informis/textfiles
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
textfiles/bbs/FIDONET/FIDONEWS/fido1225.nws
root@procul 278a90f7ce Initial commit
2021-04-15 13:31:59 -05:00

1418 lines
63 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.12 No.25 (19-Jun-1995)
+----------------------------+-----------------------------------------+
| A newsletter of the | ISSN 1198-4589 Published by: |
| FidoNet BBS community | "FidoNews" BBS |
| _ | +1-519-570-4176 |
| / \ | |
| /|oo \ | |
| (_| /_) | |
| _`@/_ \ _ | |
| | | \ \\ | Editors: |
| | (*) | \ )) | Donald Tees 1:221/192 |
| |__U__| / \// | Sylvia 1:221/194 |
| _//|| _\ / | |
| (_/(_|(____/ | |
| (jm) | Newspapers should have no friends. |
| | -- JOSEPH PULITZER |
+----------------------------+-----------------------------------------+
| Submission address: editors 1:1/23 |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| MORE addresses: |
| |
| submissions=> editor@exlibris.tdkcs.waterloo.on.ca |
| Don -- don@exlibris.tdkcs.waterloo.on.ca |
| Sylvia max@exlibris.tdkcs.waterloo.on.ca |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| For information, copyrights, article submissions, |
| obtaining copies of fidonews or the internet gateway faq |
| please refer to the end of this file. |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
========================================================================
Table of Contents
========================================================================
1. Editorial..................................................... 2
2. Articles...................................................... 2
Philosofical research of Germers Message.................... 2
As always, I was and remain utterly correct................. 3
DogCollar: making PGP safe for FidoNet...................... 4
Madam Emila confessional v.2................................ 5
RanD@f101.n16.z1.fidonet.org................................ 5
Scary future??.............................................. 7
What Fido IS................................................ 7
Just one question........................................... 9
OS/2 archiver test.......................................... 9
A Solution to the Nodelist Problem.......................... 11
What Is StormNet?........................................... 21
3. Fidonews Information.......................................... 24
FidoNews 12-25 Page: 2 19 Jun 1995
========================================================================
Editorial
========================================================================
Perhaps every failed policy complaint should require that
the filer resign for annoying the person that must process it.
After all, if the policy complaint failed, then the complainer
was too easily annoyed, by definition.
People that cannot behave in a civilized fashion are annoying
to most people. The page down key is available to every single
person in fidonet.
========================================================================
Articles
========================================================================
Philosofical research of Germers Message
Hydiho Editors!
I just read the article of Bob Germer in FNews1224. I am currently
finishing my essay in my study as philosophical researcher of
old captain-logs, government documentents in the 17th century and
other human handwriting.
This also involves making statements of the writers of criminal
letters. You can think of criminals who wrote letters, or even
people who waided through newspapers, cut big bright shiney capitals
out of it and compose these capitals into sentences and even
complete letters without making grammatical errors.
These people write these kinds of letters to get $100000 from you
for something you really don't need, blackmail you or just because
they like to frighten people.
Although I cannot see Bobs handwriting, I can see some extraordinary
ways of reasoning in his written message. I have studied his paper for
over two hours now, and I think I already have deducted a few very
interesting aspects. Instead of boring you with all kinds of silly
little details and naming all these aspects I wish to make the
final statement directly in the following paragraph.
The only thing I can extract out of B. Germers message is that this
person does not want to frighten anybody, neither does he want money
in court, and he doesn't look like a criminal either. He is just a
plain fool.
The best way to cope with this is to totally ignore him and don't
spend any attention at this person in your issues of Fidonews. This
should be easy because this person isn't in the Net anyway. I also
recommend to withdraw any conference names with "GERMER" in it, just
to make certain not to wake this unnecesary thread ever again. Let's
close this now and for good.
Thank you for your attention,
FidoNews 12-25 Page: 3 19 Jun 1995
Greetings from the Netherlands,
Prof. Drs. Melle (2:281/705.29)
University of Bokkiewokkie.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As always, I was and remain utterly correct
Fredric L. Rice
1:102/890.0 (818) 335-9601
tstream@centcon.com
When I first suggested the immediate ejection of any BLOTTED-
BLOT who spouts/threatens 'lawsuit' to FidoNet SysOps, the
positive response was overwhelming and only one critic stepped
forward publically in FidoNews to rebutt the Policy addition.
At the time I warned that the spewers of ideological hatred
would be the eventual death of FidoNet as a viable, useful
hobby. They can't win an argument rationally because their
positions of hatred are undefendable. They can't win in the
courts but they're not _interested_ in winning: They rely upon
the S.L.A.P.P. lawsuit -- intimidation and financial ruin to
'win' their undefendable positions. The spewers of hatred
know that the bright, positive, happy, fulfilled individuals
they target will rightfully judge the effort of defense and
quietly bow out.
My fears have certainly been vindicated, haven't they?
As usual the religious zealots among us can't be happy with
both the freedom and the enjoyment the rest of us experience
in our hobbies (FidoNet is but one positive human achievement
under attack by superstitious ignorants) and they've got to
beshit and befoul the honest, loving, positive, hard-working
among us due to their petty, religion-demanding hatred, spite,
and resentment of all that's positive.
FidoNet mistake number 1 was the vote to disband the IFNA
which could have been used to successfully counter
the bastards among us.
FidoNet mistake number 2 was the abolishment of a yearly
dues to be listed in the nodelist payable to the
IFNA. These monies could have also been used to
successfully counter the bastards among us.
FidoNet mistake number 3 is the continued lack of any Policy
statement strictly forbidding the threats of legal
actions, making the offense grounds for immediate
ejection. All SysOps who wish to be listed in the
nodelist is already supposed to read Policy 4 and,
if they agree with the terms, submit their request.
Any threat of legal action against another SysOp with
the rule in effect would have been a clear violation
FidoNews 12-25 Page: 4 19 Jun 1995
of the agreement which resulted in connectivity.
FidoNet mistake number 4 is to continue to allow ejected
individuals (and entire systems of individuals) access
to FidoNet and even at times to allow ejected
individuals back into the network. All decisions
should be final. Joining gated 'alternative' nets
should not bea loophole for allowing ejected fucks
from still participating in FidoNet unhindered.
0-=
I want to see Policy 5 ammended and then voted upon. I want to
see George Peace come back and I would like to see everyone
petition Mike Fuchs to continue in his work and ask him to not
let the perpetuators of hatred win.
