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. ARTICLES ................................................. 1
The European Situation ................................... 1
Response to Pete White's article ......................... 3
The Fake Users Manual .................................... 10
The Lost FidoNet Archives - Volume 2 ..................... 15
Here We Go Again! ........................................ 21
Something Exotic - Polish traffic in Net/Echo Mail ....... 29
2. COLUMNS .................................................. 31
The Veterinarian's Corner: Elimination Problem Behavior .. 31
3. LATEST VERSIONS .......................................... 33
Latest Software Versions ................................. 33
And more!
FidoNews 6-23 Page 1 5 Jun 1989
This article is my reaction to the Zone 2 Policy situation as
announced in FidoNews 622.
The European nodes' statement to the effect that they have
repealed POLICY3 for their zone, replaced it with a
European-specific policy, and rejected the proposed POLICY4,
amounts to a "Declaration of Independence" of sorts for the
European nodes, who now claim not to be subject to the overall,
American-dominated FidoNet policy.
As a Libertarian politically, I have no moral objection to the
European nodes declaring independence from the Americans, which
sort of turns the tables on the Americans who did a similar thing
to Europe over 200 years ago.
However, I'm not entirely thrilled with the manner in which
they did it. They are claiming to be fully autonomous and
self-governing, not subject to overall FidoNet policy, but yet,
they still consider themselves part of the FidoNet, and are in
the nodelist distributed in zones 1, 3, and 4 as well as their
zone.
It seems to me, if they want their full independence, they
should have to leave FidoNet altogether, and become a different
network like AlterNet and EggNet. Under those circumstances,
they would no longer be in the FidoNet nodelist, or have the
rights to the name FidoNet under Tom Jennings' license, unless
they engaged in separate negotiations to secure such privileges.
After all, why should the American coordinator structure pay long
distance charges to distribute a nodelist including a lengthy
list of European nodes, if those nodes refuse to accept the
authority of the FidoNet Policy which is supposed to cover ALL
zones?
I think the Europeans should either break free of FidoNet
altogether if they want that level of autonomy, or else work
within the system to get a POLICY4 passed that allows for wide
latitude for zone policies taking into account the varied
circumstances of different world regions. But they shouldn't
repudiate POLICY3 but still act like they're part of the net
governed by this policy.
As for the specific elements of European policy, the most
controversial one is their mandatory fee for nodes. That's the
element most in conflict with existing policy, and some might
argue it contravenes the general spirit of FidoNet. That more
than anything else might compel European nodes to leave FidoNet,
since I don't know if the rest of the network would be willing to
FidoNews 6-23 Page 2 5 Jun 1989
adopt a policy permitting zones (and perhaps regions or nets) to
impose mandatory charges. That would open up a real can of
worms; even if it is permitted, some controls would likely be
placed to prevent the possibility of profiteering NCs, RCs, or
ZCs imposing excessive charges for their personal profit.
In conclusion, I'd like to see FidoNet preserved as an
international network, held together by one consistent policy
statement (with some latitude allowed for local policies within
the constraints of the global one). If other systems, wherever
in the world they may be located, wish to carry on networking
under different rules, they've got every right to do so, but
they're not then part of FidoNet.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 6-23 Page 3 5 Jun 1989
Jack Decker
Fidonet 1:154/8 LCRnet 77:1011/8
RESPONSE TO PETE WHITE'S ARTICLE
In Fidonews 622, Pete White published an article containing
certain "ramblings". I'd like to touch on a few of the points
he made.
As Pete noted, among many other positions, he is the Regional
Coordinator of Region 16. He's also held positions in the
IFNA.
Pete then goes on to admit confusion on certain things. He
states, "I see attacks on those who are spending their time and
money trying to feed the `echo-holics'. I see attacks on the
*C structure for much of what they do, or don't do. I see a
lot of commentary by folks who are obviously so biased and
upset they ought to be collecting stamps or seeking an inner
light.... What I don't see are answers to some of the basic
questions I've asked since day one, that first day I
unknowingly got a mailer to work! When I see all the messages
about 'power plays' and 'the coordinators have all the power' I
really get confused. Will someone out there tell me POWER over
what? Is there a monetary benefit here that I'm missing that
makes POWER profitable? If I have the POWER can I make my echo
feeds send me the echos instead of me paying to go after them?
