1363 lines
64 KiB
Plaintext
1363 lines
64 KiB
Plaintext
Volume 5, Number 29 18 July 1988
|
||
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
|
||
| _ |
|
||
| / \ |
|
||
| /|oo \ |
|
||
| - FidoNews - (_| /_) |
|
||
| _`@/_ \ _ |
|
||
| International | | \ \\ |
|
||
| FidoNet Association | (*) | \ )) |
|
||
| Newsletter ______ |__U__| / \// |
|
||
| / FIDO \ _//|| _\ / |
|
||
| (________) (_/(_|(____/ |
|
||
| (jm) |
|
||
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
|
||
Editor in Chief Dale Lovell
|
||
Editor Emeritus: Thom Henderson
|
||
Chief Procrastinator Emeritus: Tom Jennings
|
||
Contributing Editors: 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 1988 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. IFNA may also be contacted
|
||
at PO Box 41143, St. Louis, MO 63141.
|
||
|
||
Fido and FidoNet are registered trademarks of Tom Jennings of
|
||
Fido Software, 164 Shipley Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94107 and
|
||
are used with permission.
|
||
|
||
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. ARTICLES ................................................. 1
|
||
Proposal for (yet) another new net ....................... 1
|
||
Toward a Virus Free FidoNet .............................. 15
|
||
XlaxNode Version 2.10 Release Notice ..................... 17
|
||
2. NOTICES .................................................. 18
|
||
The Interrupt Stack ...................................... 18
|
||
FidoCon/Delta ticket giveaway ends soon! ................. 18
|
||
Latest Software Versions ................................. 18
|
||
FidoNews 5-29 Page 1 18 Jul 1988
|
||
|
||
|
||
=================================================================
|
||
ARTICLES
|
||
=================================================================
|
||
|
||
Jack Decker
|
||
154/8
|
||
|
||
|
||
PROPOSAL FOR (YET) ANOTHER NEW NET
|
||
|
||
Within the last few months, I've seen a few new nets form as
|
||
"alternatives" to Fidonet. The problem with many of these, in
|
||
my view, is that they are almost "special interest" nets... for
|
||
example, Alternet is the "burnouts" net with a medieval motiff
|
||
(some say "Dungeons and Dragons"). The "Good Egg Net" is for
|
||
those who want a return to the simpler days of Fidonet, and has
|
||
a "National Egg Commissioner" and various titles like that.
|
||
Personally, the thought of joining a net and having to refer to
|
||
those higher in the organization as the Duke or Duchess of
|
||
such-and-such, or Egg Inspector so-and-so, does not really
|
||
appeal to me. These games are fine for those who enjoy them
|
||
(and this is not a slam against those who do), but it's just not
|
||
my cup of tea. I'd guess I prefer a net that's run on a
|
||
slightly more businesslike basis.
|
||
|
||
At the same time, I see many problems in Fidonet that come about
|
||
because the workings of Fidonet are often based on assumptions
|
||
that are not totally valid, and policies that were formulated
|
||
back in the days before echomail even existed. For that reason,
|
||
I'd like to propose a new net to be called "LCRNET". LCR
|
||
Stands for "LEAST COST ROUTING" and describes the most basic
|
||
guiding principle behind this new net... namely, the primary
|
||
purpose of this net will be to enable sysops to move netmail and
|
||
echomail as inexpensively as possible. To this end, any
|
||
tradition or policy that interferes with the concept of Least
|
||
Cost Routing will be disposed of post haste.
|
||
|
||
In the next few paragraphs, I'd like to outline just a few
|
||
specifics of this proposal. I want to find out if anyone else
|
||
is interested in such a net, and if so, solicit ideas for the
|
||
best way to implement it.
|
||
|
||
|
||
HOW DOES LCRNET DIFFER FROM FIDONET?
|
||
|
||
LCRNET will make some major breaks with time-honored Fidonet
|
||
conventions, but where possible we want to retain enough
|
||
compatibility with Fidonet that we can still pass netmail and
|
||
echoes back and forth. Unfortunately, unless someone can come
|
||
up with a better idea, the only way that I can see to accomplish
|
||
this is to follow the precedent set by the other "alternative"
|
||
nets that have gone before, and assign LCRNET a separate "zone"
|
||
number. The reason for doing this is that echomail can then be
|
||
passed through "zonegates" which will have the capability to
|
||
produce echomail packets in a format acceptable to Fidonet
|
||
nodes, should any "conversion" be required.
|
||
FidoNews 5-29 Page 2 18 Jul 1988
|
||
|
||
|
||
NO REGIONS
|
||
|
||
Regions are a political division within Fidonet. They are not
|
||
used by any echomail or netmail processor for mail routing. It
|
||
appears that in Fidonet regional divisions have actually worked
|
||
against Least Cost Routing. The reason for this is that some
|
||
regional coordinators see their regions as sort of their own
|
||
little fiefdoms, and regard regional boundaries as sacred. But
|
||
for many sysops, the least expensive source for echomail may
|
||
well be on the other side of the artificially-created regional
|
||
boundary. Thus, I feel that regional divisions have proven to
|
||
be counter-productive to the efficient operation of the net, and
|
||
propose that the whole concept of Regions be done away with.
|
||
|
||
ZONES TO BE GATEWAYS TO OTHER NETS
|
||
|
||
Zones, even though on a higher level than nets, are still
|
||
basically artificial geographic divisions. I feel that
|
||
"zonegates" can be more useful as gateways to other nets
|
||
(Fidonet, Alternet, FamilyNet, Eggnet, etc.). However, this is
|
||
not cast in stone, and if anyone can provide compelling reasons
|
||
for duplicating Fidonet's zone usage in LCRNET, we can certain
|
||
consider that aspect of mail addressing. Please note that the
|
||
country in which a net is located can be determined from the net
|
||
number if the numbering plan described in the next paragraph if
|
||
adopted.
|
||
|
||
NET NUMBERS TO BE FOUR DIGIT NUMBERS
|
||
|
||
I have two reasons for this. One is that by using four digit
|
||
numbers for nets, it will make it much easier to interface
|
||
LCRNET with Fidonet, which generally uses three-digit zone
|
||
numbers. The other reason is that we can specify that the first
|
||
digits of the net number will duplicate the telephone country
|
||
code for the net where the country is located, thus giving us
|
||
some opportunity for deterining where a node is geographically
|
||
located should this become desirable. For example:
|
||
|
||
Net 1xxx = United States & Canada.... 1000 possible net numbers
|
||
Net 61xx = Australia.... 100 possible net numbers
|
||
Net 507x = Panama.... 10 possible net numbers
|
||
|
||
Net numbers ending in "99" (for countries with one digit country
|
||
codes) or "9" (for countries with two or three digit country
|
||
codes) will be reserved for point nets. These numbers will
|
||
never appear in the nodelist and thus can be reused for
|
||
different point nets at various locations throughout a country.
|
||
They are simply left unassigned as a convenience so that any
|
||
sysop can create a point net and assign a net number with the
|
||
assurance that this number will never be used by any "real" net.
|
||
|
||
NO GEOGRAPHIC RESTRICTIONS ON NETS
|
||
|
||
Normally, a net will encompass the local calling area of a city,
|
||
plus some outlying nodes that may or may not be able to call
|
||
into the city with a local call. But in LCRNET, the sysop of
|
||
FidoNews 5-29 Page 3 18 Jul 1988
|
||
|
||
|
||
any given node may join any net he chooses to, providing the net
|
||
host is willing to allow him in. Joining a net at some distance
|
||
away because it is a low-cost or no-cost call to that location
|
||
is specifically permitted, and even encouraged.
