F I D O N E W S -- Vol.10 No.10 (07-Mar-1992)

F I D O N E W S -- Vol.10 No.10 (07-Mar-1992)
----------------------------+-----------------------------------------
A newsletter of the |
FidoNet BBS community | Published by:
_ |
/ \ | "FidoNews" BBS
/|oo \ | +1-519-570-4176
(_| /_) | NEW!--> 1:1/23@FidoNet
_`@/_ \ _ |
| | \ \\ | Editors:
| (*) | \ )) | Sylvia Maxwell
|__U__| / \// | Donald Tees
_//|| _\ / | Tim Pozar
(_/(_|(____/ |
(jm) | Newspapers should have no friends.
| -- JOSEPH PULITZER
----------------------------+-----------------------------------------

/*********************************************************************
* IMPORTANT NOTE: The FidoNet address for FidoNews has been changed. *
* The new address is: *
* *
* FidoNews = 1:1/23 *
* *
* Internet addresses: *
* *
* Sylvia -- [email protected] *
* Donald -- [email protected] *
* Tim -- [email protected] *
* Both Don & Sylvia (submission address) *
* [email protected] *
* *
**********************************************************************

For information, copyrights, article submissions, obtaining copies and
other boring but important details, please refer to the end of this
file.
========================================================================
Table of Contents
========================================================================

1. Editorial..................................................... 2
2. Articles...................................................... 2
Vervans Gaming Network...................................... 2
Performance Test: Zyxel 1496E vs. USR Courier............... 4
RE: The Caller-ID Question.................................. 8
Interfacing FidoNet with the Internet....................... 9
Another reply to "The Youth of FidoNet"..................... 11
3. Fidonews Information.......................................... 12
FidoNews 10-10 Page: 2 07 Mar 1992

========================================================================
Editorial
========================================================================
Hello World.

Brand new green editors here. No editorial policy at all...
just anarchy. I used to have a dream about how network
communications would free people from visually, geographically
and aurally enforced stereotypes like age, gender, nationality,
class... but upon reflection of mail this dream seems tame and
lame. The image of "everyone in the room, more or less armed to
the teeth, and no casualties" (thank you Tom Jennings) seems
more generative and fun. Electronic word travel enables a grand
experiment in reductio ad absurdum of normal human contact that
might fly anywhere willed by any one of us.

It has been a hectic week. Getting software to generate the news
set up, arranging passwords and paths for distribution, and
setting up an internet gateway so that we can get flames from
all directions. I think that everything is ready to go, but will
apologize in advance for the inevitable teething pains. Please
note the new addresses.

Last but not least, we would like to thank Tom Jennings for his
immense contribution to this medium, and say "well done". We
hope, Tom, that we will be seeing contributions in the future
(after a well deserved rest, of course <S>).
========================================================================
Articles
========================================================================
Vervans Gaming Network

Vervans Gaming Network
by Rob "Lord" Richter, 1:292/49

I have been an avid RPG gamer for many years, a lot longer than I have
been a Sysop. When I set up my BBS, back before Fidonet even offered
echomail, I set it up as a haven for the local gamers, complete with a
fantasy atmosphere.

A local scope for gaming, especially in a medium sized city like Cedar
Rapids, Iowa, is very limiting. I did the best I could, and ran one of
the more popular boards in the area. It was not enough.

Fidonet offered me the expansion I was looking for. It has since
offered me the AD&D echo, which provides for echomail gaming, and
RECFRP and DND for discussions. This satisfied me for quite a while,
but there were still problems.

The AD&D echo is just too crowded. There is too large of a line
waiting to play and run games and discussions in the echo get lost
amongst all the noise. RECFRP, a much more reasonable echo, doesn't
allow gaming, and neither does DND. Clearly, these were not the
answers I was looking for.
FidoNews 10-10 Page: 3 07 Mar 1992

It was about that time that I first heard about Vervans Gaming Network.
It was in its infancy and terribly disorganized but it offered a hint
at what I was looking for. V-NET had one favorable feature. It
assigned each game to its own echo, eliminating the clutter that
disgusted me with the AD&D echo. However, I was unable to join at this
time because, as a poor college student, I could not afford the long
distance charges to connect with it.

