FidoNews is published weekly by the International FidoNet
Association as its official newsletter. You are encouraged to
submit articles for publication in FidoNews. Article submission
standards are contained in the file ARTSPEC.DOC, available from
node 1:1/1. 1:1/1 is a Continuous Mail system, available for
network mail 24 hours a day.
Copyright 1989 by the International FidoNet Association. All
rights reserved. Duplication and/or distribution permitted for
noncommercial purposes only. For use in other circumstances,
please contact IFNA at (314) 576-4067. IFNA may also be contacted
at PO Box 41143, St. Louis, MO 63141.
Fido and FidoNet are registered trademarks of Tom Jennings of
Fido Software, 164 Shipley Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94107 and
are used with permission.
We don't necessarily agree with the contents of every article
published here. Most of these materials are unsolicited. No
article will be rejected which is properly attributed and legally
acceptable. We will publish every responsible submission
received.
Table of Contents
1. EDITORIAL ................................................ 1
2. ARTICLES ................................................. 2
FidoNews Editorial Policy ................................ 2
Palindrome Archives -- A Product review .................. 7
FidoNet and Policy4 ...................................... 14
No-Code Packet Radio? (reprint) .......................... 23
What DOES a "reasonable sysop" do? ....................... 26
Wilderness Echo .......................................... 31
3. COLUMNS .................................................. 32
The Veterinarian's Corner: Feline Skin Diseases .......... 32
And more!
FidoNews 6-20 Page 1 15 May 1989
This is turning into a narcotic. Now that I have written
something up here and people are sending me mail and responses,
I am really getting INTO it.
Last week you might have noticed that I was concerned about
whether the *C's were going to take any concrete actions to deal
with their perceived FidoNews problem. Since writing that
editorial I have received sufficient information to believe that
they ARE going to take action: they are going to help me
increase the "signal" content of FidoNews. In fact, Steve
Bonine was kind enough to compose and submit a response to my
editorial, which I am printing this week (along with one other).
Since much of the controversy seems to have centered on a
particular column, it probably would be worthwhile at this point
for me to state my intentions towards this column. I intend to
run the remaining submissions. Unless I then receive some very
strong indication that this column has enjoyed wide readership
and interest, I will print no further submissions for this
column. So it's up to YOU to determine if you want to read
ANIMED excerpts in FidoNews, or if you'd rather just subscribe
to the Echomail conference from which all this data was
extracted.
In future weeks I expect to have assembled a series on FidoNet
history, using materials I've solicited from Ken Kaplan and a
few others. In many cases, some of you "old-timers" might have
seen the material I'll be printing, but you're vastly
outnumbered by those members of FidoNet who have not had this
opportunity.
As always, this is YOUR newsletter. It's only as good as YOU
make it. Let's make it GREAT.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 6-20 Page 2 15 May 1989
I feel compelled to respond to Vince's recent editorial on
FidoNews editorial policy, since I was (and still am) one of the
RC's who raised questions concerning the content of FidoNews.
Why do I care? There are two reasons. First, I spend my own
money to distribute FidoNews to NC's in region 11. Second, I
feel that FidoNet needs a means of distributing information to
the sysops throughout the network, and that FidoNews has pretty
much lost its effectiveness as that vehicle because of a lack of
a reasonable editorial policy. (I'm not criticizing Vince; his
hands are tied.)
Vince left the impression in his editorial that the RC's are
trying to restrict free speech. I'm a firm believer in free
speech, but I'm not particularly eager to spend my own money
shipping data around that no one is going to read. What is Fido-
News, anyway? Is it an important forum -- the last bastion of
available distribution mechanisms for opinion? No. FidoNews is
the newsletter of the FidoNet BBS network. It's actually the
newsletter of an organization called the IFNA, but that
organization seldom graces its pages with any IFNA-related
information, and rumor has it that IFNA is trying its best to
divorce itself from FidoNet.
The print-anything policy is an idea whose time is past. There
are probably a hundred echomail conferences which have higher
readership than FidoNews. If I want to find out about fleas, I
am perfectly capable of getting the ANIMED conference myself.
Why should the RC's and NC's have to spend their money
distributing articles on fleas to an audience which contains only
a miniscule number of people who want to read that information?
If I want to exercise my freedom of speech, I'll do it where
someone might read what I write -- in a forum of people with
similar interests. It's not like we are short of echomail
conferences!
The fact that there are probably a hundred echomail conferences
with higher readership than FidoNews is an indication of how bad
the problem is. Before echomail, most sysops read FidoNews
because that's all there was. Now it has competition, and it's
not doing well against that competition.
All of which brings us to the question of what to do now.
Actually, I agree with much of what Vince says in his editorial.
He points out that there is a low signal-to-noise ratio, and that
we need more good articles. That's true. But there are two ways
FidoNews 6-20 Page 3 15 May 1989
to improve the signal-to-noise ratio: increase the signal, or
reduce the noise. I feel that FidoNews needs both. Not only do
we need more good articles, but we need a responsible editorial
policy to reduce the extraneous junk. I would rather have a
FidoNews with one good article, and that's all, than have the
same article plus five fillers. It's less for me to distribute,
and it's more likely that the sysops of FidoNet will read it. If
FidoNews were judged on bulk, then we would have no problem.
I think that FidoNews could be improved by the simple application
of a common-sense editorial policy to restrict the content to
FidoNet-related material. No one is going to have their freedom
of speech abridged -- I bet the ANIMED conference will survive
just fine without a weekly column in FidoNews. Readership would
improve, and subsequently more articles would be submitted. But
I recognize that I'm in the minority, so I will content myself
with living with the situation, and hoping that eventually the
problem improves. In the meantime, I've done my part. Where's
YOUR FidoNews article?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 6-20 Page 4 15 May 1989
Freedom of the Press: An opposing viewpoint
Jack Decker
1:154/8
Freedom of the Press: An opposing viewpoint
In FidoNews Volume 6, Number 19, our esteemed Editor in Chief
(Vince Perriello) editoralized on Freedom of the Press. I am
not being sarcastic when I use the word "esteemed" in reference
to Vince, since he has probably done more to help Fidonet than
at least 95% of the people in the net. Vince has made some
major contributions to our hobby, and I value his opinions
highly, even if I don't always agree.
Vince basically espoused the viewpoint that FidoNews should
remain "a free and open public forum in which any of us can
share anything we consider important with anyone else." As
Vince points out, the present content of FidoNews "often has
little or nothing to do with the day-in, day-out nonsense
involved in being a member of Fidonet."
Let's take a moment to consider what "Freedom of the Press"
really means. If we can, let's take a look at the real world,
outside of Fidonet. If I submit an article on raising African
Violets to the editor of Radio-Electronics magazine, is he
under any obligation to print it? Of course not! All right,
let's suppose I send the editor of that publication an article
that IS somehow related to Radio or Electronics? Is he then
under any obligation to print it? The answer is still NO! As
a matter of fact, "Freedom of the Press" does not require ANY
publication to print ANY article they receive (even if they
print a correction or retraction to a previous story, it's not
because of "Freedom of the Press", it's because they don't want
to be sued for things like libel or slander!).
Similarly, FidoNews is under no legal obligation to print
everything received. That's an editorial decision. What
"freedom of the Press" really means is that if you don't like
the way a particular publication is doing things, you have the
freedom to start your own, competing publication. In theory,
the government is not allowed to shut you down because they
don't happen to agree with the contents of your publication.
In fact, the scope of "Freedom of the Press" is pretty much
limited to government interference with private publications
(some of you may recall when the old Bell System was able to
legally suppress nearly the entire distribution of one issue of
"Ramparts" magazine back in the 60's, because Bell objected to
an article in that issue detailing how to build a "black box."
The comment was made that had Ramparts similarly figured out
through their own efforts how a top secret Navy submarine
works, the government would have been quite powerless to stop
them from publishing those details, unless they could somehow
prove that the information had been stolen from government
files).
FidoNews 6-20 Page 5 15 May 1989
The problem with a "print everything received" policy is that
it leaves the door wide open for any particular group to usurp
FidoNews as their soapbox. Now, I happen to feel that such a
policy is very valuable when the article has something to do
with Fidonet, computers, or communications. But there are lots
of other subjects that folks might write on, and that sysops
(even at the *C level) might object to. A few examples, just
to get you thinking:
* An article extolling the benefits of being a member of the Ku
Klux Klan (if you were a black sysop, would you really want to
carry that?)
