F I D O N E W S -- Vol.10 No.30 (26-Jul-1993)
+----------------------------+-----------------------------------------+
| A newsletter of the | |
| FidoNet BBS community | Published by: |
| _ | |
| / \ | "FidoNews" BBS |
| /|oo \ | +1-519-570-4176 1:1/23 |
| (_| /_) | |
| _`@/_ \ _ | Editors: |
| | | \ \\ | Sylvia Maxwell 1:221/194 |
| | (*) | \ )) | Donald Tees 1:221/192 |
| |__U__| / \// | Tim Pozar 1:125/555 |
| _//|| _\ / | |
| (_/(_|(____/ | |
| (jm) | Newspapers should have no friends. |
| | -- JOSEPH PULITZER |
+----------------------------+-----------------------------------------+
| Submission address: editors 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
Further FidoNet madness in Zone 2........................... 2
RE: Fido ENFORCES ShareWARE Registrations!!!................ 5
A Response to a response to "Madness in FidoLand... Part I?" 6
Thoughts on Compression Routines............................ 7
What *IS* happening in Region 18, Chris?.................... 10
What's Wrong with Fidonet:.................................. 11
Join us in SYSOP............................................ 14
Seen it all?................................................ 14
The Use of FidoNet Excommunication as a Bill Collection Devi 15
3. Fidonews Information.......................................... 18
FidoNews 10-30 Page: 2 26 Jul 1993
========================================================================
Editorial
========================================================================
hello again, fellow Fidolanders.
We're just waiting for our Rastafarian neighbours to
show up so we can all go to the park and experience some
blue music. I'm going to pack up some paints and brushes
and go work while well entertained and comfortably parked.
I'm very impressed with how all arts seem to employ similar
principles. For example, understanding a painting or poem
requires attention to syntax...same thing applies to computer
programs, or conversation. Fixed preconceptions tend to cloud
recognition of patterns and their possible meanings or uses,
unless they are simpley employed for the purpose of
understanding or presenting meanings.
There is a truth in all art that says a lot about how nets
interact. When everyone in Fido attempts to make the mail move,
then it does. When we play games with rules on how it should
move, then we get bogged down in detail. Sometimes it is easier
to just do the job, and to hell with how we do it. Get it done,
then settle back and enjoy the conversation.
...and i must apologise to the writer of the article which is
in the Spanish language. I won't have it translated until next
week <sorry>. We'll publish the original, or at least make the
original available, in case anyone wants to re-translate it into
German or anything. Our neighbour, Maggie, will generously
proof-read the translation attempt.
Lucky for you, Donald just came in from his front porch
repose to rescue the coherence of this editorial, while i
scrounge breakfast:
Looks good to me Maxy. Let's wrap it.
========================================================================
Articles
========================================================================
Further FidoNet madness in Zone 2
Paul Carroll, 2:250/412 (soon to be 2:2502/412 ....)
I read with a sense of amazement the reorganisation of Region 24
(Germany) into geographical regions: while I sympathised with my
colleagues across the water, there was little I could do to help, and
they seem to have voted with their feet against the enforced
reorganisation of their region by the "Powers that be". Over 270 nodes
have left one Net (Bavaria) alone and more look to be on their way out.
Little did I think that a similar fate was to befall Region 25 (The
FidoNews 10-30 Page: 3 26 Jul 1993
United Kingdom and Ireland). However, the "Powers that be" decided that
an enforced Geonetting was also long overdue for the UK, despite the
fact that the mail moves around this country in an efficient manner.
Here's an extract from R25_PLAN.TXT, detailing the forthcoming changes
to Region 25
(Extract begins)
1. 4 week run in period to start of actual transfers. Date of run-in
period yet to be announced / decided.
2. About 30 nodes a week will be transfered from one or a number networks
to thier respective networks.
Note : Transfers from Net253 and Net258 will be done in two stages,
further details in the timetable below.
This will hopefully keep the average size of the Nodediff's down to
an approximately 1.5K overhead over the 11 week period.
30 nodes * 100 bytes entry = 3000 bytes, compressed = approx 1500 bytes
3. All nodes will have a default 2 week dual listing. Further time will
be granted upon application to RC25 and NC??? detailing exactly why
this will be needed. Each application will be treated on its individual
merit.
4. For those on holiday, buisness or whatever at the time or your transfer,
then please get in touch with your source NC as well as your target NC
and work out a date that is mutual to you all upto a maximum of 4 weeks
delay from original date set. If source NC and target NC agree, you may
advance your date in you so wish. Further delay may be sought upon
netmail application to the NC's concerned and RC25.