When I was finally able to get back to them, they were a going concern,
still perserving the idea of keeping the number of games per echo low
enough to prevent clutter.

I've been with V-Net for 2 years now, and I can't help but wonder if
there aren't other Sysops running RPG boards, or RPG sections, that are
looking for something a little more serious than the AD&D echo in
Fidonet. This thought has prompted me to write this article. YES!
There is life beyond the AD&D echo!

Vervans Gaming Network offers echos for playing and discussing many of
the major RPG games, including AD&D, GURPS, and more. There have been
games of Chess, Traveller, Ars Magica, Vampire, Shadow Run, Car Wars,
Hero, BattleTech, Star Trek, and Twilight: 2000. Naturally, this is
not a list of every game system that has seen V-Net, just the major
ones that I can remember of the top of my head! There are echos where
gamers can gather and discuss gaming, game masters can gather and
discuss running games, and game designers can gather and discuss rules
systems.

If you are a gamer running a BBS, or a sysop who has a gaming section
or would like to start one, this network is the network for you! You
can do exactly like I do and offer the Fidonet gaming echos as a
supplement to the V-NET echos!

For an information packet and membership kit, you can request VNETKIT
from my BBS. I'd be more than happy to answer any questions you might
have if you drop me a netmail message!

Rob Richter
V-NET Region 355 Coordinator (IL, IN, WI, IA, MN, MI, OH)
The North Castle BBS
Fidonet 1:292/49

You can also contact the following people for additional information
regarding membership or the location of the nearest V-NET node to you:

45:45/0 JOHN BOYDSTON - V-NET IC
E-SPACE BBS 1-601-226-2066 FIDONET: 1:361/302

45:45/500 TERRY MARRS - V-NET GAMING COORDINATOR
OFF-ROAD BBS 1-918-445-0454 FIDONET: 1:170/203

46:46/0 VESA PAJULA - V-NET EUROPE
PAJUBOX SUPERBBS 358-0-367462 FIDONET: 2:220/290

FidoNews 10-10 Page: 4 07 Mar 1992

Performance Test: Zyxel 1496E vs. USR Courier
Performance Test: Zyxel 1496E vs. USR Courier

by Tim Pozar
FidoNet: 1:125/555
Internet: [email protected]

Tom Jennings wrote an excellent article describing modem throughput and
turnaround time for the Zyxel 1496E modem and some background on why
these tests are important for those (of us) using v.32bis/v.42bis modems
for SLIP connections. I will not go over the needs here, but I will
compare his results for the Zyxel 1496E with a USRobotics Courier v.32bis
modem.

I approached USR asking if they would like to participate in a comparison
modem evaluation test with a number of other manufactures. The Zyxel was
first modem of the series, and the USR is the second. We have a couple of
other manufactures lending us their modems, and in fact, the next one will
will look at will be the MultTech MultiModem II.

In this test of the Courier we used the same test equipment and software.
Tom has created some great modem thrashing and reporting software in
his FidoTerm terminal program.

TEST #1: direct modem-to-modem, unidirectional pure ASCII.
DTE speed locked at 57600 baud.

This is the Courier's performance for a short, repeated string of ascii
going one direction only. The serial ports were locked at 57,600Kb/s.

+MODE: Receive-only
+DURATION: 60:00
+LOG INTERVAL: 5:00
---------- Errors -----------
Time Bits Rec'd Bits Blocks Seconds Resyncs
=15:03:50 0 0 0 0:00 0
=15:08:56 12,454,664 0 0 0:00 0
=15:14:00 24,916,728 0 0 0:00 0
=15:19:06 37,382,704 0 0 0:00 0
..
=15:54:42 124,625,000 0 0 0:00 0
=15:59:46 137,087,280 0 0 0:00 0
-16:03:50 146,981,648 0 0 0:00 0
-END: 16:03:50
-RECEIVE BYTES/SEC: 5103
-BER: <1.00*10E-07

Compared to the Zyxel we were able to obtain a little more than
1KBytes better throughput with the USR.

