Volume 2, Number 39 11 November 1985
+----------------------------------------------------------+
| _ |
| / \ |
| - Fidonews - /|oo \ |
| (_| /_) |
| Fido and Fidonet _`@/_ \ _ |
| Users Group | | \ \\ |
| Newsletter | (*) | \ )) |
| ______ |__U__| / \// |
| / FIDO \ _//|| _\ / |
| (________) (_/(_|(____/ |
| (jm) |
+----------------------------------------------------------+
Publisher: Fido 1/1
Editor in Chief: Thom Henderson
Review Editor: Matt Kanter
Chief Procrastinator Emeritus: Tom Jennings
Fidonews is published weekly by SEAboard, Fido 1/1. You are
encouraged to submit articles for publication in Fidonews.
Article submission standards are contained in the file
FIDONEWS.DOC, available from Fido 1/1.
Disclaimer or don't-blame-us:
The contents of the articles contained here are not our
responsibility, nor do we necessarily agree with them;
everything here is subject to debate. We publish EVERYTHING
received.
Table of Contents
1. EDITORIAL
Future Directions
2. NEWS
Tom Jennings responds to Paula Giese
A Request to Writers of Online Documentation Files
Maple's Freeware Directory
Exploited? Me?
FidoGrams and Packet Radio
3. COLUMNS
FidoNet Route Files Explained, Part 2
4. WANTED
FIDONET info requested
5. NOTICES
The Interrupt Stack
New Board Announcement
============================================================
EDITORIAL
============================================================
Future Directions
So what's it going to be then, eh?
Where do we go from here? We have this lovely network, with
hundreds or thousands of people tied together all over the
world, and what are we going to do with it?
Well, as a software developer, I can see all sorts of nice
things we could do. Most of them involve changing the
Fidonet spec, which would be difficult to do now, and even
harder in the future. I don't know if you've been watching
such things, or even if you care, but we are now down to two
bits left in message attributes. There's not a whole heck
of alot you can do with two bits. Also we now have three
different systems (four, by some accounts) that are all
sharing the same spec, and rumors of more to come.
Of course, all of this is really only concerned with the
physical specs of how the net operates. A friend of mine
frequently accuses me of "featuritis". In truth, I can't
offhand think of much to add that would be worth the pain of
conversion. But I also don't claim to have cornered the
market on bright ideas.
A bigger question regards where the net is going overall.
Our European friends want to extend the multinet idea to
encompass different countries, and I can understand their
viewpoint. I can also see that extending it down to
"subnodes" might be useful. This really introduces up to
four levels of the net, which may be a bit excessive.
But seriously, where are we going to be in four or five
years? I've heard the opinion expressed (by someone whose
opinion I value) that this too shall pass, and Fidonet as we
know it is really only good for a couple of years; after
that we will all be using something else.
But what will that "something else" grow out of? I truly
feel that anything which replaces Fidonet will and must have
its roots in Fidonet. It may also grow partially from other
nets, such as Usenet, but it will predominatly be a child of
Fidonet.
We've done an incredible thing here. We've gotten thousands
of people together in an amateur electronic mail network the
likes of which noone (not even its creator) ever imagined.
Its successor, whatever it may be, must of necessity partake
of many of its qualities.
We are making history here, like it or not.
------------------------------------------------------------
Fidonews Page 2 11 Nov 1985
============================================================
NEWS
============================================================
Tom Jennings
Fido 125/1
6 November, 85
This is in response to Paula Giese's article in
newsletter 238, about "stolen" Fido.
The article is a good one, and you can generalize
"Fido" or whatever to be any useable so-called "Public
Domain" program; you probably have seen the articles in
Infoworld and others about "Corporate world discovers
ShareWare". I wish they hadn't found it, it wasn't lost, for
them to find in the first place!
Shareware was meant for turkeys like you and I, for
fun and games, not to save your employer money. Corporate
use of shareware is a perversion of most authors' intent. I
am not going to elaborate on this further, however, it's
covered elsewhere, and I just don't have the time at this
moment.
I am considering making my future program too silly
to be useful for corporate use, wierd messages, funny
prompts, etc.
There are some problems with the article as it
stands also. First, the policy fo Fido Software (me!) has
changed in the last year or two.
