1854 lines
88 KiB
Plaintext
1854 lines
88 KiB
Plaintext
Volume 8, Number 17 29 April 1991
|
||
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
|
||
| _ |
|
||
| / \ |
|
||
| /|oo \ |
|
||
| - FidoNews - (_| /_) |
|
||
| _`@/_ \ _ |
|
||
| FidoNet (r) | | \ \\ |
|
||
| International BBS Network | (*) | \ )) |
|
||
| Newsletter ______ |__U__| / \// |
|
||
| / FIDO \ _//|| _\ / |
|
||
| (________) (_/(_|(____/ |
|
||
| (jm) |
|
||
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
|
||
Editor in Chief: Vince Perriello
|
||
Editors Emeritii: Thom Henderson, Dale Lovell
|
||
Chief Procrastinator Emeritus: Tom Jennings
|
||
|
||
Copyright 1991, Fido Software. All rights reserved. Duplication
|
||
and/or distribution permitted for noncommercial purposes only.
|
||
For use in other circumstances, please contact Fido Software.
|
||
|
||
FidoNews is published weekly by and for the Members of the
|
||
FidoNet (r) International Amateur Electronic Mail System. It is
|
||
a compilation of individual articles contributed by their authors
|
||
or authorized agents of the authors. The contribution of articles
|
||
to this compilation does not diminish the rights of the authors.
|
||
|
||
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. 1:1/1 is a Continuous
|
||
Mail system, available for network mail 24 hours a day.
|
||
|
||
Fido and FidoNet are registered trademarks of Tom Jennings of
|
||
Fido Software, Box 77731, San Francisco CA 94107, USA and are
|
||
used with permission.
|
||
|
||
Opinions expressed in FidoNews articles are those of the authors
|
||
and are not necessarily those of the Editor or of Fido Software.
|
||
Most articles are unsolicited. Our policy is to publish every
|
||
responsible submission received.
|
||
|
||
|
||
Table of Contents
|
||
1. EDITORIAL ................................................ 1
|
||
Otto-Pilot ............................................... 1
|
||
2. ARTICLES ................................................. 2
|
||
2nd Democratic Election in Zone-4 ........................ 2
|
||
Looking for (Artificial) Intelligence .................... 4
|
||
Reply to Snooze 815 ...................................... 7
|
||
Your dog walks on water?!? ............................... 11
|
||
Z1EC Initial Report ...................................... 19
|
||
3. LATEST VERSIONS .......................................... 31
|
||
Latest Software Versions ................................. 31
|
||
4. NOTICES .................................................. 36
|
||
And more!
|
||
FidoNews 8-17 Page 1 29 Apr 1991
|
||
|
||
|
||
=================================================================
|
||
EDITORIAL
|
||
=================================================================
|
||
|
||
|
||
I'm not really here. I'm in Houston.
|
||
|
||
If you get to read this, it means that MY version of Honey was
|
||
able to put up with me and with a computing instrument other
|
||
than a Macintosh for long enough to create your newsletter.
|
||
|
||
She did it while I was screaming into the phone at her ("no, not
|
||
THAT button! The OTHER button!"), so please be forgiving if the
|
||
result is less than stellar.
|
||
|
||
Let me apologize in advance, though, if something you sent me
|
||
didn't get into the newsletter. She's doing a good job, but
|
||
fixing batch files and (more to the point) reformatting stuff
|
||
that MAKENEWS doesn't like is not her cup of tea. It will be
|
||
published next week.
|
||
|
||
All my best from (deep in the heart of) Texas,
|
||
Vince
|
||
|
||
|
||
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
FidoNews 8-17 Page 2 29 Apr 1991
|
||
|
||
|
||
=================================================================
|
||
ARTICLES
|
||
=================================================================
|
||
|
||
|
||
Coordinator Elections in Zone-4
|
||
Elecciones de Coordinador en la Zona-4
|
||
Eleicoes de Coordenador na Zona-4
|
||
|
||
Next May 12th, Zone-4 Latin America will celebrate its second
|
||
birthday. I think this time is appropriate for me to resign as
|
||
Zone Coordinator and call for new elections to choose my
|
||
successor.
|
||
|
||
The process of election of the new Zone-4 Coordinator will be
|
||
identical to the one held in November 9th, 1990 in which I
|
||
was re-elected.
|
||
|
||
The procedures defined for the democratic election process are
|
||
the following:
|
||
|
||
- All the FidoNet members will be able to present themselves as
|
||
candidates to the zone coordinator position, by sending netmail
|
||
to Elecciones at node 4:4/444 until May 10th.
|
||
|
||
- On May 11th, the list of all candidates will be published
|
||
on the official echomail conference LATIN.SYSOP and on May 13th,
|
||
on NotiFido, the official Zone-4 sysops' electronic newsletter.
|
||
From then until the voting closes on May 31st, the candidates
|
||
will be able to debate ideas on the LATIN.SYSOP echo, as well
|
||
as on the other region and local sysops' echomail conferences.
|
||
|
||
- From May 11th until May 31st, all the members of FidoNet Zone 4
|
||
will be able to vote for their preferred candidate -voting for
|
||
someone that is not a candidate will void the ballot- for Zone
|
||
Coordinator. They will do so by sending a message to Elecciones
|
||
at node 4:4/444 (region-routing will be enabled to reduce the
|
||
cost of voting), whose subject will be a special "secret
|
||
password" and the text will indicate the sysop's choice. THE
|
||
VOTE IS SECRET, AND ITS CONTAINTS WILL NEVER BE REVEALED. This is
|
||
an example of how a ballot must be issued:
|
||
|
||
secret password
|
||
From: Jose Corzo Gomez (4:900/789) |
|
||
To: Elecciones (4:4/444) |
|
||
Subj: guantelimpio <---------------| text
|
||
|
|
||
ZC: Roque Santeiro <--------------------|
|
||
|
||
- The results from the election will be published on June 2nd
|
||
on the official echomail conference LATIN.SYSOP and on June 3rd
|
||
on NotiFido and FidoNews. A comprehensive list with every ballot
|
||
listed, to grant the accurateness of the results, will be posted
|
||
on June 2nd on the echomail conference LATIN.SYSOP. This is
|
||
an example of how a ballot will be published in the comprehensive
|
||
list:
|
||
FidoNews 8-17 Page 3 29 Apr 1991
|
||
|
||
|
||
Password ZC Status
|
||
------------------------------------------------
|
||
guantelimpio R.Santeiro OK(*)
|
||
|
||
(*) Will say "VOID" if the ballot is not correct
|
||
|
||
- The candidate with more votes will become the newly elected
|
||
Zone Coordinator and will take over his/her new position as
|
||
arranged with the current ZC.
|
||
|
||
Pablo Kleinman
|
||
Latin American FidoNet Coordinator
|
||
Buenos Aires, April 23, 1991
|
||
|
||
|
||
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
FidoNews 8-17 Page 4 29 Apr 1991
|
||
|
||
|
||
Looking for (Artificial) Intelligence
|
||
|
||
Bill Keller 1:129/124.0
|
||
|
||
I guess I should begin this article by introducing myself
|
||
and stating my reasons for submitting this article.
|
||
|
||
My name is Bill Keller and I run a bbs called ShadeTree in
|
||
Pittsburgh, PA 15221 (412-244-9416). ShadeTree is
|
||
oriented solely towards artificial intelligence (AI).
|
||
Mostly, the people who log on are beginners or amatuers,
|
||
but they are all enthusiasts.
|
||
|
||
I originally got into AI by way of a "free" magazine.
|
||
I'm sure you've all received these type of offers, "Try our
|
||
magazine, the first issue for FREE, if you don't like it,
|
||
mark "cancel" on the invoice and send it back, there will
|
||
be no further obligation on your part". Sometimes, I felt
|
||
almost criminal (notice I said "almost") but it is a good
|
||
way to take a look at a new magazine before deciding to
|
||
subscribe. Anyway, the magazine ad I answered was one for
|
||
PC AI, one of the two big AI related magazines. The issue
|
||
I received was one of their first on neural nets.
|
||
Immediately, I was HOOKED!!
|
||
|
||
I started to look around for an inexpensive way to get
|
||
started in AI. What I found was over priced, over
|
||
complicated, over hyped programs. Knowing the computer
|
||
community, I figured that SOMEWHERE, there had to be either
|
||
shareware or public domain programs available to help me
|
||
get started. The quest started!
|
||
|
||
What I found was more than a little disheartening. There
|
||
was VERY little of either type of software out there. Oh,
|
||
I managed to locate a few expert system shells here and
|
||
there, and some other miscellaneous files, but there was no
|
||
CENTRAL place I could go to find the latest release of a
|
||
shareware program or a new public domain program that had
|
||
just been released or that maintained a large library of AI
|
||
oriented programs and files. It was at that point I
|
||
conceived of ShadeTree.
|
||
|
||
I had been using bbs's for several years, not a lot (I knew
|
||
from experience how addicting it can be!) but enough to have
|
||
a very general idea how it worked. One of the local Pgh
|
||
SysOps helped me get started with OPUS (a GREAT piece of
|
||
software) and to get my mail and echos set up. At this
|
||
point, I started searching very seriously.
|
||
|
||
There's the back ground, now for the reason or more
|
||
correctly, the request.