|
||
|
||
By the same token, there will be no prohibition against having
|
||
more than one net covering the same geographic area. LCRNET is
|
||
not a geographically-driven net... cost is the driving factor.
|
||
Nodes can even join nets in other countries if they wish (in
|
||
which case they will use the net number of their net host).
|
||
This is to avoid restricting a node that may have access to a
|
||
special calling service (for example, a foreign exchange line to
|
||
a distant city) from joining a net in that distant city, but it
|
||
is also designed to avoid the situation where a net host can
|
||
become overbearing on the nodes under him. There are no
|
||
monopolies in LCRNET, any node is free to join any net that will
|
||
take him in.
|
||
|
||
Net hosts in LCRNET should be willing to take in nodes outside
|
||
their local geographic area so long as it does not increase
|
||
their costs and so long as the node has a reasonably good reason
|
||
for wanting to join. A "personality conflict" with the local
|
||
net host *may* be considered good reason for him to join another
|
||
net, however, net hosts are not required to take in nodes that
|
||
have proven themselves to be "twits" in other nets.
|
||
|
||
|
||
SOFTWARE BREAKS WITH FIDONET
|
||
|
||
Certain assumptions that were considered valid in Fidonet are
|
||
specifically NOT valid in LCRNET. These include:
|
||
|
||
Invalid assumption #1: File attaches are never forwarded.
|
||
|
||
In LCRNET, a good sysop will try to provide a way to forward
|
||
file attaches (netmail messages with files attached) so long as
|
||
they do not increase his costs. In other words, file attaches
|
||
need not be forwarded if the sysop is paying a per-minute toll
|
||
charge to send netmail, but local file attaches (and those that
|
||
can be sent via PC Pursuit and similar services) SHOULD be
|
||
forwarded to the destination node. This may in some cases
|
||
require the use of software that is not yet available, so this
|
||
goal may not be attained immediately. Please note that just
|
||
because the capability to forward file attaches is present does
|
||
not mean it should be used. Anyone planning to forward a very
|
||
large file, or to forward files on a regular basis, should
|
||
probably obtain permission first from the sysops of the systems
|
||
through which such files will pass.
|
||
|
||
Invalid assumption #2: ARCA and ARCE are the "standard" ARCing
|
||
and deARCing programs.
|
||
|
||
ARCA and some versions of ARCE do NOT support "squashing" which
|
||
is the most efficient method of packing many netmail archives.
|
||
Therefore, in LCRNET the "standard" programs will be PKARC and
|
||
PKXARC. Some sysops may not be able to use PKARC during the
|
||
FidoNews 5-29 Page 4 18 Jul 1988
|
||
|
||
|
||
mail packing process so they may continue to use ARCA as an
|
||
interim measure, but they should at least try to use PKXARC to
|
||
unARC files. Many mail tossers now allow the option of using
|
||
PKXARC to unpack files, and conversion programs (e.g. ARC2PK)
|
||
are available for use with other systems (such as Opus 1.03b).
|
||
Programs that are totally incapable of at least unARCing
|
||
"squashed" archives shall be considered non-standard in LCRNET.
|
||
|
||
Invaild assumption #3: Netmail (or matrix mail, as it is
|
||
sometimes called) is always sent direct, or from net host to net
|
||
host. In LCRNET, it is considered desirable to send messages at
|
||
the lowest possible cost. Therefore, within the United States
|
||
all Net Hosts that are not themselves PC Pursuitable shall make
|
||
arrangements to "home" their mail traffic to a node in a PC
|
||
Pursuitable city (net hosts in other countries, particularly
|
||
those in Canada, may optionally elect to do this as well). When
|
||
this is done, the PC Pursuitable node to which netmail traffic
|
||
for this net can be routed should be listed under an AI: flag in
|
||
the nodelist comment field (see NODELIST FLAGS). Since LCRNET
|
||
attempts to route netmail messages over "no cost" routes, or at
|
||
very least along with regular echomail packets, the use of
|
||
software that allows "return receipts" to be generated shall be
|
||
considered a desirable feature.
|
||
|
||
One other break with Fidonet is that the use of "tiny" SEEN-BY
|
||
lines and tight control over network topologies will be
|
||
encouraged. Sending duplicate messages around the net shall be
|
||
considered an EXTREMELY undesirable action. Therefore, all
|
||
nodes carrying echomail shall, whenever possible, use software
|
||
that supports the ^APATH: line (e.g. ConfMail) so that the
|
||
source of duplicate messages can be easily determined. In
|
||
addition, NO NODE SHALL RECEIVE THE SAME ECHO FROM TWO DIFFERENT
|
||
FEEDS, unless he specifically informs BOTH feeds of what he is
|
||
doing and they BOTH authorize it, and steps are taken to avoid
|
||
the introduction of DUPE messages into the net.
|
||
|
||
|
||
POLITICAL BREAKS WITH FIDONET
|
||
|
||
I would like to leave politics out of LCRNET as much as
|
||
possible. This is one reason I advocate eliminating Regions, as
|
||
these simply create small fiefdoms that tend to give certain
|
||
individuals too much power. In addition, I advocate the
|
||
following breaks with Fidonet:
|
||
|
||
CONFERENCE MODERATORS TO BE SUPREME OVER THEIR CONFERENCES
|
||
|
||
In LCRNET, a conference moderator has more authority and more
|
||
responsibility than in Fidonet. In LCRNET, the moderator shall
|
||
try to keep an accurate topology map of his conference, and to
|
||
know at all times where a given node is receiving the conference
|
||
from, and who he is sending it to. The only exception to this
|
||
is that if one node is feeding the conference to other nodes in
|
||
a given net, the conference moderator need not be informed of
|
||
those who add and drop the conference within the net.
|
||
|
||
FidoNews 5-29 Page 5 18 Jul 1988
|
||
|
||
|
||
Any LCRNET node receiving a conference shall provide a comple
|
||
list of the nodes he is receiving the conference from, or that
|
||
he is sending the conference to, at the request of the
|
||
moderator.
|
||
|
||
The conference moderator may, for good cause, rename a
|
||
conference (to avoid name confusion with another conference, or
|
||
to facilitate merging the conference with another of the same
|
||
name) and/or direct that links to a particular node be cut.
|
||
Valid reasons for cutting nodes to a link could include any of
|
||
the following:
|
||
|
||
1) Messages originate from that node that contain foul language.
|
||
Those who believe in total freedom of speech and the right to
|
||
say anything, anywhere, at any time will NOT be happy in LCRNET
|
||
and are encouraged NOT to join. The intent is that LCRNET will
|
||
be more like Alternet than Fidonet in this regard. Profanity
|
||
and foul language shall normally be considered bad behaviour in
|
||
LCRNET unless a conference moderator specifically allows them in
|
||
a given conference. HOWEVER, no LCRNET node shall under any
|
||
circumstances be required to carry or pass along an echo in
|
||
which profanity or foul language are allowed.
|
||
|
||
2) Messages originate from a node that contain personal attacks
|
||
on others. It is one thing to disagree with someone else's
|
||
viewpoints, quite another to attack their intelligence or
|
||
background, etc. As with foul language, personal attacks shall
|
||
normally be considered bad behaviour in LCRNET, and no LCRNET
|
||
node shall under any circumstances be required to carry or pass
|
||
along an echo in which they are tolerated.