+MODE: Receive-only
+DURATION: 60:10
+LOG INTERVAL: 5:00
---------- Errors -----------
FidoNews 10-10 Page: 5 07 Mar 1992

Time Bits Rec'd Bits Blocks Seconds Resyncs
=13:34:22 0 0 0 0:00 0
=13:39:26 12,369,312 0 0 0:00 0
=13:44:30 24,722,112 0 0 0:00 0
=13:49:36 37,150,616 0 0 0:00 0
..
=14:25:12 123,967,184 0 0 0:00 0
=14:30:16 136,319,880 0 0 0:00 0
-14:34:30 146,231,616 0 0 0:00 0
-END: 14:34:30
-RECEIVE BYTES/SEC: 4051
-BER: 1.00*10E-07

To repeat the disclaimer that Tom used in his article:
This is NOT a real-life test; you will probably not get this
downloading even a pure text file; telephone lines were not used. The
modems were connected together with an RJ-11 cord, one was commanded
"ATA" and the other "ATO". This is "flat out downhill with the wind";
you can however use it as a relative measure of telephone line
quality.

Tom noticed a drop of about 5 percent of the throughput when using
real-live phone lines.

TEST #2: BI-DIRECTIONAL PLAIN ASCII THROUGHPUT
Dialup, bi-directional pure ASCII.
DTE speed locked at 57600 baud.

Courier:
+MODE: Bi-directional
+LOG INTERVAL: 5:00
---------- Errored ----------
Time Sent Rec'd Bits Blocks Seconds Resyncs
=21:14:16 184 0 0 0 0:00 0
=21:19:22 3,555,616 12,444,968 0 0 0:00 0
=21:24:26 7,090,808 24,910,384 0 0 0:00 0
=21:29:32 10,618,456 37,376,784 0 0 0:00 0
..
=22:00:02 31,801,456 112,168,720 0 0 0:00 0
=22:05:08 35,329,840 124,633,416 0 0 0:00 0
=22:10:12 38,860,064 137,095,416 0 0 0:00 0
-22:14:16 41,703,600 147,053,656 0 0 0:00 0
-END: 22:14:16
-REASON: NORMAL
-DURATION: 60:00
-SEND BYTES/SEC: 1447
-RECEIVE BYTES/SEC: 5106
-BER: <1.00*10E-07

Zyxel:
+MODE: Bi-directional
+LOG INTERVAL: 3:00
---------- Errors -----------
Time Bits Sent Bits Rec'd Bits Blocks Seconds Resyncs
=20:47:54 184 3752 0 0 0:00 0
FidoNews 10-10 Page: 6 07 Mar 1992

=20:50:56 6,326,840 5,877,464 0 0 0:00 0
=20:54:00 12,512,552 12,095,040 0 0 0:00 0
=20:57:04 18,850,984 17,760,856 0 0 0:00 0
=21:00:10 25,479,032 22,622,432 0 0 0:00 0
..
=21:21:46 70,366,384 59,473,344 0 0 0:00 0
=21:23:58 OPERATOR INTERRUPTION START
=21:23:58 OPERATOR INTERRUPTION END
=21:25:00 76,999,584 60,747,280 23 1 0:01 1
-21:26:50 80,421,800 60,922,264 23 1 0:01 1
-END: 21:26:50
-REASON: OPERATOR ABORT
-DURATION: 38:56
-SEND BYTES/SEC: 3443
-RECEIVE BYTES/SEC: 2608
-BER: 3.77*10E-07

We ended up not having quite the horsepower on the machines we were using
to keep up with the modems. Servicing serial port interrupts can be a bit
of a task for PC clones even with 16550 UARTS. This is why the Send Bytes
per second is about 1447. The computer had such a hard time keeping up
with getting the data off of the modem that it had little time to shove
data back down the line.

I was more curious on if the flooding the opposite direction would affect
the performance of the other. I was able to get 5103 Bytes/Sec from the
Unidirectional path and with data flowing bidirectionally, about 5106. I
am assuming that this 3Bytes/Sec is showing more of the errors in the
calculations. But it does show that the performance is not degraded. In
fact, again we were able to get better performance than the Zyxel.

TEST #3: Dialup, ZMODEM file transfer.
DTE locked at 56700 baud.

direct modem to mode at 57600 pre-compressed NODELIST file

Courier:
+FidoTerm file transfer started on +21 Feb 93
+14:07:04 File #001: C:FOO.1, 641,304 bytes, Zmodem
-14:13:40 File complete (6:37, 1615 bytes/sec)

Zyxel:
+17:52:12 File #001: TESTFILE.1, 641,304 bytes, Zmodem
-17:57:40 File complete (5:34, 1920 bytes/sec)

+17:57:42 File #002: TESTFILE.1, 641,304 bytes, Zmodem
-18:03:12 File complete (11:05, 1928 bytes/sec)

Again, this was the same equipment and data. The files used for testing
was NODELIST.015, a recent FidoNet nodelist, pre-compressed with LHARC
2.12, to somewhat foil V.42bis compression.

It seems that the Courier can process and pump compressible data better
than the Zyxel, but already compressed files, the Zyxel can do about 300
bytes/sec better performance.
FidoNews 10-10 Page: 7 07 Mar 1992

TEST #4: TURNAROUND TIME TESTS
This shows off how fast the modems can turn the link around. The
test gives turnaround latency, i.e.. out and back, the latency times are
for two modems in series.

This test would be of particular interest to those that use modems in
"ACKed" protocols like xmodem and SLIP.

+14:19:04 File #001: C:FOO.1, Xmodem/CRC [641,304 bytes]
-14:36:08 File complete (17:05, 625 bytes/sec)

RESULTS:
XMODEM ZMODEM difference
bytes 641,304 641,304
secs 1025 397 628
blocks 5011 na 628 / 5011 = 125.3 mS/block TAT

Zyxel:
+17:38:58 File #001: TESTFILE.1, Xmodem/CRC [641,304 bytes]
-17:58:10 File complete (19:13, 556 bytes/sec)

+17:52:12 File #001: TESTFILE.1, 641,304 bytes, Zmodem
-17:57:40 File complete (5:34, 1920 bytes/sec)

The difference in time between these two is the turnaround latency.
With 5011 blocks sent we can easily calculate the latency per block
(remember two turnarounds per block):

RESULTS:
XMODEM ZMODEM difference
bytes 641,304 641,304
secs 1153 334 819
blocks 5011 na 819 / 5011 = 163 mS/block TAT

19:13 - 05:34 = 13:39 time difference
5011 / 13:39 = .163 sec/block turnaround time

Another surprise. The Courier could turn around packets by a little
less than 40mS or 23 percent faster.

Looking quickly over the data, it seems that the Couriers are better at
text compression and turnaround time, but for compressed data with a
ACKless protocol, the Zyxel seems win. If you are pushing compressed
conferences around via Zmodem on FidoNet, I would look hard at the Zyxel
1496E modems. If you are installing SLIP connections and expect to be
using it for interactive sessions like Telnet or shoving lots of
uncompressed conferences via NNTP, I would plug the USR Courier in.

Next time, MultiTech's MultiModem II...

FidoNews 10-10 Page: 8 07 Mar 1992

RE: The Caller-ID Question.

From: [email protected] (Stanton McCandlish)

Last FNews, an article appeared defending caller ID, and the
practice of refusing calls that do not hand over the callers'
phone numbers.

I would like to respond with some criticism. Of course you are
not obligated to accept ANY calls. No law says you have to.
However, many people, myself included, got caller ID blocking
the instant it became available, mostly because IT IS NO ONE'S
BUSINESS WHAT THE HELL OUR PHONE NUMBER IS. If you need it, and
we want to give it to you then you will get it. That is what the
login questions asking for phone numbers are for. The idea that
caller ID is necessary for a board's security is ludicrous. A
much simpler, and cheaper, solution is to install a call-back
door. If the phone number you are given is bogus, fine delete
the user. Is this so difficult?

I would also like to point out that, in my area at least, caller
ID blocking cannot be turned on and off at whim as call waiting
can. It is all or nothing. SO basically, you are demanding that
users either stay the hell away, or that they give their phone
number out to any place they happen to call, including places
that may well put the phone number on mailing lists, and
otherwise misuse it (this is the whole idea behind caller ID
blocking in the first place.) If you wish to lose users, go
right ahead. *I* certainly won't be calling your board!

One final point, there has been some discussion of the
"legality" of doing what you do, as far as Fido policy goes. If
your refusal to take calls that do not bow down to your caller
ID demand causes a mail transfer to fail, then guess what? It
seems you are in violation of policy (particularly the part
stating that you are not to incurr costs to other members; by
answering the phone, then rejecting the call when no caller ID
is forthcoming, you are wasting the caller's money). I would
suggest holding off on caller ID, until a nodelist flag for it
has been defined, and implemented by the major Fido mailers
(FD, D'Bridge and Binkley at very least.)

One other thing: You do not have a "right" to know who is
calling. At least I have seen no such thing in the Bill of
Rights, although there is that on part about the right to
PRIVACY now isn't there?
FidoNews 10-10 Page: 9 07 Mar 1992

Interfacing FidoNet with the Internet

by Gavin Hurlbut
Interfacing FidoNet with the Internet

As a former sysop of a FidoNet BBS, I have followed as closely as
possible the debates regarding a new nodelist format. In a recent
FidoNews (last week, or the week before, I've forgotten which), there
was a proposal to create Domain Name Servers (or DNS's) for FidoNet. I
would like to bring forward my thoughts on the matter.

1: Ease of FidoNet <==> Internet mail gating

If a DNS system were put in place, the problem of how to send mail
between FidoNet and the Internet would be somewhat solved. At the
moment, to send mail through the gateway, it requires a fair amount of
inside knowledge (freely available to all those who REALLY search). To
send mail from my account here at the University of Waterloo to my
account on a local FidoNet BBS (Plexnet Systems, 1:221/210), I would
have to send the article to [email protected]
This really poses no problem for me other than having to remember a
cryptic node number. However for me to send mail BACK to the WatStar
system, I would have to follow this procedure:

Send mail To: UUCP at 1:1/31 (fidonet.org) or another UFGATE site
with the first line being To: [email protected]
with the message following.

Many Fido Sysops (and other users with netmail access) if not most, do
not know how to use the UFGATE system.

With a DNS system in place, as all mail would use the same address
format, for me to send mail to my WatStar account I would simply have
to send mail to [email protected] and the DNS system
should take care of it for me by gating it directly to fidonet.org (or
another UFGATE site) and then through the Internet. This would take
less work (and thinking) on the part of the sender. The DNS server
would not need to be very complex to perform this as if the address
does not end with "fidonet.org", the mail should be sent to the local
UFGATE site to go to the Internet.

2: Increased access to Internet facilities

If the naming of FidoNet nodes followed the standard naming system in
the Internet, as it would after implementing a DNS system, it would
facilitate more interaction at all levels between FidoNet and the
Internet.

For instance, getting Usenet news on FidoNet news would be incredibly
easier. The gating programs would no longer have to worry about gating
between two different naming systems. The only thing that would be
necessary would be to and distribute it. Much simpler than gating it
into an echo first. This would, of course require a news gateway, but
that would not be too hard to come by as there would likely be many
FidoNews 10-10 Page: 10 07 Mar 1992

FidoNet systems that would be glad to have the honours.

Another advantage is that if there were a FTP-to-FREQ gate in FidoNet,
all FidoNet nodes could get access to all of the files available by FTP
in the Internet (FTP is an acronym for File Transfer Protocol -- used
on most IP-connected Internet sites). The server would get a request
for a file, and at the next convenient time, FTP it for the node, and
at a later time the node could repoll to get the file. The server
would necessarily have to have a fair amount of temporary file space,
and be connected directly to the Internet, but that would be all that
would be required.

3: Slight (??) increase in cost ( :[ )

The only downfall to using Internet services and news is that there
would necessarily need to be cost involved. The servers and gates
would have to be directly connected to the Internet (as are most UFGATE
sites). There is a price to getting such connections, but as many
FidoNet BBSs are large pay systems, that could be covered with ease
(assuming that it would be one of these boards that perform the
gating). As the services would be used by the FidoNet community as a
whole, the costs to the individual participating nets would rise also,
causing nodes' costs to rise (possibly - depending on net & region
policy).

We all know that cost is not something many people want to hear about,
but it is a necessary evil. Changing the naming system itself has no
appreciable costs that I can forsee, but some of the future uses of a
DNS-based nodelist structure would tend to raise the cost of use. Of
course, the services would be used only by those who want them, so if a
node does not wish to participate, there should be no appreciable cost
increase for that node (depending on net and/or region policy again).

4: Conclusion

I think that all in all, a move to a DNS based nodelist architecture is
a giant step in the right direction for FidoNet. The new available
services (after appropriate program development, of course) far
outweigh the drawbacks of changing the systems (at least as I see it).
Of course, all FidoNet compatible BBSs would have to be modified if
they are to use these nicities (more work -- ICK!)

Here's to hoping that a DNS system is adopted in the relatively near
future!

Gavin Hurlbut
Electrical Engineering Freshman, University of Waterloo (Canada)

FidoNet: Gavin Hurlbut at 1:221/210 (NOTE: I am NOT the SysOp, just
a user with Netmail access)
Internet: [email protected]
(only until the end of April 93)

[email protected]
(only on academic terms after April 93 -- mail may bounce)
FidoNews 10-10 Page: 11 07 Mar 1992

UUCP: [email protected]

SnailMail: Gavin Hurlbut (Permanent Home Address)
Hamer Bay Rd
MacTier, ON
P0C 1H0

=====================================================================

Another reply to "The Youth of FidoNet"

by Scott Miller, The Star Board BBS (1:123/416)
The Rights of Teenagers and other "Non-Adults" in FidoNet

I am a sysop in FidoNet and have been one since June of 1992. At
the time I was 12 years old. And like some of the other replies
to this very interesting topic, I was not treated as nicely as
I believe I could have been, had I been an adult.

Some SysOp's (to remain nameless) were not willing to provide help
setting my system up for recieving FidoNet mail, which at the time
I could not wait to get running simply because I was very interested
in the field of BBS operation. I had a great time with people helping
me set up the various functions, options, paths, and processors,
considering that I was talking to the fellow SysOp via Chat conference
online. Most people could not tell that I was only a 12 year old
amateur Sysop, but I seemed rather, as a completely capable
computer user that was "Mature" enough to be able to handle the
aspects of network mail. But when I called someone voice, I was
treated as if I was incapable of inserting the floppy in the A:
drive.

I am quite interested in how FidoNet has treated various young
and very eager SysOps. My experience was not quite as unpleasent
as others that I have heard of, but I too was rather unhappy that
I was encouraged not to join FidoNet, but rather get practice on
"Smaller" networks such as AlterNet and MagNet (a couple of local
networks). I have since proved that I am completely capable of
handling the aspects of mail networking, and have since started my
own mail network called StarNet. HA! I am now MORE than capable
of inserting disk 1 of 2 in drive A:, but also able to manage
netmail routing, nodelist management, echo coordination, and
file distribution!