I somewhat doubt that! Actually, it looks very much like those
who are blamed for wanting POWER are those who are doing all
the work."
I'll bet a lot of common sysops read the above and shook their
head sadly. The problem is that Pete's an RC. If anybody
should be making an effort to find out the reasons behind these
complaints, an RC and IFNA member should. Instead, what I see
is a "why is everybody always picking on me" type of reaction.
When I think of the Coordinator structure in Fidonet, it
reminds me of the cartoon about the overzealous boy scout, who,
determined to do his "good deed for the day", helps the old
lady across the street. Whereupon, he just can't understand
why, instead of thanking him, she bashes him over the head with
her umbrella. The problem, of course, was that the old lady
didn't want to cross the street, she was just standing on the
corner waiting for a bus!
Why do the coordinators want POWER? Doggone if I know. You
would think that as many complaints as they receive, at least
some of them would wise up to the fact that they're doing
things that just aren't popular with the common sysops...
they're trying to take us in a direction we don't want to go...
or they'd quit. The POWER is in forcing others to do things
YOUR way, even though perhaps the majority doesn't think YOUR
way is the BEST way. I'm sorry, but I don't know why some
people thrive on that sort of power. They will endure flames,
FidoNews 6-23 Page 4 5 Jun 1989
insults, and even sometimes a financial loss just to retain
that sort of power over others. Maybe a sociologist can
explain it, but I can't.
What do I mean by "they're trying to take us in a direction we
don't want to go?" I think it can be summed up in two ways.
First, they are trying to impose a tight, rigid, unbending
structure over a group of hobbyists, who really want a loose,
informal, friendly structure. We want equals working together,
not dictators imposing rules. Second, they want to impose a
top-down form of government, whereas most sysops want a
bottom-up (representative) form of government.
Pete then goes on to say: "How about those who are screaming
for democracy? Have any of them every watched 'democracy at
work' within FidoNet? You really ought to try it. Watching
democracy at work when there was an ECHOPOL conference was
enough to sell me on anything but. All I saw there was a few
who were interested in only themselves and spent most of their
time practicing in the age old FidoNet tradition of 'the
beating of dead horses' while a few others tried to get some
intelligence from the proceedings. Those who scream loudly for
'democracy' have absolutely NO idea what they are asking for."
It's interesting that Pete should use the ECHOPOL conference as
an example. I can tell you exactly what happened in ECHOPOL,
because I was there. Basically, a number of us were opposed to
the geographic (regional) restrictions on echomail. We wanted
to be able to continue sending echomail between systems
irregardless of regional boundaries, as we had always done in
the past.
Now, to hear Pete talk, you'd think that a vote was taken, that
the regional echomail restrictions were approved by the
majority, and that a few "crybabies" just wouldn't let it go,
and yield to the will of the majority. But, that's simply not
what happened. What DID happen was that at the very start, the
folks running the ECHOPOL conference decided that the issue of
echomail crossing regional boundaries was NON-NEGOTIABLE. The
fact of the matter is that we NEVER GOT TO VOTE on probably the
single most important issue affecting echomail handling.
Not that we didn't try. I personally asked on numerous
occasions that they just take a vote to determine the will of
the majority on this matter, and if we were defeated, I
promised to shut up about the issue. But we were told it was
"too much trouble" to take a vote, and that everybody was in
favor of the restrictions except a few "troublemakers."
Oh, we did get to vote on some things... real important
stuff(?), like the format and length of tear lines and origin
lines. But on major points, it seemed that the decisions had
already been made for us.
The low point occurred in a message from Mike Ratledge, the
ECHOPOL conference moderator, to Vince Perriello (slightly
FidoNews 6-23 Page 5 5 Jun 1989
reformatted to fit the FIDONEWS column width):
-----(message begins)-----
Message #34, Area "Echopol "
From: Mike Ratledge
To: Vince Perriello 16 Nov 88 10:28:00
Subject: Slight change in timing
NH>> There is a clear concensus that PATH lines are required.