|
||
|
||
3) Messages originate from a node that consistently violate the
|
||
stated rules of an echo. Also, a conference moderator is not
|
||
required to put up with users that consistently "test the
|
||
limits" of the moderator's patience by trying to see how close
|
||
they can come to breaking a rule without actually breaking it
|
||
(for example, using "veiled" profainty in which the meaning is
|
||
fairly obvious, or "near" personal attacks).
|
||
|
||
4) Messages originate from a node that contain illegal
|
||
information (stolen credit card numbers, etc.), that are
|
||
patently obscene, or that contain remarks designed to stir up
|
||
hatred or advocate violence between people of different races,
|
||
religions, etc. These types of messages are specifically NOT
|
||
ALLOWED in LCRNET. Note that in regard to illegal information,
|
||
a message must actually CONTAIN illegal information to violate
|
||
this rule. For example, a message that states "I think everyone
|
||
ought to use stolen credit cards" would not violate THIS rule,
|
||
though it might violate a posted rule of the conference in
|
||
question. But a message that CONTAINED stolen credit card
|
||
numbers WOULD violate this rule.
|
||
|
||
5) In the case of religious or political echoes that are
|
||
intended as "meeting places" for people of like mind, links may
|
||
be cut to nodes that constantly allow messages that agitate
|
||
against these beliefs. For example, if a conference were set up
|
||
FidoNews 5-29 Page 6 18 Jul 1988
|
||
|
||
|
||
for the express purpose of discussing how best to implement the
|
||
Strategic Defense Initiative, a node that consistantly allows
|
||
messages to be posted discouraging the whole concept, advocating
|
||
a nuclear freeze, etc. could be cut from the conference. The
|
||
test here shall be whether the conference is set up primarily
|
||
for people of like mind to share thoughts and ideas, or whether
|
||
the conference is considered "open to unbelievers". However,
|
||
even in the latter case, a node may be cut for specific repeated
|
||
violations of conference rules.
|
||
|
||
6) Links may be cut to a node if the Sysop of that node refuses
|
||
the legitimate request of the conference moderator to provide a
|
||
list of nodes that he is receiving the conference from and
|
||
sending the conference to. The conference moderator must have
|
||
this information available in order to track down the source of
|
||
duplicate messages, or messages that consistently violate the
|
||
rules of LCRNET or of the echo itself. However, conference
|
||
moderators shall not pass out this information to others if the
|
||
Sysop requests that such information be kept confidential,
|
||
unless such disclosure is necessary to prove that a rule
|
||
violation has occurred when cutting links to that node.
|
||
|
||
ECHOES CARRIED ON LCRNET DO NOT AUTOMATICALLY BECOME "PUBLIC
|
||
DOMAIN"
|
||
|
||
The one and only purpose of this statement is to assure
|
||
conference moderators that they are allowed to pull their
|
||
conferences OFF of LCRNET should they feel the absolute need to
|
||
do so. We hope that the greater authority afforded to
|
||
moderators on LCRNET would never make this necessary, but a
|
||
moderator does have the right to do this if he or she feels it
|
||
necessary.
|
||
|
||
LCRNET echoes may NOT be carried by nodes belonging to any other
|
||
net (Star or backbone nodes in particular) unless they agree to
|
||
this condition.
|
||
|
||
ECHOMAIL HUBS MAY NOT CUT ECHO FEEDS FOR POLITICAL REASONS
|
||
|
||
In Fidonet the situation has sometimes come up where a node will
|
||
cut all echomail feeds to another node because of some
|
||
disagreement between the two sysops. Thus, control over
|
||
echomail feeds becomes a form of "blackmail" over another sysop.
|
||
This sort of thing is considered EXTREMELY bad behaviour in
|
||
LCRNET. Generally speaking, no LCRNET node is required to bring
|
||
any given conference into an area, but when it does bring in a
|
||
conference and offers it to other nodes, it must offer it on a
|
||
non-discriminatory basis. The only valid reasons for refusing
|
||
to send a conference to a node are as follows:
|
||
|
||
1) The conference moderator has directed that links to this node
|
||
for a particular conference be cut, as specified above.
|
||
|
||
2) Providing the conference would cause the node to incur
|
||
additional costs. Obviously, this is not valid if the
|
||
conference can be sent via a flat-rate medium such as PC
|
||
FidoNews 5-29 Page 7 18 Jul 1988
|
||
|
||
|
||
Pursuit, or if the receiving node offers to poll for the echoes.
|
||
|
||
3) Technical limitations... for example, a node is running Opus
|
||
software and is already sending a given echo to ten other nodes
|
||
(the maximum allowed in Opus). But if the node receiving the
|
||
request for a feed is the ONLY no-cost source for that echo
|
||
available to that node, some sort of arrangement should be made
|
||
to try and accommodate that node.
|
||
|
||
4) Technical problems at the receiving node... for example, no
|
||
one is required to provide feeds to a node that constantly
|
||
generates "dupe" messages.
|
||
|
||
Please keep in mind that the primary motivation of LCRNET is to
|
||
reduce costs for all involved. Therefore, if you are the only
|
||
no-cost source of an echo to a given node, and you refuse to
|
||
provide the echo to that node, you should have a VERY good
|
||
reason for the refusal.
|
||
|
||
PASSING ON COSTS
|
||
|
||
Nodes that wish to become Echomail hubs for a given area should
|
||
be prepared to absorb the expenses incurred in that operation.
|
||
This is not to imply that two or more nodes cannot share costs
|
||
incurred in bringing echoes into an area, but this should be
|
||
considered the exception rather than the rule.
|
||
|
||
If a node is using a flat-rate service such as PC Pursuit to
|
||
bring echoes into a given area and wishes to split the monthly
|
||
cost with other nodes, it shall be divided equally among all
|
||
nodes receiving the echoes. For example, if one node is
|
||
receiving echoes and distributing them to four other nodes, this
|
||
means that five nodes are benefiting from the echoes, so each
|
||
node should pay one-fifth of the monthly charge ($5 in the case
|
||
of PC Pursuit at $25 per month). Costs should not be assessed
|
||
on number of echoes received since this discourages nodes from
|
||
carrying new echoes. Again, however, this type of cost sharing
|
||
should be considered the exception rather than the norm
|
||
(primarily since the person holding the flat-rate account can
|
||
use it for non-BBS related activites, and thus derives greater
|
||
benefit from it). Cost sharing of non-flat-rate services (e.g.
|
||
regular long distance charges) is officially discouraged because
|
||
it almost invariably leads to arguments and hard feelings over
|
||
whether everyone is paying their "fair share".
|
||
|
||
|
||
NET HOSTS GOVERN AT THE PLEASURE OF THE NET SYSOPS
|
||
|
||
Despite the cries for a "democracy" in Fidonet, I don't feel
|
||
that net hosts should be subject to the necessity of
|
||
"campaigning" and running a "popularity contest" periodically.
|
||
Many sysops have stated they simply would not take a position
|
||
under such circumstances. However, nothing in the LCRNET rules
|
||
will PREVENT the formation of democratically-governed nets,
|
||
where the Net Host is elected by the sysops in the net, but in
|
||
such cases the rules for such elections shall be decided by the
|
||
FidoNews 5-29 Page 8 18 Jul 1988
|
||
|
||
|
||
net itself. Please keep in mind, however, that nothing in
|
||
LCRNET rules prevents the formation of two different nets that
|
||
cover the same geographical area. There are no monopolies in
|
||
LCRNET! Thus if a number of sysops feel that they cannot
|
||
function under the current net host, and he or she cannot be
|
||
persuaded to resign, those sysops are perfectly free to start
|
||
another net. However, things should not be allowed to
|
||
deteriorate to the point where this is necessary if at all
|
||
possible. LCRNET should be a net of cooperation, not
|
||
competition. Net hosts who feel the need to dictate many rules
|
||
or policies for their own net (in addition to those in this
|
||
document) might be happier in another net.