TIMETABLE
=========
WEEK 1 Net253 ( Part 1 of 2 )
2 Net258 ( Part 1 of 2 )
3 Net250
4 Net251, Net441 & Net444
5 Net252
6 Net254
7 Net255
8 Net256 & Net257
9 Net440
10 Net253 ( Part 2 of 2 )
11 Net258 ( Part 2 of 2 )
It is recomended that no NC re-issues any node number that has been
used as of Region25.190 ( 1993 ) for a period of 6 months. Nc's may
extend this period if they so wish.
(Extract ends)
FidoNews 10-30 Page: 4 26 Jul 1993
In essence, it was decided by our RC (Peter Burnett) and the ZC (Reg
Dwight) that the distribution of nodes within the UK was chaotic and
needed reorganisation. And indeed, many nodes in the UK are "out of
Net", due to many factors:
1. If someone sets up a BBS with the aid of a distant friend, one tends
to stay within that friend's Net
2. The existence within the UK of Midnight Lines for mail delivery.
These lines are expensive to rent, but operate on a similar basis to
WATS lines in the USA - they are free for Data Transmission use
between Midnight and 6 AM and are used extensively for echo & Netmail
delivery within the UK.
3. People move house. They may not want to change Networks.
4. Ultimately, if a sysop chooses to call long distance for his mail,
that's his affair and not mine. No-one should force him to pick up
his mail from a local node.
I'm sure there are other reasons, but I won't bore you: it has happened
elsewhere and will continue to happen.
Naturally, strong feelings were stirred up by the enforced geonetting of
the Region, and things got so heated that a Court Injunction was served
on the said Mr Burnett, who retaliated against the server of the
injuction by excising him from the nodelist. However, Mr Burnett
obviously began to see sense as the Region began baying for his head and
resigned as RC. ZC Dwight then took it upon himself to oversee the
reorganisation of the Region personally: although he lives in Finland,
he is a British Citizen and set up a Fido address over here to stay
within the "letter of the law".
REGION25, our Regional SysOp echo has been heavy going over the past few
weeks, with a huge volume of traffic and *very* lively debate. I've
taken no part in the debate, and to be truthful haven't read all the
messages in the echo: it would be a doughty man who could say he has!
The geonetting of the UK is now an ongoing fact, and will be
accomplished between now and the New Year, but it raises several points.
WHY did we need Geonetting in the first place? Mail in this region
flowed in a perfectly satisfactory manner, and the availability of
Midnight Lines meant that geographical boundaries don't effectively
matter for many nodes. The UK is not a large country like the USA, and
the geographical boundaries here are unclear. As a BA with a degree in
Geography, I know what I'm talking about - and I certainly wouldn't like
to have to reorganise the UK nets, as one can define a geographical
region in so many different ways.
WHY has the Geonetting been done on the basis of Telephone codes? I'm
not unique in that I reside in an area code which does not reflect my
geographical location - I am in the 0602 area code, yet live in
Derbyshire and have been lumped together with the Humberside,
Lincolnshire and Nottinghamshire nodes in the new Net 2502. I'm sure
FidoNews 10-30 Page: 5 26 Jul 1993
that many, many SysOps in the UK are in a similarly anomalous situation,
and there's no perfect solution to the problem: so why bother to change
a system that already worked?
WHY has the geonetting been done in such a high handed manner by a small
clique who seemingly control FidoNet in the UK? I run a popular BBS,
whose emphasis is on Mail and readily "do my bit" in the passing around
of mail: to me that's what Fido is all about, rather than playing power
politics and arguing over something that in the long run doesn't matter.
I don't want anarchy in Fido, but life over here is over-regulated as it
is, without it intruding into my hobby.
WHY is there no mention of any appeal procedure? FidoNet is a democracy,
not a dictatorship - perhaps that's why there are no BBS's in Iraq or
Cambodia. Could it be that the authors of the Geonetting programme here
in the UK don't WANT people to appeal against their reassignment? It
makes me wonder what our region is likely to become if we allow this
high-handed crew to walk all over us.
In essence, the UK (rather like Germany) is in uproar because a few
people at the top took it upon themselves to reorganise a region which
they considered to be disorganised. A debate did take place before the
reorganisation, and it became quite heated and came to no firm
conclusions. The powers-that-be then decided to impose their geographical
interpretation upon the region: an interpretation which in many people's
view was wrong, and against which there was no appeal.
Peter Burnett (RC) has already resigned: it's my view (and the view of
many others) that he should be joined by Ron Dwight, who has caused
chaos throughout Europe by his high-handed manner. Perhaps then he can
be replaced by someone who has the interests of FidoNet at heart, rather
than pure power-politics. So, for the good of Zone 2, for heavens sake
GO, Ron Dwight.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
RE: Fido ENFORCES ShareWARE Registrations!!!