NH>> The messages in this conference have been overwelming in
NH>> favor of them. We did not feel it was necessary to
NH>> re-hash topics that alreay had a majority.
-> PATH lines are NOT necessary. If you guys are going to
-> design software this way, ignoring the FTSC working group,
-> then you can damned well WRITE it too.
They aren't necessary *if* we have the topology "locked down"
and *if* we can control every one of the fools out there that
thinks they're better off ignoring the requirements like not
going out-of-region, etc, etc.
We *could* totally eliminate SEEN-BY: lines, too - *if* the
above two things were true - but I don't look for it to happen
any time in the near future.
I agree that there are a lot of things that we're talking about
here that do overlap the FTSC. I think that the FTSC should be
responsible for the basic format of the messages, the structure
of the packets, etc - but the actual message content should be
more in "our ballpark" here. I realize it's a fine line -
especially when we're talking about the kludge lines - but
we've got to start somewhere - or we'll never get there!
If the FTSC makes a decision which changes what is written in
ECHOPOL, then I think that we should ammend the policy - that's
all.
--- via XRS 0.30
* Origin: That Mean ol' RatMan's "Point-Less" Point
(TComm 1:372/666.1)
-----(message ends)-----
The FOOLS comment by the moderator was the straw that broke the
camel's back for many of us. It was clear to us then that only
those whose opinions were in sync with the preconceived notions
of the ECHOPOL committee were welcome to express an opinion in
the conference. So, the participants in the ECHOPOL conference
were subjected not only to being asked to vote only on
insignificant matters, while being denied the right to vote on
important ones (I guess this was so they could later claim that
ECHOPOL had been arrived at by a vote of the sysops of
Fidonet), but at the end were subjected to a fair amount of
character assassination as well. By the way, I asked Mike
FidoNews 6-23 Page 6 5 Jun 1989
Ratledge for an apology for the FOOLS comment, and he declined
to offer one.
Oh, and Pete White? He was in the conference, and hanging
solidly with the clique that was running the conference. In
fact, he was one of the most vocal supporters of the regional
echomail restrictions.
So when Pete tells you that we were beating a dead horse, it
was only dead as far as the conference moderator and a few
others (including Pete White) were concerned. To some of the
rest of us, it appeared that the horse hadn't even been born
yet, and that the ruling clique was trying to do a premature
abortion on it!
Getting back to Pete's Fidonews article, he then goes on to
say, "The ones who make me worry are those who want
'democracy'. Some of those very same people want to be able to
run their own nets with their own policy! Imagine it, hundreds
of nets all over the place - each with it's very own policy.
Why, with any work at all we could probably confuse everyone as
well as the federal, state and municipal laws have!" Now
perhaps that sounds bad until you consider the alternatives.
Someone once said that "Democracy is the very worst form of
government, except for every other type." Right now the
Chinese people have a government that operates a lot like
Fidonet. There, despite the fact that the government could
shoot to kill protestors, many people have gathered with one
basic demand - they want DEMOCRACY! Here in the United States,
we can protest with virtually no fear of anything much worse
than perhaps a night in jail, and yet how many people do you
see demonstrating against the government in favor of a
dictatorship? Think about it!
Pete continues, "The strange thing is we have many nets out
there doing just that, and everyone is happy! They never
demanded the 'right' to do it, they all agreed within
themselves it was the right way to go and they went with it.
Makes me wonder about those who are screaming for the same
'rights' that others have had for years. Sure must be
something wrong somewhere." Yes, something is wrong - the fact
that those nets that are now using a democratic method of
selecting their Net Coordinator are basically operating outside
of Policy. They can get away with it, but ONLY if the Regional
Coordinator allows them to do so. However, if the Regional
Coordinator doesn't like the net's choice of an NC, that NC can
be replaced at the whim of the RC. So what you have is a form
of democracy at the net level, and (if you're lucky) a
"benevolent dictatorship" at the Regional level. But if your
elected NC manages to offend a not-so-benevolent RC, out he
goes!
Pete goes on, "...Whatever it is, there's a LOT of people out
there who are doing a LOT of work - and the pay is pretty slim.