There's already enough hate-spewers winning in the real world.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
DogCollar: making PGP safe for FidoNet
by Frank J. Perricone, 1:325/611.0
Not long ago, a childish prat tried to get me in trouble by
impersonating me and sending netmails to various people using my
name, my EMSI signature, and even, to the very limited ability
he had, my style of writing. You can't imagine, if you haven't
been through this, what it's like to know that you can never
know what the next thing you'll be accused of is, that it just
takes one chemically-imbalanced dweeb and some freeware, and all
the reputation you've built over years is gone.
The only solution is PGP clearsigning your messages, and making
sure everyone knows that you do. But there's a problem.
FidoNet does not in general smile upon PGP signatures. Most
moderators refuse to allow it. Many of the rest only allow it
for people for whom it is already too late, those already under
attack. If you cave into these pressures, there is no longer
any point to using it ANYWHERE because the forger can always get
to you in the places you don't use it.
Why is it forbidden? I'm usually told because of bandwidth. I
counter by pointing out that receiving 100 PGP-signed messages
every day would cost you an additional $0.30 per month, using a
v.34 modem. But still people object to the waste of bandwidth.
I think the fact that the signature is splayed out in their
faces is the more important part -- if they saw how big those
SEEN-BYs were, they would have other pennies to pinch, I think.
Either way, I have a solution: DogCollar. This is a program
which compresses a PGP-clearsigned Fido message, eliminating
almost 20% of the PGP overhead; and it hides the remainder
behind kluge lines, except one tiny indicator to let the reader
know that the message has been "collared". Use it again to
FidoNews 12-25 Page: 5 19 Jun 1995
"uncollar" before PGP-verifying the signature.
My DogCollar.lha archive contains MS-DOS and Amiga executables,
and the source code included is pure ANSI stdio-based C, so
recompiling for other platforms should be child's play. At
present the only message base format it knows is the venerable
FTS-0001, Fido's own standard; but the code was designed to make
it easy to integrate support for other message base formats, so
if you're a programmer using another format, I need your help.
Please FREQ DogCollar.lha from me, distribute it far and wide,
and help me expand its domain to all platforms, all message base
formats. Maybe using this we can recapture our right to freedom
on our Net.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Madam Emila confessional v.2
Hello! Someone wants to sue me for publishing indiscriminately,
so i have to tell you my "real" name. Madam Emilia is Sylvia
Maxwell. "Maxwell" is my pen name which i have been using for
over ten years and i consider it to be real. I never wanted to
use an alias as a scapegoat, and before this lawsuit problem I have
never felt compelled to tell anyone my legal name. It is Sylvia
"Morscher", and i live at 128 Church Street, Kitchener, Ontario, N2G 2S4,
voice phone 519-570-3137 (ask for Sylvia or Max, both of whom are me).
Also, i am wondering why i am am still formatting Fidonews to be
72 chars a line or less. Do i still have to do this?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
RanD@f101.n16.z1.fidonet.org
Connecticut this week put teeth into a new law designed to
stop any harassment on the internet, including fidonet.
Three cheers for the yankees! No tolerating any of this
stuff!
-------------------------------------------------------------
Harassment law enters cyberspace Conn. moves to keep on-line
in line
HARTFORD (AP)--Connecticut has decided to delve into the
high-tech world of cyberspace to outlaw over the computer
what has long been illegal over the telephone or
old-fashioned "snail mail": ha- rassing or threatening
messages. Gov. John G. Rowland has signed a law making it a
felony to "harass, annoy, alarm or terrorize" another person
over the computer--a law proponents contend merely brings
Connecticut law up to date with the latest technology, but
critics main- tain is an overreaction born out of ignora,nce.
"I don't think there's anything es- pecially sinister" about
the new law, said Rep. Patricia Dillon, D- New Haven, a
frequent user of the Prodigy on-line service and the bill's
FidoNews 12-25 Page: 6 19 Jun 1995
sponsor. "It simply brings existing law in to the 21s
tcentury." The new law goes into effect Oct. 1. But even
proponents are unsure how it would be enforced and whether it
would apply to computer users outside of Connecticut who
happen to target harassing messages to state residents. It
already is illegal to harass or threaten someone over the
tele- phone or by mail, which is known by computer users as
"snail mail." Computer users who do the same will be subject
to up to three years in prison and a $500 fine. And people
already convicted of a felony would face up to five years in
prison and a $5,000 fine. The issue came to Dillon's
attention during her daily visits to Prodi- gy, where she
does research for legislation and discovered strings of
messages devoted to a case involving a user known as "Vito,"
who targeted a woman via E-mail and the system's bulletin
board system.
The man was posting messages that had a "terrifying,
immobilizing effect on the victim" by claiming her son's
mental retardation was a result of fetal alcohol syndrome and
accusing her of being promiscuous Dillon said.
Although the various on-line services monitor messages for
profane language or conversations deemed unfit for a wide
audience, Dillon said the government needs to go further to
try to protect users of computer bulletin boards.
"At one point, we were worshiping the Internet ... and now
there's been a backlash so it's been demonized," Dillon said.
"I don't think it's either one," but it's worth protecting
people who use computers.
However, civil libertarians and some experts in the field of
computers and law believe Connecticut may be going overboard.
William Olds, the executive director of the Connecticut Civil
Liberties Union, said recently that the harassment statutes
already are troublesome because they're vague.
"What is alarming to one person may not be alarming to
another," Olds said.
It also begins to restrict a key benefit of the Internet:
its unfettered flow of ideas and information, Olds and others
said.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Will Connecticut set the pace on the I-Way and become it's
street sweeper? Could be if they can maintain this pace.
FidoNews 12-25 Page: 7 19 Jun 1995
Scary future??
by Fredrik Bennison
2:205/300, fredrik.bennison@rosebay.ct.se
What is FidoNet coming to?? After reading FidoNews 1223 and 1224 I am
for the first time seriously worried about what is happening in Zone1.
Of course, I've heard from time to time that it is a different net
over there, that it is a much harsher environment and that you have to
watch your back all the time. I didn't believe that it could be so,
perhaps I didn't want to believe that, I know of no such troubles here
in Zone2. But when I read that people are resigning because of some
fellow sysop threatening them with lawsuits I began to see that
perhaps there is something definitely wrong within Zone1.
