [isn't that
a bit of an oxymoron?] Mr. Clifton's statement: "I teach school and I can
assure you that what a student hears in the hallways EVERY DAY makes this
echo look like Disneyland."
Next, Tony Dunlap <1:2220/30>, in "The Spirit of Fidonet is crying:
Part 1, Public Key Cryptography", treats us to his ideas of why FidoNet
should remain in the networking paleolithic by banning cryptographic mail.
"Public Key Cryptography? Why? Anything so sensitive or
important as to require this type of security has no buisness in
echomail, even clear signed messages."
This is one of the most common fallacies about the use of cryptography:
"If you encrypt, you must have something to hide". By this logic, the
use of envelopes rather than postcards should be outlawed, all houses
should have see-thru walls, non-transparent clothing should be banned, and
all phones should be connected to loudspeakers that blare your conversations
to any and all listeners in your neighborhood.
The second possible error is that as far as I can remember, no one is
advocating the use of encrypted mail in echos, only in routed netmail,
plus the use of clearsigning or at very least digital signatures in
echomail. Digital signatures are probably the only tool that can come
close to ensuring that an electronic message actually originated from
the person it appears to originate from. This may not sound like a big
deal, but please refer to previous issues of FidoNews, in which incidents
of impersonation that have caused great difficulties have been reported.
If you have access to internet, you may with to join the
crypto-privacy conference (send mail to cypherpunks-request@toad.com),
and participate in the serious discussions ongoing in that forum concerning
FidoNews 10-45 Page: 21 07 Nov 1993
the potential problems of a network in which no identity can be verified.
"Why not? It serves no purpose for 99.99% of the readers of an echo."
This again presumes that the encrypted traffic will be passed through
echomail, which is unlikely, since almost all online conferences in any
network have rules (implicit or explicit) against posting anything that is
not of relevance to at least a few of the participants, and to keep
private mail private. This is taken as a given by the entire online world.
This "Why not" point also presumes an echo with a readership of about 20,000
(if I've done my math right), since it takes 2 to converse via encrypted
mail. (20,000 - 2 = 19,998, or 99.99%) I find that to be rather extreme
exaggeration.
"And just how much would this cost us, who pay long distance charges to
transfer the echoes around the world? "
Not much. And the phrasing of this is extremely misleading. With
few exceptions, we ALL pay such charges, in one way or another, even BBS
users, who typically pay a fee for use of the BBS. Those that pay for
echomail are not some downtrodden minority in need of relief.
"Using the example provided by Mr. Riddle, (Fnews 1042) I came up
with 315 bytes extra per message. Using my rather modest average
of 300 messages per day that comes to 94,500 bytes extra per day
(That would be an increase in my packet sizes of over 25%. How
many Sysops would like that?). And that's not including extra
messages produced by people posting their public keys."
This assumes that all messages will be encrypted, which is an entirely
unrealistic guesstimation. And I for one would not mind; I would rather
my users encrypted (in netmail I route for them, not in echomail, unless
an echo is set aside specifically for that purpose), and have them
cover the cost, than have no one encrypt.
As for the oh-so-terrible waste of bandwidth taken up by the rather rare
posting of public keys, I suppose you are right, since gosh that does
take away all the time and money we could spend yelling at eachother about
the proper way to pronounce ".GIF", bickering over the virtues of Windows
vs Geoworks, and kvetching about how much we hate Rush Limbaugh. How
dare anyone suggest that privacy is more important that the truckload of
worthless flames people post evertime they turn on their PC?
"We live with an occasional grunged message. We live with
spurious dupes. Why can't we live with less than 100% guarantee
of authenticity?"
WHY SHOULD WE HAVE TO? 'We live with AIDS and cancer, so blah why don't
we just quit funding of medical research altogether? What a waste of time
and money.' That's about what that statement would appear to amount to,
IMNERHO.
"Eventually the software will evolve to handle
all three problems to a very high degree."
FidoNews 10-45 Page: 22 07 Nov 1993
Precisely. It is doing that now. It's called encryption [to handle the 3rd
problem of course, not the first 2], and you are fighting it tooth and nail
for no apparent reason, as are a frightening number of people who do not
understand what privacy and encryption really are, and why they might want
them.
"I, personally, can wait..."
Fine, you are free to do so. The rest of us can't, and won't.
Those of you who might disagree with censorship and the banning of
cryptography, please support the efforts of the FidoNet SecureMail system,
and the EFF for that matter. You can get more info on SecureMail by
contacting G.K. Pace <1:374/26>, and on the Electronic Frontier Foundation
by FREQing magicname EFF from 1:109/1103, or sending a query to ask@eff.org.
SecureMail is an alternative netmail-routing hub backbone working to bring
crypto to FidoNet. EFF is a non-profit civil-rights-in-cyberspace advocacy
organization, working on many issues from sysop liability to removing
government restrictions on the use and export/import of cryptography.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Articles of Faith
From: Bill Birrell (2:257/900)
We have heard that Europe is in turmoil again, so what's new
about that? Yugoslavia came unglued months ago, and it looks as
if somebody is actually going to try to answer the Irish
question. However, the even tenor of everyday life continues,
and the recent economic disasters are dwindling away to mere
calamities. The scary stories can't be true, can they?