|
||
|
||
Above the Net level, there are no intermediates until you reach
|
||
the national/international level. I am open to suggestions for
|
||
the type of organization we should have there. However, any
|
||
positions at those levels will be unpaid, volunteer positions.
|
||
LCRNET will not hold conventions in fancy hotels, nor squander
|
||
money. There will be no "dues" to be in LCRNET, or any
|
||
organization connected with LCRNET. There will be no "poll tax"
|
||
to vote on any issue facing LCRNET. We do reserve the right to
|
||
ask for voluntary contributions should that become necessary,
|
||
but the word VOLUNTARY is emphasized... no coercion or pressure
|
||
shall be put on anyone to "contribute", and no disparaging
|
||
remarks shall be made about anyone because they did not
|
||
contribute.
|
||
|
||
In any vote held in LCRNET, the principle of "one person, one
|
||
vote" shall be strictly adhered to. That means that each sysop
|
||
listed in the LCRNET nodelist gets one vote, regardless of the
|
||
number of systems he may sysop.
|
||
|
||
|
||
THE NODELIST
|
||
|
||
The LCRNET nodelist will NOT be used as a political tool. NO
|
||
ONE shall be dropped from the LCRNET nodelist unless their node
|
||
goes offline or is consistantly unreachable during the Fidonet
|
||
Zone Mail Hour (which LCRNET nodes will be expected to observe
|
||
until or unless we adopt a different mail hour). A node shall
|
||
NOT be dropped from the nodelist because of a personality
|
||
conflict with someone else, however they may be dropped for
|
||
consistant and pervasive violations of the rules in this
|
||
document. What this means is that unless somebody is such a
|
||
blatent and obvious jerk that almost everybody in the net hates
|
||
his guts, he will not be dropped from the nodelist. Net hosts
|
||
should be aware that anyone dropped from their net is perfectly
|
||
free to apply to be included in another net.
|
||
|
||
Conversely, however, since nets are not strictly geographically
|
||
based, there will be no "independent" nodes in LCRNET. A node
|
||
that might be "independent" in another net should try to join a
|
||
net in a major city (in the United States it would be preferable
|
||
to join one based in a PC Pursuitable city). This also gives us
|
||
some control over "twit" sysops because if a sysop gains a
|
||
really bad reputation, chances are that no net host will take
|
||
FidoNews 5-29 Page 9 18 Jul 1988
|
||
|
||
|
||
him into his or her net (for very long, anyway). Of course, the
|
||
"twit" sysop can always start his own net, but a net by
|
||
definition consists of MORE THAN ONE node (controlled by more
|
||
than one sysop).
|
||
|
||
Once again, if a net host takes an action that will cost someone
|
||
else money (for example, dropping someone from a local net, thus
|
||
forcing them to call long distance to pick up mail from another
|
||
net) they should have a VERY good reason for doing so.
|
||
|
||
NODELIST FLAGS
|
||
|
||
We intend to expand the number of valid nodelist flags from
|
||
those allowed in Fidonet, and are open to suggestions. However,
|
||
LCRNET will allow a specific new flag, as follows:
|
||
|
||
AI:net[/node][,net[/node],net[/node]...]
|
||
|
||
The net/node(s) listed are alternate nodes to which inbound mail
|
||
can be sent. These are nodes which either the sysop or his net
|
||
host polls regularly. LCRNET net hosts located in the United
|
||
States but not in a PC Pursuit inbound area will be expected to
|
||
use this flag to indicate at least the PC Pursuitable node on
|
||
which they "home" for netmail traffic. If only a single number
|
||
is listed after the AI: designator, it will be taken as a net
|
||
number and netmail can be directed to the net host of that net
|
||
(net/0). For example:
|
||
|
||
AI:1234 is equivalent to AI:1234/0
|
||
|
||
Let's take a typical situation. Node 1777/80 and his net host,
|
||
1777/0 are in a non-PC Pursuitable city and in addition, 1777/0
|
||
is not a PC Pursuit user. However, he regularly picks up echoes
|
||
from 1876/0, who IS a PC Pursuit user and who regularly calls
|
||
1323/5 in a PC Pursuitable city to pick up echoes. Here's how
|
||
the AI: field might read for each of these nodes:
|
||
|
||
1777/80 - AI:1876,1323/5 - In this case, 1777/80 can receive
|
||
netmail sent to 1777/0 (his normal inbound host, which is
|
||
assumed), 1876/0, 1323/5, or 1323/0 (the net host for 1323/5).
|
||
|
||
1777/0 - Same as for 1777/80, since he can receive from the same
|
||
nodes.
|
||
|
||
1876/0 - AI:1323/5 - In this case, 1876/0 would list the PC
|
||
Pursuitable node that he polls regularly. Mail for him could be
|
||
sent to 1323/5 or 1323/0 (the net host for 1323/0).
|
||
|
||
1323/5 would not be required to use an AI: in the nodelist,
|
||
since he's in a PC Pursuitable city.
|
||
|
||
Now let's see how the actual routing of incoming netmail would
|
||
be handled. Let's assume a "worst case" situation, where a
|
||
piece of netmail intended for 1777/80 is sent to 1323/0.
|
||
|
||
1323/0 would have a statement in its routing control file
|
||
FidoNews 5-29 Page 10 18 Jul 1988
|
||
|
||
|
||
similar to this:
|
||
ArcCM 1323/5 1876/ALL 1777/ALL
|
||
This would route the mail for net 1777 to 1323/5.
|
||
|
||
1323/5 would have a statement in its routing control file like
|
||
this:
|
||
ArcHold 1876/0 1876/ALL 1777/ALL
|
||
This would route the mail for net 1777 to 1876/0.
|
||
|
||
1876/0 would have a statement like this:
|
||
ArcHold 1777/0 1777/ALL
|
||
This would send the mail for net 1777 to the Net 1777 host,
|
||
where it would finally get set to 1777/80.
|
||
|
||
Note that in this case, the mail could pass through several
|
||
systems before reaching its destination. This is why all net
|
||
hosts at least are encouraged to "home" directly on PC
|
||
Pursuitable cities whenever this can be done without incurring
|
||
additional expense.
|
||
|
||
In Fidonet, speed of mail delivery is considered of primary
|
||
importance, regardless of the expense. In LCRNET, cost is the
|
||
driving factor. This is one major difference between the two
|
||
nets. Of course, there is nothing to prevent an LCRNET sysop
|
||
from directly crashing messages to another system without
|
||
routing them, so really important messages can always be sent
|
||
immediately, albeit at higher cost.
|
||
|
||
MODEM TYPE FLAGS
|
||
|
||
The use of the following modem type flags will be specifically
|
||
allowed in the nodelist comment field:
|
||
|
||
HAY Hayes V series
|
||
HST USRobotics HST
|
||
MAX Microcom AX/9624c
|
||
PEP Telebit Trailblazer
|
||
MNP MNP error correction protocol available
|
||
|
||
Further suggestions are welcome.
|
||
|
||
CONTINUOUS MAIL
|
||
|
||
In LCRNET, the ability to send and receive continuous mail shall
|
||
be considered the norm (except where hours of operation are
|
||
given). Software that does NOT have this ability shall be so
|
||
indicated by the special nodelist flag NC (for Non-Continuous).