And now in FNews 1224 I read that Bob Germer threatens FidoNews with a
lawsuit and that an NC has had a sysop in his net arrested for
harrassment, claiming that his questions are excessively annoying.
For the sake of the future of FidoNet, I hope that this settles down
soon and that we won't have to be bullied by some sysop's threats. This
network is all about communication, or at least it should be, we should
try to solve things through communicating and not through the courts.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What Fido IS.
What Fido IS. Richard Ratledge 1:119/88
-One person's perception. June 95
I have been doing a lot of thinking about what FidoNet really is.
Mostly in response to the recent resignation of George Peace from
the International Coordinator position and Mike Fuch's decision
to stop publishing the EchoList. Here is what I have come up
with. If you don't agree, please let me know and we can hash it
out. :-)
To me there are two ways to look at FidoNet and a lot of the
disagreement flying around is because people try to put both
views together. FIRST: FidoNet IS the structure defined in Policy
4. That includes the Coordinator structure, the Nodelist,
Fidonews and all the individual systems. That is ALL FidoNet is,
nothing more, nothing less. But SECOND: Fido is a whole heck of a
lot more. It has gobs of 'content.' Content such as the message
echo areas and the file areas and some stuff I don't even know
about. Many people insist that the second definition is the one
that is correct and believe it is what defines FidoNet.
I maintain that both views are correct. Just make certain that
you stay clear about which part of the definition you are working
from when you start making assertions about how things should be
handled in "Fidonet." Be careful not to confuse the content part
with the structure part.
FidoNews 12-25 Page: 8 19 Jun 1995
My opinion is that there is little problem with the primary
definition of FidoNet. Policy 4 may need a bit of updating. I
just read through it and I see very little that is in need of
major overhaul. BUT. When you start working from the second
definition of Fido there is a huge amount of structure that is
not well defined. The role of the various mechanisms providing
the content to Fido is unclear to many of us who are involved in
FidoNet. This lack of clarity leads to some MAJOR disagreements.
This is what I see happening in Zone 1 (other Zones are vastly
different, I am sure). FidoNet and the structure defined in the
nodelist, IS FidoNet. Then there are the Backbone, the Moderators
of each of the Echos and various message and file Distribution
Systems. The Backbone has taken on the responsibility of
shepherding the echos along. The Backbone has created a structure
that parallels the structure of FidoNet itself. They have a ZEC,
REC's and NEC's just like FidoNet has a ZC, RC's and NC's. No
wonder it gets confused with FidoNet! Especially since some
positions are filled by the same person in both structures. The
Backbone has created it's own Policy document, Backbone Operating
Policy or BOP. It may be policy but it isn't binding on FidoNet
itself since only Policy 4 affects Fidonet (they may be merged
someday but that is a different matter). Then there are the
individual Moderators of the many separate echos. They also
operate independently. They control the content of their echos
and who is allowed to access the areas. Within the context of the
particular echo the Moderator 'is god.' The Moderator has to
decide where they want the echo to go. Usually for a
wide-interest subject it is placed on the backbone. Doesn't have
to be, but that is where the most exposure within Fido will
occur. About Distribution Systems -- there are a multitude of
them currently and there will be more to come. All the way from
private distribution node-to-node to Planet Connect to the
ftphub. The Backbone itself is the mother of all distribution
systems. Distribution Systems are a non-issue sort of thing.
There is some concern about commercial enterprises making money
by distributing Fido content but most of those concerns have been
satisfied. I left out individual systems and users but their role
is hopefully obvious, although probably the most important in all
of the net.
That is where we are at. What needs to be done? There are some
structural things that should be straightened out. I would like
to see more definitions of the role of Moderators and what
authority the Backbone has in relation to feed cuts versus the
moderators' authority. Making it crystal clear to everyone
concerned who orders and enforces these things would be a great
boon to the net. There are a million details still to work out
and many things that will let all this work smoother, in general
though it works the way it is. Recent events have some people
greatly concerned. I am not terribly concerned, mostly because I
see a lot of insight coming from the people responsible for
making decisions. I am sorry to see a few people who are less
than friendly and cooperative. I tend to agree with Christopher
FidoNews 12-25 Page: 9 19 Jun 1995
Baker that 'friendly and cooperative' should be a requirement to
remain in FidoNet.
Anyway, that is where I am at in my assessment of FidoNet.
Hopefully I am not too far out in left field. Maybe it provides
just a glimmer of illumination to those who don't quite
understand it. Not really sure I do yet! :-)
PS. I don't claim any copyright to this. Do with it what you
like. :-) RR
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just one question
Rev. Shawn McMahon
1:3806/0
I just have one question for the Backbone in general, and for Z1EC
Bruce Bodger in particular.
This is just a question, not an accusation nor an attempt to take
sides.
How are Z1_WINTERS and it's ilk improper titles for an echo, but
OJ_SIMPSON isn't inappropriate?
Does the protection against having one's name on an echo extend only
to personal friends and people who threaten lawsuits, or can we
expect that it'll be applied to all echoes with a person's name in
them?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
OS/2 archiver test
Rev. Shawn McMahon
1:3806/0
I recently did another test of archivers. Just thought I'd share it
with everybody; perhaps it might save somebody some time or money.
New set of assumptions this time:
1) Only OS/2 archivers were tested. Although DOS ones run great under
OS/2, making the OS/2 session wait on them is a bit of a pain so I
didn't bother.
2) Test subject was over 800k of Fidonet .PKT files, containing several
echoes and a couple of pieces of netmail.
3) Since all I was testing was Fidonet performance, I didn't bother
timing things. In general, the smaller the archive, the longer it took
to make it. This is especially true for HA and Hpack. I figured that
the time to archive them was trivial compared to the time to transfer
FidoNews 12-25 Page: 10 19 Jun 1995
them over phone lines.
4) I didn't test them on nodelists or nodediffs; I'm not trying to get
anybody to adopt a new standard here, just pointing out what's available
for your own echomail.
5) This list, although broad, is only representative. There may be
other OS/2 archivers out there that I haven't tested. For instance, I
didn't go through the gyrations of playing with ports of Unix COMPRESS
and TAR, because I doubt anybody bothers with them for Fidonet mail when
ZIP and Hpack are available for both OS/2 and Unix.
6) All tests were conducted using the default compression modes, and
with the filenames stated as shown. Archiver versions are listed before
each test.
7) Each archiver is copyright by somebody. Names used without
permission. This is not intended as a challenge to the rights of the
copyright holders. Where possible, the copyright holders are listed.