From: Larry Eggers 1:352/266
I would like to comment on the aforementioned article that appeared
in issue 1029 of the SNOOZE, but before I do, a refresher....
> Shareware Author: Mr. NC ANYNET, I wish to file a policy
> complaint against NODE GRUNT SYSOP, he has (sniff sniff) been
> running my software well past its registration time, and I want
> him FORCED to either cough up money he owes me, or i want him
> FORCED out of the nodelist, or FORCED to STOP using my software
> past its "trial time limit".
[Stuff deleted for brevity]
> Software Author Rep?? (Shareware Police) Policy Complainer:
> Bruce Bodger 1:170/400 (btw, this Complainter has no known
> AUTHORITY to ACT in behalf of RA ) ( He is only a Support
> board, and collects no money, or does any ) ( RA registrations
FidoNews 10-30 Page: 6 26 Jul 1993
> according to the RA Docs... )
Now, as I see it, Mr. Bodger has definitely mis-represented himself.
Since he *IS NOT* the author of Remote Access, he has absolutely *NO*
right to claim that he is indeed the author (of which he stated
above). Being that said individual (Mr. Bodger) is not the author of
said BBS software, he does not have the right or privilege to insist
that the previously mentioned NODE GRUNT SYSOP register the software
that he is running. Therefore, since Mr. Bodger is only a mere tech
support sysop, he (Mr. Bodger) should keep his nose in tech support
mode. If Mr. Bodger were a registration site for RA, his actions
might have been kosher...barely.
Now, Mr. Bodger could have saved all those connected with this fiasco
a lot of time and jangled nerves. All he had to do was send the
16 year old NODE GRUNT SYSOP a friendly little netmail message asking
if the young gentleman would simply consider registering his copy of
RA, that way he'd be eligible to receive some actual tech support.
From my viewpoint, it looks like Mr. Bodger owes Jason Garcia
(our previously mentioned 16 yr. old grunt sysop) an apology,
as does the NC of net170 because of his lack of diligence in
determining whether or not Mr. Bodger had the authority to pursue
his policy complaint.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A Response to a response to "Madness in FidoLand... Part I?" :)
by Justin Shirk
Fido 1:270/425
I am writing an article in FidoNews in response to Mr. Davis's
(3:712/510) response to "Madness in FidoLand... Part I?" by Jeremy
Dailey to share one simple idea with the rest of the Fido community.
Let's first see what Mr. Davis said:
>The main reason I am writing this is to point out to him (and
>other like-minded sysops), that ARC, although being
>'antiquated', is widely supported! There has been a hullabaloo
>here in Zone 3 on compression formats, and rather than repeat
>all that, please, Jeremy, and others, remember that
>NOT EVERYONE uses a PC. * NOT EVERYONE else uses a Mac or an
>Amiga.
This is true, Karl, but not EVERYONE wants to pay large long
distance bills either. I have a nodelist here from a little
while back that was 1000k ARCed and only 650k ARJed. I'd say
at 2400 that's a pretty substantial $$ savings!
And so, I offer a solution, as done in Net270, Hub 400 (1:270/4xx).
(I suspect it is done elswhere as well.)
FidoNews 10-30 Page: 7 26 Jul 1993
Some (probably most) modern IBM PC mail packers offer multiple types
of compression. For example, my host's system, RA-ECHO Beta,
packs mail for me using ZIP v2.04g, as he does for other nodes
as well in his domain of authority. He also allows the whole
array of archivers, including LHA, ARJ, and ARC.
So, why not do away with the required "ARC" format? Why
not just have the HUBs ask their nodes what archiver
they want to use, if at all possible? Would this not then
solve the problems you speak of? And for those that don't
have this "special" feature in their archivers, let them
live with "ARC"?
<:=-----------------------------------------------------=:>
<:= Justin Shirk Sysop Cybernetics BBS =:>
<:= uucp : pitt!devon!sojurn!rhutch!cyberb!js =:>
<:= internet:
[email protected] =:>
<:= ITC : 85:863/207 bbs : (717)738-1976 =:>
<:= Supporting 1200-14400bps, v.42bis, & MNP 1-5 =:>
<:=-----------------------------------------------------=:>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Thoughts on Compression Routines
Mike Riddle
1:285/27
Thoughts on Compression Routines
Jeremy Dailey's article, "Madness in Fidoland... Part I?" in
Fidonews 10-27 asks again the age-old question, "why ARC?" Karl
Davis provides the answer in Fidonews 10-29: Because ARC is
universal, most of the others are not.
Fidonet is not composed exclusively of MS-DOS machines. Mr.