|
||
|
||
FidoNews 8-17 Page 5 29 Apr 1991
|
||
|
||
|
||
I am asking all the SysOps and users who read this
|
||
newsletter, to provide me with the following information:
|
||
|
||
1. What is your FIDONet address and any particulars about
|
||
your bbs, max baud rate, phone number, hours of
|
||
operation, city, state and zip code (no addresses unless
|
||
you want to provide it but with just the city and zip
|
||
code, many people will be able to tell how close they
|
||
are to your board), with this info I intend to compile
|
||
and distribute a file containing a list of boards
|
||
carrying the various AI related echos so that people
|
||
can find a bbs close to them
|
||
2. Do you participate in any other networks and if so,
|
||
which ones and what AI related echos are available on
|
||
that network, for example the RIME network, or RBBS,
|
||
etc
|
||
2. What FIDONet "backbone" AI related echos are you
|
||
receiving? (The only ones I am aware of are AI,
|
||
NEURAL_NET, ROBOTIX, if you are aware of any others,
|
||
please let me know)
|
||
3. What "local" AI echos do you have on your board and is
|
||
there a possibility of that echo becoming a "backbone"
|
||
echo or would you consider some alternative method of
|
||
allowing users from all over access to your echo
|
||
4. What AI related files do you currently have on your
|
||
board, please give the program name, author name,
|
||
version number, size in kb, and a brief description if
|
||
possible, I am interested in both text files, program
|
||
files, descriptive files, tutorial files, data files,
|
||
etc
|
||
5. Any of the following topics would be considered AI
|
||
(although some by only very loose standards):
|
||
Expert systems / inference engines
|
||
Neural nets / neural modeling
|
||
Problem solving
|
||
Natural language processing
|
||
Machine vision
|
||
Pattern processing
|
||
Decision analysis
|
||
Robotics
|
||
Machine learning / understanding
|
||
Logic and uncertainty / fuzzy logic
|
||
Genetic algorithms
|
||
LISP and all it's dialects
|
||
PROLOG and all it's dialects
|
||
SmallTalk and all it's dialects
|
||
Hypertext
|
||
Speech recognition
|
||
Speech to text translation and vice versa
|
||
|
||
This list should cover most of the major areas of
|
||
interest in AI but if you have a file that you're not sure
|
||
of, better to let me know than to not include it.
|
||
|
||
FidoNews 8-17 Page 6 29 Apr 1991
|
||
|
||
|
||
What I intend to do is start a consolidated repository of
|
||
AI related materials and keep them as up to date as
|
||
possible. This can only be accomplished with the help of
|
||
the network and the individual's willingness to contribute
|
||
a little time to initially get the project off the ground.
|
||
Evenutally, I hope to automate the process as much as
|
||
possible (after all, isn't that what computers are for?) and
|
||
use some sort of database to track version numbers and
|
||
releases, etc.
|
||
|
||
I can be reached at either my FIDONet address, 1:129/124.0
|
||
or via the U. S. Mail at:
|
||
|
||
ShadeTree BBS
|
||
c/o Bill Keller
|
||
417 Peebles Street
|
||
Pittsburgh, PA 15221
|
||
|
||
At this time, ShadeTree is only running from 8:30 PM until
|
||
8:30 AM and only at a maximum of 2400 buad. That is
|
||
another reason to suggest the regular mail as an
|
||
alternative.
|
||
|
||
I would like to thank you all, in advance of any assistance
|
||
rendered, for your help and participation in this project.
|
||
|
||
Bill Keller
|
||
|
||
|
||
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
FidoNews 8-17 Page 7 29 Apr 1991
|
||
|
||
|
||
Garth Kidd
|
||
3:680/828@fidonet
|
||
garth_kidd@f828.n680.z3.fidonet.org
|
||
|
||
|
||
Ages ago, I posted a few articles about POLICY, WorldPOL, and
|
||
whether Z3 should throw some kind of revolution and crawl out
|
||
from under Z1's wing.
|
||
|
||
This is *nothing* to do with them :-)
|
||
|
||
Well, ok, it is. It's also rather different. This is partially
|
||
because I'm talking about a few different items. The fact that
|
||
some rather nice people took the time to debate a couple of
|
||
issues with me probably helped, too. Thanks, guys. You know who
|
||
you are.
|
||
|
||
I digress.
|
||
|
||
===
|
||
|
||
AutoNews sounds interesting, Vince. Make sure you put in
|
||
something that'll flag suspiciously large articles, though. I can
|
||
just imagine some twit sending you 40k of ^g.
|
||
|
||
===
|
||
|
||
Bob, I like the idea. The main problem is that your proposal is
|
||
HUGE. It'd be really nice if you trimmed it down to something the
|
||
average human being couls sit down with, read and comprehend
|
||
within an hour or two. [Ideally, we should be able to reduce it
|
||
to "Act Sensibly" :-)]
|
||
|
||
I would have tried to make suggestions and comments on your
|
||
proposal, but it was simply too large to deal with. Apologies.
|
||
|
||
===
|
||
|
||
Alexander, the main problem with passing the ambiguity buck to
|
||
the ZCs is that it's exactly that -- passing the buck. Why not
|
||
correct the problems once now, rather than have to do it in each
|
||
Zone (or Region, or Net, or...)
|
||
|
||
===
|
||
|
||
Mike, just a point:
|
||
|
||
> WorldPol would have made it much easier to fix. WorldPol
|
||
> would have given the *Cs more reason to be responsive to
|
||
> the valid needs of a sysop.
|
||
|
||
FidoNews 8-17 Page 8 29 Apr 1991
|
||
|
||
|
||
To be a member of the *C structure, you need to have a fair bit
|
||
of time, expertise, and equipment you're willing to donate to the
|
||
cause. Unfortunately, there aren't a huge number of people who
|
||
have all the necessary elements handy. The result is a very small
|
||
number of people to choose from when having an election.
|
||
|
||
Now, when your city has an election, there are a huge number of
|
||
people who'd like to be the Mayor, and who have the necessary
|
||
equipment (that is, they're a citizen with spare time). This
|
||
means that you *can* pressure your Mayor with the threat of being
|
||
voted out next time 'round, because there are people available to
|
||
fill their place.
|
||
|
||
You can't so easily discard a *C. First, you have to find someone
|
||
with the technical nouse and spare time that's willing to take on
|
||
the job, and that's going to be fairly difficult in a lot of
|
||
places. It seems to me that a lot of *C's are going to be fairly
|
||
safe. Ergo, they're not going to be terribly more responsive.
|
||
|
||
===
|
||
|
||
Don, I couldn't agree more. For those who missed what he said,
|
||
here's perhaps the most important bit:
|
||
|
||
> In sum, I think that WorldPol could probably be reduced
|
||
> to a third of the current size, and we would end up with
|
||
> a smaller, more effective document. Take a few moments
|
||
> and look at WorldPol again. Ask yourself if each section
|
||
> is absolutely necessary to be controlled at the inter-
|
||
> national level? If not, why include it?
|
||
|
||
===
|
||
|
||
Dick, I know the feeling. Something's not working quite right. As
|
||
for the BOMBRUN kludge -- I like it! Take it to NET_DEV and see
|
||
how people react to it. I'd have a bash, but due to a feed
|
||
interruption of a strange nature [Paul, I'll netmail you as soon
|
||
as I've got the time and inclination, but I'll condense: your
|
||
netmail on the matter *NEVER REACHED ME*, reasons unknown :-(] I
|
||
won't be able to.
|
||
|
||
Main problem: too much exception handling :-) Also, until people
|
||
catch on to installing session passwords for anyone they connect
|
||
to on a regular basis, there's the potential for people to insert
|
||
fake BOMBRUN messages, which would be a Bad Thing.
|
||
|
||
===
|
||
|
||
Finally, Jack. Incidentally, yours was the article that prompted
|
||
me to start this multiple reply in the first place.
|
||
|
||
FidoNews 8-17 Page 9 29 Apr 1991
|
||
|
||
|
||
Agreed, we need to get some new software up and running, quick.
|
||
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that this won't be able to
|
||
be quickly grafted on at the mail processor level, unfortunately
|
||
-- we'll need a couple of sneaky changes to the mailers
|
||
themselves (domain-style addressing, here we come! :-), and some
|
||
change to BBS software to handle the new-fangled ideas of fully
|
||
moderated conferences [*] and conference hierachies.
|
||
|
||
Unfortunately, even if you manage to implement a decent
|
||
replacement [**], you'll still have to get people to switch to it.
|
||
You don't need me to tell you that this isn't going to be the
|
||
easiest thing to accomplish.
|
||
|
||
> Trouble is, it seems that all the topics I am
|
||
> interested in fall into one of three categories: 1)
|
||
> There's no echo covering it, 2) There's an echo
|
||
> covering it but it's a dead (or nearly dead) echo, 3)
|
||
> There's an echo covering it but it's so large and has
|
||
> so many off-topic or "useless" messages that I just
|
||
> don't have the time to keep up with it.
|
||
|
||
Is there anyone here who *doesn't* have that feeling?
|
||
|
||
I like the method the USEnet uses to cope.
|
||
|
||
[Warning: this is from what I've seen only. I may have been
|
||
temporarily visually challenged at the time].
|
||
|
||
You have the comp.* groups, and various other "official"
|
||
conference trees. To create a new group in here requires a lot of
|
||
discussion and manoeuvering.
|
||
|
||
You also have the alt.* tree, in which you create a conference by
|
||
posting a message to it. All the systems who have the alt.* tree
|
||
enabled [***] [****] will get it, until they turn it off. I think
|
||
the software also automatically kills conferences that have been
|
||
dead for a sufficiently long time.
|
||
|
||
Just excuse me whilst I catch up on my footnotes.
|
||
|
||
===
|
||
|
||
[* Note to people who think that fully-moderated conferences mean
|
||
double the throughput: this is the case only if you're directly
|
||
between the moderator and the rest of the world, and the
|
||
moderator isn't all that choosy. For people at the far reaches,
|
||
the difference would be negligible, and probably advantageous.]
|
||
|
||
[** Even this is going to be near impossible. I was one of the
|
||
participants in a rather active discussion in NET_DEV about
|
||
potential Fido/3 technology. Unfortunately, I've suffered from a
|
||
"minor" feed cut. Ironically, one of the contributing factors
|
||
(apart from a rather badly timed and \extremely\ badly placed
|
||
argument I had with someone) was that transmission failures meant
|
||
that netmail and echomail warnings on the matter simply didn't
|
||
make it to my system.]
|
||
FidoNews 8-17 Page 10 29 Apr 1991
|
||
|
||
|
||
[*** Apart, that is, from the people who've disabled the part of
|
||
the tree you're in. Example: to create alt.swedish would be fine
|
||
as long as people didn't have it already in their kill file. Now,
|
||
creating alt.swedish.chef would be ok, but systems who'd already
|
||
turned off alt.swedish would never see the new subconference.