In conclusion, I would just like to say that all the "Adults"
in FidoNet should assume that us "Kids" can handle the technical
jargon, and let us remove the doubtsay that we would like you to
explain the more difficult aspects. Besides, if we didn't
think we could handle it, why would we start it in the first place!
FidoNews 10-10 Page: 12 07 Mar 1992

========================================================================
Fidonews Information
========================================================================

------- FIDONEWS MASTHEAD AND CONTACT INFORMATION ----------------

Editors: Sylvia Maxwell, Donald Tees, Tim Pozar
Editors Emeritii: Thom Henderson, Dale Lovell, Vince Perriello,
Tom Jennings

IMPORTANT NOTE: The FidoNet address of the FidoNews BBS has been
changed!!! Please make a note of this.

"FidoNews" BBS
FidoNet 1:1/23 <---- NEW ADDRESS!!!!
BBS +1-519-570-4176, 300/1200/2400/14200/V.32bis/HST(DS)
Internet addresses:
Don & Sylvia (submission address)
[email protected]

Sylvia -- [email protected]
Donald -- [email protected]
Tim -- [email protected]

(Postal Service mailing address) (have extreme patience)
FidoNews
172 Duke St. E.
Kitchener, Ontario
Canada
N2H 1A7

Published weekly by and for the members of the FidoNet international
amateur electronic mail system. It is a compilation of individual
articles contributed by their authors or their authorized agents. The
contribution of articles to this compilation does not diminish the
rights of the authors. Opinions expressed in these articles are those
of the authors and not necessarily those of FidoNews.

Authors retain copyright on individual works; otherwise FidoNews is
copyright 1993 Sylvia Maxwell. All rights reserved. Duplication and/or
distribution permitted for noncommercial purposes only. For use in
other circumstances, please contact the original authors, or FidoNews
(we're easy).

OBTAINING COPIES: The-most-recent-issue-ONLY of FidoNews in electronic
form may be obtained from the FidoNews BBS via manual download or
Wazoo FileRequest, or from various sites in the FidoNet and Internet.
PRINTED COPIES may be obtained from Fido Software for $10.00US each
PostPaid First Class within North America, or $13.00US elsewhere,
mailed Air Mail. (US funds drawn upon a US bank only.)

BACK ISSUES: Available from FidoNet nodes 1:102/138, 1:216/21,
1:125/1212, (and probably others), via filerequest or download
FidoNews 10-10 Page: 13 07 Mar 1992

(consult a recent nodelist for phone numbers).

A very nice index to the Tables of Contents to all FidoNews volumes
can be filerequested from 1:396/1 or 1:216/21. The name(s) to request
are FNEWSxTC.ZIP, where 'x' is the volume number; 1=1984, 2=1985...
through 8=1991.

INTERNET USERS: FidoNews is available via FTP from ftp.ieee.org, in
directory ~ftp/pub/fidonet/fidonews. If you have questions regarding
FidoNet, please direct them to [email protected], not the
FidoNews BBS. (Be kind and patient; David Deitch is generously
volunteering to handle FidoNet/Internet questions.)

SUBMISSIONS: You are encouraged to submit articles for publication in
FidoNews. Article submission requirements are contained in the file
ARTSPEC.DOC, available from the FidoNews BBS, or Wazoo filerequestable
from 1:1/23 as file "ARTSPEC.DOC". Please read it.

"Fido", "FidoNet" and the dog-with-diskette are U.S. registered
trademarks of Tom Jennings, Box 77731, San Francisco CA 94107, USA and
are used with permission.

Asked what he thought of Western civilization,
M.K. Gandhi said, "I think it would be an excellent idea".
-- END
----------------------------------------------------------------------