Davis gives some good examples from "down under." From Zone 1, the
pattern holds. Net 285 has CoCo's (OS/9), CP/M, Amiga, and Unix
systems. I probably forgot someone.
If ARC is replaced, the standards committee needs to pick an
archiver that has been transported to and can run on all the
platforms in the network. It might not be hard to find other
candidates, but will the compression ratios vary that much?
In Fidonews 10-29 we also saw a "faceoff" between ARJ and ZIP.
The contest is interesting for what it doesn't say. The test was
run on only one file. Any serious study of compression that I have
seen recognizes that different methods have different results on
different files. While ARJ might win on GIFs, ZIP might win on
text. In fact, the last time I ran a test against the nodelist,
ZIP won. Both have upgraded since then, so "your mileage may
vary."
But virtually all highspeed links employ modem-base hardware
compression, so the better question might be "what is the actual
FidoNews 10-30 Page: 8 26 Jul 1993
change in throughput?" And the follow-up: "is this slight
improvement enough to force a wholesale change in network
practices?"
Finally, if we're really serious about compression
effectiveness, I submit the following article for your
consideration and suggest that the "method of 1" ought to become
the Fidonet standard.
Breakthroughs in Data Compression
An article by Paul S. Hoffman appearing in "The Journal of
Irreproducible Results", Vol. 38, No. 3 May/June '93
This paper describes a radically new and dramatically
efficient method of data compression, with potential applications
going far beyond the bounds of data communications to affect all
levels of information exchange.
Digital computers operate in base 2, in which all items of
information are represented as strings of ones and zeros.
Conventional data compression techniques typically reduce the
binary information to about 40-75% of its original size.
The new method provides a mathematically exact and
dramatically better method. The method consists of taking the
string of ones and zeros (completely independent of string length)
and adding up all the ones. The result is presented thus:
(number of ones)
For example, suppose the data string to be compressed
consisted of the following:
11010101^1
In the above string, there are 5 ones and 3 zeroes. The
zeroes are dropped as conveying no information. The compressed
information that there are 5 ones can be presented thus:
in binary, 101 (in decimal 5)
The condensed information takes account of every information-
conveying one in the original information string but occupies less
room.
This was only the first compression step for this particular
data string. If a second compression step is applied to the result
of the first compression, the data string is further reduced in a
similar manner. Counting the ones in the first compression binary
result (101) shows that there are only 2 ones, so the second
compression results in the following:
binary, 10 (in decimal, 2)
FidoNews 10-30 Page: 9 26 Jul 1993
The third data compression step finds only 1 one present (the
zero is disregarded) with the results predicted thus:
binary, 1 (in decimal 1)
This principle of compression holds true regardless of the
length of the string of data and is total independent of the
meaning of the particular data.
As a further example of the utilitarian nature of the data
compression algorithm, we used as an example the data stream
represented by the Jan/Feb 1992 issue of the "Journal of
Irreproducible Results" (see Fig. 1) That issue of the Journal was
broken down into ten department items seven articles, and five
"News and Views" items. Each of the fourteen items was treated as
a separate string,^2 and each item was scanned into binary form and
put through the algorithm, resulting in a compressed contents for
the publication of the following:
1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1
Figure 2 shows a postcard that could be used to disseminate
that entire compressed issue of the Journal. It is apparent that
the use of the data compression algorithm to disseminate a
publication such as the Journal will allow considerable savings in
paper, postage, and other resources.
The ability to compress all data into "1" has applications
far beyond that of maximizing the efficiency of data communications
and publications. For example, if the resulting data from a
research project are fully compressed and compared with the
compressed data from another project, it will become clear that the
output data are identical. This may be used as a tool to reduce
redundancy in project funding.
It should be noted that although all data strings reduce to
unity under this method, it is still anticipated that it may be
necessary to send along with the "1" the number of compression
steps used to reduce the data. As a result, a compression that
required thirteen compression steps to produce its compressed "1"
will probably be different from another requiring say, fourteen
compression steps to produce its compressed "1".
This research facility is currently applying for grants to
complete the other half of the project, that is to construct an
algorithm for decompression of the compressed data.
NOTES:
1. Although this particular binary string represents the
decimal number 213, the method of compression is completely
independent of the meaning of the data string. The data strings
may represent graphics or alphabetic characters and may be of
unlimited length.
2. Each item was considered as a separate string for two
FidoNews 10-30 Page: 10 26 Jul 1993
reasons: so that integrity of individual items will be preserved,
and because individual readers of the compressed data might be
interested in some items but not in others.
3. An associate of the author noted that the compression
algorithm might be used on this article and only the compressed
result "1" presented. [Editor's note: The argument has some
merit.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What *IS* happening in Region 18, Chris?