|
||
swedish.chef.bork.bork.bork would be for the true diehards :-) Oh
|
||
yeah; some people save lots of time and just kill alt.*]
|
||
|
||
[*** Apologies for all of these footnotes. I can't seem to get my
|
||
text in order these days.]
|
||
|
||
===
|
||
|
||
> But will our software authors ever be able to agree on
|
||
> any new standard that might be proposed along these
|
||
> lines?
|
||
|
||
I think not. At least, not in NET_DEV, from what I'd seen just
|
||
before I left. At the time the feed bottomed out, people were
|
||
still debating whether a timestamp should be stored as seconds
|
||
since 1970, a 32-bit bitmapped struct, plaintext, ISO, and if
|
||
anything remotely binary, which wordsex to use :-(
|
||
|
||
There is one way in which I think it could all be accomplished.
|
||
Unfortunately, it doesn't leave much of Fido standing :-(. Since
|
||
a change would be extremely difficult to orchestrate piecemeal,
|
||
it seems vaguely reasonable to start a new network with the new
|
||
technology and let it gradually "eat" FidoNet, gating the major
|
||
conferences and so on. Can anyone think of a better method?
|
||
Please?
|
||
|
||
That'll do for today. Have a nice day, all.
|
||
|
||
|
||
gk
|
||
|
||
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
FidoNews 8-17 Page 11 29 Apr 1991
|
||
|
||
|
||
Jack Decker
|
||
1:154/8 Fidonet
|
||
YOUR DOG WALKS ON WATER?!?
|
||
|
||
Well, last week I tried out the AutoNews program that Vince
|
||
uses, by sending an article via netmail. It worked, but it
|
||
threw out the blank spaces that I had left between paragraphs.
|
||
|
||
I think that may have happened because my message editor only
|
||
put a single <CR> after each line, no <LF>'s anywhere, so this
|
||
week I'll try manually creating the message to make sure that
|
||
each line terminates with a CR/LF and see if that helps. In
|
||
the meantime, Vince, you may want to see if AutoNews recognizes
|
||
two <CR>'s in a row as a blank line. However, for a first
|
||
attempt, the program worked admirably. [I spoke to the author
|
||
and he thanks you, both for your kind comments and for your
|
||
assistance in getting everything straightened out -- Vince]
|
||
|
||
Besides, I did want to make one little comment on Vince's
|
||
Editorial in FidoNews 8-16. In Vince's reply to Pablo
|
||
Kleinman, we see the following exchange:
|
||
|
||
[Begin quote:]
|
||
|
||
> I want to believe that Jack Decker's last article is really
|
||
> pessimistic and not the harsh reality of our network.
|
||
|
||
It's sort of redundant to call Jack a pessimist.
|
||
|
||
Can you see this?
|
||
|
||
Jack goes hunting with you. You shoot a duck. Your dog goes
|
||
after the duck. When it reaches the water, your dog walks on
|
||
top of the water, never even leaving a ripple. The dog gets the
|
||
duck and brings it back to you. Jack says nothing. This happens
|
||
twice more. You finally ask Jack if he has noticed anything
|
||
unusual. Jack says, "Yeah. Your dog can't swim."
|
||
|
||
[End quote]
|
||
|
||
What strikes me as amusing about this is that the other day I
|
||
happened to have the radio on when Rush Limbaugh was on, and he
|
||
made a comment to the effect that when liberals run out of
|
||
substance, they start in with personal attacks (for those
|
||
outside of the U.S.A., Rush Limbaugh is a conservative radio
|
||
talk show host that is carried on well over 300 radio stations
|
||
in the U.S. for three hours a day, and who is most noted for
|
||
having an ego about the size of the planet Jupiter). Anyway, I
|
||
thinks to myself, that sounds a lot like Fidonet... when they
|
||
can't assail the logic of what you have to say, they start in
|
||
with the personal smears.
|
||
|
||
FidoNews 8-17 Page 12 29 Apr 1991
|
||
|
||
|
||
Actually, I realize that my messages may, if taken out of
|
||
context, sound a bit pessimistic. What I see is that we have a
|
||
potentially wonderful communications medium here... one that
|
||
allows people from all corners of the earth to converse with
|
||
each other with reasonable speed and at fairly low cost. Yet
|
||
there are problems and in some cases they need to be quantified
|
||
and solutions need to be found.
|
||
|
||
Consider what would have happened if the Ford Motor Company,
|
||
after having come out with the Model "T" had said "Now, you
|
||
folks have something that is better than the horse, and you can
|
||
afford to buy it, so you should be grateful and not ask for
|
||
anything more." Actually, from what I've read, that was
|
||
EXACTLY the attitude of some in that company (I believe it was
|
||
Henry Ford who said "they can have any color they want, as long
|
||
as it's black!"). Would anyone doubt that we are better off
|
||
now because some folks looked at the Model "T" and dared to say
|
||
"it's wonderful, but it can be improved upon"?
|
||
|
||
So it is with Fidonet... it is wonderful, but it can be
|
||
improved upon.
|
||
|
||
I have felt, and expressed on many occasions, that there are
|
||
about four basic things wrong with Fidonet:
|
||
|
||
First, it is too politically motivated. What folks like Vince
|
||
and some others seem to have a hard time grasping is that there
|
||
ARE people in the world who seek to acquire any sort of power
|
||
over others that they can get, and since there are only so many
|
||
countries in the world, not all of them can aspire to be world
|
||
dictators. Some will try and manipulate their way to the top
|
||
of the office political structure at their place of employment,
|
||
others will try and rise to the top of a local service club,
|
||
charitable organization, or political group, and still others
|
||
will try to cling to the top spot of a hobbyist group. Some of
|
||
these folks get into Fidonet and do manage to get a *C spot and
|
||
once they get there, they will oppose any policy change that
|
||
might lessen their supposed power. I think those who have
|
||
trouble understanding this have simply never been in an
|
||
organization where one person has clawed their way to the top
|
||
and then manipulated people like crazy to keep the top spot. I
|
||
have, and I can tell you that it's no fun to see an
|
||
organization disintegrate because the top person is driving
|
||
everyone away.
|
||
|
||
Second, it makes a god (small "g") out of geography. This is
|
||
out and out idiocy, when referring to an electronic network
|
||
(no, Vince, I can't vote in Duluth when I live in Sault Ste.
|
||
Marie... but Fidonet isn't providing my water, fixing my
|
||
streets, or regulating the zoning around my home. You can't
|
||
compare physical structures to a structure that can quite
|
||
reasonably exist in a configuration that pays little regard to
|
||
geography). (Side note to Pablo... no, I truly believe that
|
||
MOST common sysops in Zone 1 DON'T want geographic
|
||
restrictions... and that is EXACTLY why a few are so opposed to
|
||
WorldPol, because they will lose their enforced power base.
|
||
FidoNews 8-17 Page 13 29 Apr 1991
|
||
|
||
|
||
They know that if common sysops are given a vote on a Zone-wide
|
||
policy, they'll never vote for one that contains geographic
|
||
restrictions, and that scares a few of them to death).
|
||
|
||
Third, it is getting technically stagnant... Fidonet is SO
|
||
large that we find that we're unable to refine the system to
|
||
get rid of SEENBY's in messages, have true 5D addressing
|
||
instead of endless kludge lines, have truly moderated
|
||
conferences so that the signal-to-noise ratio of conferences
|
||
can be improved, communicate with the ubiquitous FAX machines
|
||
around us, enter non-text data in messages, and any of a
|
||
hundred other improvements that WILL come in time. Just as the
|
||
Model "T" owner might never have dreamed of having air
|
||
conditioning, a stereo audio system and cruise control, so we
|
||
can't imagine what future online communicators will be able to
|
||
do. The question is, will these advances come from within
|
||
Fidonet, or will those who want something better be forced into
|
||
other networks? And if the latter happens, will those in
|
||
Fidonet then stubbornly snub them and ignore what they're
|
||
accomplishing?
|
||
|
||
Fourth, it is intolerant of certain political viewpoints.
|
||
Vince at one point raised the specter of a "whites only" net
|
||
run by the KKK. Well, far be it from me to defend that group,
|
||
since I find their ideas repugnant, but since you're so
|
||
concerned about law, Vince, you ought to ask your lawyer
|
||
friends about the "slippery slope" principle. Basically, it
|
||
says that if you can deny any one group the right to be heard
|
||
(or, in this case, to freely associate) then you have set up a
|
||
principle that can be used against ANY group. So suppose you
|
||
write something into Policy that says that special interest
|
||
nets cannot be formed... not only are you attempting to
|
||
unreasonably limit freedom of association for no real good
|
||
reason, but any such policy could be used against groups you
|
||
might happen to AGREE with. Not only that, but you haven't
|
||
really stopped the subversive groups from operating - it is
|
||
very easy to set up and operate a private net using Fidonet
|
||
technology, that is totally invisible to Fidonet as a whole -
|
||
so now you've driven them underground where their activities
|
||
can't be monitored, and where they're less likely to be
|
||
influenced by those in the larger net that might be able to
|
||
explain to them and convince them of the error of their ways.
|
||
In the meantime, is it right to let our fear of extremist
|
||
groups cause us to set up a mechanism whereby those who hold
|
||
political viewpoints we find simply disagreeable may be
|
||
harassed or excluded?
|
||
|
||
I'm hoping for better things from Fidonet... but it's not going
|
||
to happen as long as we operate as though all that HAS been
|
||
achieved is all that CAN be achieved. We've come through the
|
||
Model "T" stage, but there are a lot of improvements that can
|
||
be made, both in the technology and the political structure of
|
||
Fidonet (and hopefully we can avoid the tailfins!).