Sure, there's a few who are difficult to get along with and a
few who shouldn't be involved as they do more damage than good.
FidoNews 6-23 Page 7 5 Jun 1989
Guess that's because they are people. But if you have a
problem with a 'people', try to use the system to rectify the
problem before you decide that the system is wrong."
Ah, yes, using the system to rectify the problem. The problem
is that it rarely works. How often do you ever see the ZC
reverse the decision of an RC? Rarely to never, except when
much public pressure (the vocal kind that Pete White really
hates) is brought to bear. There's a reason for that. If you
have appointed someone to a position, that should indicate you
have confidence in their ability to do the job. So, if you
then reverse a decision they have made, doesn't that sort of
indicate a lack of confidence in them? It becomes a matter of
honor... if you trusted the guy enough to appoint him to the
position, why aren't you backing up his decisions.
Unfortunately, this sort of thinking often clouds the facts of
a case.
Then, too, coordinators tend to appoint other coordinators that
think like themselves. Right now we have a coordinator
structure who, because they were not elected by the common
sysops, in many ways don't think about things from the
perspective of a common sysop. And, when they appoint other
coordinators, they appoint clones of themselves (or as near as
they can get). I know most coordinators don't see it that way,
but it sure appears that way to those sysops who are not part
of the *C structure.
I would like for you to think for a moment about some public
figure that epitomizes corruption for you. Perhaps it would be
a leader of China or Panama, or perhaps a corrupt leader of a
cult (such as Jim Jones of the Jonestown massacre). Now here
were people who, in many cases, started out with the best of
intentions in their own minds (not necessarily in everyone
else's, but few people view themselves as evil). But as they
got more and more corrupt, you wonder how on earth they managed
to go through life without anyone challenging them on their
actions. For example, how come nobody told Jim Jones that he
was crazy?
Well, the answer is that some folks probably did, but these
leaders surrounded themselves with folks who agreed with them
(some only for personal gain, I'm sure, but they still voiced
agreement with the corrupt leaders). And they either got rid
of or avoided those who did NOT agree with them. Now, if folks
tell you you're on the right track often enough, you just might
start to believe them, even if they're lying. And if you hear
what a wonderful person you are often enough, it gets pretty
easy to ignore those few "fools" out there that don't agree
with you, and that don't appreciate your "wisdom and
intelligence." I'm sure Jim Bakker had plenty of people
telling him that his amusement park complex was a wonderful
idea, and that he really needed a lavish home. If all of his
associates had said, "Jim, the money you're spending on this
amusement park could be put to much better use feeding the
needy", chances are he wouldn't have built it.
FidoNews 6-23 Page 8 5 Jun 1989
What has that got to do with Fidonet? No, I'm not putting the
Fidonet Coordinators in the same classification as the dictator
of a country or a corrupted evangelist, but I am saying that
they have formed their own little clique, where THEY decide
what's best for Fidonet, and where the voice of the "common
sysop" is never heard. It's called the REGCON conference, and
it's open only to those at the Regional Coordinator position
and higher. So, all the Regional Coordinators get into REGCON
and support each other on their decisions, and probably decide
who the "troublemakers" in Fidonet are, and who's not worth
listening to. Unfortunately, unlike our Congress and Senate,
we don't have the Fidonet equivalent of C-SPAN to keep us
informed of what's happening in Fidonet government (for those
outside the U.S., C-SPAN is a pair of cable television feeds
that transmit live the proceedings of the U.S. Senate and the
U.S. House of Representatives). The mental picture is one of
a council of dukes gathered in the king's chamber to decide
which peasants are "troublemakers" that need to be eliminated,
or to plot other mischief.
But the worst thing about REGCON is that is allows Regional
Coordinators who are about to take some action that is
questionable in the light of POLICY to muster support for their
position BEFORE the action is taken, or immediately thereafter.
In other words, before the victim even knows about an action
that about to be taken against him, the RC has already
discussed it with the other RC's and the ZC in the REGCON
conference. The problem is that there is no one present to
speak for the affected person(s)... in effect, it's like
holding a trial "in absentia", without allowing the defendant
to have any representation. Of course, after the affected
sysop finds out about the action, he can still file a policy
complaint... but now he has the burden of convincing this
council of people who are NOT his peers to backtrack on an
action that they have already pre-approved!