|
||
As an interim measure, the CM: flag may be used by all systems
|
||
that can receive mail continuously (24 hours a day) in order to
|
||
be compatible with existing nodelist processors. It is hoped
|
||
that new software can be written for use with LCRNET that will
|
||
recognize and properly process the new nodelist flags.
|
||
|
||
|
||
STATEMENT ON "POINTS" AND THEIR PURPOSE
|
||
|
||
FidoNews 5-29 Page 11 18 Jul 1988
|
||
|
||
|
||
In LCRNET, a "point" is a regular BBS user who calls into a BBS
|
||
using software that will pick up the echoes he wishes to read,
|
||
and allows him to read and reply to those echoes offline. The
|
||
main difference in LCRNET Is that here it is quite acceptable
|
||
for the BBS operator to make the outgoing call to the "point" on
|
||
a prearranged schedule, if by doing so a lower cost to the user
|
||
can be achieved. The BBS operator may recover any long distance
|
||
costs incurred in doing this from the "point" user.
|
||
|
||
BBS operators are never "points". If a BBS operator is unable
|
||
or unwilling to observe the Zone Mail Hour but would otherwise
|
||
qualify to be in the nodelist, he or she should be listed as a
|
||
private, unlisted node. No one who is running compatible
|
||
software shall be denied listing in the LCRNET nodelist just
|
||
because they are running a private node that is not available to
|
||
the general public.
|
||
|
||
|
||
INTERCONNECTIONS WITH OTHER NETS
|
||
|
||
The main purpose of LCRNET is to encourage communications at the
|
||
lowest possible cost. Therefore, interconnections with other
|
||
nets shall be encouraged. However, wherever possible these
|
||
shall take place through "gateway" systems wherever echomail is
|
||
involved (except for local or private conferences circulated to
|
||
a very small or tightly controlled group of nodes). There are
|
||
two reasons for this: One is to prevent "dupe" messages from
|
||
flowing from one system into another. If all messages between
|
||
the two nets pass through a single "gateway" system, then the
|
||
dupe killer at that system should prevent any duplicate messages
|
||
from entering the other net. The other reason is that should
|
||
the quality of the conference begin to deteriorate on the other
|
||
net to the point where messages coming from that net
|
||
consistantly violate LCRNET rules, or are mostly irrelevant to
|
||
the topic of discussion, the link can be easily cut (although
|
||
this is something that would NOT be done suddenly and without
|
||
warning).
|
||
|
||
It is realized that in the initial stages of setting up LCRNET,
|
||
most sysops will continue to get echo conferences through the
|
||
same Fidonet feeds that they always have. In keeping with the
|
||
spirit of LCRNET, no sysop will be forced to drop any
|
||
independent feed of an echo that he is getting from Fidonet or
|
||
any other net. He MAY be asked, however, not to feed this echo
|
||
to other LCRNET nodes, particularly where by doing so "dupe"
|
||
messages are being created. As always, cost will be the
|
||
motivating factor in deciding how echoes are distributed.
|
||
|
||
|
||
MESSAGE CONTENT (FLAMES, ETC.)
|
||
|
||
Most of the restrictions on message content have already been
|
||
covered. However, there are certain people who can't seem to
|
||
hold a discussion without resorting to FLAMES, personal attacks,
|
||
and so on. We would prefer these people NOT attemt to join
|
||
LCRNET, because we want to have a friendly, happy and sharing
|
||
FidoNews 5-29 Page 12 18 Jul 1988
|
||
|
||
|
||
net. If you are the type of Sysop who has been embarrassed to
|
||
let your family read the echomail areas on your BBS because of
|
||
some of the childish attitudes displayed there, you will
|
||
probably be welcome in LCRNET.
|
||
|
||
Because nets are not geographically restricted, and there are no
|
||
regional coordinators of any kind, much of the necessity for
|
||
FLAMES should be eliminated. If you have a problem with the Net
|
||
host, join another net, or form your own. If you have a problem
|
||
with the national leadership, tough toenails... there are other
|
||
nets around. In LCRNET we want to give everyone choices so that
|
||
if you find an individual particular abrasive, you can simply
|
||
ignore him (which will probably infuriate him more than flaming
|
||
at him anyway... such individuals usually crave attention, even
|
||
if it's negative). There are no monopolies in LCRNET. Most of
|
||
the power in LCRNET will rest with the net hosts. It's sort of
|
||
like choosing a hamburger joint for lunch... if you find the
|
||
people are consistantly rude in one, you find another. If the
|
||
other happens to be ten blocks farther away and charges 10 cents
|
||
more per burger, then you have to decide which is more
|
||
objectionable to you. What you don't do is stand outside of one
|
||
or the other and yell and scream and stomp and call the manager
|
||
names... that will get you nowhere fast... about as far as
|
||
FLAMES in LCRNET will get you.
|
||
|
||
We want LCRNET to be a nice, discussion oriented net, where
|
||
common courtesy and politeness are expected and practiced.
|
||
|
||
PRIVATE MESSAGES
|
||
|
||
The official position of LCRNET will be that LCRNET does *NOT*
|
||
support the transmission of "private" or "confidential" mail.
|
||
Mail may be intercepted at any point along its path and read by
|
||
persons other than the intended recipient. LCRNET should not be
|
||
used to transmit messages of a private or confidential nature.
|
||
|
||
|
||
TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCES
|
||
|
||
We would like for LCRNET to be the network of choice for
|
||
innovators... those who don't feel constrained by the
|
||
established norms in software and hardware, for example. Of
|
||
course, if you are designing software for use in the net, you
|
||
should attempt to make it as compatible as possible with
|
||
existing software... after all, it wouldn't do to design a
|
||
program to toss echomail packets that no other program can read!
|
||
But it's also okay to make a new program that's "downward
|
||
compatible" with existing programs.
|
||
|
||
We'd also like to encourage the use of means of communications
|
||
other than standard telephone lines, especially those means that
|
||
can lower the cost of communications. We're waiting for the day
|
||
that all the echomail hubs can stick up a $100 Ku-band satellite
|
||
dish and simutaneously receive the "4 A.M. National Echomail
|
||
Feed" every morning. In the meantime, experiments with such
|
||
items as radio modems, microwave or infrared transmission,
|
||
FidoNews 5-29 Page 13 18 Jul 1988
|
||
|
||
|
||
direct tie-ins to packet networks, moon bounce, or anything else
|
||
folks might want to try are encouraged in LCRNET. You will not
|
||
find a "Technical Standards Committee" here telling you that
|
||
"you can't do that because it will obsolete the piece of
|
||
software I wrote three years ago." Again, this does not imply
|
||
that you should be TRYING to "break" existing software, but we
|
||
certainly are open to whatever you may be doing... particularly
|
||
if it will wind up saving money for sysops.
|
||
|
||
|
||
WANT TO JOIN US?
|
||
|
||
If you think you'd be interested in being part of LCRNET, please
|
||
send Netmail to Jack Decker at 154/8. Send flames to NUL. I
|
||
know some of you detest the formation of new nets, and frankly,
|
||
I couldn't care less. Fidonet long ago stopped being responsive
|
||
to the needs of the "average sysop", and recently seems to have
|
||
become a haven for petty self-appointed demagogues. We want to
|
||
provide an alternative to that sort of nonsense.
|
||
|
||
If enough interest is expressed, we will form this net and issue
|
||
a nodelist. If you'd like to be a net host in this net, please
|
||
so indicate and also indicate your choice for a net number
|
||
(remember that it must be a four digit number that begins with
|
||
your country's telephone country code).