Mike Phillips
The Corn Cobb
1:3657/6
After reading Christopher Baker's "reply" to the article in
issue 27 of the snooze in issue 29, I felt compelled to write.
There seems to be a power struggle going on in region 18 and it
is leading to a virtual war between several NC's, a former NC
and the RC.
Chris.... once again, you are tending to skirt the facts AS THEY
HAVE BEEN PRESENTED BY YOURSELF AND OTHERS IN THE SYSOP18 ECHO!
The NC in question submitted a nodelist entry that was greater
than the 157 character limit after you had said that the *ONLY*
limit was the DOS limit of 255 characters. After submission of
the nodelist entry, you "revised" your statute and said that 157
characters was the limit and that THERE WAS NOT A LIMIT
CONCERNING CONTENT INCLUDING VULGARITY. The *ONLY* option to
refusal of a entry was if it was illegal and that if the NC
decided to refuse an entry on those grounds he MUST PROVIDE THE
STATUTE AND/OR LEGAL CODE TO SUPPORT THE DENIAL otherwise, the
submitting party would have grounds for a PC against the NC.
The NC then (in his words to prove his point to you) submitted a
nodelist entry containing "THE_FUCK_YOU_CHRIS_BBS!". You thereby
removed the NC as NC for his net. Hmmmmm something stinks like
hell here. I have been reading the traffic in SYSOP18 for a few
weeks now (after being informed that it was "required" that I
carry it) and ALL the traffic points to you MAKING A
MISTAKE/ERROR IN JUDGEMENT. Wouldn't it be easier to just say "I
made a mistake", re-instate the NC and let the world continue on?
To further support the oft repeated claim about how inconsistent
you are, you warned a SYSOP that "further commercial ads in
SYSOP18 will result in a PC" yet when the individual posted a
commercial ad AGAIN and I attempted to file a PC, you told me
that the ad was cross posted from a for-sale echo and therefore
was ok. Does this mean that *I* can post *MY* ads for hardware
in the commercial 4-Sale echo and CROSS POST THEM TO SYSOP18 and
NOT BE IN VIOLATION?
FidoNews 10-30 Page: 11 26 Jul 1993
It's your inconsistancy that is causing the trouble Chris....get
to being FAIR, CONSISTENT and above all DON'T BE AFRAID TO TAKE
ADVICE FROM THOSE "BELOW" YOU IN THE CHAIN. We can all learn
from others...even you!
Mike Phillips
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What's Wrong with Fidonet:
"What's Wrong with Fidonet: by an interested but non-affiliated observer."
Shawn McMahon
1:206/1701.666
First, a little background; I'm not a member of Fidonet, so I
feel I can "step back" and give an objective view. However, I
have been a member in the past, and have dealt with Fidonet on
various levels since it's beginning, so I do know what I'm
talking about.
The problems cropping up in Region 24 and Region 10 and (insert
your region here) are nothing new, folks, and Tom Jennings is
100% right about their "meaning," which is to say, none.
If the RC puts you in a region that requires you to make
long-distance phone calls, and you have a local source that
doesn't, then by all means, hook YOURSELF up to him. That's the
way Fidonet is supposed to work; you seek out the connection
that makes the most sense for YOU.
If you can't get those up the chain to route your mail properly,
then file policy complaints against them. Get all your friends
to send you routed mail, and let it pile up on the systems that
insist on mis-routing it.
However, if you do this maliciously, instead of in an attempt to
lower your LD costs, be prepared to be thrown out.
The fundamental principle of Fidonet is COST, not geography; no
matter what Policy4 says. Do what feels right.
If you can't find an alternate source for your feed, try getting
together with everybody else who's been screwed and submit your
information to FidoNews as an article; SOMEBODY will be willing
to give you a feed, and you can all get together and work out
the costs your own way.
For those of you who participate in the debates regarding
Policy, here are the things you're going to have to do in the
next Policy if you want to see the problems go away, and see
Fidonet cross the next evolutionary hump:
1) Make it more explicit that a Net is an area of shared phone
charges, not which side of a river one is on.
FidoNews 10-30 Page: 12 26 Jul 1993
2) Allow regional private nodes; this'll keep a lot of 'em from
cluttering up net nodelist segments.
3) Eliminate the ridiculous prohibition on encrypted mail. I
realize that this was done for what seemed like a good reason,
namely keeping sysops out of trouble for things that pass
through their BBSes, but the logic is faulty. You'll have LESS
legal trouble if the mail comes through in an encrypted state.
Think about it; what jury in the world is going to rule that a
sysop must spend $8.5 million on computer time to "steam open
the envelope" of EVERY private message that comes through his
system? On the other hand, if they're all plaintext and
accessible to you, it's real easy to require you to have read
them.