Absolutely right! Europe is slowly recovering from the worst
idiocies of its agricultural policies and is beginning to put
its house in order. So what are these disquieting tales we hear
about the rape of Zone 2 of FidoNet? Are they a storm in a
teacup, or are they a symptom of some malaise within FidoNet? A
virus which will spread like aids and destroy our cosy little
electronic community?
FidoNet Europe, like FidoNet in the rest of the world relies on
a document not produced by Tom Jennings, but devised by clever
well-meaning people to specify the way that the net works. That
document is Policy4. It was envisaged as a set of guidelines for
sysops and coordinators to help them through the difficulties
encountered in the day-to-day running of a network, and assumes
that sysops are fundamentally good-natured and cooperative. It
specifies a top-down organisation and creates checks and
balances to prevent abuses by those in the top echelons of the
hierarchy. It refers to technical standards which have to be
observed, and is in general an all-round good-egg. Or is it?
The real malaise is the document itself. It has allowed the top
echelon of FidoNet Europe to be hijacked by people that are
neither good-natured nor cooperative and who do not operate in a
spirit of consensus, so the checks and balances have become
FidoNews 10-45 Page: 23 07 Nov 1993
laughable since they allow the "packed parliament" syndrome, and
provide no redress if those whose duty it is to settle disputes
abuse their position to reinforce their appointees. In a word,
it has become Tom's smelly crock and a charter for connivers.
When no power is wielded, or when men of good will are appointed
the checks and balances are fine. But, given that not all men
are angels, should policy not be a little bit tougher on people
who abuse their ability to compile the nodelist in order to
assert a totally spurious authority not accorded them by our
policy? I now ask you all to consider that the checks and
balances may be totally inadequate. Take the example of a
regional coordinator who makes a bad decision. It can be
overturned only by appeal to a zone coordinator. If that zone
coordinator, for reasons of his own, chooses to interpret our
policy woodenly the regional coordinator's bad decision will be
enforced despite the howling protests of the sysops in the
region. I am not actually saying this has happened, but it seems
likely to happen almost immediately.
We need to be able to impeach any level of coordinator from the
ground level of sysop by a simple majority vote. We need to
remove the ability of regional coordinators to appoint
unsuitable network coordinators to do their bidding. We need
coordinators at all levels to be compelled to accept the results
of free elections. We need maximum terms of office for even the
highest levels of coordinators. There may be other things we
need, but these revisions to policy are required urgently, and
none of them is unreasonable.
It hasn't happened to you yet, but there is nothing in our
policy to prevent it. To preseve the network, I propose that we
put it there forthwith. I so move.
Bill Birrell
FTN: 2:257/9000@fidonet
internet: bill@escan.demon.co.uk
UUCP: demon!escan!bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Reorganisation of UK Fido
=========================
Pat Winstanley 2:250/113
peewee@f113.n250.z2.fidonet.org
peewee@friend.demon.co.uk
Perhaps it's time someone gave a summary of events of recent months in
R25 which have led to the two articles published last week. I'm sure
my bias will show through, however hard I try to stop it, and I'm sure
I will miss point others think I should have included.... still, here
it is, as I see it:
Within the past year, as far as I know, there has been no formal vote
at all as to whether nodes in the region wish the region to be
FidoNews 10-45 Page: 24 07 Nov 1993
curently organised in geo-nets or not, or whether or not they feel
there should be a reorganisation to bring the region into compliance
with Policy4. There has been one regionwide vote which asked whether
the region wanted to send a proposal for the relaxation of the geo-net
rule for the future. That was carried, and the proposal duly sent. As
far as I know the IC asked for further details; reasons why he should
grant a regional exception. I don't know if such was ever sent, but
the net result is that no response has been received one way or the
other, and rumour now is that the IC in question has resigned.
Meanwhile, while the proposal was under consideration by the IC, the
RC with the help of some others produced a plan intended to put R25
back into geo-compliance, from which it had drifted over several
years. This was to be implemented if the IC did not grant the
exception (which, to date, several months later, he has not).
In the absence of any response either way from the IC, the plan for
re-organising the region so that it will in future comply with policy4
is now going into effect, notice having been given several months ago
to all involved as to timetables, detailed changes to be made and so
on. Several people were unhappy with their net allocation (and there
were a few hilarious mistakes in the initial net definitions, it has
to be said! :-)) and these have mainly been sorted out, and borders
adjusted where required. There are still a few ongoing disputes as to
borders, though these seem mainly to be between adjoining NCs over
territory rather than disputes with the RC.