ARC2 6.01P, System Enhancement Associates.
TEST.ARC 513107
Note: Using the "version 5 compatibility" switch produced the exact same
results.
ARJZ/2 .15 Alpha. Copyright owner is listed in Cyrillic, so I
don't know his name yet.
TEST.ARJ 307718
HA .999beta, Harri Hirvola. OS/2 compile by Craig Morrison.
TEST.HA 272772
Hpack .79a0, Peter Gutmann. OS/2 port by John Burnell.
TEST.HPK 298370
Lh2 2.22, Peter Fitzsimmons.
TEST.LHA 327641
RAR 1.53 beta, Eugene Roshal.
TEST.RAR 308449
Info-ZIP 1.0, Mark Adler et. al.
TEST.Z10 332142
Note: If anybody has 1.1, I'd appreciate a copy of the OS/2 version.
1.0 is rumored to have problems, and the rumor is borne out by the fact
that 1.1 exists.
PKZIP 1.01-OS/2, PKWARE, Inc.
TEST.ZI1 337334
Note: I haven't the foggiest idea why Info-ZIP 1.0 beats this. Both
archives test perfectly.
Info-ZIP 2.0.1, Mark Adler et. al.
TEST.ZIP 310640
FidoNews 12-25 Page: 11 19 Jun 1995
ZOO 2.1, Rahul Dhesi
TEST.ZOO 475962
Some parting notes; ZIP and Hpack are the ones most widely available for
different kinds of platforms.
LHarc and ZOO are probably second.
ARC comes in fifth in my experience, with the rest being fairly
platform-dependant. In fact, ARJ and RAR weren't even available for
OS/2 until recently.
All of these listed have DOS counterparts. I know for certain that ZIP,
Hpack, and ZOO have Unix counterparts. I've seen ZIP-alikes for most
other common computers, as well as Hpack compiles for everything that's
got a ZIP version.
If your favorite archiver isn't listed, and you have OS/2 executables,
let me know. I'll be glad to FREQ them on my nickle. I'm especially
looking for OS/2 versions (especially unpackers) for the more
platform-specific archivers, such as the plethora of Mac-specific ones.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A Solution to the Nodelist Problem
by Joel C. Maslak
jmaslak@cchs.ccsd.k12.wy.us
A Solution to the Nodelist Problem
----------------------------------
A problem which has plagued Fidonet since its very beginning is
that of the Nodelist. I have documentation dating from 1988 which
indicates problems with the St. Louis Nodelist Format (Baker 12-14).
Since 1988, there have been over 65 articles published in the "Fido
News" relating to the Nodelist (complete list of works consulted is
not published, to save space. Contact me at the address listed at the
end of this article for a copy).
Other proposals have been submitted, including one from Robert
Heller, which support a Internet-style Domain Name Service for
Fidonet. Unfortunately, Mr. Heller was ahead of his time. The
Fidonet community was not (and is still not) ready for his suggested
changes. While I'm not sure what the Fidonet reaction will be to my
suggested changes, I am publishing the results of over a year of
research in the hope that it is adopted as a standard.
This research originally began as an attempt to "give something
back" to the Fidonet community. It later developed into a research
project which was entered into the International Science and
Engineering Fair (Maslak, "Roadblocks...") as well as the Wyoming
Junior Science & Humanities Symposium (Maslak, "Distributed...").
What follows is a modified version of my research report. Many
FidoNews 12-25 Page: 12 19 Jun 1995
sections which describe the basic workings of Fidonet have been
omitted, while other sections, describing more advanced topics, such
as the details of the data files, have been added.
=================================================================
Nodelist Problems
One of Fidonet's biggest problems is its extraordinary rate of
growth. Between the months of July 1993 and July 1994, Fidonet grew
over 30 percent! In the month of April 1995, a Nodediff was released
with a size, compressed, of 519,152 bytes. During the single week
ending April 7, 1995, Fidonet grew by 1,600 systems. During the
entire month of April, over 2,000 systems were added to the Nodelist.
This is extraordinary growth. (Note: Some Nodelist statistics were
taken from Mr. Bush's article entitled, "A Review of the Fidonet
Nodelist.")
=================================================================
Distributed Node Information Database
To solve problems with the nodelist, a distributed node
information database was developed. This system would allow for Net
Information Segments to be stored on systems throughout Fidonet. The
Net Information Segments contain nodelist information for systems
within a net. The Net Information Server would distribute the
segments via the Fidonet FREQ system. The Net Information Server
would be filled by the node in the position of Net Coordinator. For
example, the segment for net one in zone one could be requested from
1:1/0. The segment for net 10 in zone one can be requested from
1:10/0. Then segment for zone three, net 103 in zone one can be
requested from 3:103/0.
A program was then written to scan for outbound mail. Should
this program find a message with an unknown destination address, it
requests the appropriate net information segment from the net
coordinator of the net for which information is desired. Upon receipt
of the segment, the required node entry is merged into the local
nodelist, which is used by the Fidonet software to establish contacts
with other Fidonet systems. This is accomplished by using two
programs, as shown below. These programs, together with the actual
project research, took a total of 12 months to complete, and, for that
reason, are relatively complex. Complete listings can be found in the
research notebook. Contact the author via Internet E-mail at
jmaslak@cchs.ccsd.k12.wy.us, or, via Fidonet CRASH MAIL (routed mail
will not reach this network), Joel Maslak@1:316/23.
Although the programs which were written contact the appropriate
NC, as listed above, the test procedures did not exploit this
capability. Instead, the testing procedures were modeled after the
"transitional mode." In the transitional mode, some systems would
still keep the entire nodelist, allowing all net segments to be
requested from just one system. Because of financial concerns, and
because such a system would have to exist until all nets implemented a
FidoNews 12-25 Page: 13 19 Jun 1995
Net Information Server, this was thought to be a valid test.
=================================================================
Net Information Segment Format
The Net Info Segment is very similar to the traditional nodelist,
except all lines relating to systems outside of the network have been
deleted. Note that the Net Info Segment for a region includes only
regional independents, not members of individual nets. Note that the
segment for a zone includes zone independents as well as both Regional
and Network Coordinators. Neither Regional Independents nor nodes
belonging to local nets are listed in this file.