* An article soliciting members for a worldwide neo-Nazi party,
and promoting a private echo called "NAZI" for the
dissemination of information on that movement (if you were
Jewish, would you feel comfortable with this?)
* An article describing the joys of sex with animals in the
most graphic terms possible (with extremely foul language), and
inviting everyone to try it (If you have kids and/or pets,
would you be comfortable with such an article? Would you want
your children to read it on your BBS?).
* Articles promoting various religions (not yours) promising
anything from bad luck to eternal damnation to those who do not
follow the tenets of that religion (an interesting side note to
this: After the Tom Jennings article that started much of the
present controversy, I suggested to previous FidoNews editor
Dale Lovell that now someone might write a "hell fire and
brimstone" article giving the Biblical injunctions against
homosexuality (yes, there are some verses that condemn the
practice). Dale replied that an article like that would
probably NOT be published in FidoNews. This makes me wonder if
the "print everything" policy really translates to "print
everything that the FidoNews editor doesn't find repugnant."
The problem there is that if the FidoNews editor can censor
articles that he personally finds objectionable, why can't the
*C's that are forced to distribute FidoNews do the same?
Either we have a true "print everything received" policy or we
don't... and if we don't, we should stop pretending we do, and
get on with defining just where the limits are!).
The major problem I see with a "print everything" policy is
that *C's are forced by Policy to distribute FidoNews to the
nodes underneath them. This would make sense IF FidoNews was
primarily a technical journal dealing with things relating to
Fidonet. The problem occurs when we force sysops to distribute
material that is objectionable to their standard of ethics or
sense of decency. Even newstand owners have the right to not
carry magazines that they personally find objectionable (how
many religious magazines do you find in adult bookstores, or
vise versa?). But, in effect, Policy states that "we don't
care if there's an article in FidoNews from a group advocating
the death of you and your family... if the article gets into
FidoNews, you HAVE to carry it, or step down as *C. Meanwhile,
FidoNews 6-20 Page 6 15 May 1989
as I pointed out earlier, the FidoNews editor apparently has
the discretion to omit articles that he personally finds
objectionable (I do not know whether Vince uses this
prerogative or not). If the editor's world view lines up with
yours, you may not be uncomfortable with letting him have all
the discretion over what YOU must pass out (if you're a *C),
but otherwise, you may find that you're forced to pass along
articles that are personally repugnant to you (or perhaps even
dangerous to the health and well being of you and/or your
family).
Now, if the editor replies to this by saying he wouldn't print
these types of truly objectionable articles, we still have a
few problems. One is, what if he passes on an article that a
*C finds truly awful? Is the editor's judgement better than
that of the *C? Second, doesn't this give the editor the power
to discriminate against certain articles and/or people that he
doesn't happen to approve of (I'm just throwing that out for
discussion, the truth is that EVERY "editor" has that power.
The "print everything" policy really makes the FidoNews
"editor's" job more that of a "compiler" of articles than a
true "editor"). Third, if the editor really does delete
objectionable articles, then we DON'T really have a "print
everything" policy, in which case I would like to see some
published guidelines, rather than just leaving everything to
the personal preferences of the editor (if for no other reason
than the fact that I don't want to waste the time and effort to
write an article that will be rejected out of hand).
I would suggest that at the very least, we modify the "print
everything received" policy to say that we will "print
everything received" AS LONG AS it has at least something to do
with Fidonet, computers, or communications. Perhaps all the
other types of articles should go into a separate, Fidonet
"literary" publication that would be offered to the *C's
(through the same distribution channels as FidoNews), but that
the *C's would not be REQUIRED to carry (I suppose that idea is
much too democratic for this net!).
In any case, if the "print everything received" policy is NOT
modified, then I feel that those *C's who object should not be
forced to carry it. I would invite anyone who disagrees to
show how "Freedom of the Press" REQUIRES someone to distribute
literature that they are morally opposed to. Why should we
require this of VOLUNTEER sysops in Fidonet? Here again, it
seems that a few people are under the impression that Fidonet
sysops are somehow their "employees" (that's being charitable,
some might say "slaves") that can be dictated to by the
higher-ups. The sooner we realize that Fidonet is a volunteer
organization, and that you don't make unreasonable demands of
volunteers, the better off we're all going to be.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 6-20 Page 7 15 May 1989
Palindrome Archives -- A Product review
by Ben Baker -- 7:44/76
We have all heard the litany many times, "Back up your hard
disk, or you'll regret it!" One of our favorite New Year's reso-
lutions is "Do more back-ups!"
The trouble is that backing up is such a painful exercise,
we would much prefer to do something else! I know owners of tape
systems (I was one of them) who do not perform back-ups as fre-
quently as they should. True, you don't have to shuffle a stack
of diskettes, and then keep track of them, but even backing up to
tape is still largely a manual process, right? Wrong!
Palindrome Corporation, a new company based in a Chicago
suburb, saw a need and filled it. They market a line of "Tape
Archiving Systems," as opposed to a tape back-up system. If you
have experience in the main-frame world, you have probably heard
the expression "tape archiving" before, but it's a new concept to
PCs. Tape archiving is a strategy for backing up disk files in
such a way as to provide maximum protection with minimum re-
sources. It is a strategy you could employ with any back-up sys-
tem -- disk or tape -- but it requires careful record keeping,
and 'till now, you were the bookkeeper!
Palindrome OEM's the tape drives. The key is their soft-
ware, collectively called "The PERSONAL ARCHIVIST" or TPA, which
fully understands tape archiving strategy. Believe me, it is so-
phisticated stuff. Before I can explain how it works, I need to
define some terms.
A "tape set" is a coordinated set of tapes, treated as a
unit by TPA. A "tape volume" is a single tape. For a system
with one 20-meg disk, tape sets will all be single volume sets
for some time, but for larger systems, a tape set might be two or
more volumes.
A "file set" is a collection of files written from a disk
drive to tape in a single archiving operation. There are two
kinds of file sets. A "save set" is a permanent file set, and a
"checkpoint set" is a temporary file set. As you might guess,
"saving a file" means including that file in a save set, and
"checkpointing a file" means including it in a checkpoint set. A
file is "fully protected" if the current version appears in save
sets in three different tape sets. (This number is configurable,
but three is recommended, and certainly adequate for most circum-
stances.)
A "tape rotation" is the changing from one tape set to an-
other. This is usually done once a week. With the usual number
of five tape sets, call them A, B, C, D and E, the tape rotation
schedule for a 16-week period would look like this:
E D E C E D E B E D E C E D E A
FidoNews 6-20 Page 8 15 May 1989
The schedule then repeats indefinitely. Remember I said it
requires careful record keeping? The beauty is that TPA keeps
track of it all -- painlessly. Notice from the schedule:
Tape Set Frequency of use
A once in 16 weeks
B once in 16 weeks
C once in 8 weeks
D once in 4 weeks
E every other week
This means that if you muff things horribly, you have not
only current checkpoints, and week-old checkpoints, but others
dating back at least eight weeks and up to 16 weeks! And, using
TPA's menu system, recovering an older version of a particular
file is merely a matter of "point and shoot!" Now that's not
merely back-up -- that's true archiving! What's more, save sets
are never forgotten. Eventually you would have the capability of
going back years into your save sets. Have you ever installed a
new version of a program over the old, only to find out that the
new version is very buggy? Or how about this. You wrote a C
program a long time ago and someone has asked you to recompile it
to use the math coprocessor. It should only take a couple of
minutes. The trouble is that it was written for Lattice C, 2.47.
Since then you converted to Lattice 3.0, then 3.1, then to
Microsoft C 4.0 to 5.0 to 5.1. If you can find the old source,
it won't be a trivial task just getting it to compile under your
present compiler!
Had you been using TPA, the old version of the program you
lost might be on the tape in the tape drive. If not, it's surely
right in front in your desk drawer. In two or three minutes,
you've got it back. The old source file as well as version 2.47
of the Lattice compiler, with all its libraries and include
files, are is save sets on older tapes -- you haven't the fogiest
which ones. Run the TPA menu. They all show up as migrated
files in the database. Select the ones you need -- oops, not
enough space. Delete some files you don't need right this minute
to make space, then have TPA restore the old files and their old
directories. It will tell you what tape or tapes it needs. Then
compile and test the program with the right compiler switch to
generate coprocessor code. Finally delete the Lattice stuff, re-
store your disk the way it was 45 minutes ago and press on!
So what's all this about "saving" and "checkpointing?"