|
||
|
||
FidoNews 8-17 Page 14 29 Apr 1991
|
||
|
||
|
||
*****
|
||
|
||
A couple of other notes only semi-related to the above: First,
|
||
Pablo mentioned Jason Steck, who was at one point working on
|
||
another Policy document. My impression is that Jason has
|
||
decided that his time would be better spent working in
|
||
MetroNet, an alternative Fidonet-technology network that's a
|
||
bit unique in some ways. For example, Jason tells me that they
|
||
have their own UseNet-MetroNet gateway and are the only
|
||
Fidonet-technology network other than Fidonet itself to have a
|
||
registered domain in the Internet (I hope I'm stating this
|
||
correctly, I'm repeating this from my memory of a phone
|
||
conversation). Also, I gather that the MetroNet folks are
|
||
working on a practical implementation of a new packet type that
|
||
will be backward compatible with existing Fidonet technology,
|
||
but that will offer several of the innovations that have been
|
||
suggested in various forums from time to time. In any event,
|
||
if you are interested in furthering the technology and are
|
||
running into roadblocks (political or otherwise) in Fidonet,
|
||
you might contact Jason Steck at Fidonet 1:104/424 and see what
|
||
they're up to (however, if you're the typical NET_DEV type that
|
||
like to argue about formats, structures, etc. ad nauseum but
|
||
never gets around to writing a line of code, don't bother... I
|
||
don't think they either need or want those types around!).
|
||
Second, I have to wonder why some of the sysops who believe in
|
||
carrying political discussions that cover all sides of the
|
||
political spectrum haven't asked for some political echoes to
|
||
balance out some of the echoes that are already carried.
|
||
|
||
Please consider that there are plenty of "issues oriented"
|
||
echoes such as ABORTION, ANIMAL_RIGHTS, BEYOND_WAR, ECOLOGY,
|
||
ECONET, ENVIRO, ENVIRON, FEMINISM, GAYLINK, GAYNEWS, ICGAL,
|
||
INDIAN_AFFAIRS ... and on and on, and if you understand the
|
||
difference between the political right and the political left,
|
||
you can easily see that Fidonet is pretty one sided (not
|
||
necessarily from the TITLES of some of the echoes, but from
|
||
their content). Now maybe this is intentional, but I certainly
|
||
hope not. So I'd like to suggest that maybe we should think
|
||
about having some echoes that might bring more of a political
|
||
balance to Fidonet. Here are some ideas I've had, you might
|
||
think of more:
|
||
|
||
EDU_CHOICE - For those who support the idea of parental choice
|
||
in education, and would like to discuss the reasons for it and
|
||
the ways in which it could be implemented.
|
||
|
||
PEOPLE_FIRST - An echo to keep track of and expose the
|
||
activities and motives of some of the fringe groups that
|
||
believe that humanity is a cancer on the planet (such as the
|
||
groups that believe that animal research is never justified,
|
||
even if it means we never find a cure for AIDS, etc.). In
|
||
other words, to count the cost to people and society if some of
|
||
the goals of the far left groups are achieved, without
|
||
necessarily having to rely upon their statistics.
|
||
|
||
FidoNews 8-17 Page 15 29 Apr 1991
|
||
|
||
|
||
DITTOS - an echo for listeners and fans of the Rush Limbaugh
|
||
radio talk show, for further discussion of issues that have
|
||
been raised on that program. Those who've heard the program
|
||
will recognize the significance of the tag. If we can have
|
||
echoes for fans of "Star Trek", why not one for fans of a
|
||
popular talk show host? (by the way, in case you're wondering,
|
||
no I do NOT agree with everything he says... but it's certainly
|
||
an INTERESTING show to listen to, when I get the chance).
|
||
|
||
My point is that if we are going to carry issue-oriented
|
||
political echoes, let's have them cover the whole political
|
||
spectrum and not be quite so one-sided. There ARE two (or
|
||
more) sides to most issues, after all.
|
||
|
||
Well, that's enough for one week. Let's see if Autonews eats
|
||
the blank lines in this article! [It did. I did a quick once-over
|
||
to put at least some of them back -- Vince]
|
||
|
||
--- via AutoNews 0.1
|
||
|
||
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
FidoNews 8-17 Page 16 29 Apr 1991
|
||
|
||
|
||
"Ramblings of a Dictatorial Megalomaniac"
|
||
|
||
or "It's about time for Policy6, Godammit"
|
||
|
||
Luke Kolin, NC250
|
||
1:250/714@fidonet
|
||
|
||
"I thought it sucked, but Wayne here thought it sucked donkeys."
|
||
-- Dana Carvey, playing Garth on SNL's "Wayne's World"
|
||
|
||
Garth may be talking about movie reviews, but perhaps Worldpol
|
||
is also appropriate in this case. As a Zone 1 *C, I've been quite
|
||
offended by the rhetoric that's been floating around regarding
|
||
WorldPol, and I feel that it's time that I speak my two bits'
|
||
worth.
|
||
|
||
Before I begin, I want to state for the record that regardless
|
||
of wether WorldPol passes or fails, we will be planting the seeds
|
||
for future discontent within FidoNet. If it fails, it will be
|
||
widely perceived as yet another example of Zone 1 imposing its
|
||
will upon FidoNet. If it passes, it will be further proof that
|
||
the largest group of FidoNet sysops have been effectively disen-
|
||
franchised by a gerrymandered voting system. Net 250 is larger
|
||
than quite a few regions, but while they may have 2 to 4 votes,
|
||
we only have one. Is that fair?
|
||
|
||
So I think it's time to look beyond WorldPol. Because if we look
|
||
upon this vote as the be-all and end-all, there will be a lot of
|
||
po'd people in FidoNet. We got that with Policy4, and what came
|
||
out of that was Policy5, aka WorldPol. Documents created out of
|
||
resentment and frustration are inherently flawed, and unless we
|
||
look beyond WorldPol NOW, Policy6 will end up the same way.
|
||
|
||
For the record, I voted against WorldPol. I don't support making
|
||
a completely new policy. I believe that Policy4 can do the job,
|
||
with ammendments. Why start from scratch when we have the cumula-
|
||
tive efforts of many man-years lying around, only to be modified
|
||
as needed? Therefore, I support a Policy6 based on Policy4, with
|
||
the following fundamental changes. Call them a Sysop's Bill of
|
||
Rights.
|
||
|
||
o DEMOCRATIC ELECTION OF THE *C STRUCTURE. FidoNet's a hobby. Or
|
||
a club. And it only stands to reason that FidoNet sysops should
|
||
be able to choose their representatives. Therefore, Policy4 should
|
||
be ammended to ensure that NCs and RCs are elected by a vote of
|
||
all sysops within their respective Net/Region. ZCs will be elected
|
||
by a vote of all *Cs within their Zone.
|
||
|
||
o GEOGRAPHICAL NETWORK BOUNDARIES. Within Region 12, we have been
|
||
attempting to institute strict geographic boundaries for networks.
|
||
For people to say in FidoNews that geographic boundaries force
|
||
people to deal with bad *Cs is a blatant insult to the efforts of
|
||
the NCs and RCs of Region 12 since 1988. Allowing nodes to join
|
||
any network they wish only encourages the rise of cliques, and
|
||
networks based on politics and infighting. It encourages NCs to
|
||
discriminate on who they wish to accept into "their" Nets. If we
|
||
FidoNews 8-17 Page 17 29 Apr 1991
|
||
|
||
|
||
make georgraphy the sole criterion for network membership, we
|
||
make sure that FidoNet is accessible to all. Equally. If an NC
|
||
cannot live with that, he should be axed immediately.
|
||
|
||
o FIDONET IS FREE. Several previous articles in FidoNews have
|
||
mentioned several networks who charge an admissions fee to join.
|
||
No node should be forced to pay to join or remain in FidoNet, nor
|
||
should they be forced to pay for any mandatory echo conferences.
|
||
We are an amatuer network, accessible to all at least at a basic
|
||
level. That should be a fundamental right.
|
||
|
||
o A NEW AMMENDING FORMULA. There's a problem with the way FidoNet
|
||
is structured right now. Zone 1 has a grand total of ten regions
|
||
and six thousand people, while Zones 4 and 5 have regions that
|
||
are hard pressed to qualify as networks up here. So why should
|
||
they have the same voting rights? I think it's time for an
|
||
ammending formula that protects both minorities in FidoNet: a
|
||
minority of sysops outside Zone 1, and a minority of *C beings
|
||
inside Zone 1.
|
||
Let's keep the method of putting ammendments up for vote the
|
||
same. A lot of RCs are good people who'll support a vote even
|
||
if they are going to vote NO. However, when it comes down to the
|
||
actual vote, why don't we say that to pass, a policy must meet
|
||
with the approval of a majority of *Cs in each zone. To boot,
|
||
the NCs' votes must represent a majority of sysops in that zone.
|
||
That way, policies cannot be passed by the simple virtue that
|
||
one zone has a plethora of tiny zones.
|
||
|
||
So let's drop WorldPol. It reeks of an atitude saying, "Let's
|
||
make sure Zone 1 never screws us over again." Let's go back to
|
||
the time-honored method of taking what we have, and improving
|
||
it, to make something even better.
|
||
|
||
I also support the idea of condensing policy. For example, in
|
||
Net 250 I have published a little 2K guide to FidoNet. I don't
|
||
see why we should force all sysops to read the entire policy
|
||
document, when most of the time a little guide will do. To this
|
||
end, I propose two versions of Policy6. The first would be a
|
||
very short explanation of FidoNet to the new sysop, and the
|
||
second could be as large as you want. Since most sysops will
|
||
never read the second, it can be *C-oriented, taking into
|
||
account all facets of FidoNet. Rather than taking about demo-
|
||
cratic elections according to "western standards", let's write
|
||
a full elections policy. We have. Rather than making provisions
|
||
for zonal, regional, or network policies, let's just make one
|
||
broad-based one. If you follow the basic principles in it, and
|
||
the few specifics (like elections), the other stuff is up to
|
||
you.
|
||
|
||
WorldPol must fail. Much bitterness will be aroused pass or
|
||
fail, but I'd rather be bitter that a flawed document did not
|
||
pass. Let's start with Policy4 again, change it to reflect the
|
||
new FidoNet, and live with that.
|
||
|
||
FidoNews 8-17 Page 18 29 Apr 1991
|
||
|
||
|
||
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
FidoNews 8-17 Page 19 29 Apr 1991
|
||
|
||
|
||
Tony Davis
|
||
Z1EC 1:1/200
|
||
|
||
After the first month of performing the duties of Zone One
|
||
Echomail Coordinator, I felt some information on how the system
|
||
is progressing was in order.