Files are named according to the following:
xxxxyyyy.nl
xxxx - Hex number representing ZONE (it is this large to allow
for non-Fido zones to use this standard).
yyyy - Hex number representing NET
Example: 00010068.NL (net 1:104) <long lines are wrapped>
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
; Net Info Server Segment List, Generated by NETAX
;
Zone,1,North_America,Surrey_BC,Bob_Satti,1-604-589-8562,9600,CM,XA,
H16,V32b,V42b,V34,VFC,V32T
;
Region,15,REGION15_COORDINATOR,AZ_CO_NM_UT_WY,Marv_Carson,1-602-894-87
62,9600,CM,HST,V32,V42b,XA
;
Host,104,Denver_Area_Net,Denver_CO,Tom_Johannsen,1-303-455-0507,9600,
CM,XA,HST,V32B,V42B,V34,VFC,V32T
,1,Co-Op_Distribution_System,Denver_CO,John_Kaufman,1-303-343-0691,
9600,V32B,V42B,CM,HST,V34,VFC
,2,Net_104_UFGate,Aurora_CO,N104_UFGate,1-303-429-2713,9600,HST,CM,XX,
UGTI
,3,Net_FILES_Coordinator,Littleton_CO,Bob_Simpson,1-303-770-4969,9600,
CM,XA,V32B,V42B,MNP,VFC
,4,Net_Echomail_Coordinator,Denver_CO,John_Kaufman,1-303-343-0693,9600
,V32B,V42B,VFC,CM,XA
<more nodes here>
;
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Note that the segment itself would function as a nodelist!
=================================================================
NODELIST.400 <local nodelist> Format
Nodelist.400 is a current list of Fidonet local nets, as well as
all nodes within the local net. It is merged with info from Net Info
FidoNews 12-25 Page: 14 19 Jun 1995
Segments to form a 'personal phonebook' of systems which the node
contacts. For more info, contact me.
=================================================================
Format of LIST.NIR
It is a comma-deliminated file listing nodes for which net info
segments have been requested.
Example:
1,23,162
1,42,252
2,2,4
In the example, info segments for systems 1:23/162, 1:42/252, and
2:2/4 were requested. Note that since this file is only stored on the
local system, it's format is not relevent. It is presented here for
the sole purpose of documenting the test site's software.
=================================================================
Netmail Scanner Program:
1. - Outgoing Netmail is scanned
- If a message exists go to 2
- Else go to 7
2. - Read the first message
- Go to 3
3. - If destination address is unknown go to 4
- Else go to 5
4. - Request Net Information Segment for destination net from
appropriate net coordinator
- Append destination address to list of Net Information Requests
(LIST.NIR)
- Go to 5
5. - If another message exists go to 6
- Else go to 7
6. - Read the next message
- Go to 3
7. - End
=================================================================
Nodelist Merger Program
1. - Received files are scanned
- If a net information segment (*.NL) file exists go to 2
- Else go to 9
2. - Set ADDR variable to value of the net pointed to by first *.NL
file
- Go to 3
3. - Open list of net Information Requests (LIST.NIR)
- If an address is present go to 4
- Else go to 8
FidoNews 12-25 Page: 15 19 Jun 1995
4. - Read first address from LIST.NIR
- Go to 5
5. - If LIST.NIR entry's zone and net correspond to ADDR file go
to 6
- Else go to 7
6. - Grab node information from net information segment (*.NL)
pointed to by ADDR
- Add to master nodelist (NODELIST.DAT)
- Go to 7
7. - If another address exists in LIST.NIR, grab it and go to 5
- Else go to 8
8. - If another *.NL file exists, set ADDR variable to next *.NL
file and
go to 3
- else go to 9
9. - End
=================================================================
Hypothesis
It was hypothesized that the distributed nodelist would be as
reliable as a non-distributed nodelist for the purpose of establishing
a connection with a remote Fidonet system. Thus, as it provides a
significantly smaller list of Fidonet systems, it should be adopted by
the citizens of the Fidonet network.
=================================================================
Phase I: Test Procedure
This test used the distributed node information database system
outlined previously. The purpose of this test is to determine the
feasibility of the distributed node information database.
Two groups of 20 nodes were chosen randomly, using a custom
computer program. These nodes were from the population of Fidonet
nodes in the continental US. Thus a total of 40 nodes were picked, 20
in the control group, and 20 in the experimental group.
The nodes in the control group were sent a Fidonet file request.
The nodes were then either placed in the 'successful' or
'unsuccessful' group depending upon the success of the initial
contact. The control group used the normal Fidonet nodelist to
establish the connection.
The nodes in the experimental group were also sent a Fidonet
Freq. The nodes were then either placed in the 'successful' or
'unsuccessful' groups, as described above. A distributed nodelist was
used to establish the connection for this group. For this feasibility
study, all net information segments were stored on 1:316/19 (note:
This system is no longer accepting incoming Fidonet Netmail). In
actual practice, the net information segments would be stored on
various boards throughout the network.
FidoNews 12-25 Page: 16 19 Jun 1995
Results were then compiled, using the BinkleyTerm log. All
connections which were successful were grouped into the 'SUCCESSFUL
CONNECTION' category, while others were placed in the 'UNSUCCESSFUL
CONNECTION' category. Connections were determined to be successful
if a session handshake took place.
=================================================================
Phase I: Test Results
CONTROL GROUP
- 15 Successful connections
- 5 Unsuccessful connections
= 75% Success Rate
EXPERIMENTAL GROUP
- 16 Successful connections
- 4 Unsuccessful connections
= 80% Success Rate
=================================================================
Phase I: Discussion
This project did not test the distributed nodelist system fully.
The distributed nodelist standard currently does not allow the Net
Information Server to be a system other than the Net Coordinator.
This poses a problem because many net coordinators run busy systems.
It may be difficult to connect to such a system, delaying the
transmission of the net information segment. This, in turn, would
delay delivery of Netmail. Thus, in large nets, it may be appropriate
to have dedicated Net Information Servers. The problem with this is
that, currently, there is no method of signifying a net information
server in the nodelist.
It is believed that the small difference between the control and
experimental group is not due to the method of how the nodelist is
stored, but that it is due to the variation of systems in Fidonet.
From this research, it can be determined that this project would be
technically feasible.