Here's the philosophy. Stable files should be saved perma-
nently. Volatile files should be written to temporary tape sets,
or "checkpointed," but permanent saving might well consume enor-
mous amounts of tape. How does TPA tell the difference? It uses
file date and time stamps and the "archive bit" as any sane back-
up system would. And it uses rules. Enter configuration.
When you install TPA, it is pre-configured for one hard
disk, your boot disk, three saves to fully protect a file, weekly
FidoNews 6-20 Page 9 15 May 1989
rotations each Monday, and a default set of archiving rules. All
of this may be changed through TPA's menu system. The following
is a facsimile of TPA's configuration screen, published courtesy
of Palindrome:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THE PERSONAL ARCHIVIST (c) Palindrome Corporation 1989
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Archive Configuration
Schedule Archive Storage
--------------------- ---------------------
Archive ID: BAKER Save Copies: 3
Archive Rotation: SATURDAY Verify ECC: NO
Automatic Start: 6:30a Auto Format: NO
Automatic End: 7:00a Auto Migrate: NO
Auto Intervals: 0 Leave Phantom: NO
Auto Command: tpa2tape /a /q Media Type: QIC 40
Error Log: C:\tpa_log Concurrent DMA: NO
Split Saves: NO
Protected Drives Archive Retrieval
--------------------- ---------------------
Disk 1: C: (no label) Overwrite File: PROMPT
Disk 2: D: (no label) Allow Redirect: YES
Disk 3: E: (no label) ChkPt Password: NO
Disk 4: F: (no label) Save Password: NO
Tab to select. Enter to edit. F1 for help. Esc to return.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
(Note that a fair amount of editing has been done to these
screens to eliminate line-drawing characters, and to fit the 65-
column format. Nevertheless, they are reasonably faithful.)
All of the parameters in the above screen, except Media
Type, are user configurable.
TPA associates a "rule" with each and every file on your
hard disk. The rules answer the questions "When should I check-
point this file, when should I save it, and when is it eligible
for migration?" (More on this in a bit.) There are two kinds of
rules -- specific and generic. A specific rule applies to a par-
ticular file. A generic rule applies to a class of files in the
directory in which the rule is defined, and all its sub-directo-
ries.
Initially there is a rule for "*.*" in the root directory
which says "checkpoint a file when it changes, save it if it has
not changed in six weeks, and make it eligible for migration if
it has not been used in 12 weeks. When more than one rule ap-
plies to a file, the most specific rule is used. Any rule may be
edited and new rules may be defined. For example, I use the edi-
tor Brief, which places back-up copies of edited files in a spe-
cial sub-directory. I have a rule for that subdirectory for
FidoNews 6-20 Page 10 15 May 1989
"*.*" which says "Never checkpoint, never save and never mi-
grate." TPA dutifully ignores any files in that subdirectory. I
have a similar rule for "*.MSG" in the root of the drive which
contains my BBS message base (these files are not only volatile,
they change names frequently, and I have no desire to preserve
them for posterity).
The following screen facsimile shows a few of my rules and a
few files with rules applied to them:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THE PERSONAL ARCHIVIST (c) Palindrome Corporation 1989
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Directory Tree Files in: \
for Drive C:
Check Pt Save Migrate
>\ LIST1 On Change After 6w After12w
|-123 LIST2 On Change After 6w After12w
|-BACKUP TPA_LOG Never Never Never
|-BRIEF * .* On Change After 6w After12w
| |-BACKUP JUNK* .* Never Never Never
| |-HELP RUN .ARC On Change After 6w After12w
| |-MACROS SYSTEMS .ARC On Change After 6w After12w
| WIN2 .ARC On Change After 6w After12w
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The left side of the display shows the directory tree with
the root currently selected. Files and rules in the root direc-
tory are listed on the right.
What's all this about "migrating?"
An optional, but very powerful feature of TPA, allows you to
identify the files you don't use, and get them off your disk once
they are fully protected! How? TPAWATCH, a TSR furnished with
the TPA software watches file opens. It uses about 24K of memory
and imposes very little overhead on normal operations. If a file
hasn't been opened for the prescribed amount of time, it is
deemed eligible for migration. Migration may be done at your di-
rection, or TPA may be configured to do it automatically.
TPAWATCH has a second optional function useful in many sys-
tems (but not mine). It can schedule automatic archiving opera-
tions at a pre-determined time of day. This is not terribly use-
ful in a BBS environment, so I use SEAdog's event scheduler for
this purpose.
The following screen shows the current status of the
archives as TPA sees it:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
THE PERSONAL ARCHIVIST (c) Palindrome Corporation 1989
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Last Archive update: Checkpoint modified files.
Using tape: BAKER_E1.
Updated on: Mon Apr 10 05:34:41 1989
FidoNews 6-20 Page 11 15 May 1989
Next scheduled update: Modified checkpoint.
Continue with tape: BAKER_E1.
For next scheduled rotation: Sat Apr 15.
You will need tape: BAKER_D1.
Tapes on hand: BAKER_D1 BAKER_E1
You should have in vault: BAKER_A1 BAKER_A2
: BAKER_B1 BAKER_B2
: BAKER_C1 BAKER_C2
-----------------------------------------------------------------
You can tell from the information reported, that TPA is well
aware of the situation. It tells me that I am doing modified
checkpoints to the "E" tape set, and that I will rotate to the
"D" set on Saturday. It even suggests which tape sets should be
stored in a vault or at some off-site location. (I use off-site
storage, and I don't agree with TPA's suggestion, since it would
put all my save sets off-site, making a full restore impossible
until I retrieve some tapes. But its heart is in the right
place.)
"So, how well does it work?"
Installing the tape drive isn't difficult at all. There are
two versions in the 40- and 80-meg capacities -- internal and ex-
ternal -- and both go in according to the documentation without
surprises.
The software installation procedure is simple enough. You
just insert the diskette and type "INSTALL." It asks which is
your boot HD (you need a meg of space there), then it creates a
TPA subdirectory, copies the files and initializes its database.
It even offers to create a bootable recovery diskette for you.
This is a good idea, since it isn't at all obvious how to do this
later, but you need a pre-formatted, bootable diskette or a blank
diskette ahead of time. The install program offers to format a
bootable diskette for you, but if you decline, it won't copy the
system files for you, and after it has copied its own files to
the diskette, it's too late!
The archiving rules can only be configured through TPA's
menu system. For a four-partition disk system it's repetitive,
time-consuming, and boring. They really need a method of editing
the rules off-line with your favorite text editor. But you nor-
mally only need to do it once. The menu approach is fine for
later tweaking the rules as conditions change.
Finally you're ready to start actually using the system.
That's when I ran into serious problems. TPA had no end of trou-
ble reading and writing my tapes. I spent several hours on the
phone with Jim Gast of Palindrome (they are not shy about provid-
FidoNews 6-20 Page 12 15 May 1989
ing customer support -- they're young and want satisfied cus-
tomers), and more hours than I care to think about exercising the
system. Once I had accumulated sufficient evidence, Palindrome,s
engineers decided I must have received a "marginal" tape drive,
and sent me a replacement. It appears they were right because I
have had no problems with the new drive.
The menu system is designed for easy use. For the most part
it is, and should present no problem for the casual user. At the
same time, it permits the more experienced user to get well down
into the details. It is a little clunky in spots (like super-
fluous "Strike any key to continue" messages in a few places),
but I have no serious complaints with it.
Most (but not all) functions may also be operated in batch
mode without operator intervention. Day-to-day operations can be
scheduled either by TPAWATCH, or in my case, by a SEAdog external
event. I run checkpoints three times a week on Monday, Wednesday
and Friday, and it seems to take five to ten minutes. Creating
the A, B and C sets took about 80 minutes each because it had to
create my initial save sets, and copied every file I had to tape
each time. After that, files more that six weeks old are "fully
protected" and won't be written any more unless they change, so
my Saturday rotation takes 20 to 30 minutes. I schedule archiv-
ing operations right after net mail, and they happen while I'm
sleeping. All I have to do is check the status and make sure TPA
has the tape it needs for the next run. It's an idea whose time
is long over due.