|
||
|
||
The first month has been extremely interesting. In the first 30
|
||
days, I have received in excess of 200 netmail messages
|
||
concerning policies, procedures, complaints, suggestions, adding
|
||
an echo to the backbone, removing an echo to the backbone,
|
||
moderators requesting links be cut, users requesting moderators
|
||
be replaced, etc. Very few (less then 5) actually concerned with
|
||
coordination of traffic flow.
|
||
|
||
One fact became the extremely clear. That was that in the
|
||
absence of a recognized, approved echo policy and no other
|
||
documentation; that I would be subject to making many judgement
|
||
calls. The only mathematical certainty is that if many judgement
|
||
calls are made, some will be incorrect. In an effort to remove
|
||
myself from the position of judge, jury, and executioner that
|
||
the numerous requests asked me to be and place me in the
|
||
position of administrator that I was elected to, I contacted all
|
||
the RECs and asked their guidance of exactly how they wanted me
|
||
to handle the position.
|
||
|
||
The general opinion that came from these discussions was that
|
||
the *EC structure did not have the right to dictate a mandatory
|
||
Echo Policy. It also became obvious that even if we could not
|
||
set a zone wide policy, that a document that described the
|
||
operation of the backbone, and explained to the general sysop
|
||
exactly what they could expect from the backbone was necessary.
|
||
A set of backbone procedures was written, and put up to a vote
|
||
of all RECs. The procedure were adopted by an absolute majority
|
||
of current RECs.
|
||
|
||
The document prepared is not intended to be a general echo
|
||
policy, it is designed as an informational document to explain
|
||
the self-imposed rules the Zone One Backbone will operate under.
|
||
|
||
If at any time, the net does adopt a general echo policy, the
|
||
net approved policy will either replace this Backbone Operation
|
||
Procedure document or changes in the document will be made for
|
||
it to comply with the general echomail policy.
|
||
|
||
The document lays out specific requirements that an echo must
|
||
meet in order for it to be distributed by the backbone, on the
|
||
balance side, it also lays out exactly how to remove the echo
|
||
from any restrictions the moderator of an echo feels the
|
||
backbone places on him (or her).
|
||
|
||
FidoNews 8-17 Page 20 29 Apr 1991
|
||
|
||
|
||
Any one that disagrees with any segment of that document, and
|
||
would like to see a change, deletion, or addition, please
|
||
contact your REC. The document itself was designed to be a
|
||
"living" document, and changes may be made to it quickly and
|
||
easily. The procedures to initiate changes are described in the
|
||
document itself.
|
||
|
||
One side note: The document was not authored by the ZEC, it is a
|
||
collection of parts supplied by different RECs. As ZEC, I
|
||
accepted the mandate of the RECs to implement the document.
|
||
|
||
Respectfully,
|
||
Tony Davis Z1EC
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
ZONE ONE BACKBONE OPERATION PROCEDURES
|
||
|
||
|
||
Revision: 1.01 Effective Date: May 1, 1991
|
||
|
||
|
||
PROLOGUE
|
||
|
||
This document sets forth procedures followed by the Zone One
|
||
Backbone Echomail System.
|
||
|
||
|
||
If any item in this document are in conflict with any existing
|
||
or subsequent General Fidonet Policy, then General Fidonet
|
||
Policy will be in effect.
|
||
|
||
This document addresses echomail at the zone level. It is not a
|
||
General Echomail Policy. This document makes no attempt to
|
||
address any issues below the "Backbone Level".
|
||
|
||
|
||
I. HISTORY
|
||
|
||
Echomail consists of the sharing of message bases or conferences
|
||
between various independent network addresses. The echomail
|
||
concept started with a series of programs by Jeff Rush. Since
|
||
the original implementation, many authors have written programs
|
||
improving on the original idea. In spite of worries that the
|
||
flow of echomail would increase netmail traffic to the point
|
||
that the network would collapse under its own weight, echomail
|
||
has been a success.
|
||
|
||
To simplify the distribution of echomail at the zone level, the
|
||
Backbone was formed. As a result of the growth of Fidonet and
|
||
the increase in the volume of echomail, it has become necessary
|
||
to set forth operational procedures to allow the general Fidonet
|
||
sysop to know what services he can expect from the Backbone.
|
||
|
||
FidoNews 8-17 Page 21 29 Apr 1991
|
||
|
||
|
||
II. DEFINITIONS
|
||
|
||
1. GENERAL FIDONET POLICY: The document which governs Fidonet
|
||
as adopted by Fidonet. The document as of this writing is
|
||
Policy 4 and is subject to change.
|
||
|
||
2. NODE: A Fidonet member, as per General Fidonet Policy.
|
||
|
||
3. ECHOMAIL: A form of mail in which message bases are shared
|
||
between independent systems with unique Net/Node addresses.
|
||
|
||
4. ECHOMAIL CONFERENCES: An echomail conference is a message
|
||
base or forum, distributed under a specified echomail conference
|
||
name, dealing with a defined area of interest. Echomail
|
||
conferences are hereafter referred to simply as conferences.
|
||
Examples include COMM, an inter-zone telecommunications
|
||
conference, and POLITICS, a zone level political conference.
|
||
|
||
5. ZONE ECHOMAIL COORDINATOR: This individual is responsible
|
||
for coordination of echomail at the zone level. The Zone
|
||
Echomail Coordinator is hereafter referred to simply as the ZEC.
|
||
|
||
6. REGION ECHOMAIL COORDINATOR: This individual is responsible
|
||
for coordination of echomail at the region level. The Region
|
||
Echomail Coordinator is hereafter referred to simply as the REC.
|
||
|
||
7. NET ECHOMAIL COORDINATOR: This individual is responsible
|
||
for coordination of echomail at the net level. The Net Echomail
|
||
Coordinator is hereafter referred to simply as the NEC.
|
||
|
||
8. ECHOMAIL HUBS: These are nodes who distribute echomail.
|
||
The Echomail Hubs are hereafter referred to simply as Hubs. The
|
||
Zone Hubs distribute echomail at the zone level. The Region
|
||
Hubs distribute echomail at the region level. The Net Hubs
|
||
distribute echomail at the net level.
|
||
|
||
9. CONFERENCE MODERATORS: These individuals preside over
|
||
conferences. Conference Moderators are hereafter referred to
|
||
simply as Moderators.
|
||
|
||
10. RESTRICTED DISTRIBUTION CONFERENCE: A restricted
|
||
distribution conference is one which is restricted only to
|
||
eligible recipients. Examples include MODERATOR, a pre-register
|
||
conference for Moderators, and MEADOW, a conference for Opus
|
||
Sysops.
|
||
|
||
11. ZONE ONE ECHOMAIL BACKBONE: The Zone One Echomail Backbone
|
||
consists of Zone Hubs (commonly referred to as "Stars") and the
|
||
Regional Hubs (who directly connect to the "Stars"). The Zone
|
||
One Echomail Backbone is hereafter referred to simply as the
|
||
Backbone.
|
||
|
||
FidoNews 8-17 Page 22 29 Apr 1991
|
||
|
||
|
||
12. ZONE ONE ECHOMAIL CONFERENCE LIST: The Zone One Echomail
|
||
Conference List identifies the registered zone level
|
||
conferences. The Zone One Echomail Conference List is hereafter
|
||
referred to simply as the Echolist.
|
||
|
||
13. ZONE ONE ECHOMAIL CONFERENCE LIST COORDINATOR: This
|
||
individual is responsible for the Zone One Echomail Conference
|
||
List. The Zone One Echomail Conference List Coordinator is
|
||
hereafter referred to simply as the Zone Echolist Coordinator.
|
||
|
||
14. ECHOMAIL GATEWAYS: These are nodes whose systems are used
|
||
to exchange mail with other groups. The term Echomail Gateway,
|
||
as used hereafter, shall include all forms of gating, including,
|
||
but not limited to, zone-gating, inter-network gating, and
|
||
domain-gating.
|
||
|
||
15. VOTE: Any vote shall be carried out in a fair and decent
|
||
manner. A good faith attempt shall be made to make all eligible
|
||
voters aware that a vote is about to occur and to make available
|
||
all necessary information. At a minimum, this notice shall be
|
||
posted in the REC conference 7 days prior to the start of the
|
||
voting period. The voting period shall be 7 days.
|
||
|
||
16. ABSOLUTE MAJORITY: The term absolute majority means more
|
||
than 50 percent of those eligible to vote.
|
||
|
||
|
||
III. DUTIES OF ZONE ECHOMAIL COORDINATOR, ZONE HUBS, ZONE
|
||
ECHOLIST COORDINATOR, REGIONAL COORDINATORS AND MODERATORS
|
||
|
||
1. DUTIES OF ZONE ECHOMAIL COORDINATOR: The ZEC shall
|
||
coordinate echomail distribution at the zone level. This
|
||
includes coordinating the transmission and routing of echomail
|
||
so that it is done in a manner so as to avoid creation of
|
||
duplicate messages within a conference.
|
||
|
||
The ZEC shall make available, to any region, any conference
|
||
which that region is eligible to receive. If for any reason the
|
||
ZEC does not have access via recognized distribution channels to
|
||
a specific conference, he can not be expected to provide it.
|
||
|
||
An exception is that the ZEC is not required to make available
|
||
any conference which routinely contains messages which are
|
||
encrypted or illegal.
|
||
|
||
Nothing in this provision requires that a ZEC or Zone Hub must
|
||
import any conference to the extent of adverse economic impact.
|
||
|
||
The ZEC shall recognize conferences at the zone level. The ZEC
|
||
shall maintain a list of available conferences at the zone level
|
||
as well as the requirements of each conference as supplied by
|
||
the Moderator (Echolist).
|
||
|
||
FidoNews 8-17 Page 23 29 Apr 1991
|
||
|
||
|
||
The ZEC shall appoint Zone Hubs (Stars) to distribute echomail
|
||
at the zone level. The ZEC may also serve as a Zone Hub, but is
|
||
not required to do so.
|
||
|
||
The ZEC shall make available a minimum of one connection to each
|
||
"Star", to each region. Each Region is not required to use all
|
||
available connections, but it is the ZEC's responsibility to
|
||
insure that the connections are available.