|
||
|
||
Constructive suggestions and criticisms (other than "don't do
|
||
this"... if there's enough interest we will, if there's not, we
|
||
won't) will be welcome and will be considered! And if anyone
|
||
with writing skills would care to polish this document into a
|
||
basic LCRNET policy document, it would be very much appreciated.
|
||
Your input is welcomed. If you feel that we should go ahead
|
||
with this, then at this point I especially need input on what
|
||
sort of national leadership we should have. My own preference
|
||
is for a rather loose, informal organization at the top that
|
||
would perhaps only be responsible for getting out the nodelist
|
||
and mediating any disputes in regard to LCRNET rules, but I'm
|
||
certainly very open to other suggestions!
|
||
|
||
We have started an echo called LCRNET (naturally) which is
|
||
hubbed off of Fidonet node 154/7 (a PC Pursuitable node) for
|
||
further discussion. This echo is is just starting and if you
|
||
are interested in seeing this proposal inplemented and would
|
||
like to be part of such an echo, please send netmail.
|
||
|
||
One other point... I can almost bet that once this proposal hits
|
||
the wires, somebody's going to accuse me of trying to start my
|
||
own little fiefdom. Well, I'm not going to spend a lot of time
|
||
debating with such people, I will just simply say that it isn't
|
||
true, but you can believe it if you want to. You can also
|
||
believe the earth is flat if you want to. However, I do *not*
|
||
see myself in a leadership position in LCRNET... there are many
|
||
others who have much better organizational talents that could
|
||
probably do a much better job of running such an organization
|
||
(to whatever extent that it needs anyone to "run" it at all). I
|
||
have been around Fidonet long enough to realize that there's no
|
||
FidoNews 5-29 Page 14 18 Jul 1988
|
||
|
||
|
||
way I'm going to make this proposal without getting a few
|
||
personal attacks, but I would much rather see the debate center
|
||
on the actual proposal itself. And if anyone in Fidonet or any
|
||
other net would care to "borrow" any ideas from this document,
|
||
by all means please feel free to do so. If all this document
|
||
accomplishes is to give someone in another net some ideas for
|
||
their net, then it will have served a useful purpose.
|
||
|
||
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
|
||
FidoNews 5-29 Page 15 18 Jul 1988
|
||
|
||
|
||
Toward a Virus Fee FidoNet
|
||
by
|
||
Bob Hartman 1:132/101.1
|
||
|
||
In the interest of helping people make sure that the
|
||
programs which they use are free from viruses, I have made
|
||
the following list. This list is the output from PKARC
|
||
version 3.6 on various archives that I KNOW are virus free.
|
||
I know this because I was the person that created the
|
||
archives, and compiled the original programs within them.
|
||
The command used to create the list was:
|
||
|
||
PKARC V archive > output
|
||
|
||
I then edited the output to fit into FidoNews by
|
||
deleting some of the information which is unimporant (like
|
||
the method of archiving). If you do the same command, and
|
||
compare to the output below, be wary of any program which
|
||
does not match the numbers below EXACTLY! I would even
|
||
appreciate being warned of any such mismatches.
|
||
|
||
A file containing this article, including any updates
|
||
will always be requestable from 1:132/101 under the magic
|
||
filename "NO_VIRUS.CRC".
|
||
|
||
Searching Archive: BEXE_150.ARC
|
||
|
||
Filename Length Size Ratio Date Time CRC
|
||
-------- ------ ------ ----- ---- ---- ---
|
||
BINKLEY.CFG 7747 3860 51% 05-05-88 22:13:16 33D6
|
||
BOB.WHY 13886 6821 51% 05-07-88 17:19:22 F71D
|
||
BT.EXE 107421 79965 26% 05-07-88 04:07:00 8D69
|
||
BTCTL.EXE 14339 11476 20% 05-07-88 04:07:16 AB35
|
||
BT_REF.DOC 81466 32829 60% 05-06-88 18:19:36 90A2
|
||
BT_USER.DOC 81628 34219 59% 05-06-88 18:33:14 30E8
|
||
RELEASE.DOC 5787 2712 54% 05-06-88 18:36:20 82BB
|
||
VINCE.WHY 9828 4869 51% 05-07-88 16:36:06 74A5
|
||
---- ------ ------ -----
|
||
0008 322102 176751 46%
|
||
|
||
|
||
Searching Archive: CAL_110.ARC
|
||
|
||
Filename Length Size Ratio Date Time CRC
|
||
-------- ------ ------ ----- ---- ---- ---
|
||
CALENDAR.C 12189 5733 53% 05-09-88 14:24:46 48B4
|
||
CALENDAR.CFG 519 344 34% 05-09-88 14:19:34 9C82
|
||
CALENDAR.DOC 850 612 28% 05-09-88 14:27:28 2B47
|
||
CALENDAR.EXE 17115 13592 21% 05-09-88 14:25:04 6CB2
|
||
---- ------ ------ -----
|
||
0004 30673 20281 34%
|
||
|
||
|
||
Searching Archive: CONFMAIL.ARC
|
||
|
||
Filename Length Size Ratio Date Time CRC
|
||
FidoNews 5-29 Page 16 18 Jul 1988
|
||
|
||
|
||
-------- ------ ------ ----- ---- ---- ---
|
||
CONFMAIL.DOC 88989 34754 61% 12-12-87 14:19:50 255D
|
||
CONFMAIL.EXE 80569 57433 29% 12-31-87 15:20:52 0D2D
|
||
READ.ME 1009 688 32% 12-12-87 14:26:02 8708
|
||
---- ------ ------ -----
|
||
0003 170567 92875 46%
|
||
|
||
|
||
Searching Archive: PLST_110.ARC
|
||
|
||
|
||
Filename Length Size Ratio Date Time CRC
|
||
-------- ------ ------ ----- ---- ---- ---
|
||
PARSELST.CFG 5921 2843 52% 05-09-88 15:24:08 02D5
|
||
PARSELST.DOC 35772 13316 63% 05-15-88 16:40:56 9831
|
||
PARSELST.EXE 49437 37428 25% 05-16-88 03:04:38 377E
|
||
READ.ME 1231 681 45% 05-10-88 23:05:26 142F
|
||
---- ------ ------ -----
|
||
0004 92361 54268 42%
|
||
|
||
|
||
Searching Archive: REMAPPER.ARC
|
||
|
||
Filename Length Size Ratio Date Time CRC
|
||
-------- ------ ------ ----- ---- ---- ---
|
||
REMAPPER.DOC 7161 3485 52% 11-23-87 13:17:14 F07D
|
||
REMAPPER.EXE 21741 17245 21% 12-12-87 14:35:04 8D46
|
||
---- ------ ------ -----
|
||
0002 28902 20730 29%
|
||
|
||
|
||
Searching Archive: RENUM40.ARC
|
||
|
||
Filename Length Size Ratio Date Time CRC
|
||
-------- ------ ------ ----- ---- ---- ---
|
||
RENUM.DOC 3302 1779 47% 03-23-88 03:07:46 0CDA
|
||
RENUM.EXE 17917 14405 20% 03-23-88 03:08:26 DF4D
|
||
RENUM.NEW 1184 671 44% 03-23-88 03:14:02 3AED
|
||
---- ------ ------ -----
|
||
0003 22403 16855 25%
|
||
|
||
|
||
Searching Archive: REPLYLNK.ARC
|
||
|
||
Filename Length Size Ratio Date Time CRC
|
||
-------- ------ ------ ----- ---- ---- ---
|
||
REPLYLNK.DOC 2344 1350 43% 03-23-88 03:41:24 0F78
|
||
REPLYLNK.EXE 19181 15210 21% 03-23-88 03:41:58 1FEF
|
||
---- ------ ------ -----
|
||
0002 21525 16560 24%
|
||
|
||
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
|
||
FidoNews 5-29 Page 17 18 Jul 1988
|
||
|
||
|
||
Scott Samet
|
||
1:135/990
|
||
|
||
XlaxNode Version 2.10
|
||
|
||
XlaxNode Version 2.10 is now available for general release.