If the hardware and software are quality stuff, the documen-
tation is an afterthought! The information contained in the
software manual is well written and reasonably clear. The cover-
age of the archiving strategy and of day-to-day operations are
adequate, but there are whole sections missing. TPA appears to
have a large repertoire of error messages. Each message is num-
bered for easy look-up. Trouble is, there's no place to look
them up, and it's not always clear what induced an error message
in the first place! Two weeks ago TPA stopped backing up my D:
drive and began complaining about the "undefined drive D." The
manual should have told me how to resolve this problem, but it
has no sections on error messages or error recovery. I had to
call Palindrome to find out that TPA supports drives with remov-
able media, and the volume label is a key part of a "drive defi-
nition." Sure enough, I had apparently run a (still unidenti-
fied) program which changed the volume label on the D drive. I
corrected the label and TPA was happy again. The phone call
should not have been necessary.
Palindrome acknowledges the shortcomings of the documenta-
tion, and I would expect future releases to improve. When I
voiced this thought to a Company spokesman, his response was "You
can bet on it! The company is growing fast, and a new manual is
one of our highest priorities. New sections will include 'How to
recover (single files to whole disks).' 'Troubleshooting,' and
'Error Messages (and their likely causes).'"
FidoNews 6-20 Page 13 15 May 1989
Now that I have good hardware, I am beginning to trust the
system, and have joined the ranks of "satisfied customers." If
you are in the market for tape backup capability, you really
should take a look at this one. If you already have a QIC-40 or
QIC-80 tape system, you might check with Palindrome for compati-
bility. They market the software separately at $195.
System prices vary from $695 for the 40 Mb internal Personal
Archivist for XT or AT (and near clones), to $6,995 for the 2 Gi-
gabyte Network Archivist system.
For more information, contact:
Palindrome Corporation
710 E. Ogden, Suite 208
Naperville, IL 60540
(312) 357-4600
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 6-20 Page 14 15 May 1989
Randall Greylock, 1:321/202
A Relatively Classless Organization
FidoNet started as a relatively egalitarian place. I think it
was Harv Neghila who described it as equals participating
equally.
Unfortunately, FidoNet seems to be changing from a classless
organization to an organization that has no class.
The Original Deal
Send A Message To Your NC
All the information originally required by Policy was needed for
equals to participate equally. It was stored in a public place
(the nodelist) and was equally accessable to all. It was
equally verifiable by all.
Operate In Accordance To Policy
From there, all you had to do was what it said in this one
document you could pick up anywhere: Policy. Basically, you
had to run ZMH, and try to be a reasonable human being. It
didn't matter if you had stumbled into FidoNet on some board in
CA, even if you were in MA. All the information you needed was
there: the rules and the phone numbers.
You Are Now In Fidonet - No Further Costs Need Be Incurred
Policy4: Changing The Ante: Haves Vs Have Nots
Information Haves And Have Nots (And How To's)
Voice Phones Are Valuable Information
Like everyone else in FidoNet, there are one or two points about
Policy4 I don't like. The big one to me is this Voice Phone
number crap.
I've heard all the arguments - I still don't buy them. We have
crossed a significant line - now we need to provide not only the
information required for the technical maintenance of the
network, but more.
I'm not against the use of telephones. All levels of the
coordinator chain above me have a number for me, and vice versa.
What I object to is REQUIRING this. Also, I am ONLY talking
about the simple case of network membership. I can see merit in
requiring them between NEC's and nodes.
FidoNews 6-20 Page 15 15 May 1989
Who Has Access To Them
I have many questions about this. Who has access to those
numbers? It's not spelled out by Policy.
If I am involved in a Policy dispute, will the other party be
given my number and told to talk it out? (Note there is a
section in Policy that mentions voice as a step in the dispute
resolution process.)
What Responsibility Exists To Use Them
If you have these numbers, doesn't it imply some responsibility
to use them? This is a many bladed juggernaut of a question.
Does an NC or RC or ZC or IC have a responsibility to talk to
nodes involved in a Policy dispute? Do they have a
responsibility to call first if they cannot get in touch with a
system and are about to mark it down? If these things are
implied (and I believe they will be - lame logic tends to
reinforce itself), the cost of being a *C goes up dramatically.
What if I don't WANT to talk to a boneheaded RC? If I refuse to
do so, is that grounds for excommunication? What if I refuse to
talk to the dolt I'm in a dispute with? Does that mean I
automatically lose my complaint? (There is at least one RC who
is more or less doing this now; he's affectionately referred to
as Adolf by those in his region.)
And isn't it only fair if they have our numbers we should have
the *C's? And if they won't talk to us, should that be grounds
for excommunication or at least removal from position?
Not Verifiable Information
The information is not technically verifiable, and is
discriminatory against those with hearing or speech impediments.
I don't HAVE a voice phone number, and when officially asked,
that will be my response.
I really don't! My business does, I can be reached there. But
it's not fair to impose FidoNet calls on my business. More to
the point, if I had an unlisted phone number, I could simply
tell my NC I had no number. He might suspect I was lying, but
he would have no way to verify it. Should I be denied a node
number?
Discriminatory
And what about those with physical difficulties with voice
communications? There was a very active person in the network
who is deaf. He did not want that known, and did a good job of
keeping it that way. I don't know his reasons - I suspect
because he had found an environment where he was treated as an
FidoNews 6-20 Page 16 15 May 1989
equal. This requirement would destroy all hope of such
equality. When I found out about this person's condition, it
colored my opinion of him - originally, I thought he was a
scumsucker; after I found out he was a more sympathetic figure
due to his handicap.
Local Policy - Fiefdoms And Other Problems
Added Burden To The Coordinator Structure
Local Policy is a paradox. It is an attempt to solve problems
by adding to them. The real problem is simple: the coordinator
structure has not done a very good job of identifying problems,
communicating with the body sysop, and attempting solutions. In
other words, the coordinator structure has not discharged well
its responsibilities. Local Policy will simply add
responsibility to be ill-discharged.
Local Policy must be written by someone. That's work. And one
way or the other, Local Policy will be challenged up the chain -
even if you don't explicitly provide for review, somewhere along
the line just the creation of bad Policy will be challenged as
annoying.
We already have people playing Policy Games. "Policy doesn't
SAY you have to run mail only during ZMH" is one of my
favorites. What do you think will happen when we have hundreds
of Policies, all with their potential games?
Examples
I'm about to list a series of examples of local policy
fragments, each stated in the vernacular with the reasoning
behind them. In some cases, I'll explain exactly what I think
is wrong with each.
The important test is this: get a number of sysop friends to
read this article, and have them mark Valid or Invalid each
example. I'd be willing to bet that nearly all items will have
both a valid and an invalid, and, unless you marked all items
one way or the other, no one else will agree with you on all
cases.
Under A Local Policy, Could A Node Be Required To:
Attend Network Meetings
It is much simpler to resolve many problems - technical and
social - via more direct communication than FidoNet provides.
Therefore, doesn't it make sense to have a local policy which
FORCES the members to attend local network meetings?
(BTW - the first person who ever presented this argument to me
FidoNews 6-20 Page 17 15 May 1989
was Mikey.)
Obey Local User And Point Policies
We are having problems with some users and some points that are
causing great havoc throughout our network. For instance, we
have one malicious user who logs onto Sysop B's board using the
name of Sysop A (or a close derivative) and leaves annoying
messages. By the time Sysop B gets wise and tightens up his
access rules, new Sysop C gets the same treatment. Therefore,
doesn't it make sense to require all sysops to abide by a
standard set of rules for granting user access? No handles,
voice numbers and addresses must be obtained and verified, and
God help you if you don't.
I mean, who cares about that "A sysop may run his board as he
pleases" crap.
Participate
One of the biggest problems in FidoNet is one of Apathy. We are
continually arguing over which side the silent majority is on.
If one cares enough to join, one should care enough to
participate in the decision making process - if one does not
participate, one relinquishes his access.
In our net, we have a node that is VERY active in the Veteran's
Affairs. The sysop is not very active in either our net or
regional conferences, although he does attend the face to face
meetings we occaisionally have. Should he HAVE to invest time
at the local level when he makes a great contribution at the
national level?
In many ways, his situation exemplifies the worst of the flaws
in a local policy. He was working at putting together a
standard kit for other Veteran's groups to get online quickly.
It's tough enough to do the technical work of bringing up a new
node; local policy could increase that exponentially. For
instance, suppose the local policy mandated CM operation - that
would exclude any Vet Center wanting to do "split use" on their
phone lines. Strict network rules regarding user identification
and registration contradict the need for confidentiality in many
"social service" forums.
Pick Up Echoconferences (At Your Expense?)
Echomail is the main mechanism for communication in FidoNet. In
order to ensure that everyone gets the information, doesn't it
make sense that everyone should be required to get some base set
of echo conferences?