Pete closes his commentary with: "Enough, already! All I can
recommend is that when reading ANY commentary, including this,
it's best to remember that the ones doing all the complaining
are representative of less than 5% of the members of FidoNet.
The *C structure is responsible to 100% of the net. Look at
what FidoNet is. Simply amazing that it works at all! And
what makes it work? The very same people who are doing
everything wrong. And you wonder why I'm confused?" There are
a couple of very valid points above. First, probably even LESS
than 5% of the sysops ever bother to express their point of
view. If EVERY sysop who wanted a more democratic form of
government in Fidonet would write to their NC and RC and SAY
SO, I'm sure it would have an impact. The problem is that, for
example, I hear from lots of folks who agree with me on various
issues, but they don't want to make waves. I say, "Why don't
you write an article for Fidonews" and they say, "You write so
much better than I do, and you say everything I'd want to say!"
That's not the point! It's not how well you write, the whole
idea is to convince the powers-that-be that you and most other
Fidonet sysops want a more representative form of government,
FidoNews 6-23 Page 9 5 Jun 1989
and that you're tired of the dictatorship in Fidonet. I could
write like Shakespeare but if they think it's only a few lone
nuts that want democracy, we aren't going to get it.
The other thing is that Pete implies that everything is
"working". Well, if you call having Regional Coordinators
going around throwing nodes out of Fidonet for no real good
reason a net that's "working", then I guess Fidonet is
"working". At least some folks are working. Trouble is,
sometimes they're working to make life difficult for the rest
of us (whether they realize it or not).
Please, folks, if you want to see some changes in Fidonet, take
time to write to your RC and ZC today, or write an article for
Fidonews expressing your sentiments. Let the *C. structure
hear from some folks outside their "inner circle" for a change
... from some folks that they haven't already branded as
"troublemakers."
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 6-23 Page 10 5 Jun 1989
The Fake Users Manual
=====================
Written By Jamie MacDonald
==========================
Sysop of The Romulan Sector QuickBBS - 222/20
=============================================
(705)566-5628 - Sudbury, Ontario
================================
May 22, 1989
============
I have just arrived home from my long weekend. I hadn't
looked at the user edit program in about a week and a half and I
thought I'd check to see my new users. To my surprise, and
dismay, I have found that I have 60 new users in just over a
week. Did some local store have a modem sale? Is there someone
standing in downtown Sudbury handing out free modems?
Nope. The fakes are back, and they are worse than ever.
INTRODUCTION
============
When I first introduced the Romulan Sector to the public on
January 6th, 1989, I had visions of a wonderful board with
seriously oriented users enjoying themselves. NEVER had I
thought it would come to this. In the months that I have been
running this board, I have had certain games running on this
board, which is the target of the fakes. In this file, I will be
discussing a topic that many sysops have the PLEASURE of
discussing, the good old fake users.
CHAPTER 1 - CLASSIFICATION OF FAKES
===================================
There are many different types of fakes, and the first step
to stopping them is to know who you are dealing with...so here
they are:
#1) The Common Download/Gaming Idiot:
This is the most common type of fake. They gain small access
(but small is enough for them!) to the BBS and then take
advantage of it, the games, the files for downloading, etc. Many
of these users are the users who make regular calls to 'handle'
boards and who only call the serious boards because of games,
downloads, etc. The most popular game for fakes is the infamous
Trade Wars. It is a great game, a very interesting simulation
and an excellent idea for a BBS. Too bad these users take a good
thing and warp it. They tend to take it SO SERIOUSLY, that they
would do almost anything to get more fighters/credits or even
access to it. It is almost addictive. The only good thing about
these users is that they are easy to catch, and they are rather
FidoNews 6-23 Page 11 5 Jun 1989
chicken when it comes to catching them.
Example:
When you see a user who you don't know on your board (new
user or old user) and you dial his/her number and get either a
recording or a ring indicating that this user is either not
calling from home, or is a fake!