|
||
|
||
2. DUTIES OF ZONE HUBS: All systems designated as Zone Hubs
|
||
(Stars) by the ZEC will be required to allow a single direct
|
||
connection from each region as requested by the REC of each
|
||
region. Zone Hubs may act as Regional Hubs and/or File
|
||
Distribution systems only if such actions do not interfere with
|
||
the primary duties of Zone Echomail Distribution. Zone Hubs
|
||
will make any conference available that has been designated a
|
||
"Backbone Conference" by the ZEC. Zone Hubs will distribute a
|
||
text file named "FIDONET.NA" that is a list of all Conferences
|
||
available from the Zone Hubs.
|
||
|
||
3. DUTIES OF ZONE ECHOLIST COORDINATOR: The Zone Echolist
|
||
Coordinator shall compile and make available the Echolist. This
|
||
is a registry of zone level and inter-zone conferences, updated
|
||
monthly, and optionally, conferences at various other levels.
|
||
|
||
The content and format of the Echolist will be at the sole
|
||
discretion of the Zone Echolist Coordinator, except that it
|
||
shall include the conference name, the Moderator's name, a
|
||
netmail address listed in a publicly available nodelist of any
|
||
network where the Moderator may be reached, a general
|
||
description of the conference topic, eligibility requirements
|
||
for restricted conferences, network of origin for conferences
|
||
which originate outside of Fidonet, distribution plan if other
|
||
than via the Backbone, and rules for each conference.
|
||
|
||
4. DUTIES OF REGIONAL ECHOMAIL COORDINATORS: This Document
|
||
details the REC's duties in relationship to the Backbone, only.
|
||
The REC shall coordinate echomail distribution at the regional
|
||
level. This includes coordinating the transmission and routing
|
||
of echomail so that it is done in a manner so as to avoid
|
||
creation of duplicate messages within a conference.
|
||
|
||
The REC shall make available, to any net, any conference which
|
||
that net is eligible to receive. If for any reason the REC does
|
||
not have access via recognized distribution channels to a
|
||
specific conference, he can not be expected to provide it.
|
||
|
||
An exception is that the REC is not required to make available
|
||
any conference which routinely contains messages which are
|
||
encrypted or illegal.
|
||
|
||
FidoNews 8-17 Page 24 29 Apr 1991
|
||
|
||
|
||
Nothing in this provision requires that a REC or Regional Hub
|
||
must import any conference to the extent of adverse economic
|
||
impact.
|
||
|
||
The REC shall appoint Regional Hubs to distribute echomail at
|
||
the regional level. The REC may also serve as a Regional Hub,
|
||
but is not required to do so. The REC designates the systems
|
||
that will have the direct connections to the Zone Hubs. In the
|
||
event the REC feels his region needs more than one connection
|
||
per Zone Hub, he may request an additional connection. Any such
|
||
connection will be granted on a space available basis. Each
|
||
such request will be looked at on a case-by-case basis.
|
||
|
||
5. DUTIES OF MODERATORS: Moderators shall make, in good faith,
|
||
every reasonable effort to insure that their conferences do not
|
||
distribute or promote illegal activities or information as
|
||
defined in Section V, Paragraph 2.
|
||
|
||
Moderators shall publish the conference rules in their
|
||
conferences at least once a month.
|
||
|
||
Moderators shall be responsible for seeing that messages
|
||
contained in their conferences correspond to the conference's
|
||
theme.
|
||
|
||
Moderators shall not fail to perform their duties for a period
|
||
of more than 10 days without failing to designate proxies.
|
||
|
||
Moderators are encouraged to appoint Co-Moderators to assist
|
||
them in their duties. If the Moderator is not a member of
|
||
Fidonet, he must list an address in a publicly available
|
||
nodelist of any network, that he may be contacted if the need
|
||
arises.
|
||
|
||
Moderators shall report any violations of these procedures to
|
||
the proper Echomail Coordinators and lodge any appropriate
|
||
policy complaints as provided for in General Fidonet Policy.
|
||
|
||
If a Moderator believes that a Node is violating a conference
|
||
rule, he may authorize the feed to that Node be severed. This
|
||
authorization shall be made in direct written form (netmail), to
|
||
the Hub feeding the offending Node, with a copy to the offending
|
||
Node.
|
||
|
||
|
||
IV. SELECTION OF ZONE ECHOMAIL COORDINATOR, ZONE ECHOLIST
|
||
COORDINATOR AND MODERATORS
|
||
|
||
1. GRANDFATHER CLAUSE: The ZEC, Zone Echolist Coordinator and
|
||
Moderators currently holding these positions as of the date of
|
||
acceptance of this document shall continue to serve in said
|
||
capacity.
|
||
|
||
FidoNews 8-17 Page 25 29 Apr 1991
|
||
|
||
|
||
For the purpose of calculating the term of office, such term
|
||
will be deemed to have started on the date that this document
|
||
goes into effect.
|
||
|
||
2. SELECTION OF THE ZONE ECHOMAIL COORDINATOR: The ZEC shall
|
||
serve for a term of 1 year. He shall be elected as follows:
|
||
|
||
A) Upon resignation or replacement of the existing ZEC, the
|
||
Zone Coordinator (ZC) shall oversee the election of the new
|
||
ZEC.
|
||
|
||
B) After the nominees are selected, an election shall be
|
||
held. The ZEC will be elected by a absolute majority of the
|
||
RECs.
|
||
|
||
The current ZEC can be identified from the 1/200 listing in the
|
||
Nodelist.
|
||
|
||
3. REMOVAL OF THE ZEC: The ZEC may be removed from his
|
||
position by a absolute majority of the RECs. The ZC will
|
||
oversee the recall election in the same manner as prescribed for
|
||
electing the ZEC.
|
||
|
||
The ZEC may only be subject to recall for failure to properly
|
||
carry out his duties described above, or if he is no longer a
|
||
member of Fidonet. A promise of "free" echomail delivery from
|
||
another source is not considered an acceptable reason for
|
||
recall.
|
||
|
||
A ZEC may be removed by the ZC for continued violations of
|
||
policy or for gross misconduct.
|
||
|
||
4. SELECTION OF THE ZONE ECHOLIST COORDINATOR: The ZEC shall
|
||
appoint the Zone Echolist Coordinator.
|
||
|
||
The current Zone Echolist Coordinator can be identified from the
|
||
1/201 listing in the Nodelist.
|
||
|
||
5. SELECTION OF A MODERATOR: A Moderator shall be selected as
|
||
follows:
|
||
|
||
A) Upon formation of a conference, the person who forms the
|
||
conference is the Moderator.
|
||
|
||
B) Upon resignation or replacement of an existing Moderator,
|
||
the conference's rules shall define how the new Moderator is
|
||
selected.
|
||
|
||
A Moderator need not be either a sysop, or a member of Fidonet.
|
||
A Moderator must have an netmail address in a publicly available
|
||
nodelist where netmail concerning the conference may be sent.
|
||
|
||
FidoNews 8-17 Page 26 29 Apr 1991
|
||
|
||
|
||
V. STATEMENT OF POLICIES
|
||
|
||
1. BASIC ECHOMAIL POLICY: The basic policy of echomail is to
|
||
promote communication in conferences in a lawful, friendly
|
||
manner consistent with the general principles of Fidonet.
|
||
|
||
2. PROHIBITION ON ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES: Knowingly distributing,
|
||
or allowing to be entered into conferences, any messages
|
||
containing or promoting illegal activities or information, is a
|
||
serious violation of this document. As used in this paragraph,
|
||
"illegal activities" includes activities which are a violation
|
||
of civil law as well as activities which would result in
|
||
criminal prosecution.
|
||
|
||
3. CENSORSHIP: Removing a message from a conference, or
|
||
altering its contents, in the passing or distribution of
|
||
echomail, is considered a serious violation of this document.
|
||
|
||
An exception to this provision is the deletion of messages, by
|
||
any Node, which may lead to legal action against that Node.
|
||
Textual changes to such messages are not allowed.
|
||
|
||
An additional exception to this provision is the deletion of
|
||
messages, by any Node, which do not meet the echomail message
|
||
standards in Section V, Paragraph 13. Textual changes to such
|
||
messages are not allowed.
|
||
|
||
Under no circumstances shall echomail be modified in any manner
|
||
which could potentially cause duplicates.
|
||
|
||
4. COUNTERFEIT MESSAGES: Entering or knowingly distributing
|
||
counterfeit messages is a serious violation of this document. A
|
||
counterfeit message is defined as any message entered using
|
||
another person's name, handle or Node address with the intent of
|
||
deceiving others about the true author of the message. No
|
||
handles shall be used to enter messages to knowingly provoke,
|
||
inflame, or upset participants in a conference with the purpose
|
||
of deceiving others about the true identity of the author.
|
||
|
||
5. CHARGING FOR DISTRIBUTION: Any entity which makes a profit
|
||
from the passing or distribution of echomail shall be deemed to
|
||
be excessively annoying and in violation of General Fidonet
|
||
Policy. Profit is defined as the charging for echomail
|
||
distribution in excess of the actual cost to obtain and
|
||
distribute the echomail over a sustained period. The cost of
|
||
the equipment used to obtain and distribute echomail may only be
|
||
recovered on a strictly voluntary basis. Nodes who charge users
|
||
for access to their BBSs shall not be in violation of this
|
||
paragraph.
|
||
|
||
6. RESTRICTED DISTRIBUTION CONFERENCES: Participating Nodes
|
||
shall honor and support the restrictions placed upon restricted
|
||
distribution conferences. Violation of this restriction by
|
||
individual Nodes is a violation of this document and shall
|
||
result in suspension of that Node from the violated echo in
|
||
accordance with Section III.
|
||
FidoNews 8-17 Page 27 29 Apr 1991
|
||
|
||
|
||
A violation of the restrictions placed on a restricted
|
||
distribution conference will be a violation of this document
|
||
only if the Moderator has posted the restrictions governing the
|
||
conference both in the conference and in the Echolist.
|
||
|
||
7. PATHLINE OPTION: The PATHline (as defined in FTS-0004), is
|
||
recommended for all Nodes, but is required for any node directly
|
||
connected to a Zone Hub (Star).