Not to me, it doesn't. Let me count the ways.
FidoNews 6-20 Page 18 15 May 1989
In the old days, there was one, and only one thing one had to do
to join FidoNet that overtly cost money: send a message to an
NC requesting a node number. Once you had your node number, you
could easily exist with nearly no contact with the coordinator
structure.
The logic presented for mandated echomail sounds like requiring
that I buy a TV and leave it on CNN all the time, even if I
could care less.
Further, the question is where does it stop? Can we mandate
regional, zonal, and FidoNet wide conferences as well as our
little local one? (What, this is unreasonable? Hmmmm - that
doesn't sound consistent to me ...) And while we are at it, can
we mandate more than one per level - say one for sysops, and one
for general chatter? (Oh, you say this is unreasonable? Hmmmm
... but what you suggest sounds unreasonable to me!)
Pick Up Groupmail
If we assume it's ok to mandate echomail, why not groupmail? In
fact, in this net, we are right thinking sorts of people - you
not only have to get our net conferences grouped, but
EVERYTHING.
Provide Credit References
Before you get into this net, we are going to make sure you are
a right thinking upstanding individual. Our NC, S. Daddy, has
access to TRW, and checks your credit with them before granting
a node number. If you are unwilling to provide enough
information for same, no node number.
Mandated Routing
Since we have mandated conferences here, we don't really want to
impose too much long distance. Therefore, you MUST make any
conferences you have available to other net members.
Minimum Baud Rate
Since we require you to pick up all this crud, and since I don't
want my Glorious NC System tied up for excessive periods of
time, all nodes in My Most Perfect Network must run 2400 baud or
better. If you run less than that, you should be a point, as
you are not real serious.
Run A BBS
This network exists to serve users. Therefore, to be a member
of this network, you must provide direct services to users by
FidoNews 6-20 Page 19 15 May 1989
operating a BBS. Mail Only and Private systems are simply not
allowed.
Run CM
In this day and age, there is just no reason not to run CM.
And who cares about Fido11w anyway?
Run Session Protected
We have a lot of problems with nodes imitating nodes. In order
to eliminate this problem locally, all nodes must operate
session protected.
We don't care about Fido11w either.
Run Wazoo
In this day and age, it's damned annoying to have to restart an
echomail or other file transfer. Since WaZoo was the first
restartable session technology, we require all nodes in this net
to operate WaZoo capable.
Impact of Stupidity
Let's consider the impact of this stupidity. First off, we'll
probably have to establish that local Policy itself is subject
to challenge up the chain. This will probably take a few of
months of arguing. Let's assume it takes the nets a couple of
months of squabbling to arrive at a local policy. Then there
will be a month or so of intense local argument before things
get into complaints or challenges. From there, we have a couple
of weeks of per level of fact gathering and decision making.
And if the policy is overturned, we are faced with other ugly
questions: is the whole local policy invalid? Will the
creators follow the dim logic of "There's more than one way to
skin a cat" and come up with some new policy that does about the
same thing but avoids the points of the decision.
It's Sysiphian.
Stupidity Is Uniformly Distributed
When I was younger, I spent long hours trying to convince
Chairman Len that my generation had a unique perspective on
reality, and was therefore smarter. Len would argue that
stupidity is evenly distributed. I still believe my
generation's perspective is quite different from his, but long
ago, I conceded his point on stupidity.
FidoNews 6-20 Page 20 15 May 1989
Many people, myself included, have been critical of the upper
level coordinator structure. In my opinion, a significant
percentage of the RC structure could be used as lab animals in a
brain death demonstration. However, this is not to say the NC's
and NEC's are perfect. Far from it - I have seen MANY more
misstatements of Policy from the NC level than from the RC
level. This is to be expected: if stupidity is equally
distributed on a percentage basis, there are bound to be more
stupid NC's than RC's.
Also, in very few cases do I believe Malice is the operating
emotion. To quote Chairman Len: "When presented with stupidity
or malice as explanations for incomprehensible behaviour, the
smart money is always on stupid."
A Policy is only as good as the people that bring it to life.
At this point, we have one single Policy which is unevenly
interpreted and implemented - a direct comment on the quality of
the people doing the implementation. Policy3 (or 4) may or may
not be badly written, but if you allow full local policies, you
will SURELY end up with a zillion Policies, some of which are
badly written, most being unevenly interpreted and implemented.
You considerably increase the amount of stupid arguing that goes
on about Policy - instead of pointless bickering (and little
action) on one Policy, you'll have three or four times the
pointless bickering, as you add Zonal, Regional, and Net Level
hassles.
I recently saw a message characterizing the various operational
entities in FidoNet as gangs. What leads anyone to believe that
local Policy would not lead to local gangs?
Policy Process
Comparisons To US Governmental Organization
Paradox: A Node Number Is Not A Right
One of the biggest pieces of garbage I've heard lately is that
FidoNet is a right. Freedom of speech in FidoNet is a right,
not a privilege.
Membership in FidoNet is not a right. It is a privilege. It is
earned. Unfortunately, many in FidoNet (particularly in the
SouthEast) seem to have lost sight of this. We do not have the
right to defame, to make racist remarks, to shout Theatre in a
crowded Fire.
What I find most amusing about all this is it comes from the
hotbed of EggNet - a network based on all these fine principles
which does not work. Since it's screwed up on its own, it seems
now to want to try the same experiments in FidoNet, which
largely DOES work.
FidoNews 6-20 Page 21 15 May 1989
Policy Is More A Bill of Rights Than A Set Of Laws
A fundamental problem is that people look on Policy as the rules
of FidoNet. This is only partially correct. If you come back
to the analogy of US Government, Policy is both the "US Code"
AND The Bill of Rights.
Those basic rights are as follows:
A Sysop May Run His Board Pretty Much As He Pleases
So long as he meets the basic technical and social norms, he may
participate in the network
Along with these rights are responsibilities:
Thou shalt not excessively annoy
Thou shalt not be excessively annoyed
Voting Against As Opposed To Voting For
Perhaps the biggest problem with something like Policy is that
too many are willing to be one-issue people. All their
decisions are based on that one issue. For some, it is
democracy. For others, it is local Policy. For still others,
it's commercialization.
It's simply not possible to write a policy document that doesn't
offend someone. But in our "I"-centered network, the things I
object to are far more important than the good of the whole.
More than anything, this typifies what is wrong with the
network.
How Do You Expect A New Policy To Be Put In Place?
Personally, I think a big mistake was made in using Policy4's
own processes to bootstrap it. I am at least partially to blame
for this. It should simply have been put in place by the
IC/RC's, and subsequent changes made by the mechanisms therein.
Let's assume P4 is voted down. What next? Do you think the
RC's will want to go through this again? For that matter, if
David were as power hungry as he is depicted, what reason is
there for him to ALLOW a policy that erodes that (as P4 does.)
One way or the other, a Policy change must be acceptable to the
*C structure at all levels. It cannot be imposed on that
structure, at least not given Policy3.
How Do You Expect To Get A New IC?
If you vote down Policy 4, how do you expect to get a new IC?
One of the things that keeps David in office is the chaos that
FidoNews 6-20 Page 22 15 May 1989
would surely ensue if he left given the current
"non-succession".
Who Do You Expect To Write Policy 4.07?
At this point, at least a year and a half of effort on the part
of the RC's has gone into Policy 4. Despite what many think, it
was not the work of an obnoxious bunch of boors who want to
crush the sysops under their boots. The divisions among the
RC's are as great as the divisions seen in the network.
It is a particularly gruelling process for the person doing the
writing. This person has to tread a fine line between his own
opinions and the will of the majority. He is often placed in a
position where he has to write language he considers terminally
flawed, and is met with abuse when he finds it impossible to do
so. It's even tougher given that the RC's are as apathetic as
the net as a whole - a minority of the RC's even bothered to
participate while I was scribe - Zone 3 was marginally involved,
Zone 2 not at all. (Another farce that needs to be addressed -
Zone 2 isn't a part of FidoNet. They operate under their own
Policy and we should give them what they want: out.)
Vote For Policy 4
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 6-20 Page 23 15 May 1989
Re-typed and submitted by Jack Decker
Fidonet 1:154/8 LCRnet 77:1011/8 NetWork 8:70/8
NO-CODE PACKET RADIO?