|
||
|
||
XlaxNode is a high performance replacement for a number of
|
||
popular nodelist utilities. The raw nodelist is compiled
|
||
directly to Opus 1.0x, Opus 1.1x, Binkley, QuickBBS and/or Seadog
|
||
format in a single step. No intermediate files or programs are
|
||
needed. All sorts are internal.
|
||
|
||
Xlax_210.Arc (151K) is available for file request from the
|
||
following nodes. Unless otherwise noted, they are 2400 baud and
|
||
accept file requests from one hour after NMH to one hour before
|
||
NMH. All are Pursuitable via D/FLMIA.
|
||
|
||
135/4
|
||
135/8 HST-9600 Baud
|
||
135/10
|
||
135/11 Requests honored 0700-0100 EDT; HST-9600 Baud
|
||
135/27 1200 only
|
||
135/35 1200 only
|
||
135/41
|
||
|
||
XlaxNode emulates almost all of the functions of XlatList,
|
||
OpusNode, NLComp, PCPFix, PCPExch, PCPExch2, QNode and ParseLst.
|
||
XlaxNode also adds features not found in any of these programs.
|
||
Processing is typically two to five times faster than these
|
||
programs.
|
||
|
||
Users of previous versions will find a number of improvements.
|
||
Version 2.10 is smaller and, for many options, faster. A number
|
||
of bugs have been fixed. QuickBBS and Binkley NodeList.Ext
|
||
support has been added. One NodeList.Idx file can be shared by
|
||
all three data files. Any or all of the output files can be
|
||
created in a single pass.
|
||
|
||
The nodelists can be tailored, selecting the zones and nets
|
||
desired. Output can range from a single net to the entire
|
||
nodelist.
|
||
|
||
Support for multi-zone nodelists has been enhanced. The Opus
|
||
1.1x message and call cost fields are supported.
|
||
|
||
PC Pursuit processing can be enabled or disabled for individual
|
||
output files. 2400 baud script support has been improved.
|
||
|
||
The companion program, XlaxDiff, included in the archive, applies
|
||
the weekly NodeDiff update file.
|
||
|
||
The license permits a thirty day trial period, after which a $10
|
||
per node fee is required.
|
||
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
|
||
FidoNews 5-29 Page 18 18 Jul 1988
|
||
|
||
|
||
=================================================================
|
||
NOTICES
|
||
=================================================================
|
||
|
||
The Interrupt Stack
|
||
|
||
|
||
25 Aug 1988
|
||
Start of the Fifth International FidoNet Conference, to be
|
||
held at the Drawbridge Inn in Cincinnati, 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.
|
||
|
||
5 Oct 1989
|
||
20th Anniversary of "Monty Python's Flying Circus"
|
||
|
||
If you have something which you would like to see on this
|
||
calendar, please send a message to FidoNet node 1:1/1.
|
||
|
||
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
-> -> -> FidoCon/Delta ticket giveaway ends soon! <- <- <-
|
||
|
||
One free round-trip ticket from Delta Airlines to anywhere Delta
|
||
flies in the continental U.S. is about to be given away!
|
||
|
||
You can have a chance to win this ticket by registering for
|
||
FidoCon'88 in Cincinnati before the July 15th deadline!
|
||
|
||
Your chance to fly Delta free depends upon you! Just complete
|
||
the registration form found in FidoNews, from your Net host or on
|
||
1/88. If you mail your registration it should be postmarked no
|
||
later than July 15th. If you NetMail your registration it should
|
||
arrive at 1/88 no later than July 15th.
|
||
|
||
The winner will be announced at FidoCon. See you there!
|
||
|
||
----------======----------
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
|
||
Latest Software Versions
|
||
|
||
BBS Systems Node List Other
|
||
& Mailers Version Utilities Version Utilities Version
|
||
|
||
FidoNews 5-29 Page 19 18 Jul 1988
|
||
|
||
|
||
Dutchie 2.90* EditNL 4.00* ARC 5.22*
|
||
Fido 12h MakeNL 2.12* ARCmail 1.1
|
||
Opus 1.03b Prune 1.40 ConfMail 3.31
|
||
SEAdog 4.10 XlatList 2.86 EchoMail 1.31
|
||
TBBS 2.0M XlaxNode 2.10* MGM 1.1
|
||
BinkleyTerm 1.50 XlaxDiff 2.10*
|
||
QuickBBS 2.01 ParseList 1.10
|
||
|
||
* 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 5-29 Page 20 18 Jul 1988
|
||
|
||
|
||
OFFICERS OF THE INTERNATIONAL FIDONET ASSOCIATION
|
||
|
||
Ken Kaplan 100/22 Chairman of the Board
|
||
Don Daniels 107/210 President
|
||
Mark Grennan 147/1 Vice President
|
||
Dave Dodell 114/15 Vice President - Technical Coordinator
|
||
David Garrett 103/501 Secretary
|
||
Leonard Mednick 345/1 Treasurer
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
IFNA BOARD OF DIRECTORS
|
||
|
||
DIVISION AT-LARGE
|
||
|
||
10 Steve Jordan 102/2871 Don Daniels 107/210
|
||
11 Bill Allbritten 11/301 Hal DuPrie 101/106
|
||
12 Leonard Mednick 345/1 Mark Grennan 147/1
|
||
13 Rick Siegel 107/27 Brad Hicks 100/523
|
||
14 Ken Kaplan 100/22 Ted Polczyinski 154/5
|
||
15 Jim Cannell 128/13 Kurt Reisler 109/74
|
||
16 Vince Perriello 141/491 Robert Rudolph 261/628
|
||
17 Rob Barker 138/34 Greg Small 148/122
|
||
18 Christopher Baker 135/14 Bob Swift 140/24
|
||
19 Vernon Six 19/0 Larry Wall 15/18
|
||
2 Henk Wevers 2:500/1 Gee Wong 107/312
|
||
|
||
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
|
||
FidoNews 5-29 Page 21 18 Jul 1988
|
||
|
||
|
||
Rob Barker 138/34
|
||
Chairman, Elections and Nominations Committee
|
||
|
||
|
||
RULES AND PROCEDURES
|
||
|
||
The next two pages are your Official ballot for the Election of
|
||
the IFNA Board of Directors. The following are the few rules
|
||
which must prevail in this election:
|
||
|
||
1. You must send a legible copy of this ballot to the address
|
||
listed on the ballot or cast your vote in person at the
|
||
conference prior to the closing of the election Polls. It must
|
||
be signed and bear your current net/node number.
|
||
|
||
2. You may vote for any person in your Division for the position
|
||
of Divisional Director. This vote is to be cast in the LEFT
|
||
column of the ballot.
|
||
|
||
3. You may vote for any six people for the position of Director
|
||
at Large. These votes are to be cast in the RIGHT column of the
|
||
ballot.
|
||
|
||
4. Voting will continue until the end of the Conference
|
||
registration on the 25th of August, 1988. Ballots which are
|
||
mailed must reach the address listed below prior to Wednesday,
|
||
24 August 1988. The results will be read during the opening of
|
||
business meeting on the first day of the conference.
|
||
|
||
5. Write-in votes will be accepted and are requested during this
|
||
election.