There is still some acrimony in the region, with some nodes flatly
refusing to change their addresses, though it must be said that on the
whole the majority of nodes are content enough with the idea of geo-
nets, and are mainly protesting about being *forced* to change
numbers. It is the element of force which is the central point now,
not whether or not geo-nets or non-geo nets are the "better" option.
This has led to the inevitable accusations and counter-accusations
being flung round in the regional echo and also the arguments spilling
over into other, unrelated echoes. Policy4 is being used by both sides
to back up their points, often using the same para to make two
opposite points! (This, by the way, resulted in the ill-judged
outburst from the RC, published in here recently. What you didn't see
was the equally ill-judged provocation which led to his reaction, or
the just as ill-judged manner in which the "plan" was presented, nor
the events which led to the formulation of the plan.....etc.)
Meanwhile calls for compromise are made. This compromise basically
says that those already in a "wrong" net should not have to change
unless they either do so voluntarily, or leave Fido altogether.
"Natural Wastage". Some nodes believe in a limited form of that - a
cut-off date some months hence to allow for things like changes of
stationary which might carry the current address, or perhaps shareware
authors whose current address is widely circulated. Some nodes believe
that every node should always and forever have the choice of which net
to join, as long as the NC will accept them. Some believe that
everyone should be placed in their "correct" net right now! As you can
see, there is quite a range of feelings on the matter, from one
FidoNews 10-45 Page: 25 07 Nov 1993
extreme, through the centre, and out to the other extreme.
Everyone changing will be dual-listed for a few weeks in the nodelist
and be able to keep their "old" number as an AKA for some considerable
time to allow delayed mail etc to be delivered correctly, and those
"old" numbers won't be reallocated in the forseeable future. At the
same time, most hosts are making flexible arrangements where possible
to enable net-moving nodes to receive their routed netmail from their
existing and continuing chosen echomail feed. (We don't have anything
much in the way of formal cost-sharing in the UK, though some people
believe this reorganisation is intended to enable such by the NCs).
The "split" mentioned in other articles is the creation of (so far)
two completely new networks, both based on Fido initially, but in
different ways and for different reasons. Basically they are intended
as lists which will allow nodes to retain their old number as a
primary address if they have to change in the Fido list or leave Fido
altogether by refusing to change. Or so I understand.... there isn't a
great deal of detail on either at the time of writing.
Another recent even which should be noted (and this happened just
before the RC's outburst) was that one of the nets which is to be
virtually disbanded and recreated in the reorganisation held a ballot
for NC amongst it's then members (some ex-members had already moved on
to other nets in anticipation of the "plan" over previous weeks so did
not vote). The RC refused (both before and after the vote) to appoint
as NC the particular person subsequently elected, on the grounds that
he would not be a member of the net in a few weeks time after
reorganisation.
Other events co-inciding with (or possibly caused by the) re-
organisation are that the REC is resigning, and two Midnight Lines
(bulk subscription based mail/file distribution phone lines) have
withdrawn from Fido.
Hope that helps to cover the picture. I've tried to lay out various
sides, rather than my own judgements, and only the facts I'm fairly
sure of having seen both sides of incidents, but no doubt I've left
out something that someone feels is important, and they will no doubt
come back with that next week! :-)
Pat Winstanley 2:250/113
----------------------------------------------------------------------
========================================================================
Fidonews Information
========================================================================
------- FIDONEWS MASTHEAD AND CONTACT INFORMATION ----------------
Editors: Sylvia Maxwell, Donald Tees, Tim Pozar
Editors Emeritii: Thom Henderson, Dale Lovell, Vince Perriello,
Tom Jennings
FidoNews 10-45 Page: 26 07 Nov 1993
IMPORTANT NOTE: The FidoNet address of the FidoNews BBS has been
changed!!! Please make a note of this.
"FidoNews" BBS
FidoNet 1:1/23
BBS +1-519-570-4176, 300/1200/2400/14400/V.32bis/HST(DS)
Internet addresses:
Don & Sylvia (submission address)
editor@exlibris.tdkcs.waterloo.on.ca
Sylvia -- max@exlibris.tdkcs.waterloo.on.ca
Donald -- donald@exlibris.tdkcs.waterloo.on.ca
Tim -- pozar@kumr.lns.com
(Postal Service mailing address) (have extreme patience)
FidoNews
128 Church St.
Kitchener, Ontario
Canada
N2H 2S4
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 1993 Sylvia Maxwell. 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.)
INTERNET USERS: FidoNews is available via FTP from ftp.fidonet.org, in
directory ~ftp/pub/fidonet/fidonews. If you have questions regarding
FidoNet, please direct them to deitch@gisatl.fidonet.org, not the
FidoNews BBS. (Be kind and patient; David Deitch is generously
volunteering to handle FidoNet/Internet questions.)
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 1:1/23 as file "ARTSPEC.DOC". Please read it.
"Fido", "FidoNet" and the dog-with-diskette are U.S. registered
trademarks of Tom Jennings, and are used with permission.
FidoNews 10-45 Page: 27 07 Nov 1993
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