[All of the following text (INCLUDING the note asking that the
article be reprinted) is taken verbatim from April, 1989 issue
of the Tandy User Group Newsletter (a NON-copyrighted
publication of the Radio Shack Marketing Information Department
of Tandy Corporation). The author is Ed Juge, director of
market planning, Radio Shack, 1700 One Tandy Center, Fort
Worth, Texas 76102.]
And, Speaking of Packet Radio...
(Note to club newsletter editors - Even though this may seem a
little bit off the subject, please try to find space in your
newsletter to reprint it. I think many of your members may
find it of real interest.)
In a column in PCM Magazine last Fall, I editorialized a bit
about the large number of computer users who are sharing data,
programs, electronic mail, and more... not just locally, but
with others literally around the world... and not paying a dime
in connect time charges. That, and a follow-up column early
this year, brought more mail than any topic I have ever written
about.
How are they doing this? By way of Amateur Radio. But, you
say, "You gotta' learn that Morse Code stuff." MAYBE NOT!
Amateurs recently lost 2 MHz. of frequency spectrum to
commercial services, and frankly, it had the effect of a major
earthquake, measuring "10" on ham radio's Ricther scale!
Immediately, one well-known Amateur launched a campaign to
petition the Federal Communications Commission for a no-code
VHF license. Even the prestigious American Radio Relay League
(ARRL), who had successfully and bitterly fought a previous
attempt at such a license, appears to be taking a much more
liberal stand. They appointed and an ad-hoc committee to study
the no-code issues and recommend a course of action to their
board of directors.
To make a long story as short as possible -- and to get to why
I'm discussing all this in a computer newsletter -- the FCC has
effectively told the Amateur community, if you want a no-code
VHF license, and the ARRL doesn't fight it, it's yours.
If the FCC receives a petition, it will issue a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), and allow some period of time for
replies... possibly as short as 30 days... before making their
decision. That's far too short a comment period for magazine
lead times to pass the word, and IF YOU'RE INTERESTED, YOU
SHOULD COMMENT TO THE FCC!
FidoNews 6-20 Page 24 15 May 1989
Let me take a moment to explain to those who don't know, that
Very High Frequency (VHF) refers to frequencies above 30 Mhz.
In terms of the Amateur bands, this includes 50 Mhz (6 meters),
which allows for some fairly long-distance work. (Under
international law, Morse code is a requirement for licensing
below 30 Mhz.)
=============================
An Amateur Radio License
WITHOUT LEARNING MORSE CODE!!
...Maybe
=============================
Although there are several digital modes used below 30 Mhz,
including PACKET, AMTOR, BAUDOT and ASCII teletype, and even
keyboard sent/video received Morse code... most of the VHF
digital operation is "Packet Radio." Packet is literally
computer-to-computer data transfer, using a slightly modified
X.25 protocol. There are bulletin boards, personal mailboxes,
and many types of operation computer users would find exciting.
There is even a nationwide traffic (messaging) system which
allows me in Texas to address a message to someone in Maine,
which will be automatically relayed across the country to its
destination. It could go through multiple VHF relays, or it
might go through a "gateway" onto the long-haul HF bands, or
even cross the country via satellite. Widespread use of these
exciting digital modes on Amateur Radio is less than five years
old, so exciting advances in software and techniques are
happening monthly if not weekly or daily.
==========================
Transfer Data and Programs
--Around the World--
No Connect Charges!
==========================
An Amateur VHF Packet station can be as simple as a Model 102
laptop computer, a "Terminal Node Controller" (TNC) and a ham
"walkie-talkie." A small, battery-powered TNC costs about
$160, and a used "talkie" another $150 or so. So, as you can
see, a complete station (you can even throw it in your
briefcase) is quite inexpensive.
Packet Radio has one interesting characteristic... if you are
close enough to "connect" with ANY other station, you can use
that station (even without his knowledge) to act as a repeater
for your transmissions, and thereby extend your range
considerably. Many hams leave their VHF packet stations on 24
hours per day, making packet operation about as easy from a
walkie-talkie as it is from a base station with an antenna high
in the air.
Getting back to the original objective... the question of a
codeless license takes on almost religious overtones among
Amateurs. Others feel it's stifling growth, and thereby
endangering frequency allocations. Those who favor a codeless
FidoNews 6-20 Page 25 15 May 1989
license feel that many who could contribute greatly to the
Amateur service are being kept out by what they view as an
unreasonable and irrelevant restriction... code. Because of
the leading-edge technologies Amateurs have available today...
satellite communications, "EME" ("Earth-Moon-Earth" or
"moonbounce"), and digital communications, computer enthusiasts
are probably at the top of the list of those who could derive
the most enjoyment from, and make the greatest contribution to,
Amateur Radio.
So, my purpose in bringing you what I had hoped would be a
short dissertation, is to encourage you to watch the news on
this matter. If a codeless Amateur Radio license appeals to
you -- or if you feel strongly that it should NOT happen --
then watch for an FCC NPRN, and send them your comments!!
This newsletter appears in electronic form on several
information services. If you look around the service, you'll
find a ham radio special interest group. Watch their bulletin
board for developments.
==============
If YOU care...
Comment!
==============
If you're reading this in a club bulletin, and you're
interested, send me an SASE, and I'll let you know if and when
it's time to comment. It is important to get input to the FCC
from those who might benefit from such a change, rather than
just from those who are already licensed. The FCC sincerely
wants opinions from all interested parties. Let me know if you
want to know when and how to comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 6-20 Page 26 15 May 1989
Bill Vanglahn
FidoNet@1:107/557
"...what a reasonable person would do......"
Statements like this are seen throughout the law books when
referring to definition of negligence. Legal issues are are
beginning to crop up throughout the land of Sysops, with Sysops
suing users, users suing Sysops.... The question of what an
average, reasonable Sysop would do in a given everyday situation
has crossed my mind many times as of late. And so, the reason for
this letter.
As you are well aware of, YOU run your system the way YOU want
to. That's the way it should be. The person 3 blocks away from
you may run his system differently, and I may do it a different
way than either of you. That's what makes BBS's so interesting,
the diversity of the systems you can call, and the way you can
make your system conform to what you like.
But, as far as the law is concerned, a Sysop should be working
within some set of boundaries, which are mostly common sense. As
of this moment, I know of no defined rules of What-a-Sysop-does-
or-doesn't-do, because it has never been defined in any way. If a
list were compiled that stated, "Well, given this similar
situation, an AVERAGE Sysop would have......", not only would we
have a legal leg to stand on, but we could help the courts get a
view into our world of electronic communications.
In order to get a good concensus of what we are doing
individually, I have compiled the following questionnaire. Please
take the 2 minutes out to fill it out, and return it to me at the
netmail address below. This is truly a case where you can help
define your own future!
Please send your answers to:
Bill Vanglahn
FidoNet 1:107/557
ALTERNet 7:520/557
P/Net 9:93/0
PhoenixNet 9:807/2
Or, via US Mail to:
P.O. Box 73
Dumont, N.J. 07628
Sysop Questionnaire
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
FidoNews 6-20 Page 27 15 May 1989
*NOTICE*
ALL INFORMATION ON THIS FORM IS HELD CONFIDENTIAL!
Please answer these questions with the one MOST correct answer.
1) Do you run your BBS as a......
A) Hobby
B) Support Board for PD/Shareware Products
C) Support Board for Commercial Products
D) Other, please specify _____________________
2) When new users log on, what kind of registration system do you
use?
A) On-Line Registration
B) Mail Registration
C) No Registration
D) Call-Back Verification
E) Questionnaires On-Line
F) Other, please specify ___________________________
3) No matter which method of regitration you use, do you voice-
verify new users?
A) Always
B) Occassional Spot-Checks
C) Very Seldom
D) Never
4) Do you have material that can be considered of an adult nature
available for reading/downloading on your board?
A) Yes
B) No
(If the answer to #4 is No, please skip to question #9)
5) Do you restrict access to adult material on your system?
A) Yes
B) No
6) How do you determine access rights to the adult material?
A) On-line Verification
B) Mail-in Disclaimer Form, Notarized
C) Mail-in Disclosure Form, with Copy of Proof of Age
(Driver's License, Passport, etc.)
D) Voice Verification
E) Other, please specify ______________________________
7) Do you have any limits set on the degree of adult material
present on your system?
FidoNews 6-20 Page 28 15 May 1989
A) Yes
B) No
8) The following is a set of True/False questions.
I would allow adult material on my system that dealt
with.......