4) Formalize the procedure on determining who the moderator of
an echo is, but NOT the procedure for routing them. Make the
following things clear:
4a) An echo is just like a BBS message base, in that the
moderator has absolute say over it. Anybody who disagrees with
the moderator has the same recourse that one who disagrees with
a sysop does; start your own echo. If the person's complaint is
valid, others will join the echo, especially since you can
advertise it free in the Snooze. If his complaint is invalid,
then his echo will flounder. End of problem. Think this
doesn't work? Compare relative traffic in ASKACOP and ASKACOP2
sometime.
4b) The process of replacing a moderator who resigns, dies,
drops off the net, etc., should be overseen by the appropriate
authority, I.E. the International Coordinator or his appointed
lackey, preferably an International Echo Coordinator who does
nothing but handle this kind of problem. A moderator who
chooses his own successor should be allowed to do so, just as a
sysop can give somebody else his BBS; a moderator who doesn't do
this should be replaced by a vote of any Fidonet member
interested in voting. Yes, I realize that excludes me; it
should. The IEC's job (or, ZEC, for purely zonal echoes) should
be to make the vote as fair as he can. Remember, this is only
for replacing a moderator who leaves without a successor;
otherwise, the procedure for replacing a moderator is called
"starting a new echo."
4c) Although it's implied by 4a, I think it should be
specifically stated that when a moderator asks that a node,
region, or even zone be cut from an echo, it should be done
IMMEDIATELY upon determining that the message is, indeed, from
the moderator. One possible way to make sure of this would be
to require all moderators to have a PGP public key on file, and
sign official Requests For Action with their secret key. If
these keys were kept as part of the echolist, anyone would be
able to authenticate moderator statements, or ask a *C or *EC to
if PGP is unavailable to them.
FidoNews 10-30 Page: 13 26 Jul 1993
5) There is no valid technical reason to prohibit hi-bit
extended ASCII from message text, at all; any program that can't
ignore, strip, or translate the extra bit has to have been
written with that limitation on PURPOSE. Dropping this stupidity
is the primary thing you can do to turn this back into one
Fidonet, instead of two (Zone One, and Everybody Else.)
6) Although there are valid technical reason to prohibit hi-bit
ASCII in things like addresses and most kludge lines, there is
no reason to prohibit it in people's names. As long as Fidonet
continues to require people to change their names to participate
in Zone One, you have two Fidonets.
A little pre-emptive argument on 5 and 6:
Yes, I realize that not everybody using Fidonet is on an IBM PC.
However, those that aren't fall into one of the following
categories:
1) Those who can translate the IBM character set into their
native character set. 2) Those who can ignore the characters and
simply miss part of the message. 3) John Souvestre's one dumb
terminal, and half a dozen others scattered throughout the net.
Those in category 1 don't have a problem. Those in category 2
are no worse off than those who can't display lowercase, and are
pretty much dinosaurs anyway. If there are enough of 'em,
they'll haul out compilers and put themselves in category 1.
Those in category 3 are holding back the rest of us, and should
simply stop using equipment that doesn't do the job, or live
with the fact that it doesn't.
The fact is, no machine capable of tossing Fidonet mail is
incapable of dealing with hi-bit ASCII in some fashion. The
only thing that keeps mail software for those machines from
dealing with it is the fact that they haven't HAD to yet.
Did Fidonet restrict the number of node numbers available when
it got too big for Version 6 nodelists? No, you simply alerted
everybody that it was time to change to Version 7, or find their
own fix.
Did Fidonet change it's rules to restrict messages to 16k when
it was discovered that some popular tossing/scanning packages
can't handle larger messages? Nope; people running those
programs have to either live with it, or find a fix.
If you're going to hobble Fidonet to the lower 127 characters
just to accomodate the handful who can't upgrade and the few who
won't, then you should restrict it to uppercase-only right now
because you're excluding people.
I'm sorry this is so long, but Policy4 has gotten pretty long
too.
FidoNews 10-30 Page: 14 26 Jul 1993
It's unfortunate that it has, because 99% of it is unnecessary
and/or actually harmful to the net.
I bet you could get the thing down to under five pages and
actually DECREASE controversy over interpretation.
That's not my job to write, however, because I'm not a member.
I hope all will take this article in the spirit in which it is
intended; an honest attempt to help, and no insult intended to
anyone.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Join us in SYSOP
For you rough and tumble types who enjoy mental gymnastics,
there's lots of doings in SYSOP. The Complaint Lester v Bodger
and Bodger v Garcia is in full swing. The Remote Access people
popped in and added their position. The nodelist warning was
discussed; lots of varied topics.
If ya can't get the feed locally, contact me, I'll find ya one.
Bob Moravsik, trustee (Moderator type)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Seen it all?
Having been a member of Fido for 1 1/2 years now, I thought I
had seen it all, but here comes Fidonews 10-29 and what do you
know but a new low was reached. A Mr. Bruce Bodger decides that
he needs to play power god and request that a node be removed
because of "unregistered software"! Now Mr. JB Graham, does one
BANGUP job interpreting Policy 4 (which is comic relief in
itself), and decides "Yes by god it is my duty to make SURE
everyone has registered software!"
I tried to send Jason Garcia, the CRIMINAL in FIDOGATE, a
message saying how UNBELIEVABLE some of the mini-gods in the
network are, thinking they are so ABOVE all of the little folks,
but alas, that VERY competent JB Graham ALREADY had him out of
the nodelist! WOW! It is so GOOD to know that we have people
like JB Graham and Bruce Bodger to play network WATCHDOGS!
What a joke this one is, there have been many in the short time
I have been in this network but THIS ONE is at THE top of my
list of TOTAL ABUSE of POWER!
Now I am not in support of someone running unregistered software
when it says in the agreement when you run it something like
"use for 30 days, register it at that time or delete it", but no
one has the right to drop someone from Fido just because they do
not register!
FidoNews 10-30 Page: 15 26 Jul 1993
I have only read Jason's side to the story, but it does sound
like typical power ploy by a select few.
If anyone can find it in POLICY 4 where it says "You MUST have
registered software ONLY, to be a member of FIDOnet, I'll EAT
the next issue of the Snooze!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Use of FidoNet Excommunication as a Bill Collection Device
By: Paul Harney 1:107/579 @FidoNet
Date: July 17th, 1993
Good folks of FidoNet,
We seem to have a problem, a relatively serious one, for our amateur
based hobby. It seems that a Mr Jason Garcia [formerly 1:107/506
@FidoNet if his NC should have his way] was accused of using a piece
of shareware, specifically Remote Access BBS, past the time allowed
for evaluation by the agent of the shareware author of that program
for Zone one, Mr Bruce Bodger. The problem is not that Mr Garcia may
have done that, the problem is that he may, pending appeal to RC19, no
longer be allowed in FidoNet because of it.
You see, Mr Bodger, R19EC and RA/Front Door's "Man in Zone One"
decided to file a policy complaint against Mr Garcia with Mr Garcia's
Network Coordinator, a Mr J.B. Graham. Mr Graham then proceeded to
find Mr Garcia in violation of Policy 4 and excommunicate Mr Garcia
from FidoNet.
There is only one problem with all of this, there is no violation under
P4 for running unregistered shareware, at least none that can be shown
to anyone, or that was quoted verbatim from policy by the filer of the
complaint or the man who passed decision on it. Mr Garcia has been
found guilty of an offense, and excommunicated for it, that doesn't
exist in P4.
The only part of P4 that even remotely comes close to dealing with the
question of software legality vis-a-vie the proper licensing thereof is
the following from section 2.1.1:
2.1.1 The Basics
As the sysop of an individual node, you can generally do as you please,
as long as you observe mail events, are not excessively annoying to
other nodes in FidoNet, and do not promote or participate in the
distribution of pirated copyrighted software or other illegal behavior
via FidoNet.
---
One can clearly see from the text that the only violation mentioned
here regarding licensing is the distribution of pirated software. Now,
no one is claiming Mr Garcia distributed anything, the only thing being
claimed is that he failed to register the software. And even if he did
FidoNews 10-30 Page: 16 26 Jul 1993
distribute the file, the copy he had was an evaluation copy, one that
is legitimate, even encouraged, to distribute. Where is the P4
violation that is the basis of his excommunication in this?
No matter how you may personally feel about software piracy, or someone
failing to register shareware past its legitimate evaluation period,
the singular question here is whether Mr Garcia violated P4 by failing
to register his copy of Remote Access BBS? Clearly, since the only
violation of policy is the distribution of pirated software and such
did not take place, the answer is no, he did not. So the question now
becomes, why was the PC upheld? Why was Mr Garcia excommunicated from
FidoNet? AND MORE IMPORTANTLY how long will it take to correct the
mistake made in doing so?
The next issue regards Mr Bodger's filing of the PC. Since there can't
be any violation of policy, as the act Mr Garcia is accused of isn't
covered by P4, then surely Mr Bodger's complaint is defective and by
virtue of the procedure that has been past practice in Zone One,
excessively annoying. Secondly, and more to the point, it would appear
to be a violation of the "Commercial Use" clause of P4.