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
IFNA Board Of Directors
|
||
Ballot
|
||
|
||
|
||
Candidate Net/Node Divisional At-Large
|
||
Vote Vote
|
||
------------------ --------- ---------- --------
|
||
|
||
DIVISION 2:
|
||
Henk Weavers 500/1 (1)
|
||
|
||
DIVISION 10:
|
||
Jim Bacon 103/507 _____ _____
|
||
Courtney Harris 102/732 _____ _____
|
||
Steve Jordan 102/2871 _____ _____
|
||
|
||
DIVISION 12:
|
||
Bill Bolton 711/403 _____ _____
|
||
Leonard Mednick 345/1 _____ _____
|
||
|
||
FidoNews 5-29 Page 22 18 Jul 1988
|
||
|
||
|
||
DIVISION 14:
|
||
Glen Jackson 100/517 _____ _____
|
||
Ken Kaplan 100/22 _____ _____
|
||
|
||
DIVISION 16:
|
||
Vince Perriello 141/491 (1)
|
||
|
||
DIVISION 18:
|
||
Chris Baker 18/14 (1)
|
||
|
||
ADDITIONAL AT-LARGE
|
||
Steve Bonine 115/777 _____
|
||
Don Daniels 107/210 _____
|
||
Dave Melnik 107/233 _____
|
||
Robert Rudolph 261/628 _____
|
||
Greg Small 148/122 _____
|
||
________________ _________ _____
|
||
________________ _________ _____
|
||
________________ _________ _____
|
||
|
||
|
||
(1) This candidate has been elected to the office of Divisional
|
||
Director with no further voting procedure necessary as per By
|
||
Law #11.
|
||
|
||
"The Nominations and Elections Committee shall delete the name
|
||
of any nominee who mayt be ineligible for election and the name
|
||
of any who may withdraw by written communications. The
|
||
remaining names shall be listed on a ballot, in alphabetical
|
||
order. IF THERE BE BUT ONE ELIGIBLE NOMINEE, THE NOMINATIONS
|
||
AND ELECTION COMMITTEE SHALL DECLARE HIM ELECTED WITHOUT
|
||
BALLOTING BY THE MEMBERSHIP. (Emphasis added. -rb) If there be
|
||
more than one eligible nominee, then at least 45 days prior to
|
||
the Annual Meeting the Secretary shall send by mail to every
|
||
voting member, and publish in FidoNews, a ballot listing the
|
||
candidates for director. The ballot shall contain a copy of
|
||
the current voting rules."
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Name ______________________________ Net/Node ___________
|
||
|
||
Signature______________________________ Date ___________
|
||
|
||
|
||
Please complete this and mail it to:
|
||
|
||
Rob Barker
|
||
IFNA Elections Committee
|
||
7406 - 27th Street West
|
||
Suite #7, Plaza West
|
||
Tacoma, Wa 98466
|
||
|
||
or bring it with you when you come to the conference in August.
|
||
|
||
FidoNews 5-29 Page 23 18 Jul 1988
|
||
|
||
|
||
Thank You
|
||
|
||
Rob Barker
|
||
Elections and Nominations Committee
|
||
|
||
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
|
||
FidoNews 5-29 Page 24 18 Jul 1988
|
||
|
||
|
||
__
|
||
The World's First / \
|
||
BBS Network /|oo \
|
||
* FidoNet * (_| /_)
|
||
_`@/_ \ _
|
||
| | \ \\
|
||
| (*) | \ ))
|
||
______ |__U__| / \//
|
||
/ Fido \ _//|| _\ /
|
||
(________) (_/(_|(____/ (tm)
|
||
|
||
Membership for the International FidoNet Association
|
||
|
||
Membership in IFNA is open to any individual or organization that
|
||
pays the annual membership fee. IFNA serves the international
|
||
FidoNet-compatible electronic mail community to increase
|
||
worldwide communications.
|
||
|
||
Name __________________________________ Date ___________________
|
||
Address _________________________________________________________
|
||
City ____________________________________________________________
|
||
State ________________________________ Zip _____________________
|
||
Country _________________________________________________________
|
||
Home Phone (Voice) ______________________________________________
|
||
Work Phone (Voice) ______________________________________________
|
||
Is this a new application? _________ a renewal? ________________
|
||
Are you a Sysop? _________ If so, for how long? ________________
|
||
Your BBS Info: (Non-Sysops enter info for your most-called BBS)
|
||
Zone:Net/Node Number ____________________________________________
|
||
BBS Name ________________________________________________________
|
||
BBS Phone Number ________________________________________________
|
||
Your Special Interests __________________________________________
|
||
_________________________________________________________________
|
||
_________________________________________________________________
|
||
In what areas would you be willing to help in FidoNet? __________
|
||
_________________________________________________________________
|
||
_________________________________________________________________
|
||
Are there any special resources that you could provide? _________
|
||
_________________________________________________________________
|
||
|
||
Regular Membership $25
|
||
Lifetime Membership $250
|
||
|
||
Send this form and a check or money order in US Funds to:
|
||
International FidoNet Association
|
||
c/o Leonard Mednick, CPA
|
||
700 Bishop Street, #1014
|
||
Honolulu, HI 96813 USA
|
||
|
||
IFNA is a general not-for-profit organization. Articles of
|
||
Association and By-Laws were adopted by the membership in January
|
||
1987. The IFNA Echomail Conference has been established on
|
||
FidoNet to assist the Board of Directors. We welcome your input
|
||
on this Conference.
|
||
|
||
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
FidoNews 5-29 Page 25 18 Jul 1988
|
||
|
||
|
||
INTERNATIONAL FIDONET ASSOCIATION
|
||
ORDER FORM
|
||
|
||
Publications
|
||
|
||
The IFNA publications can be obtained by downloading from Fido
|
||
1:1/10 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.
|
||
|
||
Hardcopy prices as of October 1, 1986
|
||
|
||
IFNA Fido BBS listing $15.00 _____
|
||
IFNA Administrative Policy DOCs $10.00 _____
|
||
IFNA FidoNet Standards Committee DOCs $10.00 _____
|
||
|
||
SUBTOTAL _____
|
||
|
||
IFNA Member ONLY Special Offers
|
||
|
||
System Enhancement Associates SEAdog $60.00 _____
|
||
SEAdog price as of March 1, 1987
|
||
ONLY 1 copy SEAdog per IFNA Member
|
||
|
||
Fido Software's Fido/FidoNet $100.00 _____
|
||
Fido/FidoNet price as of November 1, 1987
|
||
ONLY 1 copy Fido/FidoNet per IFNA Member
|
||
|
||
International orders include $10.00 for
|
||
surface shipping or $20.00 for air shipping _____
|
||
|
||
SUBTOTAL _____
|
||
|
||
HI. Residents add 4.0 % Sales tax _____
|
||
|
||
TOTAL _____
|
||
|
||
SEND CHECK OR MONEY ORDER IN US FUNDS:
|
||
International FidoNet Association
|
||
c/o Leonard Mednick, MBA, CPA
|
||
700 Bishop Street, #1014
|
||
Honolulu, HI. 96813-4112
|
||
USA
|
||
|
||
Name________________________________
|
||
Zone:Net/Node____:____/____
|
||
Company_____________________________
|
||
Address_____________________________
|
||
City____________________ State____________ Zip_____
|
||
Voice Phone_________________________
|
||
|
||
Signature___________________________
|
||
|
||
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
|
||
|