|
||
|
||
8. SEEN-BY LINE: Under the current technology and topology
|
||
(the routing structure of echomail), SEEN-BY lines play an
|
||
important part in reducing duplicate messages. Tiny SEEN-BYs
|
||
will not be allowed until the ZEC feels that the topology allows
|
||
their use. The stripping of SEEN-BYs (except by Echomail
|
||
Gateways) is not allowed unless approved by the ZEC. Echomail
|
||
Gateways shall strip the SEEN-BYs of the exporting group to
|
||
reduce addressing conflicts.
|
||
|
||
9. ECHOMAIL SOFTWARE: using echomail software which does not
|
||
conform to the minimum acceptable standards as defined by the
|
||
Fidonet Technical Standards Committee (FTSC), and by this
|
||
Section, is a violation of this document.
|
||
|
||
10. INTER-NETWORK CONFERENCES: It is the general policy of
|
||
Fidonet to encourage the development of Inter-Network
|
||
Conferences. Inter-Network Conferences shall conform to General
|
||
Fidonet Policy, as well as the provisions of this document, in
|
||
addition to any foreign network's provisions.
|
||
|
||
It shall be the duty of those providing the Inter-Network
|
||
Conference links to remove foreign network distribution
|
||
identifiers which will adversely effect the distribution of the
|
||
conference while in Fidonet. The Inter-Network Conference links
|
||
maintained in Fidonet shall be operated such that they do not
|
||
interfere with the foreign network's distribution of echomail.
|
||
|
||
Conferences which originate outside of Fidonet must be
|
||
designated as such in the Echolist.
|
||
|
||
Echomail Gateways must be able to pass netmail through the
|
||
Gateway into the other network, unless it is technically
|
||
impossible to do so.
|
||
|
||
12. ADDING OR REMOVING CONFERENCES FROM THE BACKBONE: A
|
||
conference may be added to the Backbone only at the request of
|
||
the Moderator. A conference must have a Moderator, be listed in
|
||
the Echolist, and its addition requested by two or more RECs,
|
||
before it is added to the Backbone by the ZEC.
|
||
|
||
The Moderator may, at his discretion, request that his
|
||
conference be removed from the Backbone. The ZEC shall honor
|
||
such requests.
|
||
|
||
FidoNews 8-17 Page 28 29 Apr 1991
|
||
|
||
|
||
A conference will be removed from the Backbone when fewer than 2
|
||
RECs carry it.
|
||
|
||
The ZEC may also remove a conference from the Backbone due to
|
||
lack of traffic (under 10 messages over a two month period).
|
||
|
||
A conference is subject to removal from the Backbone when the
|
||
Moderator fails to properly carry out his duties, as described
|
||
as described in Section III, or violates Section V.
|
||
|
||
A conference is subject to removal from the Backbone if its
|
||
listing in the Echolist is not current.
|
||
|
||
NOTE: To allow time for all existing Backbone conferences
|
||
to be listed in the Echolist, no such conference will be
|
||
removed from the Backbone for a grace period of 120 days
|
||
from the issuance of this document.
|
||
|
||
13. ECHOMAIL MESSAGE STANDARDS: Until the adoption of a
|
||
superseding standard by the Fidonet Technical Standards
|
||
Committee, the following echomail message standards are
|
||
recommended:
|
||
|
||
A) Eight-bit characters (ASCII 128-255) and non-printing
|
||
low-order codes (ASCII 2-31) are prohibited, except the use
|
||
of 8Dh(soft <CR> character) per FTS-0004. This is not
|
||
intended to discourage participation of foreign zones or
|
||
networks, which may permit said characters. Any echomail
|
||
processor should pass information exactly as it was
|
||
received, without stripping any non-standard characters.
|
||
|
||
B) There should be only one tear line in a message. Tear
|
||
lines should be limited to 25 characters including the
|
||
required "--- " lead-in. Tear lines should only contain
|
||
packer or editor program identification. Tear lines for
|
||
message editors are discouraged. If an editor adds a tear
|
||
line, it should also add an origin line, to avoid multiple
|
||
tear lines.
|
||
|
||
C) There should be only one origin line in a message, except
|
||
as noted in the next paragraph. Origin lines should be
|
||
limited to 79 characters including the required " * Origin:
|
||
" lead-in and ending of a proper network address (i.e.
|
||
Zone:Net/Node.Point with zone and point being optional),
|
||
enclosed in parenthesis.
|
||
|
||
D) "Extra" origin lines are allowed when a message is gated.
|
||
The original origin line's lead-in should be changed to " #
|
||
Origin: ", and the Echomail Gateway's origin line added.
|
||
There may be more than one extra origin line in the case
|
||
that a message passes through multiple Echomail Gateways.
|
||
FidoNews 8-17 Page 29 29 Apr 1991
|
||
|
||
|
||
The Echomail Gateway's origin line is limited to essential
|
||
information only. This consists of the required lead-in,
|
||
the network name, "Gateway", a proper Fidonet address (i.e.
|
||
Zone:Net/Node with zone being optional), enclosed in
|
||
parenthesis. Example: " * Origin: TComm Gateway
|
||
(1:372/666)".
|
||
|
||
E) SEEN-BY addresses should be in sorted order. AKA's are
|
||
not allowed in SEEN-BY lines unless you have more than one
|
||
address which processes mail. Or for one month during
|
||
change of an existing address (to avoid duplicates to the
|
||
previous address). Node 0 addresses should not be used for
|
||
echomail distribution.
|
||
|
||
F) All current FTSC specifications must be followed.
|
||
|
||
14. NETMAIL ROUTING: It is important that users have access to
|
||
routed netmail in order to facilitate private replies to
|
||
echomail messages. This helps reduce overall echomail message
|
||
volume by allowing off-topic replies, flames and other types of
|
||
messages which don't belong in the conference, to be sent via
|
||
routed netmail.
|
||
|
||
Until such time as a new General Fidonet Policy is adopted which
|
||
defines and codifies the routed netmail scheme, the following
|
||
shall be in effect:
|
||
|
||
A) Zone Hubs and Regional Hubs shall accept routed netmail
|
||
from any Node or Hub who exchanges Backbone conferences with
|
||
them. Routed netmail may be routed along echomail paths, or
|
||
to a ZC, RC, or NC who has agreed to handle such mail. Any
|
||
netmail message with a valid Fidonet destination will be
|
||
accepted. Refusal of netmail based a non-Fidonet origin
|
||
will not be allowed.
|
||
|
||
B) At the present time, routed netmail is provided by both
|
||
the Coordinator and Echo Coordinator structures. The ZEC
|
||
shall cooperate with the Coordinators and the Echo
|
||
Coordinators in further developing and maintaining a routed
|
||
netmail scheme.
|
||
|
||
16. FEEDING SEVERED NODE: Knowingly feeding a conference to a
|
||
Node who has been severed for violations of this document or at
|
||
the request of the Moderator, where such feed is intended to
|
||
subvert either the provisions of this document or the authority
|
||
of the moderator, is considered a serious violation of this
|
||
document.
|
||
|
||
|
||
VI. ENFORCEMENT
|
||
|
||
FidoNews 8-17 Page 30 29 Apr 1991
|
||
|
||
|
||
Enforcement of this document shall be under the provisions of
|
||
General Fidonet Policy. Serious violations of these procedures
|
||
shall be considered excessively annoying under General Fidonet
|
||
Policy.
|
||
|
||
Complaints concerning violations defined under these procedures
|
||
may be filed by the aggrieved individual, the Moderator or by
|
||
any level of Echomail Coordinator to the appropriate IC, ZC, RC
|
||
or NC level. All complaints made pursuant to this document must
|
||
be made within 60 days of the date of occurrence or discovery.
|
||
Complaints shall be filed under the provisions of General
|
||
Fidonet Policy, with a copy to the ZEC or respective REC, as
|
||
appropriate.
|
||
|
||
Enforcement of these procedures are immediate, with any
|
||
currently existing software allowed 90 days to conform (from the
|
||
date this document goes into effect). 30 day extensions may be
|
||
granted solely at the discretion of the ZEC if efforts to bring
|
||
about compliance are clear. Continued use of aberrant software
|
||
after this period is a serious violation of this document.
|
||
|
||
|
||
VII. CHANGES
|
||
|
||
Future changes to these procedures may be proposed by any Node,
|
||
by submitting the proposal to any REC. The REC will then
|
||
determine if the proposal should be brought before the rest of
|
||
the RECs. If two RECs concur with the proposed change, the
|
||
change must be brought to a vote of all RECs.
|
||
|
||
A absolute majority vote of the RECs is required in order for a
|
||
change to be implemented.