Section 1.3.6 of P4 states the following:
1.3.6 Commercial Use
FidoNet is an amateur network. Participants spend their own time and
money to make it work for the good of all the users. It is not
appropriate for a commercial enterprise to take advantage of these
volunteer efforts to further their own business interests.
[end of portion relevant to what we are discussing]
---
As Mr Bodger may receive monetary gains from each copy of RA [and FD]
that is registered in Zone One certainly the use of a PC filed by him
which leads to excommunication from FidoNet for failure to register the
software in question is a act of Commercial Use.
The ugly question of what to do with Mr Bodger now raises its head. If
it is a fact that he violated P4 himself by filing a PC that he had to
have known, based on his "rank" in the Zone One "chain of command", was
defective then surely, based on Zone One's current procedure in
handling such matters, he was being excessively annoying. Further, the
question as to the deliberate violation of P4 regarding involving
FidoNet in a commercial use by using Policy Complaints as a tool for
the collection of debts is a situation which must be addressed.
A Policy Complaint based on just those issues was filed by Mr Garcia,
after apparently attempting to resolve the issue via netmail with Mr
Bodger, and was dismissed out right by their common NC, Mr Graham.
Should that be bumped up to Mr Davis, RC19, on appeal it would place
him in the unenviable position of having to rule on his own REC. The
matter should be placed in the hands of the Z1C, Mr Satti, by Mr Davis.
However it is handled something should be done forthwith as, obviously,
FidoNews 10-30 Page: 17 26 Jul 1993
we are going to be in sorry shape if it suddenly becomes standard
practice for shareware authors to be able to use Policy Complaints as a
tool for the collection of unpaid registration fees. Think of how many
PC's could be filed for the unregistered use of PKZIP alone. The
implications involved if this precedent is allowed to stand are
horrendous to contemplate. NC's would do nothing but deal with PC's by
shareware authors regarding their nodes having unregistered shareware
on their systems. Actually, there would be no NC's as they would have
all been excommunicated for the unregistered shareware on their systems,
or would that be possible as their would be no RC's..... well you get
the picture don't you.
The bottom line is that Policy 4 does not currently allow for this as
there is no specific language, and rightly so, that covers the presence
of unregistered software on a members computer. It would be wrong to
allow it to be "placed" in P4 by allowing the precedent of an improper
interpretation of policy by NC170 to stand.
As this is a very important issue that directly effects thousands of us
who may find ourselves suddenly on the wrong end of a Policy Complaint
filed against us by a FidoNet member who is the author or agent of a
piece of shareware we may have on our system that s/he feels entitled
to monies for, and would use the threat of FidoNet excommunication as a
tool to collect those monies I would suggest that we all POLITELY send
our opinion on the issue to Mr Bob Satti, Z1C at 1:1/0 with CC's to Mr
Bodger at 1:170/400 and Mr JB Graham at 1:170/0, as well as Mr Davis
RC19 at 1:19/0.
Please tell them that you are not interested in seeing FidoNet used for
anyone's personal monetary gain and that you see the use of FidoNet
excommunication as a tool to enforce registration of shareware as
setting a very dangerous precedent and as such would like to see the
ruling made by Mr Graham, NC170, against Mr Garcia overturned.
Thank you for your time.
Be well and pax,
Paul Harney
1:107/579@FidoNet
* Note: Since the writing of this article and its submission I have
spoken to Mr Bodger via telephone. We discussed the reasons and the
propriety of using Policy Complaints as a tool for resolving contract
disputes between shareware authors and the users that violate the
agreed upon evaluation period. While it was an amicable conversation
I can safely say that we agreed to disagree on the matter. However,
a couple of points came out that I feel need to be addressed.
Mr Bodger states, for the record, that he makes no money from the
registration of FD or RA in Zone One and that his motivations for
filing the complaint are not monetary in nature but based strictly on
his sense of right and wrong. As there is nothing to indicate
anything to the contrary I believe we should take the man at his word.
However, Mr Bodger is still acting as an agent for a party that will
make a profit from the registration of the software in question and
that still raises the same problem. And as to the right and wrong of
FidoNews 10-30 Page: 18 26 Jul 1993
it, I think we can all agree with Mr Bodger that not paying for
something you agreed to pay for if you use it past a certain time is
wrong. That, as I stated in the article, is not the issue. The issue
continues to be whether, as what I would argue should be a
disinterested third party with a hands off approach to the issue,
FidoNet Policy complaints are the proper way to resolve that issue of
right and wrong. I would hope we all agree that under the current
policy we would be doing ourselves a lot more harm then good if we
said yes to that question.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
========================================================================
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
BBS +1-519-570-4176, 300/1200/2400/14400/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).
FidoNews 10-30 Page: 19 26 Jul 1993
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
(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, 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------