One interesting fact which was discovered during the process of
testing is that the Fidonet's perception of the nodelist is quite
different that the reality of the nodelist. Fidonet believes that the
nodelist is updated frequently, and very few systems in the nodelist
are represented incorrectly. In actuality, many systems listed in the
nodelist could not be contacted. This indicates a problem with the
nodelist, as it may be too large to be easily managed. A distributed
nodelist may be easier to maintain, as a dedicated position would be
created - the Net Information Server. This server's only
responsibility would be to maintain the nodelist. Since that system
would not be the net coordinator, it would not be required to settle
disputes, test to see if new nodes comply with Fidonet technical
specifications, nor to manage the network hubs. The system's only
responsibility would be to manage the net information segment. A
person who wishes to maintain high integrity of the nodelist should be
FidoNews 12-25 Page: 17 19 Jun 1995
appointed/elected (I don't want to write policy).
=================================================================
Phase II: Test Procedure
This test used the distributed node information database system
outlined previously. The purpose of this test, like phase I, is to
determine the feasibility of the distributed node information
database. This experiment is a further extension of the research
previously conducted in phase I.
Unlike phase I, only one group, consisting of 100 nodes, was
chosen. These nodes were each contacted once using the St. Louis
Nodelist and once using the Distributed Nodelist Standard.
The nodes in the control group were sent a Fidonet file request
(for a file that does not exist). The nodes were then either placed
in the 'successful' or 'unsuccessful' group depending upon the success
of the mail transfer, unlike phase I which determined success based
upon the negotiation of a session handshake immediately after a
connection is established. The control group used the normal Fidonet
nodelist to establish the connection.
The nodes in the experimental group were also sent a Fidonet file
request. They were then placed in either the 'successful' or
'unsuccessful' group, as described above. A distributed nodelist was
used to establish the connection for this group. Like phase I, all
net information segments were stored on 1:316/19 (Note: This system no
longer accepts incoming Fidonet Netmail). In actual practice, the net
information segments would be stored on various boards throughout the
network.
Results were then compiled, using a custom program which
determined if the individual mail packets were sent successfully to
the receiving system.
=================================================================
Phase II: Results
Control Group - Success Rate: 89%
Experimental Group - Success Rate: 86%
=================================================================
Phase II: Discussion
The results of this test were analyzed with a two-tailed T-test.
The results of the T-test appear to indicate that there was no
significant difference between the results of the control group and
those of the experimental group. This would indicate that the
Distributed Nodelist Standard is a feasible alternative to the
Nodelist, based upon technological concerns.
FidoNews 12-25 Page: 18 19 Jun 1995
The two groups, control and experimental, are a random sample of
the US Fidonet population, and representative of that population.
Since 100 systems were tested, a large base of data was collected.
This significantly reduces the possibility of these results being
attributed to chance, and this, indicates that the Distributed
Nodelist Standard was successful.
=================================================================
Phase I Compared to Phase II
Several significant differences exist between Phase I and Phase
II. First, Phase I used a control group which was independent of the
experimental group, which allows the possibility of variation between
groups affecting the results. Phase II used only one sample of
systems, polled once to form the control group, and then pulled again,
using the Distributed standard instead of the St. Louis Standard, to
form the experimental group. This is one of the reasons that phase II
was conducted. Phase I consisted of only 20 systems in each group.
Phase II used a larger sample size of 100 systems. The larger sample
size limited the possibility of randomly choosing a sample group which
did not represent the master population.
Two types of mailers were used in this project. In Phase I,
BinkleyTerm 2.59 beta was chosen. To demonstrate the ability of the
Distributed Nodelist Standard to function properly with a wide variety
of Fidonet systems. The success of both phases serves to indicate
that the Distributed Nodelist Standard would, in fact, function
properly with various Fidonet mailers.
The method of analyzing the results was also different. In phase
I, success was determined by analyzing session handshakes, which are
transmitted early in a Fidonet session. Phase II determined success
based upon the transmission of a file request (FREQ). If the request
was successfully sent, the trial was categorized as successful.
To compare the phase I control group to the phase II control
group, the results from phase I were re-analyzed using the methods
used in phase II. The phase I control had a success rate of 55%,
while the phase II control group had a success rate of 89%. These
results, when analyzed with the T-test, show that there was a
significant difference between the phase I and phase II control
groups. The difference is attributed to the types of mailers used, as
this was the only variable to change between the control groups.
Thus, it appears that BinkleyTerm 2.59 beta may be less reliable than
Frontdoor 2.02. Further research is warranted, though, as phase I
consisted of only 20 trials.
=================================================================
Conclusion
It can be concluded that, based on the success of this
experiment, that further experimentation is warranted. The standard
tested in this project appears to have worked successfully. A system
FidoNews 12-25 Page: 19 19 Jun 1995
similar to this would not require Fidonet software to be rewritten.
This would ease the transition from the St. Louis nodelist format to
the distributed nodelist format. As the software used for the testing
procedures has been donated to the public domain, others can freely
use it without fear of legal action. This project also discovered, by
accident--not design--that the current state of nodelist management is
not successful, when compared to commonly held beliefs. Also by
accident, this project determined that a flaw may exist in the
BinkleyTerm software, a very popular Fidonet mailer. Further research
should be conducted to test this hypothesis.
=================================================================
Statistical Analysis
The test statistic of phase I was -.36972. The absolute value of
this statistic is less than 1.684, the value for the 90% level of
confidence. Thus, the difference observed in phase I was not
significant.
The test statistic of phase II was .63887. Since .63887 is less
than 1.645, no statistically significant difference, within a 90%
level of confidence, occurred. This indicates that the difference
observed in phase II was not significant.
The comparison of phase I and phase II's control group yielded a
test statistic of -3.3669. Since the absolute value of this statistic
is greater than 1.960, the hypothesized value for 95% confidence, the
difference was significant. This indicates that some event, which
occurred between phase I and phase II, may have caused a significant
difference in the chance of a successful connection.
=================================================================
Acknowledgements
All custom programs are of my own creation.
Ms. Mona Mitzel assisted with scientific research controls and
analysis using statistics. Without her, I would not have the interest
in the sciences that I currently have. She is an inspiration, and a
model of what today's teachers are doing right. She caries with
herself a highly contagious thirst for knowledge.
Mr. Al Griffin, Net Coordinator (1:316), Former NC (1:105),
assisted by providing this project a Fidonet node number. Lets all
hope he gets well soon! (Al Griffin @1:316/23 <Fidonet)
The local Fidonet network assisted by providing a place to store
the Net Information Segment files. These files were stored on
1:316/19. I would like to thank Denese Wierzbicki, System
administrator of CCSD BBS (1:316/19) for her cooperation During the
early phases of this project. (Denese Wierzbicki @1:316/23 <Fidonet)
Many articles in Fido News were useful. While none directly
FidoNews 12-25 Page: 20 19 Jun 1995
addressed this problem in this manner, many discussed other possible
solutions.