You break in....
BBS: Hello John Doe, this is Jamie MacDonald.
User: ya hi what
Sysop: Hi, I just dialed your number and there is no busy signal,
could you please explain this?
User: (Hangs up quickly)
#2) The Gutsy Fake
This is a fake similar to #1, but is a lot more gutsy and
will even risk his/her own account's deletation for this fake.
To explain this, I will use an example of a fake I had on my
board a little while back called David Harrison. I still haven't
found the owner of that fake, but I have an idea of who it might
be. For now, the owner will be called Joe Blow.
A new user logs on to your board, David Harrison. After a
few days of putting his deletation off, you call another area
BBS, and find that David Harrison hasn't called there. You voice
validate David and find out he is a nonexistant person. I delete
David. 2 days later, I get a message from David (logged on as a
new user) saying:
"I AM NOT A FAKE...WHY CAN'T YOU GET THAT INTO YOUR THICK
SKULLS?!"
Without hesitation, I deleted him. Never called back since.
These fakes are the worst kind, because they are stubborn.
Once they know they are caught, they don't give up.
#3) Mr. Congeniality
These fakes are rather fun because they believe that by
sucking up and kissing the sysops feet they will be able to
remain a validated user. For example, a fake (you know he's a
fake but you will be deleting him later) pages you and says:
Hi there, Jamie. Would it be okay if you tell me why the board
was down earlier today, if you aren't to busy?
I would reply:
I was working on a new door.
He says:
FidoNews 6-23 Page 12 5 Jun 1989
Oh wonderful, that is just terrific if there was a new door, not
that this BBS isn't great as it is, did I mention what a good BBS
this is?
As I throw up in the garbage can next to me, I terminate chat
mode. I recieve a message an hour later from the fake saying:
Thank you very much for letting me know why it was down.
Thanks again!
The goody two shoes approach used to work with many sysops,
but doesn't anymore.
#4) The Forgetful Fake
This type usually occurs with a user with more than 1 fake.
He either forgets entirely about the fake and lets the program
delete the account after no call for a while, or he forgets the
password of the fake. It is kind of fun to watch a person
forgetting his password.
#5) The generally stupid fake
Most users with fakes have an IQ of 10-20, but there are some
that have slightly lower. These users fall into this catagory.
In my new user screens, I make mention that you MUST contribute
something to the BBS, either in posts, uploads, ideas, etc. Some
of the fakes who fall under catagory #5 like seem to think that
by writing 4 word posts, they are contributing to the board. You
sysops know what I'm talking about:
Message #2456
From: John Doe
To: All
Subject: hi
hi everyone hows life send me mail bye john
Or of course, the famous insult-the-message-area post:
Message #2457
From: John Doe
To: All
Subject: ----
man this area is lame get some posts going bye john
I have a message area on my board called "The Romulan
Resthome" for users whos access was lowered because of lack of
contribution to the board, and most of the posts in this area
look like these.
#6) The Non-Consistent Fakes
FidoNews 6-23 Page 13 5 Jun 1989
These fakes are the DUMBEST fakes around, yes, even more
idiotic than type #5. This type needs barely any explaination,
on your board they are Sean, on another they are Shawn. On your
board they are John, on another they are Jon. On your board they
are.....well you get the idea.
#7) The Friends of Modem Users
These are fakes that claim they are over at a friends house
when they call your board, but never seem to be at home. Some
even admit to not having a modem, but they soon learn their
lesson when the sysop says "NO MODEM - NO ACCESS". Or even those
who claim to have a busted modem are always a royal pain in the
ass. These are, in my opinion, the worst type of users, because
you can rarely tell whether they are fakes or not.
You may have noticed that this file is beginning to look like
"The Loser User's Manual". I am not surprised because the users
with fakes are very similar to those in that manual.
Other famous types of fakes:
----------------------------
The Page-The-Sysop-For-Access Fakes.