|
||
|
||
|
||
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
FidoNews 8-17 Page 31 29 Apr 1991
|
||
|
||
|
||
=================================================================
|
||
LATEST VERSIONS
|
||
=================================================================
|
||
|
||
Latest Software Versions
|
||
|
||
MS-DOS Systems
|
||
--------------
|
||
|
||
Bulletin Board Software
|
||
Name Version Name Version Name Version
|
||
|
||
DMG 2.93 Phoenix 1.3 TAG 2.5g
|
||
Fido 12s+ QuickBBS 2.66 TBBS 2.1
|
||
GSBBS 3.02 RBBS 17.3B TComm/TCommNet 3.4
|
||
Lynx 1.30 RBBSmail 17.3B Telegard 2.5
|
||
Kitten 2.16 RemoteAccess 1.00* TPBoard 6.1
|
||
Maximus 1.02 SLBBS 1.77A Wildcat! 2.55
|
||
Opus 1.14+ Socrates 1.10 WWIV 4.12
|
||
PCBoard 14.5 SuperBBS 1.10 XBBS 1.17
|
||
|
||
Network Node List Other
|
||
Mailers Version Utilities Version Utilities Version
|
||
|
||
BinkleyTerm 2.40 EditNL 4.00 ARC 7.0
|
||
D'Bridge 1.30 MakeNL 2.31 ARCAsim 2.30
|
||
Dutchie 2.90C ParseList 1.30 ARCmail 2.07
|
||
FrontDoor 1.99c Prune 1.40 ConfMail 4.00
|
||
PRENM 1.47 SysNL 3.14 Crossnet v1.5
|
||
SEAdog 4.60* XlatList 2.90 DOMAIN 1.42
|
||
TIMS 1.0(Mod8) XlaxDiff 2.35 EMM 2.02
|
||
XlaxNode 2.35 4Dog/4DMatrix 1.18
|
||
Gmail 2.05
|
||
GROUP 2.16
|
||
GUS 1.30
|
||
HeadEdit 1.18
|
||
IMAIL 1.10
|
||
InterPCB 1.31
|
||
LHARC 2.10
|
||
MSG 4.1
|
||
MSGED 2.06
|
||
MSGTOSS 1.3
|
||
Oliver 1.0a
|
||
PK[UN]ZIP 1.20
|
||
QM 1.0
|
||
QSORT 4.03
|
||
ScanToss 1.28
|
||
Sirius 1.0x
|
||
SLMAIL 1.36
|
||
StarLink 1.01
|
||
TagMail 2.41
|
||
FidoNews 8-17 Page 32 29 Apr 1991
|
||
|
||
|
||
TCOMMail 2.2
|
||
Telemail 1.27
|
||
TMail 1.15
|
||
TPBNetEd 3.2
|
||
TosScan 1.00
|
||
UFGATE 1.03
|
||
XRS 4.10*
|
||
XST 2.3e
|
||
ZmailH 1.14
|
||
|
||
|
||
OS/2 Systems
|
||
------------
|
||
|
||
Bulletin Board Software Network Mailers Other Utilities
|
||
|
||
Name Version Name Version Name Version
|
||
|
||
Maximus-CBCS 1.02 BinkleyTerm 2.40 Parselst 1.32
|
||
ConfMail 4.00
|
||
EchoStat 6.0
|
||
oMMM 1.52
|
||
Omail 3.1
|
||
MsgEd 2.06
|
||
MsgLink 1.0C
|
||
MsgNum 4.14
|
||
LH2 0.50
|
||
PK[UN]ZIP 1.02
|
||
ARC2 6.00
|
||
PolyXARC 2.00
|
||
Qsort 2.1
|
||
Raid 1.0
|
||
Remapper 1.2
|
||
Tick 2.0
|
||
VPurge 2.07
|
||
|
||
|
||
Xenix/Unix
|
||
----------
|
||
|
||
BBS Software Mailers Other Utilities
|
||
Name Version Name Version Name Version
|
||
|
||
BinkleyTerm 2.30b Unzip 3.10
|
||
ARC 5.21
|
||
ParseLst 1.30b
|
||
ConfMail 3.31b
|
||
Ommm 1.40b
|
||
Msged 1.99b
|
||
Zoo 2.01
|
||
C-Lharc 1.00
|
||
FidoNews 8-17 Page 33 29 Apr 1991
|
||
|
||
|
||
Omail 1.00b
|
||
|
||
|
||
Apple II
|
||
----------
|
||
|
||
Bulletin Board Software Network Mailers Other Utilities
|
||
|
||
Name Version Name Version Name Version
|
||
|
||
GBBS Pro 2.1 Fruity Dog 1.0 ShrinkIt 3.23*
|
||
DDBBS + 5.0 ShrinkIt GS 1.04
|
||
deARC2e 2.1
|
||
ProSel 8.66*
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
Apple CP/M
|
||
----------
|
||
|
||
Bulletin Board Software Network Mailers Other Utilities
|
||
|
||
Name Version Name Version Name Version
|
||
|
||
Daisy v2j Daisy Mailer 0.38 Nodecomp 0.37
|
||
MsgUtil 2.5
|
||
PackUser v4
|
||
Filer v2-D
|
||
UNARC.COM 1.20
|
||
|
||
|
||
Macintosh
|
||
---------
|
||
|
||
Bulletin Board Software Network Mailers Other Utilities
|
||
|
||
Name Version Name Version Name Version
|
||
|
||
Red Ryder Host 2.1 Tabby 2.2 MacArc 0.04
|
||
Mansion 7.15 Copernicus 1.0 ArcMac 1.3
|
||
WWIV (Mac) 3.0 LHArc 0.41
|
||
Hermes 1.5 StuffIt Classic 1.6
|
||
FBBS 0.91 Compact Pro 1.30
|
||
Precision Systems 0.95b* TImport 1.92
|
||
TeleFinder Host 2.12T10 TExport 1.92
|
||
Timestamp 1.6
|
||
Tset 1.3
|
||
Import 3.2
|
||
Export 3.21
|
||
Point System Software Sundial 3.2
|
||
PreStamp 3.2
|
||
Name Version OriginatorII 2.0
|
||
FidoNews 8-17 Page 34 29 Apr 1991
|
||
|
||
|
||
AreaFix 1.6
|
||
Copernicus 1.0 Mantissa 3.21
|
||
CounterPoint 1.09 Zenith 1.5
|
||
Eventmeister 1.0
|
||
TSort 1.0
|
||
Mehitable 2.0
|
||
UNZIP 1.02c
|
||
Zip Extract 0.10
|
||
|
||
Amiga
|
||
-----
|
||
|
||
Bulletin Board Software Network Mailers Other Utilities
|
||
|
||
Name Version Name Version Name Version
|
||
|
||
Falcon CBBS 0.45 BinkleyTerm 1.00 AmigArc 0.23
|
||
Paragon 2.082+ TrapDoor 1.50 AReceipt 1.5
|
||
TransAmiga 1.07 WelMat 0.44 booz 1.01
|
||
ConfMail 1.12
|
||
ChameleonEdit 0.10
|
||
ElectricHerald1.66
|
||
Lharc 1.30
|
||
Login 0.18
|
||
MessageFilter 1.52
|
||
oMMM 1.49b
|
||
ParseLst 1.64
|
||
PkAX 1.00
|
||
PolyxAmy 2.02
|
||
RMB 1.30
|
||
Roof 44.03
|
||
RoboWriter 1.02
|
||
Rsh 4.06
|
||
Skyparse 2.30
|
||
Tick 0.75
|
||
TrapList 1.12
|
||
UNZIP 1.31
|
||
Yuck! 1.61
|
||
Zippy (Unzip) 1.25
|
||
Zoo 2.01
|
||
|
||
Atari ST/TT
|
||
-----------
|
||
|
||
Bulletin Board Network Node List
|
||
Software Version Mailer Version Utilities Version
|
||
|
||
FIDOdoor/ST 2.2.3* BinkleyTerm 2.40l ParseList 1.30
|
||
QuickBBS/ST 1.02 The BOX 1.20 Xlist 1.12
|
||
Pandora BBS 2.41c EchoFix 1.20
|
||
GS Point 0.61 sTICK/Hatch 5.50*
|
||
LED ST 1.00
|
||
MSGED 1.96S
|
||
|
||
FidoNews 8-17 Page 35 29 Apr 1991
|
||
|
||
|
||
Archiver Msg Format Other
|
||
Utilities Version Converters Version Utilities Version
|
||
|
||
LHARC 0.60 TB2BINK 1.00 ConfMail 4.03
|
||
LHARC2 3.18* BINK2TB 1.00 ComScan 1.02
|
||
ARC 6.02 FiFo 2.1m* Import 1.14
|
||
PKUNZIP 1.10 OMMM 1.40
|
||
Pack 1.00
|
||
FastPack 1.20
|
||
FDrenum 2.2.7*
|
||
Trenum 0.10
|
||
|
||
|
||
Archimedes
|
||
----------
|
||
|
||
BBS Software Mailers Utilities
|
||
Name Version Name Version Name Version
|
||
|
||
ARCbbs 1.44 BinkleyTerm 2.03 Unzip 2.1TH
|
||
ARC 1.03
|
||
!Spark 2.00d
|
||
|
||
ParseLst 1.30
|
||
BatchPacker 1.00
|
||
|
||
|
||
+ Netmail capable (does not require additional mailer software)
|
||
* 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 8-17 Page 36 29 Apr 1991
|
||
|
||
|
||
=================================================================
|
||
NOTICES
|
||
=================================================================
|
||
|
||
The Interrupt Stack
|
||
|
||
|
||
12 May 1991
|
||
Fourth anniversary of FidoNet operations in Latin America and
|
||
second anniversary of the creation of Zone-4.
|
||
|
||
15 Aug 1991
|
||
5th annual Z1 Fido Convention - FidoCon '91 "A New Beginning"
|
||
Sheraton Denver West August 15 through August 18 1991.
|
||
|
||
8 Sep 1991
|
||
25th anniversary of first airing of Star Trek on NBC!
|
||
|
||
7 Oct 1991
|
||
Area code 415 fragments. Alameda and Contra Costa Counties
|
||
will begin using area code 510. This includes Oakland,
|
||
Concord, Berkeley and Hayward. San Francisco, San Mateo,
|
||
Marin, parts of Santa Clara County, and the San Francisco Bay
|
||
Islands will retain area code 415.
|
||
|
||
1 Nov 1991
|
||
Area code 301 will split. Area code 410 will consist of the
|
||
northeastern part of Maryland, as well as the eastern shore.
|
||
This will include Baltimore and the surrounding area. Area 301
|
||
will include southern and western parts of the state,
|
||
including the areas around Washington DC. Area 410 phones will
|
||
answer to calls to area 301 until November, 1992.
|
||
|
||
1 Feb 1992
|
||
Area code 213 fragments. Western, coastal, southern and
|
||
eastern portions of Los Angeles County will begin using area
|
||
code 310. This includes Los Angeles International Airport,
|
||
West Los Angeles, San Pedro and Whittier. Downtown Los
|
||
Angeles and surrounding communities (such as Hollywood and
|
||
Montebello) will retain area code 213.
|
||
|
||
1 Dec 1993
|
||
Tenth anniversary of Fido Version 1 release.
|
||
|
||
5 Jun 1997
|
||
David Dodell's 40th Birthday
|
||
|
||
|
||
If you have something which you would like to see on this
|
||
calendar, please send a message to FidoNet node 1:1/1.
|
||
|
||
FidoNews 8-17 Page 37 29 Apr 1991
|
||
|
||
|
||
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|
||
|
||
|