I would especially like to thank the Fidonet network for it's
cooperation. 140 systems were contacted in this experiment, and most
were very cooperative and enjoyed being a part of this research. If
you would like a complete list of systems which participated, please
contact me via Internet E-mail at jmaslak@cchs.ccsd.k12.wy.us, or via
Fidonet CRASH MAIL (routed mail does not reach this net) at Joel
Maslak@1:316/23.
I also would like to express my appreciation for the Fidonet
members who choose to visit my exhibit at the International Science &
Engineering Fair. I enjoyed explaining my research to you.
=================================================================
References
Baker, Ben. "Nodelist Crisis -- Past, or Coming?" "Fido News"
30 May 1988: 12-14.
Heller, Robert. "A proposal for a Fidonet (FTN) Domain Name Service."
Fidonet, 1992. Fidonet Technical Standards Committee file 0069.
=================================================================
Other work by the author
Maslak, Joel C. "Distributed Fidonet Nodelist Processing." Wyoming
State Junior Science & Humanities Symposium. April 2-4, 1995.
Laramie, WY.
---. "Roadblocks on the Information Superhighway: Solving the
Nodelist Problem with Wide-Area Distributed Fidonet Nodelist
Processing." International Science & Engineering Fair.
May 6-13, 1995. Hamilton, ON.
=================================================================
Contact Information
Snail-Mail:
Joel C. Maslak
2213 Rose Creek Dr.
Gillette, WY 82718
E-Mail:
jmaslak@cchs.ccsd.k12.wy.us <- Internet
Joel Maslak @1:316/23 <- Fidonet CRASH MAIL - Routed mail will
NOT reach this destination. Do not send routed mail.
Please note that my system, "Nodelist Project" no longer exists.
FidoNews 12-25 Page: 21 19 Jun 1995
*PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE DO NOT CALL THIS SYSTEM! EVEN THOUGH IT IS IN
THE NODELIST, IT WILL NOT ANSWER THE PHONE. I WILL. THIS IS NOW A
VOICE LINE. PLEASE DON'T CALL THIS SYSTEM!
The preferred method of contact is via INTERNET mail. Please use a
UUCP gateway instead of sending crash mail to 1:316/23, if at all
possible.
Thank you for taking the time to read this article. I'd look forward
to hearing from you.
Joel Maslak
Lost in Wyoming
<jmaslak@cchs.ccsd.k12.wy.us>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------
<20><><EFBFBD><EFBFBD><EFBFBD>Ŀ <20><>ķ <20>
<20> <20> <20> <20>
<20><><EFBFBD><EFBFBD><EFBFBD>Ŀ <20><><EFBFBD>Ŀ <20><>Ŀ <20><>Ŀ <20><><EFBFBD>Ŀ <20> <20> <20> <20><>Ŀ <20><><EFBFBD>Ŀ
<20> <20> <20> <20> <20><><EFBFBD><EFBFBD> <20> <20> <20> <20> <20> <20> <20><> <20>
<20><><EFBFBD><EFBFBD><EFBFBD><EFBFBD><EFBFBD> <20> <20><><EFBFBD><EFBFBD> <20> <20> <20> <20> <20> <20> <20><><EFBFBD><EFBFBD> <20><><EFBFBD><EFBFBD> <20>
Check out our WWW Page! http://www.storm.net/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
What Is StormNet?
StormNet is an alternative network for use with FidoNet compatible
software. We pass messages back and forth both in netmail and in echomail
conferences. In StormNet, each node is welcomed and assisted in many ways
by other StormNet members. We have active echomail areas and a growing
file echo selection. Our echomail traffic is growing every day, and are
now pulling more mail ever than before. StormNet has a friendlier
atmosphere than can be found in many other networks.
StormNet has been in existence for over two years, and in that time,
has grown significantly. Our membership has changed from an inexperienced
group of local nodes to a more mature group of people from all over the
United States, Canada, Europe, and Asia. Currently, we have over 600 nodes
in StormNet, and are expanding every week!
* Why is StormNet here?
StormNet was started for a few reasons. When we created it, we wanted
to serve teens, adults, and others worldwide with a quality alternative
network that is relatively cheap to pull in. Most of our high speed
transfers take less than a minute. Although we prefer it, you don't have
to poll every day, we are flexible and will allow you to poll whenever you
like. We want to serve you with the finest quality echomail and files for
you and your users. We are considerably smaller than FidoNet, and
therefore do not have the overflow of mail/files often seen in its
conferences. The average cost per month for one who pulls StormNet and
polls daily is around $6.00-7.00 within the US.
FidoNews 12-25 Page: 22 19 Jun 1995
* What are the rules like?
StormNet? Rules? You've got to be kidding me. Well, it's not like
we don't have any rules; all of the rules in our policy statement basically
stem from one basic principle - "Be nice and use common sense." The
policy's specifics were written to outline some problems which may
potentially arise when people aren't nice and don't use common sense.
The SNAC (StormNet Advisory Council) helps to ensure the smooth
running of StormNet affairs. StormNet does not discriminate because of
age, sex, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, beliefs, taste in
food, opinion on world politics, or favorite color. We welcome anyone who
is interested in joining a fun network to try out StormNet. We also don't
allow "bashing", spindling or other forms of mutilation of groups in our
newsletters, or any of our echos (excluding WAR_ZONE), and other parts of
our network.
* What are the echos like?
We have a variety of conferences to suit most needs. If you are a
user of StormNet, or a node, you can request an echo if you feel it would
be active. We have echos on many subjects, A to Z (as we say SN_A to
SN_Z). We have a talented staff of moderators and co-moderators, and
combined with the efforts of our international echomail coordinator, keep
the network running smoothly.
* Internet... Yes, Internet!
StormNet is now registered in the domain listings as "storm.net". All
StormNet nodes can use our UUCP host to send messages anywhere on Internet
at no additional cost to you.
* Vanity Internet addresses
The StormNet International Internet Coordinator has just recently
allowed a "vanity" name that you can apply for once you join StormNet. This
can be just about anything, and saves typing. For example,
"John.Doe@johnsbbs.storm.net" is alot easier to remember than
"John.Doe@f104.n192.usa.storm.net."
* Support
StormNet has support sites for different types of software. We
currently have technical support nodes/echos for BinkleyTerm, EzyCom,
Maximus, RemoteAccess, Storm Watch Software, T.A.G., and TurboSoft.
New technical support nodes for other software are permitted and
encouraged. When you apply for technical support, you will get a flag in
the nodelist designating you as a support site. You also get your name
added to the list of technical support nodes at the bottom of the nodelist.
And finally, you have the option to add file and message echos software you
support.
* What we're looking for
FidoNews 12-25 Page: 23 19 Jun 1995
StormNet is looking for nodes who want to pull in high quality
echomail at a relatively cheap price. Ones who think they would like
StormNet to be on their BBSes or computers.
We also are looking for new zones to create all the time. StormNet is
not just limited to North America, other continents and countries are
already members, but we would like more. We'd like to expand StormNet
worldwide, and we think that everyone would benefit from this and it would
strengthen relations and understanding between other nations. It already
has. With European and Asian nodes, StormNet has a very unique atmosphere
where you will regularly chat with people not in the same country, or
continent as you. We are willing to work with you to install a new zone
in/on your country/continent.
We are looking for Zone Hubs in Asia and other continents that we
don't already have. Zone Hubs that have direct Internet connections can
get their mail sent to them via the Internet. Offer only good for New
Zones and Zone Hubs at this time, however.
* Why should I consider StormNet?
We respect each and every StormNet member and his/her rights. We
offer our services to all. We have a great network setup. We want all to
join and have a good time in the network that we have created. We're proud
of our network. We offer a unique and quaint atmosphere not found on any
other network. We guarantee it.
If you have any questions, comments, or problems, feel free to contact
any of the nodes listed below. We'd be glad to help you.
Alan Jurison
StormNet Int'l EchoMail Coordinator
You may F'req or download "STORMNET" (or STORMNET.ARJ) from these nodes:
BBS : Ham-Net BBS
Position : StormNet Int'l HQ / IEC / Mid Atlantic RC
SysOp : Alan Jurison
Location : Manlius, New York, USA
Data Phone : 1-315-682-1824
Voice Phone: 1-315-682-9411 (14:00-23:00 *EST/EDT*)
FidoNet : (1:260/375)
StormNet : (181:181/1)
InterNet : ajurison@terminus.storm.net
WWW : http://www.storm.net/=ajurison/
Speed(s) : 33,600 VFC/V34/V34+
BBS : *A*R*T*H*U*R* BBS
Position : StormNet Nodelist Coordinator / Detroit Area NC
SysOp : Victor Capton
Location : Troy, Michigan, USA
Data Phone : 1-810-740-8764
FidoNet : (1:120/120)
StormNet : (181:181/2)
InterNet : Victor.Capton@inc.storm.net
FidoNews 12-25 Page: 24 19 Jun 1995
Speed(s) : 33,600 VFC/V34/V34+
BBS : ASA CompuHelp
Positions : StormNet United States ZC / Ohio Valley RC
SysOp : Jeff Binkley
Location : Gahana, Ohio, USA
Data Phone : 1-614-476-3723
FidoNet : (1:226/600)
StormNet : (181:181/0)
InterNet : Jeff.Binkley@zc.usa.storm.net
Speed(s) : 28,800 VFC/V34
BBS : New Era BBS
Positions : StormNet Canada ZC
SysOp : Mauro Incrocci
Location : Kelowna, British Coloumbia, Canada
Data Phone : 1-604-762-6239
FidoNet : (1:353/210)
StormNet : (182:182/0)
InterNet : Mauro.Incrocci@zc.can.storm.net
Speed(s) : 28,800 VFC/V34
BBS : The Rising Sun BBS
Positions : StormNet Europe ZC / North Central RC
SysOp : Jens Fendler
Location : Destedt, Germany
Data Phone : +49-5306-7824
FidoNet : (2:241/510)
StormNet : (183:183/0)
InterNet : Jens.Fendler@zc.eur.storm.net
Speed(s) : 28,800 VFC
BBS : Closet Land ][
Positions : StormNet Asia ZC / Korea RC
SysOp : Greg Wilburn
Location : Munsan (Camp Howze), Korea
Data Phone : +82-348-940-5677
FidoNet : (6:760/22)
StormNet : (184:184/0)
InterNet : Greg.Wilburn@zc.asia.storm.net
Speed(s) : 14,400 v32b
Thank you for your time! We hope to see you soon!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
========================================================================
Fidonews Information
========================================================================
FidoNews 12-25 Page: 25 19 Jun 1995
------- FIDONEWS MASTHEAD AND CONTACT INFORMATION ----------------
Editors: Donald Tees, Sylvia Maxwell
Editors Emeritii: Thom Henderson, Dale Lovell,
Vince Perriello, Tim Pozar
Tom Jennings
"FidoNews" BBS
FidoNet 1:1/23
BBS +1-519-570-4176, 300/1200/2400/14400/V.32bis/HST(DS)
more addresses:
Don -- 1:221/192, don@exlibris.tdkcs.waterloo.on.ca
Sylvia- 1:221/194, max@exlibris.tdkcs.waterloo.on.ca
(Postal Service mailing address)
FidoNews
128 Church St.
Kitchener, Ontario
Canada
N2H 2S4
voice: (519) 570-3137
Fidonews is 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 1995 Donald Tees. All rights reserved. Duplication
and/or distribution permitted for noncommercial purposes only. For use
in other circumstances, please contact the original authors, or the eds.
OBTAINING COPIES: The most recent issue 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 by sending SASE to the above paper-mail
address.
INTERNET USERS: FidoNews is available via FTP from ftp.fidonet.org,
in directory ~ftp/pub/fidonet/fidonews.
Anyone interested in getting a copy of the INTERNET GATEWAY FAQ may
freq GISFAQ.ZIP from 1:133/411.0, or send an internet message to
fidofaq@gisatl.fidonet.org. No message or text or subject is
necessary. The address is a keyword that will trigger the automated
response. People wishing to send inquiries directly to David Deitch
should now mail to fidonet@gisatl.fidonet.org rather than the
previously listed address.
SUBMISSIONS: You are encouraged to submit articles for publication in
FidoNews 12-25 Page: 26 19 Jun 1995
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.
"the pulse of the cursor is the heartbeat of fidonet"...
-- END
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Reference in New Issue View Git Blame Copy Permalink