The Try-To-Hack-Someone-Elses-Pass-And-If-Impossible-Make-A-Fake
Fakes
And many other types (See the end of this file for more details)
What to Do
==========
Well, my advice is to voice validate all new users. If it
gets too much out of hand (too many over and over again), just go
to the centre of the problem:
a) If your problem is download fakes, go through your user list
and give access to the download areas ONLY to users who have
proved themselves by posting and uploading.
b) If your problem is games, you can take out the game entirely
(I may take out Trade Wars eventually due to the surprisingly
large number of fakes). You may also want to put in hours for
the games or doors (using an event file) or maybe restrict them
to only those who have proved themselves.
The one piece of advice to you is NOT to run a program like
VERIFY. If you are unfermiliar with verify, it is a program that
gives a new user 2 minutes to prepare his/her modem for auto
answer while it calls them back to verify them. This may seem
like a good idea, but many new users don't know how to put their
modem on auto answer, therefore deleting just about all fakes.
Perhaps you get a user who either is, or claims to be, from Hong
Kong. You certainly don't want your modem calling there! Beware
of such programs and don't be fooled by the description beside
FidoNews 6-23 Page 14 5 Jun 1989
the file name!
One more piece of advice, to find out if a long distance user is
a fake or not, call long distance directory assistance and ask if
the number that you have belongs to the person who claims it
does.
And there you have it, The Fake Users Manual. Always be on the
look out for fakes, hey, who knows? Maybe the person reading
this right now is a fake?
If you have any other types of fakes that you would like to warn
the public about, or any tips on catching fakes, please leave
netmail to Jamie MacDonald at The Romulan Sector QBBS, 1:222/20
or call The Romulan Sector QBBS at 300 (hopefully not) 1200 or
2400 baud at (705)566-5628. Next edition will be sent In the
Fall of 1989.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 6-23 Page 15 5 Jun 1989
THE LOST FIDONET ARCHIVES
VOLUME TWO
Compiled by various members of FidoNet
Edited by Vince Perriello
This is the second article in a series which reprints documents
of historical significance to FidoNet. This week we feature some
of the responses from early Fido sysops to Tom Jennings' FidoNet
proposal. There are some really interesting items buried in
these comments that even today hold real significance to the net.
Please note that most if not all of the FidoNet addresses, data
line phone numbers, and company names and/or addresses mentioned
in this or any of the other articles in this series are not to
be considered reliable for current use in locating something or
someone mentioned here. Refer to the current nodelist if you
want to try to find any of the above.
From John Madill, in file FIDONET.JNM (May 26, 1984):
Considerations for FidoNet
As mentioned, one of the major drawbacks in the FidoNet project
is the way by which it would be paid for. One of the
possiblities is the 'Pay Ahead' method. The amount to be paid
should most likely be a predetermined quantity of TJ Cubits. The
application of the payment should be an entry, by the SysOp of
the local Fido, into the USER.BBS file. This places the
necessary information into a location that can be verified as a
user utilizes their allocation of cubits. Each time an entry to
the mail system is made, the available cubit quantity can be
updated on a real time basis.
Another major problem is the verification of recieved mail. This
applies not only to the FidoNet concept, but also to the message
system as it exists in FidoBBS. A possible way of handling the
transfer/receipt of remote mail, is to calculate the return
message (received your message ### at FidoNet Location ###,
time/date...) as part of the initial outgoing message. The
local FidoMail system should in theory, check the senders
USER.BBS record to determine the message area last used, and
enter a message with the acknowledgement. As this pertains to
local messages, when a message is entered, Fido could verify the
name of the "To:" party, and the message area last used.
Another thing to be considered is the possiblity of automating SQ
and LU modules in conjunction within a destination processor.
This could squeeze all messages, and pack them into a library for
each destination, cutting costs even further. If not to
difficult, the receiving Fido could utilize a squeezed file
interpreter to speed up the acknowledgement of receipt, as
opposed to unsqueezing/de-lbr while on line. The only
FidoNews 6-23 Page 16 5 Jun 1989
alternative would be for the remote Fido to call back an
acknowledgement, shifting the cost to a location not receiving
the payment.
The prospect of transferring, or as in another communication
which shall remain un-named, "attachment" of program or data
files would definately increase the potential value of FidoNet.
This is especially true for club or commercial ventures. The
problem becomes one of cost accounting. