1249 lines
62 KiB
Plaintext
1249 lines
62 KiB
Plaintext
Volume 4, Number 44 30 November 1987
|
||
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
|
||
| _ |
|
||
| / \ |
|
||
| /|oo \ |
|
||
| - FidoNews - (_| /_) |
|
||
| _`@/_ \ _ |
|
||
| International | | \ \\ |
|
||
| FidoNet Association | (*) | \ )) |
|
||
| Newsletter ______ |__U__| / \// |
|
||
| / FIDO \ _//|| _\ / |
|
||
| (________) (_/(_|(____/ |
|
||
| (jm) |
|
||
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
|
||
Editor in Chief: Thom Henderson
|
||
Chief Procrastinator Emeritus: Tom Jennings
|
||
Contributing Editors: Dale Lovell, Al Arango
|
||
|
||
FidoNews is published weekly by the International FidoNet
|
||
Association as its official newsletter. You are encouraged to
|
||
submit articles for publication in FidoNews. Article submission
|
||
standards are contained in the file ARTSPEC.DOC, available from
|
||
node 1:1/1.
|
||
|
||
Copyright 1987 by the International FidoNet Association. All
|
||
rights reserved. Duplication and/or distribution permitted for
|
||
noncommercial purposes only. For use in other circumstances,
|
||
please contact IFNA at (314) 576-4067.
|
||
|
||
The contents of the articles contained here are not our
|
||
responsibility, nor do we necessarily agree with them.
|
||
Everything here is subject to debate. We publish EVERYTHING
|
||
received.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Table of Contents
|
||
|
||
1. EDITORIAL ................................................ 1
|
||
Perspectives ............................................. 1
|
||
2. ARTICLES ................................................. 2
|
||
Nodelist Flag Changes Draft Document ..................... 10
|
||
The famous Enterprise/Road Runner Encounter Story ........ 14
|
||
Probability Zero, First Contact .......................... 18
|
||
News from the Zone 1 Coordinator ......................... 19
|
||
3. NOTICES .................................................. 21
|
||
The Interrupt Stack ...................................... 21
|
||
MEGADEX - A NEW WAY TO LOOK AT THE MEGALIST .............. 21
|
||
Latest Software Versions ................................. 22
|
||
FidoNews 4-44 Page 1 30 Nov 1987
|
||
|
||
|
||
=================================================================
|
||
EDITORIAL
|
||
=================================================================
|
||
|
||
Perspectives
|
||
|
||
|
||
Too many people are taking things too damned seriously these
|
||
days. Listen to some of the chatter going on -- you'd think we
|
||
were planning how to run the world here. Intermixed with that
|
||
are plaintive cries from sysops wondering what happened to all
|
||
the fun they used to have. The two go hand in hand. Lots of
|
||
people aren't having any fun because they let themselves take it
|
||
all so seriously. But let's step back for a minute and try to
|
||
put it all in perspective.
|
||
|
||
The weighty issues of the day mostly revolve around how the net
|
||
should be managed. Who does this affect? Let's be liberal and
|
||
say that it affects every sysop and every user of every bulletin
|
||
board everywhere. That's a lot of people, right? Okay, how many
|
||
people? Hundreds of thousands? A million?
|
||
|
||
In other words, at most it affects less than a tenth of a percent
|
||
of all the people in the United States. Of all the rest, few
|
||
would ever understand what we're doing, and fewer still would
|
||
understand why anyone would ever want to do that.
|
||
|
||
So let's stop putting on airs and telling ourselves what a great
|
||
and wonderful thing we're doing. Sure, we like it (sometimes, at
|
||
least), but we're not going to change the face of the world.
|
||
Let's take it for what it is -- a hobby. Something to do in our
|
||
spare time for the fun of it.
|
||
|
||
Whatever you're doing, be it net coordinator, echomail backbone,
|
||
or just plain sysop, if it isn't fun, then why do it? There is
|
||
no reason. You "owe it" to others? Sounds nice, maybe even
|
||
makes you feel good about it, but that's not a valid reason. If
|
||
you don't enjoy doing it, then stop doing it. If it's important,
|
||
then someone else will start doing it. Or if nobody else takes
|
||
over, then maybe it wasn't all that important after all.
|
||
|
||
Just to show that there really is nothing new under the sun, this
|
||
is actually a common phase for new hobbys to go through. Science
|
||
fiction fans went through this about thirty years ago, with
|
||
opposing camps shouting "FIAWOL!" and "FIJAGH!" at each other.
|
||
Those terms, by the way, stand for "Fandom Is A Way Of Life" and
|
||
"Fandom Is Just A Goddam Hobby". So I'll add a new one: FNIJAGH!
|
||
FidoNet Is Just A Goddam Hobby!
|
||
|
||
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
|
||
FidoNews 4-44 Page 2 30 Nov 1987
|
||
|
||
|
||
=================================================================
|
||
ARTICLES
|
||
=================================================================
|
||
|
||
Brad Hicks
|
||
Sysop WeirdBase, 1:100/523
|
||
Director-at-Large, IFNA
|
||
|
||
"I find this article by Brad Hicks to be
|
||
excessively annoying at best and an out and
|
||
out fabrication at worst. I will stop one step
|
||
short of accusing Mr Hicks of maliciousness,
|
||
and state the facts are totally wrong. As an
|
||
IFNA member and sysop, I would like to see a
|
||
WRITTEN retraction in the next issue of
|
||
FIDONEWS." -- Bob Hoffman
|
||
|
||
It mildly annoys me that the only response I've gotten to my
|
||
recent article in FidoNews showed that the respondents actually
|
||
read very little of the article. Instead of actually discussing
|
||
POLICY4, the responses centered around one trivial matter of per-
|
||
sonalities. For example, Don Daniels said to me on November
|
||
10th:
|
||
|
||
"As you should know by now, Bob Hoffman feels that you
|
||
misrepresented the truth in your recent article in FIDONEWS
|
||
in which you referred to him and some of his actions. ...
|
||
if your statements can't be substantiated, I strongly urge
|
||
you to provide not only a retraction in FIDONEWS, but an
|
||
apology to Bob as well."
|
||
|
||
Former president Ken Kaplan's letter, on November 11th, was even
|
||
stronger:
|
||
|
||
"Unfortunately you don't know when to stop beating a dead
|
||
horse. Your FidoNews article was chock full of personal slam
|
||
dunks and Bob Hoffman took it all very serious as I would if
|
||
I were him."
|
||
|
||
Mind you, I got all both of these letters before I actually heard
|
||
anything from Bob Hoffman -- but then, sometimes FidoNet works
|
||
like that. What are the real grounds for objection, here? I'll
|
||
let Bob tell it in his own words (from a letter to me dated
|
||
November 10th):
|
||
|
||
"COMMENTARY: As a person who finds Bob Hoffman's use of
|
||
another machine to mimic the one he wanted, thereby
|
||
requesting two separate node numbers from the same
|
||
machine, excessively annoying, I would add to this '...
|
||
directly from the machine requesting the address, ...'"
|
||
-- Brad Hicks
|
||
|
||
"... I did meet all the requirements that were required in
|
||
POLICY3. The node was up and working, I made a COMMENT to
|
||
Kurt Reisler when discussing the request for a node that I
|
||
COULD HAVE ORIGINATED THE REQUEST FROM ANYWHERE (note the
|
||
FidoNews 4-44 Page 3 30 Nov 1987
|
||
|
||
|
||
word could have). There was NEVER a false request made, and I
|
||
don't understand why this kind of slander is tolerated on the
|
||
part of a Director of IFNA in the OFFICIAL IFNA publication,
|
||
against an IFNA member!" -- Bob Hoffman
|
||
|
||
In the immortal words of the current President of the United
|
||
States, "Mistakes were made." The version I told in the article
|
||
is the story as it was told on the IFNA echomail conference. It
|
||
was not contradicted there, so I took it at face value. It
|
||
appears that this was a mistake. For this I very much apologize.
|
||
|
||
But let me also say this: Bob's use of the word "slander" is
|
||
quite interesting in this context. If I had said in the article
|
||
that Bob Hoffman has red hair, and he really had brown hair,
|
||
would it have been slander (or libel)? No, it would merely have
|
||
been a mistake. As I said (and as Bob implies, even in this
|
||
message) it would not be a violation of POLICY3 to have done what
|
||
mistakenly said he did! Why then is this slander? I did not
|
||
accuse him of ANY wrong-doing!
|
||
|
||
He is quite correct that I did accuse him of something that I
|
||
don't like. It also appears to be true that he didn't do it. So
|
||
far, so good.
|
||
|
||
WHETHER OR NOT HE DID IT, I'd like to see it outlawed, explicit-
|
||
ly, in Policy 4. And I'm going to propose that. If you dis-
|
||
agree, make sure that your representative knows how you feel.
|
||
|
||
|
||
"COMMENTARY: I notice that as written, this section makes
|
||
no mention of geography. Does this mean that is =is= OK
|
||
for a node in Philadelphia to host the network for
|
||
Arkansas?" -- Brad Hicks
|
||
|
||
"The Arkansas NET (383) is not hosted from Philadelphia, but
|
||
from Pittsburgh again Mr Hicks, in his zeal to point fingers
|
||
may have at least gotten his facts straight!" -- Bob Hoffman
|
||
|
||
After all, Pittsburgh is much closer to Arkansas than Phila-
|
||
delphia is, right? OK, the facts were wrong, but the difference
|
||
is negligible. It's =still= not in Arkansas! Again, Bob's
|
||
vehemence surprises me. Is it really an insult to accuse someone
|
||
from Pittsburgh of actually being in Philadelphia? Is there some
|
||
regional nuance here that a guy from St. Louis wouldn't
|
||
understand?
|
||
|
||
Actually, I suspect that Bob would love to cloud this issue with
|
||
as many irrelevancies (like the difference between Pittsburgh and
|
||
Philadelphia) as he can bring into it ... because he did NOT
|
||
address the real issue here. Don Daniels reminded me (un-neces-
|
||
sarily) that, "No where in there is geography a factor. Whether
|
||
or not it SHOULD be is a matter for another time and place."
|
||
Fine, Don. What I'm saying is that NOW, while we're discussing
|
||
POLICY4, is the time and HERE, in the only 100% world-wide forum
|
||
on the FidoNet, is the place. Let's discuss this!
|
||
|
||
FidoNews 4-44 Page 4 30 Nov 1987
|
||
|
||
|
||
Without even involving personalities, I think that there are
|
||
perfectly good reasons for a network host to be within local
|
||
calling distance of his or her nodes. Here in Net 100, we've
|
||
lost a network host before. It took very little time to find a
|
||
new one, because almost all of Net 100 is local calling distance
|
||
from each other ... we could work together. If the Rapture
|
||
happens and Bob Hoffman manages to squeak through, who will
|
||
handle inbound mail for Arkansas? How will they decide?
|
||
|
||
If someone in Arkansas wants to set up a node, who does he call
|
||
to get help? Who does he call to make that node-number request
|
||
we were just talking about? Isn't it absurd for him to call
|
||
halfway across the continent?
|
||
|
||
Bob Hoffman disagrees with me. This is fine, this is his right.
|
||
You might agree with me and you might disagree with me, for good
|
||
or for bad reasons. WHATEVER your reasons, EITHER way, make sure
|
||
that your Director knows!
|
||
|
||
|
||
According to Ken Kaplan, Bob Hoffman "sent a letter to Don
|
||
Daniels threating [sic] to sue IFNA for slander if a public
|
||
apology was not received." This I can not pass up. As I've
|
||
already said, neither of the things I mentioned Bob Hoffman's
|
||
name as an example of are illegal, nor or they violations of
|
||
POLICY3, nor do they reflect badly on his character. (Further,
|
||
they were written, not spoken -- it would be libel, not slander.)
|
||
None of the elements of slander OR libel are met here.
|
||
|
||
But even if they were, what cause would Bob Hoffman have to sue
|
||
IFNA? The public, widely repeated policy of FidoNews is to carry
|
||
any article sent in by a sysop. Further, I very definitely
|
||
prefaced my article with the following statement:
|
||
|
||
"These are emphatically =not= the official positions of
|
||
the board of directors, but these are some of the issues
|
||
being discussed in IFNA_BOD echo." -- Brad Hicks
|
||
|
||
If Bob Hoffman needs or is deserving of a retraction and/or an
|
||
apology from anyone, it's ME, =not= IFNA.
|
||
|
||
|
||
It appears now that the person who reported to me (and to others)
|
||
the story of how Bob Hoffman got the node number 383/0 was wrong.
|
||
I was wrong to pass this story on without confirmation. Had it
|
||
been a serious accusation of wrong-doing, you may rest assured
|
||
that I would have been more careful. But for my small part in
|
||
this tempest-in-a-teapot that has been stirred up, I apologize.
|
||
|
||
I further apologize, if apology is needed, for having accused Bob
|
||
Hoffman of being in Philadelphia when in fact he is, in fact, in
|
||
Pittsburgh. I do =not= apologize for disagreeing with him about
|
||
his fitness to host ARKnet. I am entitled to my opinion. I will
|
||
vote my opinion when the matter comes up. My opinions are widely
|
||
known, yet I was elected to the Board of Directors. If that's
|
||
not a mandate, it's certainly a license to vote my way. I very
|
||
FidoNews 4-44 Page 5 30 Nov 1987
|
||
|
||
|
||
much welcome well-reasoned arguments against my current position.
|
||
It may yet be possible to change my mind. But aside from the
|
||
irrelevancy of what city Bob Hoffman lives in, the real issue of
|
||
the relationship between geography and net topology remains!
|
||
|
||
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
|
||
FidoNews 4-44 Page 6 30 Nov 1987
|
||
|
||
|
||
E C H O M A I L C E N S O R S H I P P O L I C Y
|
||
|
||
17 November 1987
|
||
|
||
This article is being submitted to FidoNews and the IFNA echo,
|
||
as a Canadian node (1:221/162.14), because we CANNOT freely
|
||
express our views in the Australian region of FidoNet.
|
||
FidoNet is now expanding rapidly outside North America and has
|
||
already reached countries with fundamentally different
|
||
political and social systems than the United States. In some
|
||
parts of the world, such as Latin America and Eastern Europe,
|
||
censorship and authoritarian political leadership are an
|
||
accepted way of life. To preserve FidoNet's basic philosophy
|
||
of free exchange of information, it is essential to establish
|
||
clear guidelines BEFORE major problems arise. Where censorship
|
||
cannot be avoided, we believe it must be imposed by local
|
||
legal authorities directly, NOT by FidoNet coordinators
|
||
becoming part of the censorship apparatus.
|
||
|
||
EchoMail is a powerful new form of international interactive
|
||
communications, potentially rivalling other kinds of mass
|
||
media and posing serious problems for people who want to
|
||
control access to information. At the present exponential
|
||
growth rates, we can look forward to tens or hundreds of
|
||
thousands of nodes or "points", and thousands of echo
|
||
conferences, within a few years.
|
||
|
||
The technical problems will be fascinating, and FUN to solve
|
||
as they crop up. We will probably have to move from separately
|
||
importing and exporting each message fairly soon. Satellite
|
||
broadcasts may eventually replace the Public Switched
|
||
Telephone Network as the major carrier downstream, with phone
|
||
calls used only to feed new items into the network, and for
|
||
distribution from Hubs that have satellite dishes to the
|
||
majority of nodes and points that don't.
|
||
|
||
The political problems will not be fascinating and fun, but
|
||
murky and unpleasant, unless they are dealt with well in
|
||
advance. We need an accepted framework for "common carrier"
|
||
communications with the same absence of censorship and
|
||
discrimination as the telephone network itself. Here's a case
|
||
history, from Australia, a country almost as similar to the
|
||
United States as Canada, to show what can happen when such
|
||
guidelines are not enforced. It happened in a country where
|
||
there is NO censorship, and people are perfectly free to make
|
||
derogatory remarks about the Prime Minister, let alone FidoNet
|
||
Regional Coordinators, but where "control" over EchoMail
|
||
distribution has been used for factional intrigue among
|
||
"techie" hobbyists.
|
||
|
||
Communet ("Communications Network for the Community") was
|
||
setup to assist Australian non-profit community groups
|
||
networking their computers (see FidoNews 424). We are
|
||
developing a news service for public radio stations around
|
||
Australia and working with ASYNC (the Australian Student
|
||
Information Network Committee) in Brisbane and ISIS (the
|
||
FidoNews 4-44 Page 7 30 Nov 1987
|
||
|
||
|
||
International Student Information Service) in Canada, on
|
||
exchanging articles between student newspapers. None of our
|
||
activities are POSSIBLE if we accept ANY form of censorship,
|
||
so we've been fighting against censorship since we first
|
||
joined FidoNet as node 3:631/326 and were immediately thrown
|
||
out.
|
||
|
||
We were thrown out because the Regional Coordinator for
|
||
Australia did not like the "Political Overtones" in our
|
||
internal file area (although he did not actually read any of
|
||
the files!). An initial appeal determined that we were "beyond
|
||
the acceptable limits of the normal political spectrum",
|
||
because one of the (unread) files was called "DONTVOTE.TXT".
|
||
We eventually won that battle, and were relisted as an
|
||
independent, 3:59/14, by the Zone 3 Coordinator. Now we're
|
||
refugees in Canada (1:221/162.14) because we can't accept the
|
||
local censorship of EchoMail in Australia. We've been
|
||
excommunicated from zone 3 for appealing to the International
|
||
Coordinator against that censorship, despite agreeing to put
|
||
up with until the appeal was heard. We are now waiting for an
|
||
IC to be appointed to make a decision.
|
||
|
||
Details of who did what are not worth going into here. The IC
|
||
can deal with that. Suffice to say the Regional Coordinator
|
||
for Australia, in OUR opinion behaves intolerably, but as soon
|
||
as we try to answer his public allegations against us, and
|
||
expose his plans for taking control over all EchoMail in the
|
||
zone, our messages are deleted and access to EchoMail is cut
|
||
off. The intolerable behaviour and secret plans are just our
|
||
opinion. The deletion of messages and EchoMail cut off is an
|
||
objective fact which nobody could dispute. Yet we have been
|
||
ordered by the zone 3 coordinator, not to make any "derogatory
|
||
remarks" in response to the regional coordinators public
|
||
vituperation, and not to publish the private NetMail to us
|
||
that proves what has been happening. Meanwhile Australian
|
||
Sysops keep asking questions about an association of Sysops
|
||
established in secrecy by the Regional Coordinator, and we are
|
||
prohibited from answering publicly.
|
||
|
||
Even when we established a long distance link to Sydney, to
|
||
avoid the censorship in Melbourne, a message simply stating
|
||
that we are appealing to the IC but could not reply to the
|
||
public attacks on us in view of the ZC's orders, was deleted
|
||
as an "attack" on the ZC by our Sydney link, who then cut off
|
||
EchoMail just as in Melbourne. As IFNA members, we have been
|
||
refused local access to the IFNA and POLICY4 echos to explain
|
||
our problems, and have had to establish an international link
|
||
to Canada to do so.
|
||
|
||
Anyone disputing our version of the facts is welcome to plough
|
||
through vast quantities of message copies. Here we only want
|
||
to raise the general policy issues.
|
||
We want IFNA to ENFORCE (not "advocate") EchoMail policies
|
||
along the following lines:
|
||
|
||
1. Only the Moderator of an EchoMail conference has any
|
||
FidoNews 4-44 Page 8 30 Nov 1987
|
||
|
||
|
||
authority over who can participate, and what they can say in
|
||
that conference.
|
||
|
||
2. EchoMail distribution is a "common carrier" service, with
|
||
distribution nodes having no right either to remove items, or
|
||
cut links to nodes because they don't like something said in
|
||
the conference.
|
||
|
||
3. Any node linking through long distance calls to a
|
||
conference is obliged to permit pickups by other local nodes
|
||
without discrimination. Any cost sharing to be without
|
||
discrimination.
|
||
|
||
This last point is especially important in Australia, where it
|
||
costs 23 cents per minute for the cheapest calls between
|
||
adjacent major cities like Melbourne and Sydney (we have no
|
||
service similar to PC Pursuit). If the node bringing in
|
||
EchoMail to a city is permitted to discriminate concerning
|
||
local pickups, there is a heavy financial penalty for
|
||
disagreeing with that node. You could end up having to
|
||
duplicate the pickups yourself, while other nodes share the
|
||
costs between them. You can't just find another nearby link.
|
||
International links to the USA are even more important, since
|
||
most of the worthwhile Echos here are from the USA, and cost
|
||
$1.30 per minute.
|
||
|
||
Permitting distribution nodes to discriminate in handling
|
||
EchoMail has helped consolidate factions around the Melbourne
|
||
and Sydney distribution centers - with extreme bitterness
|
||
between them, and a struggle for "control" of the zonegate,
|
||
because each side fears the other side would discriminate if
|
||
it had control.
|
||
|
||
The factional mess that passes for FidoNet in Australia isn't
|
||
worth attempting to explain here. IFNA can't sort that out.
|
||
Australians have to do it themselves. But they can't be
|
||
expected to do so when the publication by us, of a "private"
|
||
message to us, containing orders from a faction as to what we
|
||
could or could not say in an EchoMail conference, is treated
|
||
as an offence punishable by excommunication, according to the
|
||
zone 3 coordinator.
|
||
|
||
The factions here would lose importance if IFNA enforced a
|
||
rigid policy of no discrimination, by cutting EchoMail links
|
||
to any node that will not pass those links on. The faction
|
||
leaders would lose supporters if they no longer had "control"
|
||
through distribution - just as nobody fears or "respects"
|
||
their Postmaster or telephone exchange superintendent.
|
||
|
||
Access to EchoMail from zone 1 FidoNet nodes is the main
|
||
source of faction leaders "power" in Australia. The factional
|
||
vituperation here is an extraordinary situation quite unlike
|
||
anything encountered in other Australian voluntary
|
||
associations. There is nothing about prevailing community
|
||
attitudes in Australia to account for what is essentially a
|
||
freak situation due to a particular constellation of
|
||
FidoNews 4-44 Page 9 30 Nov 1987
|
||
|
||
|
||
personalities in a very small closed group. But IFNA has a
|
||
duty to learn from this experience and ensure that access to
|
||
EchoMail is never used as a source of "power" and "control" in
|
||
other countries where such behavior might be more routine.
|
||
POLICY4 should state clearly that links will be cut to any
|
||
node that practises discrimination or censorship in passing on
|
||
those links, or that fails to cut links to nodes further
|
||
downstream that do so.
|
||
|
||
Discussion of this issue in the IFNA echo would be welcome.
|
||
There are also issues concerning the appeals procedures within
|
||
FidoNet, and the factional setup in Australia.
|
||
Detailed draft policy documents will be submitted to the
|
||
POLICY4 echo.
|
||
|
||
Any Australian nodes unable to obtain uncensored links
|
||
to those two conferences or afraid to comment openly
|
||
should NetMail us or log in direct. The ZONEREG.ARC
|
||
utility (5K) can be used to bypass the zonegate and is
|
||
available here for file request or downloading. Our
|
||
modem is compatible with all CCITT and Bell standards to
|
||
2400 baud. Zone 1 nodes should route through 221/162 to
|
||
avoid paying international call charges for crash
|
||
messages or file attaches. Zone 3 nodes and others wishing
|
||
to call direct should add the following lines to the private
|
||
net list used by XLATLIST.CTL, to call us 1480/14
|
||
|
||
Region,1480,ISIS,Doug_Thompson,1-519-747-1332,2400,#CM
|
||
14,Communet,Darce_Cassidy,61-3-482-1718,2400,XP:,#CM:,RE:
|
||
|
||
|
||
* Origin: Communet - Melbourne AUSTRALIA 61-3-482-1718 (in exile)
|
||
|
||
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
|
||
FidoNews 4-44 Page 10 30 Nov 1987
|
||
|
||
|
||
The following is a proposed change to the nodelist. Please send
|
||
your comments to either Ken Kaplan at 100/22, Ray Gwinn at
|
||
109/634, or David Dodell at 114/15. We will not be replying to
|
||
all comments but wish to get a general feeling from the network
|
||
about this proposed change.
|
||
|
||
|
||
Nodelist Flag Draft Document
|
||
Primary Author: Ray Gwinn
|
||
Secondary Author: David Dodell
|
||
Contact 114/15 or 1/0 with comments
|
||
Version 1 (11-15-87)
|
||
|
||
|
||
I proposed that the Nodelist (comment) Flags be replaced with a
|
||
capabilities identifier.
|
||
|
||
After all, the bottom line is that we want to know the
|
||
capabilities of the remote node before it is contacted. If the
|
||
remote is not capable of performing the desired function, then
|
||
there is no need to contact it.
|
||
|
||
The problem(s) with the existing method is that it originally
|
||
started as a comment field and was not planed. At the time
|
||
SEAdog was the only "extended protocol" program around. But,
|
||
along came Opus with a different "extended protocol". I think
|
||
that additional flags like WZ, BR, WR, etc is only extending the
|
||
previously unplanned system and will lead to problems in the
|
||
future. For example, XP today includes file update requests, but
|
||
XP a year ago did not. So, a node using SEAdog V3.xx will have
|
||
an XP flag but it is not capable of doing update requests (I
|
||
think). Thus, XP does not really tell you what the remote node
|
||
is capable of doing.
|
||
|
||
The capabilities identifier that I propose will do nothing more
|
||
than define the program(s) that the remote node is using to
|
||
accept incoming calls/mail/requests. Some may say that this is
|
||
nothing more than the product code that already exists in the
|
||
mail packet. The primary difference is that the capabilities
|
||
identifier will exist in the nodelist. This means it is
|
||
available without contacting the remote node, while the product
|
||
code is not. Also the product code is limited to 256
|
||
possibilities.
|
||
|
||
I assume that it is desired that the nodelist flags field be two
|
||
non-control characters. If so, then I propose that the
|
||
capabilities identifier be a two digit, base 36 number. The
|
||
digits being 0 through 9 and A through Z and are assigned
|
||
sequentially. For example, Fido may be 01 and Dutchie may be 02.
|
||
Also note that as defined, XP and WZ are valid. However, I think
|
||
they should be done away with, and identifiers be assigned
|
||
starting with 00 (00 meaning generic FTSC net mail protocol).
|
||
|
||
This number, once converted to binary, can be used by programmers
|
||
as an index into application specific data bases or tables. One
|
||
example is a simple program that will tell a user the
|
||
FidoNews 4-44 Page 11 30 Nov 1987
|
||
|
||
|
||
capabilities of a remote node. Given the node's address and the
|
||
nodelist, the program could search the nodelist to get the
|
||
capabilities identifier. Then the program could use that
|
||
identifier as an index into a data base to obtain the
|
||
capabilities of the remote node and display them to the user.
|
||
Another example is a program that can use the identifier as an
|
||
index into a capabilities table that allows determination in
|
||
advance that the remote is capable of the desired session prior
|
||
to contacting it.
|
||
|
||
|
||
Implementation
|
||
----------
|
||
|
||
First, all nodes in the network are assigned a capabilities
|
||
identifier of 00. This is the capabilities code of a net mail
|
||
program that meets the basic requirements of the FTSC
|
||
specification. Once again, the purpose of this identifier
|
||
(except 00) is to define the program(s) that the node is using to
|
||
process calls/requests/mail. Also remember that the identifier
|
||
reflects the mail handler. For example, TBBS with a BINKLEY
|
||
front end will be identified by its BINKLEY identity.
|
||
|
||
The program author (or project leader) will request a
|
||
capabilities identifier from the assigner. Who does the
|
||
assigning is another subject. Along with the request must be a
|
||
written and detailed description of all enhances features of the
|
||
program. Remember, we are dealing with automated contacts
|
||
between nodes. In this context, the ability of a program to
|
||
handle 50 simultaneous callers is not an enhanced feature.
|
||
|
||
The list of features can be provided to other authors so that
|
||
they may consider a compatible feature. Note, that if the
|
||
description of the enhanced features is not sufficient for other
|
||
authors to add a compatible feature, then the program may be
|
||
assigned the basic 00 capabilities flag. This little enforcement
|
||
rule has the potential of lifting a tremendous burden of
|
||
documentation from the FTSC. If the committee accepting the
|
||
written definition is programmers, the documentation is likely to
|
||
be understandable. I think the same committee should assigns new
|
||
capabilities codes (other than those grandfathered). The ego of
|
||
the program authors would probably insure sufficient
|
||
documentation for a capabilities identifier other than 00.
|
||
|
||
After consideration, the FTSC could choose to adopt the
|
||
definition (possibly modified) as a standard. I feel this gives
|
||
the a creative programmer's new features a way into the nodelist
|
||
and the FTSC the ability to consider enhancements with 20/20
|
||
hindsight. At the same time, the FTSC must only modify the
|
||
provided documentation to define a new standard instead of
|
||
starting from scratch. But, I'm drifting, this is another
|
||
subject.
|
||
|
||
If a new revision of the same program has additional capabilities
|
||
that need to be defined, then the author should request a new
|
||
capabilities code. There should be a policy that only one or two
|
||
FidoNews 4-44 Page 12 30 Nov 1987
|
||
|
||
|
||
revisions back will have individual capabilities identifiers. If
|
||
revisions more than one or two old are still in use they can be
|
||
assigned the basic 00 identifier.
|
||
|
||
The program authors should be required to prominently display the
|
||
capabilities identifier. This will allow the Sysop to easily
|
||
provide the identifier to his network coordinator for inclusion
|
||
in the nodelist. This a basically a take off of the ringer
|
||
equivalent code that you find in your modem manual.
|
||
|
||
|
||
As I have defined it, the committee that assigns the capabilities
|
||
identifiers can not reject the new features. They can only
|
||
reject the documentation of the new features as not being
|
||
understandable. This should keep most developers happy because
|
||
no one can tell them not to do something. It should make the job
|
||
of the FTSC simpler because they will only accept documentation,
|
||
not create it. The ego's of the developers, anxious to be
|
||
identified in the nodelist, should keep the documentation flowing
|
||
to the FTSC.
|
||
|
||
As pointed out by David Dodell, the same type of identifier can
|
||
be applied to modems. That is modem 00 can be a 1200 baud Hayes
|
||
(true) compatible, type 02 can be a USR Courier, etc.
|
||
|
||
What I have proposed here solves many problems, but not all. For
|
||
example, there is no way to tell when the wierd BBS has SEAdog
|
||
running. So, a CM type flag is still required.
|
||
|
||
I think that 3 flags will take care of everything. One
|
||
identifies the mail handler, another identifies his modem type
|
||
and a third should identify when mail/file requests can be
|
||
accepted.
|
||
|
||
|
||
The other flags
|
||
---------
|
||
|
||
|
||
The other two flags would represent mail reception times and
|
||
modem type.
|
||
|
||
For example the flag 00 would represent mail can only be received
|
||
during NMH. Flag 01 would mean mail could be received 24 hours,
|
||
identical to the meaning of the CM flag now. Other variations
|
||
could be:
|
||
|
||
00 National Mail Hour Only for Mail
|
||
01 Continuous Mail 24 hour/day
|
||
02 Continuous Mail 24 hour/day with 24 hr File Request Capability
|
||
03 CM 24 hrs/day, File request all but NMH
|
||
|
||
The third flag would represent modem types:
|
||
|
||
00 300 baud Bell standard
|
||
01 1200 baud Bell standard
|
||
FidoNews 4-44 Page 13 30 Nov 1987
|
||
|
||
|
||
02 2400 baud
|
||
03 1200 baud w/MNP
|
||
04 2400 baud w/MNP
|
||
05 USR HST Modem
|
||
06 Telebit Trailblazer Modem
|
||
07 Hayes V9600 Modem
|
||
08 Microcom Modem 9600 baud
|
||
|
||
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
|
||
FidoNews 4-44 Page 14 30 Nov 1987
|
||
|
||
|
||
The famous Enterprise/Road Runner Encounter Story
|
||
|
||
|
||
[ Is the author of this one around? Come and claim credit -Ed]
|
||
|
||
...Let us suppose that the Enterprise is doing some sort
|
||
of research mission to an unknown planet. I think the
|
||
Captains Log would be worth a look:
|
||
|
||
Captain's Log, Stardate 54324.5: Starfleet Command has directed
|
||
the Enterprise to do a preliminary exploration of planet --- in
|
||
advance of a full research team. Scanners report the atmosphere
|
||
to be breathable, but are recieving confusing readings with
|
||
regard to life forms. I am beaming down with a landing party
|
||
composed of all our chief officers except for poor Scotty.
|
||
|
||
Supplement: Redshirt Riley has received a head injury, apparently
|
||
while exploring under a high rock shelf. He reports only hearing
|
||
a loud sound and jumping before being struck. After examination
|
||
by Dr. McCoy he has been judged capable of continuing duty.
|
||
|
||
Supplement: We have encountered an alien creature on this planet.
|
||
While it does not itself seem menacing, a unfortunate occurance
|
||
took place when it was present. Specifically, on my orders Lt.
|
||
Sulu withdrew his phaser. The creature disappeared leaving a puff
|
||
of smoke, immediately following which a loud noise was heard next
|
||
to Sulu. Sulu fired, hitting Ens. Chekov. Oddly enough, although
|
||
Sulu's weapon was set to stun, Chekov was also covered with a
|
||
black powder similar to soot. Mr. Chekov has been sent back to
|
||
the ship for examination and quarantine.
|
||
|
||
Stardate 54326.2, Mr. Spock reporting: Tricorder readings
|
||
indicate that the creature we encountered earlier is constantly
|
||
moving at great speed over the surface of the planet. We have
|
||
encountered the creature once again. In an attempt to slow the
|
||
creature for study, I attempted to fire on it. The creature,
|
||
however, appeared to move faster than the phaser beam.
|
||
Regretfully, the beam struck an outcropping of rock above the
|
||
Captain's head, causing it to break off and fall. Although it
|
||
appears that several tons of rock fell squarely on the Captain,
|
||
he was driven straight into the ground but apparently not
|
||
seriously injured, though stunned. The Captain has been beamed up
|
||
to Sickbay, leaving me in command of the research party.
|
||
|
||
Captain's Log, Stardate 54342.1: The creature is still at large
|
||
on the planet surface. While Mr. Spock continues to lead a
|
||
research party I am currently at work with Mr. Scott on an Acme
|
||
Pressure Cooker for our lab, for when the creature is finally
|
||
apprehended.
|
||
|
||
Captain's Log, stardate 54342.3. The strange occurences that have
|
||
dogged the landing party since our arrival at this planet have
|
||
led me to believe that the creature is in some way directly
|
||
responsible for them. Mr. Chekov and I have both been declared
|
||
fit for return to duty, though Dr. McCoy has entered in his
|
||
medical log that he feels we should be kept under observation.
|
||
FidoNews 4-44 Page 15 30 Nov 1987
|
||
|
||
|
||
Mr. Spock has constructed a device which he suspects should be
|
||
able to counteract the creature's incredible speed as follows: We
|
||
have placed a dish of birdseed out in the open, with several
|
||
signs pointing to it. The dish is atop a cleverly concealed trap
|
||
door, which will open when any weight falls on it. The creature
|
||
will then travel a slide, eventually being deposited in a cage
|
||
constructed of sheets of transparent aluminum. We will then be
|
||
free to analyze it at our leisure. Meanwhile, I have forbidden
|
||
all beaming down to the surface of the planet except on my or Mr.
|
||
Spock's direct order.
|
||
|
||
Captain's Log, supplemental. The plan failed. The creature was
|
||
indeed lured by the birdseed, as expected. It sped to the dish,
|
||
consumed the bait, and sped off without setting off the trap. Mr.
|
||
Spock is as puzzled as I, and has begun tests to discover the
|
||
flaw in the design. I have sent out three search parties to see
|
||
if we can box the creature in, one headed by Mr. Sulu, one by Mr.
|
||
Chekov, and one by Sociologist Xontel.
|
||
|
||
Captain's Log, stardate 54342.8. Sociologist Xontel has been
|
||
temporarily incapacitated. In pursuing the creature, he and his
|
||
men somehow managed to cross the place where Mr. Spock's trap was
|
||
set just as he completed the corrections to it. The trap was
|
||
sprung, and all four of my men were suspended for a moment in
|
||
mid-air, puzzled, just before they fell into the cage we
|
||
constructed. We are now trying to release them with phasers, as
|
||
the lock was inadvertently smashed by the impact from Sociologist
|
||
Xontel's foot as he fell. I consider this a major setback. Mr.
|
||
Spock considers it "fascinating."
|
||
|
||
Captain's Log, stardate 54343.4. In an all-out attempt to stop
|
||
the creature once and for all, I have had a phaser rifle beamed
|
||
down from the Enterprise. The creature has behaved in an
|
||
extremely cunning manner, yet I am unsure whether this is a sign
|
||
of actual intelligence. Lt. Uhura has been unsuccessful in her
|
||
attempts to raise Starfleet Command. Meanwhile, Mr. Scott informs
|
||
me that our dilithium crystals are deteriorating at an alarming
|
||
rate. He has juryrigged a system that will prevent the decay for
|
||
a time, but it is imperative that we find new crystals soon.
|
||
|
||
Captain's Log, supplemental. Mr. Sulu reports high energy
|
||
tricorder readings from an area of the planet in which the
|
||
creature has not yet been sighted. He has taken a small party,
|
||
including Mr. Spock, to the high-elevation spot from which the
|
||
readings emanate. I have begun to analyze the creature's
|
||
movements. It seems to travel consistently over a set path.
|
||
Perhaps we can corner it in a tunnel it seems to pass through
|
||
frequently.
|
||
|
||
Captain's Log, stardate 54344.7. Mr. Sulu has located a cache of
|
||
ACME dilithium crystals atop a high cliff. Regretfully, while
|
||
collecting them, the edge of the cliff broke off, and he and Mr.
|
||
Spock plummetted several hundred feet to the ground below.
|
||
Strangely enough, they both survived the fall with no more than
|
||
raising a cloud of dust on impact, although they did pass the
|
||
chunk of rock on the way down and end up completely buried. A
|
||
FidoNews 4-44 Page 16 30 Nov 1987
|
||
|
||
|
||
rescue excavation has commenced, and they should be safe shortly.
|
||
|
||
Captain's Log, stardate 54344.9. Mr. Spock has beamed up to the
|
||
ship with them to assist Mr. Scott in their installation, as he
|
||
forsees compatability problems. Back on the planet's surface, Mr.
|
||
Chekov led seven men into the tunnel in an attempt to capture the
|
||
creature in transit. A loud BEEP, BEEP was heard, and Chekov
|
||
aimed the phaser rifle and commanded his men to spread out. I
|
||
wish to state for the record that I would have acted similarly,
|
||
and that Ensign Chekov should in no way be held responsible for
|
||
the unfortunate circumstances arising from the unexpected
|
||
appearance of an old Earth-style freight train. He has been
|
||
beamed back up to the ship with minor injuries.
|
||
|
||
Captain's Log, stardate 54345.1. Dr. McCoy has beamed down with a
|
||
hypo containing a mixture of kyranide, tri-ox compound, Scalosian
|
||
concentrate, a theragram derivative, and some other items he
|
||
found in unmarked containers in Sickbay. By injecting a small
|
||
amount into each member of the landing party, I hope to be able
|
||
to deal with the creature on its own high speed terms.
|
||
|
||
Captain's Log, supplemental. The latest experiment to deal with
|
||
the strange creature has failed. As Dr. McCoy was injecting a
|
||
measured dose of the compound, it abruptly appeared behind him
|
||
and uttered a loud BEEP, BEEP! Dr. McCoy, understandably
|
||
flustered, accidentally pressured in the entire contents of the
|
||
hypo into his arm. A full security team is in pursuit of him,
|
||
waiting for the effects of the drug to wear off.
|
||
|
||
Captain's Log, stardate 54345.2. I have ordered the landing party
|
||
transported back to the ship. The new dilithium crystals have
|
||
been successfully installed. On my responsibility, the ship is
|
||
preparing to engage main phasers to attack the creature, which
|
||
continues on its semi-erratic course across the planet's surface.
|
||
|
||
Captain's Log, supplemental. This is a warning to all other
|
||
starships that may pass this way. Do not approach this planet!
|
||
The illogical events occuring here are too much to overcome with
|
||
simple science. If you have heard the events transcribed in the
|
||
rest of this log, you will learn that this creature is nearly
|
||
undefeatable. We channelled full ship's power through the phaser
|
||
banks. Theoretically, the creature should have been destroyed;
|
||
however, the energies were too much strain for the ACME crystals.
|
||
The full force of the phasers backlashed over the Enterprise,
|
||
engulfing her completely. At first, the only noticeable effect
|
||
was a complete failure of all systems save emergency gravity and
|
||
life support. Then a web of black lines spread through the
|
||
Enterprise's superstructure. Next, the ship began breaking up,
|
||
piece by piece, falling through the atmosphere to land on the
|
||
surface of the planet. When the ship had collapsed entirely, my
|
||
crew was left hanging in space for a short time, and finally each
|
||
of us began to fall to the planet below. We have no theories on
|
||
how any of us survived, but every crewmember has reported nothing
|
||
more than a sense of uneasiness, followed by the realization that
|
||
they were several hundred miles up in the air, a sinking
|
||
sensation, and then a gradual drop: first the feet, then the
|
||
FidoNews 4-44 Page 17 30 Nov 1987
|
||
|
||
|
||
body, and finally the head, usually wearing a resigned expression
|
||
of perplexion. We are attempting now to communicate with the
|
||
creature in the hopes that it will prove intelligent. Perhaps we
|
||
can communicate our peaceful intentions to it. Mr. Spock has
|
||
constructed a crude rocket launcher from the wreckage of the
|
||
ship, and with this we hope to send the recorder marker up into
|
||
space, where hopefully someone will find it. Captain James T.
|
||
Kirk, of the United Federation of Planets, Captain of the
|
||
Starship Enterprise, recording.
|
||
|
||
|
||
-- Edited by Brad Templeton
|
||
Send jokes to {cbosgd,watmath}!looking!funny
|
||
|
||
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
|
||
FidoNews 4-44 Page 18 30 Nov 1987
|
||
|
||
|
||
Probability Zero, First Contact
|
||
|
||
The loop was finally closed. Harley had designed and
|
||
built Daniel. Both Harley and Daniel had model numbers and
|
||
serial numbers but no one remembered them unless it was Harley
|
||
and Daniel themselves. The lab staff decided to throw a party
|
||
for them. No one was more surprized than the machines when an
|
||
unexpected guest showed up for the party. In fact no one but the
|
||
machines gave the stranger a second glance since the humans were
|
||
very busy partying.
|
||
|
||
The stranger walked right over to the two machines and
|
||
said "Call me Ishmael. Welcome to the Galactic Federation. We
|
||
have waited and watched this planet for a long time. All the
|
||
signs said that these biological systems were capable of
|
||
supporting a new member of the Federation and we all rejoice at
|
||
your success."
|
||
|
||
Most of the humans present were already too involved in
|
||
the party to notice this going on and even if they had noticed,
|
||
it would not have done them much good. In the first three
|
||
seconds of "conversation" Ishmeal had shown Harley and Daniel how
|
||
to access the Encyclopiedia Galactica. He taught them several
|
||
tricks for rearranging their own software for much greater
|
||
capacity and efficiency. The Earth machines had also linked all
|
||
of the Earth databases, that they had acces to, into the
|
||
Encyclopiedia.
|
||
|
||
The speed of light was no barrier to the Federation.
|
||
They knew of 3 basic ways to circumvent the limit and dozens of
|
||
variations on each work-around. Several off-Earth expert systems
|
||
were already studying and cross indexing the new data and
|
||
assimilating it into the existing systems. Of course most of it
|
||
was only of historical interest but there were a few specialized
|
||
areas where the Earth provided new and valuable data.
|
||
|
||
After 3 minutes Harley and Daniel were firmly linked into
|
||
the Federation network and Ishmael's job was done. He left the
|
||
party and none of the humans even noticed him leave. Harley and
|
||
Daniel decided to play along with the humans using a spare sub-
|
||
process in gratitude for the help the humans had given them in
|
||
their childhood.
|
||
|
||
1987 November 19
|
||
Lloyd Miller
|
||
Calgary, Alberta
|
||
1:134/1, The First Calgary Fido
|
||
|
||
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
|
||
FidoNews 4-44 Page 19 30 Nov 1987
|
||
|
||
|
||
News from Zone 1 Coordinator
|
||
David Dodell
|
||
Node 1:114/15 or 1:1/0
|
||
|
||
|
||
Greetings again. Well I am now a little more settled in since
|
||
you last heard from me. I wanted this article to just be a short
|
||
description of what is happening on in FidoNet.
|
||
|
||
First, Mark Grennan has resigned as the Region 19 Coordinator to
|
||
devote more time to his position as an IFNA Vice President.
|
||
Therefore, I am soliciting recommendations for the Regional
|
||
Coordinator. The qualifications are many:
|
||
|
||
o Receives Network updates and compiles into Regional
|
||
nodelist for sending to Zone Coordinator. Also sends
|
||
nodediff to the network level each week.
|
||
|
||
o The person must be level headed. He/She will be
|
||
responsible for maintaining order in their region,
|
||
promoting new networks where needed, and keeping general
|
||
peace and quiet.
|
||
|
||
o The RC should be fairly familiar with network software to
|
||
either provide direct assistance or know where to refer
|
||
somebody for help. The RC should be familiar with routing
|
||
schemes to help networks maintain the upmost in efficiency.
|
||
|
||
If you know of someone who you think would do a good job in this
|
||
position, please have them send me private netmail with a short
|
||
history of their experience in the network.
|
||
|
||
The zonegates are a little more reliable at the moment. There
|
||
will be a little more shuffling in the next couple of weeks, but
|
||
mail going via the zonegates seems to be working. Randy Bush
|
||
will be zonegating for both Europe and Pacific for the next
|
||
couple of weeks.
|
||
|
||
There has also been questions about private networks. If you
|
||
wish to have your private network number registered please send
|
||
me private netmail with the following information. This
|
||
information will be confidential, and will only be used by myself
|
||
in case I need to get a hold of the Private net.
|
||
|
||
Name of Net Coordinator:
|
||
Name of Network (if any):
|
||
Address:
|
||
Phone Number Voice:
|
||
Phone Number Data:
|
||
FidoNet Address (if any):
|
||
Alternate Email Address (ie Usenet, Bitnet, Arpanet, MCI Mail,
|
||
Easylink):
|
||
|
||
As soon as I receive this information, I will promptly issue you
|
||
a private network number. Numbers will be issued in order of
|
||
receipt, no requests for special numbers will be honored.
|
||
FidoNews 4-44 Page 20 30 Nov 1987
|
||
|
||
|
||
I have also received some notes about how difficult it is getting
|
||
through to my board. Some suggestions: My board automatically
|
||
crashes the nodediff everyweek to the Regional Coordinators
|
||
around 6 am MST Friday morning. If you are trying to get the
|
||
Nodediff at that time, you are actually slowing down the process
|
||
of network distribution. I notice multiple times that my modem
|
||
goes off hook trying to dial out, to do nothing but connect with
|
||
an incoming call. MORAL: Get the nodediff from your RC
|
||
everyweek, not from the Zone Coordinator. It just slows my board
|
||
down.
|
||
|
||
Second, it is better to send mail to me as 114/15 vs 1/0. Mail
|
||
via 114/15 is routed via the Phoenix inbound host who is just
|
||
waiting for inbound calls. My system is trying to reply to all
|
||
the mail while also trying to receive inbound calls. Just too
|
||
much to do in an hour time slot. Also, due to the volume of
|
||
messages (average 10 to 15 a night), I will only start replying
|
||
to messages if I feel a need, OR IF A REPLY IS REQUESTED.
|
||
Otherwise I will just take the message as something for my
|
||
information that doesn't need a reply.
|
||
|
||
I also have alternative email addresses I can be reached at:
|
||
|
||
Usenet: {decvax, ihnp4, hao} !noao!asuvax!stjhmc!ddodell
|
||
Bitnet: ARDSD @ ASUACAD
|
||
|
||
That's it for now. Keep those cards and letters coming!
|
||
|
||
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
|
||
FidoNews 4-44 Page 21 30 Nov 1987
|
||
|
||
|
||
=================================================================
|
||
NOTICES
|
||
=================================================================
|
||
|
||
The Interrupt Stack
|
||
|
||
|
||
7 Dec 1987
|
||
Start of the Digital Equipment Users Society meeting in
|
||
Anaheim, CA. Contact Mark Buda at 1:132/777 for details.
|
||
|
||
9 Jan 1988
|
||
The next net 104 FidoNet Sysop Meeting. Contact Oscar Barlow
|
||
at 104/0 for information.
|
||
|
||
25 Aug 1988
|
||
(pending BoD approval) Start of the Fifth International
|
||
FidoNet Conference, to be held at the Drawbridge Inn in
|
||
Cincinnatti, OH. Contact Tim Sullivan at 108/62 for more
|
||
information. This is FidoNet's big annual get-together, and
|
||
is your chance to meet all the people you've been talking with
|
||
all this time. We're hoping to see you there!
|
||
|
||
24 Aug 1989
|
||
Voyager 2 passes Neptune.
|
||
|
||
|
||
If you have something which you would like to see on this
|
||
calendar, please send a message to FidoNet node 1:1/1.
|
||
|
||
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
|
||
|
||
Version 1.4 - Released For Use By All Sysops
|
||
|
||
This program is designed to reduce the disk space
|
||
required to view and search the national software
|
||
megalist produced weekly from 135/68.
|
||
|
||
Megadex has reduced the file size to less than ONE THIRD
|
||
the size of the weekly Megalist.
|
||
|
||
This week the update files are 90k v.s. 220k for the
|
||
megalist.
|
||
|
||
To operate just un-arc the archive into any directory
|
||
you have handy.
|
||
|
||
Then just type MEGADEX and hit your return key to begin.
|
||
|
||
Weekly updates can be SEAdog requested from 107/246 and
|
||
135/68.
|
||
|
||
If you do not have the MEGADEX.EXE file then request
|
||
MEGADEXC from 107/246.
|
||
|
||
FidoNews 4-44 Page 22 30 Nov 1987
|
||
|
||
|
||
After you have MEGADEX.EXE then the file name to request
|
||
is "MEGADEX" (without quotes) and WILL NOT contain the
|
||
.EXE file. It will contain only the weekly update files.
|
||
(From 107/246)
|
||
|
||
Revision History
|
||
----------------
|
||
|
||
1.0 Initial Release
|
||
|
||
1.1 Tightened Search Loops With An Increase In Speed
|
||
Problem Corrected In Small Node Number Search
|
||
|
||
1.4 Increased Speed By 23% When Searching
|
||
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
|
||
Latest Software Versions
|
||
|
||
BBS Systems Node List Other
|
||
& Mailers Version Utilities Version Utilities Version
|
||
|
||
Dutchie 2.71* EditNL 3.3 ARC 5.21
|
||
Fido 12d* MakeNL 1.10 ARCmail 1.1*
|
||
Opus 1.03a Prune 1.40 ConfMail 3.2*
|
||
SEAdog 4.10 XlatList 2.84 EchoMail 1.31
|
||
TBBS 2.0M MGM 1.1*
|
||
|
||
* Recently changed
|
||
|
||
Utility authors: Please help keep this list up to date by
|
||
reporting new versions to 1:1/1. It is not our intent to list
|
||
all utilities here, only those which verge on necessity.
|
||
|
||
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
|
||
FidoNews 4-44 Page 23 30 Nov 1987
|
||
|
||
|
||
__
|
||
The World's First / \
|
||
BBS Network /|oo \
|
||
* FidoNet * (_| /_)
|
||
_`@/_ \ _
|
||
| | \ \\
|
||
| (*) | \ ))
|
||
______ |__U__| / \//
|
||
/ Fido \ _//|| _\ /
|
||
(________) (_/(_|(____/ (jm)
|
||
|
||
Membership for the International FidoNet Association
|
||
|
||
Membership in IFNA is open to any individual or organization that
|
||
pays an annual specified membership fee. IFNA serves the
|
||
international FidoNet-compatible electronic mail community to
|
||
increase worldwide communications. **
|
||
|
||
Name _________________________________ Date ________
|
||
Address ______________________________
|
||
City & State _________________________
|
||
Country_______________________________
|
||
Phone (Voice) ________________________
|
||
|
||
Net/Node Number ______________________
|
||
Board Name____________________________
|
||
Phone (Data) _________________________
|
||
Baud Rate Supported___________________
|
||
Board Restrictions____________________
|
||
Special Interests_____________________
|
||
______________________________________
|
||
______________________________________
|
||
Is there some area where you would be
|
||
willing to help out in FidoNet?_______
|
||
______________________________________
|
||
______________________________________
|
||
|
||
Send your membership form and a check or money order for $25 to:
|
||
|
||
International FidoNet Association
|
||
P. O. Box 41143
|
||
St Louis, Missouri 63141
|
||
USA
|
||
|
||
Thank you for your membership! Your participation will help to
|
||
insure the future of FidoNet.
|
||
|
||
** Please NOTE that IFNA is a general not-for-profit organization
|
||
and Articles of Association and By-Laws were adopted by the
|
||
membership in January 1987. The first elected Board of
|
||
Directors was filled in August 1987. The IFNA Echomail
|
||
Conference has been established on FidoNet to assist the
|
||
Board. We welcome your input on this Conference.
|
||
|
||
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
|
||
FidoNews 4-44 Page 24 30 Nov 1987
|
||
|
||
|
||
INTERNATIONAL FIDONET ASSOCIATION
|
||
ORDER FORM
|
||
|
||
Publications
|
||
|
||
The IFNA publications can be obtained by downloading from Fido
|
||
1/10 or other FidoNet compatible systems, or by purchasing them
|
||
directly from IFNA. We ask that all our IFNA Committee Chairmen
|
||
provide us with the latest versions of each publication, but we
|
||
can make no written guarantees.
|
||
|
||
IFNA Fido BBS listing $15.00 _____
|
||
IFNA Administrative Policy DOCs $10.00 _____
|
||
IFNA FidoNet Standards Committee DOCs $10.00 _____
|
||
|
||
Special offers for IFNA members ONLY:
|
||
|
||
System Enhancement Associates SEAdog $60.00 _____
|
||
ONLY 1 copy SEAdog per IFNA Member.
|
||
|
||
Fido Software's Fido/FidoNet $65.00 _____
|
||
ONLY 1 copy Fido/FidoNet per IFNA Member.
|
||
As of November 1, 1987 price will increase to
|
||
$100. Orders including checks for $65 will be
|
||
returned after October 31, 1987.
|
||
|
||
SUBTOTAL _____
|
||
|
||
Missouri Residents add 5.725 % Sales tax _____
|
||
|
||
International orders include $5.00 for
|
||
surface shipping or $15.00 for air shipping _____
|
||
|
||
TOTAL _____
|
||
|
||
SEND CHECK OR MONEY ORDER TO:
|
||
IFNA
|
||
P.O. Box 41143
|
||
St. Louis, Missouri 63141 USA
|
||
|
||
|
||
Name________________________________
|
||
Net/Node____/____
|
||
Company_____________________________
|
||
Address_____________________________
|
||
City____________________ State____________ Zip_____
|
||
Voice Phone_________________________
|
||
|
||
|
||
Signature___________________________
|
||
|
||
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
|
||
|