T F
A) Nude photographs
B) Masturbation
C) Explicit sexual acts
D) Homosexuality-male
E) Homosexuality-female
F) Group Sex (more than 2 people)
G) Sex with animals
H) Pedophilia (sex with minors)
(Back to the multiple choice)
File Area Questions
9) A user uploads a program that is protected by copyright,
either as the whole program, a hacked version, or a pirated
version. I would
A) Warn the user that he will be locked out next time.
B) Lock the user out of your BBS.
C) Permit the file to be downloaded by others.
D) Inform the company that wrote the software.
E) Other, please specify _______________________
10) A user uploads a program that is a trojan/virus program. I
would.......
A) Do nothing.
B) Take no action against the user, but erase the file.
C) Warn the user, and erase the file.
D) Lock the user out of the BBS, and erase the file.
E) Lock the user out, and seek legal action.
11) Do you have a separate file directory for newly uploaded
programs?
A) Yes
B) No
12) Do you check new uploads before they are available for
downloading?
A) Yes
B) No
FidoNews 6-20 Page 29 15 May 1989
13) How often do you perform checks on newly uploaded files?
A) Daily.
B) Once a week or more.
C) Once a month or more.
D) Every other month or more.
E) New uploads are not checked.
Message Area Questions
14) Do you proof messages before they can be read by the general
public?
A) Yes
B) No
15) How often do you check your message base for improper
messages?
A) More than once a day.
B) Daily
C) Every other day.
D) Weekly
E) Every other week.
F) Monthly.
16) Is your system capable of running in a network (communicating
with other BBS's)?
A) Yes
B) No
17) Does your system share messages with other systems (Echomail
/Groupmail conferences)?
A) Yes
B) No
18) Do you routinely run any utility that deletes messages from a
particular user or network address?
A) Yes
B) No
19) A user enters a message which is considered offensive to
other users. I would.....
A) Warn the user, and lock him out if it happens again.
B) Deny the user access to the message conference.
C) Deny the user access to the entire message system.
D) Lock the user out.
FidoNews 6-20 Page 30 15 May 1989
E) Do nothing. The user is stating his/her opinion.
F) Other, please specify _____________________________
20) A user enters information in a message about some illegal
activity. This could include phreaking, hacking (in the bad sense
of the word), construction of bombs, etc. I would......
A) Warn the user that he will be locked out next time.
B) Lock the user out of your BBS.
C) Permit the message to be read by others.
D) Inform the proper authorities.
E) Other, please specify _______________________
General Information
(We will attempt to correlate answers based on these)
21) How many users are currently listed on your system?
A) 1-50
B) 51-100
C) 101-200
D) 201-500
E) 501-1000
F) >1000
22) Which BBS Package are you using?
A) Fido H) Phoenix
B) QBBS I) PCBoard
C) TBBS J) RBBS
D) Kitten K) TComm/TCommNet
E) Opus L) Lynx
F) WWIV BBS M) Spitfire
G) Wildcat! N) Other _____________________
Optional Information
Your Name: ______________________________________
Street Address: ______________________________________
When you include your mailing address, I will send you the
hard-copy results of this survey!
Thank you for helping support the future of your hobby!
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 6-20 Page 31 15 May 1989
John Perkins
The Engine House, 1:260/315
(315) 451-7148
Syracuse_NY
The Wilderness Echo
The Wilderness Echo, WILDRNSS, is a non-backbone Echo that has
recently been created in response to a perceived need. Any and
all discussions related to wilderness camping, hiking, canoeing,
and related fields are welcome and encouraged. Discussions
include, but are not limited to, 'Places To Go' , recently
acquired wilderness and canoe areas, as well as new equipment
reviews.
There currently are nodes receiving this Echo in various parts of
the USA. I would like to have many more nodes as there are many
fine wilderness areas that are not represented.
If you enjoy the great outdoors or would like to find out more
about the wilderness and related fields give us a try!
If you would like to carry this echo please send netmail to me at
the ENGINE HOUSE , 1:260/315.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 6-20 Page 32 15 May 1989
The Veterinarian's Corner
Excerpts from the ANIMED GroupMail Conference
by Don Thomson, 1:102/1005
(From the ANIMED conference):
Hi Doc. How's business?
I have to report that Ranger's chin has been clear for a long
time now, or at least it sure seems long. Thanks. I think he
feels a lot better because of it. He is more social and
playful with G.P. than he had been while his chin hurt.
However, this brings with it another new problem. (If it ain't
one thing it's another...) The little #@$@@ G.P. chews on
Rangers ears as they do battle all over he apartment. Ranger's
ears are pink and, I'd dare guess, a bit sore. Is there a
recommended ointment or treatment, other than seperation of the
two monsters we call cats?
Nice to have a doc in the bbs community. Thanks again...
Robert, Jeanne, Ranger and G.P.
----------
Glad to hear it, Robert! The eosinophilic-granuloma complex is a
skin disease unique to cats. We can get into that topic at a
later date. Suffice to say, great that he feels better all
around!
> The little #@$@@ G.P. chews on Rangers ears as they do battle
> all over the apartment. Ranger's ears are pink and, I'd dare
> guess, a bit sore. Is there a recommended ointment or
> treatment, other than seperation...
I assume we are only talking about irritated skin, not severly
inflammed or infected. Mild 0.5% hydocortisone cream applied on a
occasional basis would be the most I would reccomend without an
examination. As long as there is no foul odor and discharge that
would indicate an outer ear infection or earmites this would be
safe. Cats are extremely resistant to c.steriod side effects.
Some of the base carriers of ointments can be irritating to cats,
so stick to a cream. If the inflammation worsens, he should be
seen....
DB Thomson, DVM
1:102/1005
9:871/16
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 6-20 Page 33 15 May 1989
The following is the last in a series of four columns Fred Grosby
(a federal government employee, and a user on "The Falcon's Rock")
has written. He deserves all the credit for writing them. I
suggested that he upload them to my system, because I enjoyed
reading them in our local Mensa newsletter, Capital M. I hope you
enjoy reading them, too. The archive of all four is available for
file request from 1:109/501 as BSOUTH.ZIP.
Notes From Bureaucracy South (Part 4)
By Fred Grosby, a user on 1:109/501
What a mess. Sprinkler head blew on the eighth floor, and by the
time they figured out how to shut the system off, three floors of
our building had been inundated with several inches of water. Five
hundred thousand dollars in computer equipment was ruined.
Documents that I had worked on for months now have water and rust
spots on them. And the whole damn thing wouldn't have happened if
it hadn't been for SMART.
SMART stands for Space Management And Reduction Task, and like a
lot of things here at Bureaucracy South it started out as a pretty
good idea. We've reduced staff over the last few years, so it only
made sense to reduce our office space as well. Sure, it would cost
something to renovate the remaining space to better accommodate us,
but the savings in rent was supposed to more than make up for that.
Seemed like a smart idea at the time.
So we hired a Contractor to draw up some plans. We used to do a
lot of this sort of thing ourselves, but that's not what one does
nowadays. Today, you hire a Contractor, often because the staff
reductions have hit the people who used to do whatever sort of work
is being contracted. This is called Privatization. There may not
be money for anything else, but there is always money for
Privatization.
Anyway, the Contractor In Charge Of Planning drew up a stack of
plans, which were duly approved by the building management and the
Bureaucracy In Charge Of Buildings, a moving schedule was issued,
and people started to pack up their stuff. And then... nothing.
SMART slammed to a screeching halt. For months we heard nothing.
I mean, people were working out of cardboard boxes and we heard
nothing!
Just about the time I had figured that the whole thing was a dead
issue, we found out what the delay was about. Seems that in his
zeal to get the building management and the Bureaucracy In Charge
Of Buildings to approve the plans, the Contractor In Charge Of
Planning had forgotten to get the plans approved by The City. Now
The City did not like the idea of us renovating a building without
the required permits, and clapped a lid on the whole thing. What
we had been waiting for was for The City to review and approve the
inch-thick stack of plans and issue the permits.
Anyway, once all the building permits were in order, an army of
employees hired by the Contractor In Charge Of Renovation showed up
and got right to it. Only thing was, the plans called for
FidoNews 6-20 Page 34 15 May 1989
renovating areas of the building that still had people in them.
This, folks, was not a very smart idea. I walked into the first
office being renovated just in time to see somebody trying to work
while a contractor employee stood on her desk rewiring the ceiling,
as dust and pieces of ceiling tile drifted down over everything.