Fido's previous to version 11 were actually "public
domain". I even said so. WHAT A STUPID THING! NEVER say
"public domain"! You have NO rights to your software if you
do. Let others use it, fine, but you want to have rights to
it ultimately. The policy was "make as many copies as you
need". Period.
I later changed this to "if you have a small number
of systems, copy it. If you need lots of copies, contact
me". It was still public domain. Still stupid.
The current versions are different. The policy
probably won't change in substance again. No longer is Fido
public domain; the policy (below) is very clear, and allows
free, unlimited use in most cases.
Also I have to cover some specific points in Paula's
article. First, Southwestern Bell has had a Fido since way
back when there were less than 20 nodes, and possibly pre-
FidoNet. I was pleased to have ANY one use the crummy thing.
They are "grandfather claused" in any case, and have it with
my blessings. (I assume that they have a system or two,
being used internally.) There are many other large
corporations that are also grandfathered or have paid for
Fido.
Fidonews Page 3 11 Nov 1985
As an aside, I doubt that the people running the
Fido for S.W. Bell are the ones who screwed the kid who was
hit with the tariff. All S.W. Bell employees are not
interchangeable, same as any other company. The perpetrators
of that stupid policy are not the ones you get to talk to on
the phone, they are old dinosaurs in some office building
somewhere, who, under U.S. law, are not responsible for
their actions, and want to make your life as miserable as
theirs.
Look, in general, I'm just not going to lose any
sleep, nor get myself an ulcer, worrying about "stolen
programs". Unlike Lotus (may they rot in Hell) I do not
universally consider not-paid-for programs "lost income".
"Not paid for" is not the same as "lost money". It's a long,
complicated subject that I won't elaborate on here, but if
you were around in early CP/M days, you will recall the flap
about WordStar. "Stolen" WordStar made them more money than
any amount of advertising; for example, I worked for a large
research laboratory; I "stole" WS.COM, everyone ran it and
loved it, and the lab bought 10 copies the next week! (Well,
it took 3 months to procure anything, that was the original
problem ...)
There are however many instances that just piss me
off. The GTE thing for instance. Blatant theivery. They did
pay for it eventually, I think; it was a GTE employee who
mailed me a personal check, not a GTE check. He said it was
for GTE, so I didn't argue.
The current Fido Software policy is exactly as
follows:
"Fido Software provides the Fido/FidoNet software
(Fido) both to the Bulletin Board community at large as a
public service, and to all other users as a commercial
product, available for a fee.
"Fido can be used without charge only if the
software is used to provide a publicly available, publicly
accessible system open to anyone. Restrictions such as
subscriptions may be used, but anyone still must be eligible
to use it.
"All other uses of Fido are considered to be private
or commercial, and a copy of Fido system must be purchased
from Fido Software for each computer system. The purchase
allows you to get updated software as versions come out, and
a printed manual. Financial support from corporations and
other institutions ensures that Fido will continue to be
maintained and updated. If you have large scale or special
requirements, simple arrangements can be made.
Fidonews Page 4 11 Nov 1985
"The intent of this policy is simple and fairly
clear; Fido is intended as a gesture of goodwill towards the
Bulletin Board community first, and other, commercial and
private uses fund maintenaince and further development.
This policy is no different than donating products
or services to a school or other institution as a gesture of
goodwill. "
I think this is pretty clear and straightforward. I
don't care if you charge for access to your board. I don't
care if you are a fascist and run your BBS like a prison
ship. I just don't care. As long as it's a public access
BBS, I don't care. (If you wanna juggle definitions to make
it fit I still don't care!)
If you are selling Fido, or using it to run a
business, and you haven't paid for it, then I do care.
Please mail money. If the phone number is a secret, then no
way it's a publically accessible board, buy the goddamn
thing, you get updates cheap. I do not use *any* stolen
programs in my work as an employee nor for Fido Software.
None, zippo.
Please don't ask me to clarify specific
installations, or try to explain why your case is different
than any other, use your own judgement. What I don't know
doesn't hurt me (so they say), and there is nothing I can do
about it anyways.
Like I said before, it's not really that big an
issue, just "follow your heart" and you will know what it is
you should do ...
------------------------------------------------------------
Fidonews Page 5 11 Nov 1985
A Request to Writers of Online Documentation Files
by Bdale Garbee, sysop 129/13, the L5Net Gateway
I have a real problem. It's a fairly serious problem, but a
fairly stupid one too... Many of the documents describing
Fido, Fidonet, and many interesting utilities make too many
assumptions about printer capabilities. Particularly this
very newsletter, and the latest release of the Fido
documentation... [sigh].
Overstriking and underlining just don't belong in documents
that are going to be printed on a wide variety of printers.
Everyone's machines do it differently, and the backspaces or
bare carriage returns create havoc on laser printers and the
like.
The other big problem with lots of current online
documentation is that it does not use formfeeds, and assumes
66 lines per page. What if I want to run my printer at 8
lines/inch, and still use 11 inch paper? Or even more
reasonably, what if I want to use a laser printer that
inserts pagebreaks at 60 lines?
The Arpanet Network Information Center people solved this
problem ages ago, and in a VERY simple way. I would like to
propose that all users of Fidonet adopt the standard
specified in Arpa RFC 825, from which I quote:
"The following rules are established for the format of RFCs:
The character codes are ASCII.
Each page must be limited to 58 lines followed by a
form feed on a line by itself.
Each line must be limited to 72 characters followed by
a carriage return and line feed.
No overstriking (or underlining) is allowed.
These "height" and "width" constraints include any
headers, footers, page numbers, or left side
indenting."
Tear this page out of the newsletter and post it on the wall
beside your word processor, PLEASE!
If you really think you need to boldface something, or
underline something, think about using all caps, or making
better use of whitespace. The thousands of frustrated
people with printers that don't work exactly like yours will
thank you over and over again...
The only conceivable problem I can see is for those people
with printers that don't handle formfeeds... like LA36's,
etc. But then, everyone I know with a printer like that has
a program to fake formfeed capability anyway.
Fidonews Page 6 11 Nov 1985
I'm working on hacking FIDO.PRN and some of the other
primary fidonet documentation to meet these specificiations.
If anyone else is interested in copies of the files when I'm
done, send me a note...
[Editor's note: An interesting point. I confess it never
occurred to me to doubt the 66 lines/page "standard",
despite having once owned a 51 lines/page terminal. Can we
get some more feedback on this?]
------------------------------------------------------------
Fidonews Page 7 11 Nov 1985
Maple's Freeware Directory
Maple's Freeware Directory provides a free service to
software authors to help them popularize their programs.
The freeware, also known as shareware, is a concept that
allows free evaluation of the program by the user before
purchase. If the software is found to be usefull and
satisfactory a small donation to the author is suggested.
In some cases upon receiving this donation the authors will
send a manual. The programs are not copy protected and their
copying and sharing is in fact welcomed.
This concept provides the user with commercial quality
software for a fraction of commercial software price.
Therefore, not only are the users treated as responsible
individuals but they are not expected to pay for the copy
protection schemes they do not want in the first place. The
authors, on the other hand, devote all of their creativity
to the program itself, instead of trying to "protect" it
from the purchaser.
To assist both the authors and users Maple's Freeware
Directory is compiling a comprehensive catalog of available
freeware. In order to have their programs listed in the
directory the authors are invited to contact us for a copy
of our questionnaire.
Editor
Maple's Freeware Directory
Box 23, Station M
Calgary, T2P 2G9
Canada
Also available via Fidonet node 134/1, the Calgary_Fido.
------------------------------------------------------------
Fidonews Page 8 11 Nov 1985
Chuck Lawson
Fido 124/12
Exploited? Me?
I am writing this in response to Paula Giese's "Ripping Off
Tom Jennings And All Of Us" article in last week's FidoNews
(Issue 238).
I want to say, upfront, that I agree with Paula Giese that
GTE (and the others mentioned) should be paying the $100 fee
for Fido. I am sysop of a free, open to the public, general
interest board that happens to be sponsored by, and
occasionally used by, a private company, and although we
fall in Tom Jennings' (and apparently Paula's) list of
general interest privately owned services, we should
probably be paying too. Tom has contributed a lot to the BBS
community in writing and supporting Fido, and deserves some
recompense for those who make money from it. I will go so
far as to say that that list should probably include "paid
registration" boards as well. It is a little ridiculous to
condemn one group with income from a bulletin board
(regardless of whether it makes money - most don't) and not
the rest.
My major quibble is with the idea of being "exploited" by PC
Pursuit. I am a subscriber to PC Pursuit. I have users who
regularly access my board via PC Pursuit. I (and the rest of
the sysops in our net, Net 124) enjoy the use of "free"
Fidomail to some areas (including Tom Jennings' home net,
125) via PC Pursuit. And I have not once felt exploited.
Maybe I'm just unenlightened.
In my humble opinion, I believe that PC Pursuit is just
another carrier service, and no more (and no less) guilty of
exploitation than the various companies who operate the
North American phone system. Where do you draw the line of
distinction? Of course PC Pursuit advertises that you can
access bulletin boards in twelve cities. That's kind of the
point. Would you pay your telephone bill if you didn't
believe you could call other people? And BOTH parties pay
for the privilage there. Offhand, that's a service, in my
book, and not exploitation.
Now I'm not sure about other sysops, but I' m always
relatively thrilled to find my board in bulletin board lists
outside the local area. After all, I put the board up for
people to use, and am usually thrilled to see someone
from outside our local dialing area spend their hard-earned
dollars to call my board (even if they only spend $25 a
month). I DO hope that they ask the sysops of the boards
mentioned for permission to list them, but I have never been
asked for permission to have my board listed on a BBS list,
and that includes some lists that people have attempted to
sell.
All in all, I would like to submit a public plea for GTE to
do two things - send Tom Jennings $100 (or more - they
Fidonews Page 9 11 Nov 1985
certainly have gotten mileage from Fido), and ADD MORE
CITIES. It is my belief that they have done as much to
improve the BBS world as the advent of cheap 1200 baud
modems has.
I will be attempting to start a discussion of this topic on
my board. It should be quite interesting, as we have a
number of users who are PC Pursuit subscribers (some local
who use it elsewhere, some who use it to access us), and
several attorneys.
I would like to invite all those with an opinion to call and
express themselves, or send FidoMail to Fido 124/12. I will
re-post the FidoMail msgs in the appropriate area (our BBS
Ethics discussion).
Chuck Lawson
Sysop, Fido 124/12, The Inside Track Edition
(214) 422-4772
24hrs/7days, 300/1200/2400
Accessible Via PC Pursuit / Dallas
------------------------------------------------------------
Fidonews Page 10 11 Nov 1985
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+ +
+ FIDOGRAMS & PACKET RADIO +
+ BY LUCK HURDER - 101/105 +
+ +
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Those of you who've read the articles on the Fidogram free
telegram service in Fidonews 9/09/85 and 10/28/85 and
certainly those of you who have utilized the service might
be interested in knowing more about how Fidograms are being
routed to their ultimate destination.
Regardless of where they originate or where they are going,
Fidograms are placed into a format that is familiar to the
radio operators who will be handling them. This is done
because in spite of the fact that there may be some
automatic computer relays involved, at some point the
Fidogram will eventually have to be given to a human being
for delivery.
Here's an example of the format we use:
NR 3172 R KY1T 21 DALLAS TEX VIA EASTHAM MA NOV 1
RANDALL AND SHIRLEY JOHNSTON
111 RIDGLEA DRMIDLAND TX 79701915 682 2384BT
CONGRATULATIONS ON THE ENGAGEMENT OF YOUR DAUGHTER GAIL TO
RICHARD X LET ME KNOW IF I CAN HELP IN THE WEDDING
BT
BRONSON JOHNSTON
In the event that the delivering operator had difficulty
contacting the addressee, he has the option of either
sending it via the U.S. Mule system, or sending it back to
KY1T EASTHAM, MASS (that's me), advising of non-delivery.
For those of you interested in specifics, Fidograms leave my
station on a 1200 baud radio link, utilizing what we believe
to be a neat rendition of the X.25 protocol, dubbed AX.25
(the "A" standing for Amateur). The Fidogram goes to a
packet radio BBS (PBBS) where it is picked off by another
Amateur radio operator, who sends it through our system by
voice or (egads!) Morse Code.
For you Sysops out there, I've been slowly getting around to
sending out a file called "Fidograms.ARC" to Fidos in as
many areas as possible. This is getting expensive! If you
don't yet have the file, please contact me, and I'll fire it
off to you, pronto. Otherwise it'll just take me some time
to get to your particular Fido - if I don't run out of
Fidomail credit first...
For further info on this free public service, or to send
your first 1 (or 100) Fidograms, contact me at 101/105.
------------------------------------------------------------
Fidonews Page 11 11 Nov 1985
============================================================
COLUMNS
============================================================
FidoNet Route Files Explained
Part 2 -- In the Beginning
by Ben Baker, Fido 100/76
From the time he first began "routing" messages, Fido
has used "route files" to tell him what messages to send
where when. Three basic route file commands do this;
SCHEDULE aka SEND-TO, ROUTE-TO and ACCEPT-FROM. This week,
we'll look at these commands in depth.
Before going farther, I need to define a couple of
terms. A "target" is a node to which your Fido will connect
and directly send a message. An "addressee" is the ultimate
destination node for a message. This is an important
distinction. Because of routing, the addressee and the
target for a particular message are often different nodes.
A "packet" is a collection of messages all to be sent
to a single target (though perhaps several addressees). At
the beginning of each schedule Fido builds all the packets
he will be permitted to send during that schedule.
Now, let's take a look at the three basic commands that
may appear in a route file, and see how each of them can
modify Fido's behavior.
SCHEDULE <tag> <target list> or
SEND-TO <target list>
These commands are equivalent. They tell Fido "During
this schedule, you may build packets for any target in
<target list>. Include all messages to different addressees
which may be routed to these targets. Do not consider any
outgoing messages which cannot be sent to one of these
targets." Unless there is an ACCEPT-FROM statement (see
below) only messages originating on your Fido qualify to go
into packets. If <target list> is empty (and this is NOT
schedule A), Fido will not build any packets. If he doesn't
build any packets he will not send any mail, even if he is
POLLed (see next week).
ROUTE-TO <target> <addressee list>
This command will override any node list implied
routing affecting these nodes. It tells Fido "If <target>
is in <target list> and there are outgoing messages for any
nodes in <addressee list>, put them in <target>'s packet."
If <target> is not in <target list> you blew it. It's
almost, but not quite a "no operation." No packets will be
built for nodes in <addressee list>, even if they are in
<target list>! Don't route messages to a <target> that's
not in the <target list> for this schedule.
Fidonews Page 12 11 Nov 1985
By the way, a bug in an earlier version of Fido pre-
vented messages to <target> from being sent unless he was
also in <addressee list>. I don't know if that has been
corrected, but it's still good general practice to put
<target> in <addressee list>.
ACCEPT-FROM <originating list>
Normally, Fido only sends mail originating on your
board. If you receive a message originating on A and
addressed to B, without this statement, your Fido will not
attempt to send it along to B. Instead, he will mark it
"orphan" to give you an indication that he had a problem
with it and otherwise ignore it. This statement in a route
file tells Fido "When you build packets, if you find any
messages from any nodes in <originating list>, treat them as
if they originated here. In other words FORWARD any
messages from the nodes in <originating list> that you can
get into packets FOR THIS SCHEDULE's <target list>."
I actually suggested this verb for this action and have
regretted it ever since! It's a misnomer. A better verb
might be "FORWARD-FOR" but hindsight is always 20-20. It
really means "Accept, for forwarding, only messages from
these guys." It's designed to prevent you from paying
someone else's phone costs without prior arrangement.
So where do you put this statement? Remember two
important points I've mentioned before. 1) Route files
affect how you SEND mail, not how you receive it. 2) A
particular route file affects only the schedule with the
matching <tag>. Consider Fido 202/0, a hypothetical bi-
directional host. He executes three schedules each night.
During schedule B, before the national window, he collects
outgoing mail from his locals. During schedule C he sends
mail from himself and his locals to "the network" and
receives mail for himself and his locals from it. Then in
schedule D, after the national window, he distributes the
mail he received for his locals.
ROUTE.B needs neither a <target list> nor an ACCEPT-
FROM statement. Indeed, he doesn't really need any ROUTE.B
file at all because HE ISN'T SENDING ANY MAIL DURING
SCHEDULE B.
ROUTE.C has the national net excluding 202/0's locals
in its <target list>. It also has "ACCEPT-FROM 1, 2, 3,
(all locals)." Now let's say that 202/3 received a message
from 125/1 last night, but it wasn't delivered because 202/3
was down. The message is still here. Won't it be
"orphaned" because 125/1 isn't in the ACCEPT-FROM list? NO!
Because 202/3 isn't in the <target list>, the message won't
even be considered DURING THIS SCHEDULE.
ROUTE.D has all the nodes in net 202 in the <target
list>, and an "ACCEPT-FROM ALL" statement. Now the fore-
going message will be processed correctly and forwarded to
202/3.
Fidonews Page 13 11 Nov 1985
Now let's say that 100/76 tries to forward a message to
Jakarta through 202/0. 202/0 cannot refuse delivery of the
offending message, so there it sits in his mail area.
During schedule B, he ignores all outgoing mail because he
doesn't have a <target list>. During schedule C Jakarta is
in his <target list>, but 100/76 is not in his <originating
list>, so the message is orphaned. During schedule D 100/76
IS in the <originating list>, but Jakarta is not in the
<target list> so the message is again ignored.
Make no mistake, if Jakarta had been in the <target
list> in schedule D, the message would have been sent, even
though it had been marked an orphan during schedule C
(provided, of course that a connection could be made and
Jakarta happened to be in a mail schedule at that time).
This means that if messages are orphaned because of errors
in your routing files, the routing files can be corrected
and the messages can still be sent. The orphan flag is NOT
a dead end!
A similar kind of bug existed (and may still; I don't
know) with ACCEPT-FROM as with ROUTE-TO (above). If a route
file contains an ACCEPT-FROM statement, make sure your own
node is in the <originating list>. (The first time I used
this statement, I forwarded a lot of messages, but
"orphaned" my own messages!)
Well, that's how routing is achieved. Remember, all
these statements control out-going mail. You can receive
mail even if you don't have any route files!
A final point on routing. If a message says it has a
file attached (even if the file doesn't exist) all bets are
off. Routing is suspended and the message will be sent
direct from the originator to the addressee. Fido has
several built-in safeguards to prevent you from forwarding
someone else's files, or forwarding your files through
someone else for that matter.
Next week we'll take a close look at the goodies TJ has
provided in version 11 and see how they are making automatic
node list distribution at long last a reality.
------------------------------------------------------------
Fidonews Page 14 11 Nov 1985
============================================================
WANTED
============================================================
From: Michael Keller Fido 19/329, 900/15
I need more information than is given in FIDOMAIL.DOC for
interfacing my Model I with FidoNet. If anyone is willing
to unARC the FIDO documentation and send it to me, please
respond via one of the above nodes. I have a CP/M system,
so if the doc files were compressed with SWEEP and/or
LU.EXE, that would be fine. The only problem I have now is
that there is no .ARC utility for CP/M, nor Turbo Pascal
source for such. ANY help or suggestions are welcome.
------------------------------------------------------------
Fidonews Page 15 11 Nov 1985
============================================================
NOTICES
============================================================
The Interrupt Stack
23 Nov 1985
European sysop conference -- Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Contact node 3101 for details.
27 Nov 1985
Halley's Comet passes closest to Earth before perihelion.
9 Dec 1985
DECUS Anaheim. The first session (Roadmap session) of
the PC Special Interest Group will meet at 11:30 in the
PC Campground (Bonita Tower, Santa Cruz room). See you
there...
24 Jan 1986
Voyager 2 passes Uranus.
9 Feb 1986
Halley's Comet reaches perihelion.
9 Feb 1986
Diana Overholt (109/74) has another birthday.
11 Apr 1986
Halley's Comet reaches perigee.
19 May 1986
Steve Lemke's next birthday.
24 Aug 1989
Voyager 2 passes Neptune.
If you have something which you would like to see on this
calendar, please send a message to Fido 1/1.
------------------------------------------------------------
FIDO-RACER, Net 11, Node 301, operating at Murray State
University, Murray, KY., is open from 5:00 P.M. to 7:00
A.M. central time. Our number is (502) 762-2155. We
operate at 300 and 1200 baud. We are interested in
collecting information on the use of bulletin boards in
higher education settings. Also, we would appreciate
information being shared with us concerning the use of
computers by handicapped individuals. So far, we are an
open access board. SYSOP-Bill Allbritten.
------------------------------------------------------------
Fidonews Page 16 11 Nov 1985