It came to a head when the next scheduled office demanded to be
moved to safe quarters while their space was being renovated, and
invoked the threat of a complaint to The Union. Faced with this
threat (nothing intimidates us like a threatened complaint to The
Union), the Contractor In Charge Of Renovation was instructed to
revise the whole work plan that had been drawn up by the Contractor
In Charge Of Planning. More delays.
Finally, the Contractor In Charge Of Renovation started working on
the space into which my group would be moving. Boy, were we
excited! We used to go down to our new space and try to figure out
what was going to go where. Well, guess what. Just as we were
getting ready to pack up, the workers disappeared. Just dropped
their tools and split. Seems that the Bureaucracy In Charge Of
Buildings forgot to pay the Contractor In Charge Of Renovation, who
then could not afford to pay his workers. The workers, being good,
smart union people, did what all good smart union people do when
they don't get paid: they went on strike. Took three weeks to get
the whole mess straightened out. Then we had to wait while another
office was moved into our new space so their space could be
renovated.
Our actual move was to take place over a weekend. The Friday
before moving day, I helped the people from our administrative
services office mark all of our stuff. Every item, right down to
the trash cans, was marked with a number corresponding to a
location on the blueprint of our new space. This is supposed to
insure that the right stuff gets put in the right space for the
right person. We'd used this system before, and it had never
failed us. Until this time. This time, the Bureaucracy In Charge
Of Buildings forgot to pay the Contractor In Charge Of Moving, so
the entire office was moved from the eighth floor to the sixth
floor by two administrative services people working overtime
throughout the weekend. Under the circumstances, they did an
absolutely wonderful job, but you wouldn't have known it to have
walked into our brand new office on Monday morning.
It was a disaster. The marked floor plan had been abandoned. File
cabinets, shelving, and boxes were heaped everywhere. Desks were
shoved into the strangest places; one woman had to literally climb
over the top of her desk to get to her chair. By some miracle, the
only thing that I lost was my phone. I was lucky; it took some
people hours to find the boxes holding their work. None of the
computers were hooked up; three of them, including the one that
houses our logging and tracking systems, didn't even get moved.
Nobody told the cable pullers to drop new cables for our mainframe
terminals, so we didn't have access to the payroll computer. Ever
tried working in a payroll office where you don't have access to
the payroll computer?
And if that wasn't bad enough, they decided that since we were
FidoNews 6-20 Page 35 15 May 1989
moving anyway, it would be a good time to give our clerical staff
their brand new Workstations. For those of you who have never seen
one, a Workstation has less storage space and takes up twice the
floor area of the desk that it replaces. Ours have the optional
computer keyboard trays that mangle the connecting cables and are
perfectly placed to smash your knees if you move too fast. Anyway,
here came the Contractor In Charge Of Workstations with all this
furniture, which was then crammed into areas intended for plain old
desks. On top of the mess from the move, this was more than we
could handle. By Tuesday afternoon, we just threw up our hands and
decided to live with it as it was. And still is, for that matter.
Well, time went by, and even though we still did not love our new
work environment, we managed to come to terms with it. And then
came The Flood. All of that renovation required relocation of many
of the nozzles for the building's sprinkler system. About three
weeks after we moved, just as things were starting to settle down,
the nozzle located in the public affairs office, right by their
brand-new desktop publishing equipment, decided to pretend that the
building was on fire. This in itself was a catastrophe, but what
really made it bad was that nobody knew how to turn the thing off.
Do you believe it? Here we are, in a building with a full-time
maintenance staff, equipped with a state-of-the-art fire
suppression system, and nobody knows how to shut the damned thing
off! ARRRRGH!!! Finally, somebody came up with the smart idea
that, well, since it is a fire suppression system, maybe we should
get the fire department to turn it off. That worked just fine, of
course, but by that time the water had seeped down two floors, and
the plaster was falling off the walls in our office. But you know
what? We didn't have to pay for the damage! Seems that although
we paid for the renovation, the building management was responsible
for seeing that it was done correctly. Your tax money is safe this
time; the building management's insurance paid the bill.
So they fixed the walls, and dried out the carpet, and replaced all
that ruined computer equipment, and except for the rust and water
stains on about 200 pay documents life here at Bureaucracy South is
pretty much as it was before. I'm told that with all of the delays
and changes of plans, SMART will end up costing a good bit more
than it was supposed to save, but that's not what's important to
those of us who work here. What's important to us is that SMART is
finished.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 6-20 Page 36 15 May 1989
Utility authors: Please help keep this list up to date by
reporting new versions to 1:1/1. It is not our intent to list
all utilities here, only those which verge on necessity.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 6-20 Page 37 15 May 1989
19 May 1989
Start of EuroCon III at Eindhoven, The Netherlands. Contact
Hans Ligthelm of 2:500/3 for details.
5 Jun 1989
David Dodell's 32nd Birthday
2 Aug 1989
Start of Galactic Hacker Party in Amsterdam, Holland. Contact
Rop Gonggrijp at 2:280/1 for details.
24 Aug 1989
Voyager 2 passes Neptune.
24 Aug 1989
FidoCon '89 starts at the Holiday Inn in San Jose,
California. Trade show, seminars, etc. Contact 1/89
for info.
5 Oct 1989
20th Anniversary of "Monty Python's Flying Circus"
11 Nov 1989
A new area code forms in northern Illinois at 12:01 am.
Chicago proper will remain area code 312; suburban areas
formerly served with that code will become area code 708.
If you have something which you would like to see on this
calendar, please send a message to FidoNet node 1:1/1.
Mort Sternheim 1:321/109 Chairman of the Board
Bob Rudolph 1:261/628 President
Matt Whelan 3:3/1 Vice President
Bill Bolton 3:711/403 Vice President-Technical Coordinator
Linda Grennan 1:147/1 Secretary
Kris Veitch 1:147/30 Treasurer
IFNA COMMITTEE AND BOARD CHAIRS
Administration and Finance Mark Grennan 1:147/1
Board of Directors Mort Sternheim 1:321/109
Bylaws Don Daniels 1:107/210
Ethics Vic Hill 1:147/4
Executive Committee Bob Rudolph 1:261/628
International Affairs Rob Gonsalves 2:500/1
Membership Services David Drexler 1:147/1
Nominations & Elections David Melnick 1:107/233
Public Affairs David Drexler 1:147/1
Publications Rick Siegel 1:107/27
Security & Individual Rights Jim Cannell 1:143/21
Technical Standards Rick Moore 1:115/333
IFNA BOARD OF DIRECTORS
DIVISION AT-LARGE
10 Courtney Harris 1:102/732 Don Daniels 1:107/210
11 Bill Allbritten 1:11/301 Mort Sternheim 1:321/109
12 Bill Bolton 3:711/403 Mark Grennan 1:147/1
13 Irene Henderson 1:107/9 (vacant)
14 Ken Kaplan 1:100/22 Ted Polczyinski 1:154/5
15 Scott Miller 1:128/12 Matt Whelan 3:3/1
16 Ivan Schaffel 1:141/390 Robert Rudolph 1:261/628
17 Neal Curtin 1:343/1 Steve Jordan 1:206/2871
18 Andrew Adler 1:135/47 Kris Veitch 1:147/30
19 David Drexler 1:147/1 (vacant)
2 Henk Wevers 2:500/1 David Melnik 1:107/233
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 6-20 Page 39 15 May 1989
Membership for the International FidoNet Association
Membership in IFNA is open to any individual or organization that
pays a specified annual membership fee. IFNA serves the
international FidoNet-compatible electronic mail community to
increase worldwide communications.
Member Name _______________________________ Date _______________
Address _________________________________________________________
City ____________________________________________________________
State ________________________________ Zip _____________________
Country _________________________________________________________
Home Phone (Voice) ______________________________________________
Work Phone (Voice) ______________________________________________
Zone:Net/Node Number ____________________________________________
BBS Name ________________________________________________________
BBS Phone Number ________________________________________________
Baud Rates Supported ____________________________________________
Board Restrictions ______________________________________________
Your Special Interests __________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
In what areas would you be willing to help in FidoNet? __________
_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________
Send this membership form and a check or money order for $25 in
US Funds to:
International FidoNet Association
PO Box 41143
St Louis, Missouri 63141
USA
Thank you for your membership! Your participation will help to
insure the future of FidoNet.
Please NOTE that IFNA is a general not-for-profit organization
and Articles of Association and By-Laws were adopted by the
membership in January 1987. The second elected Board of Directors
was filled in August 1988. The IFNA Echomail Conference has been
established on FidoNet to assist the Board. We welcome your
input to this Conference.
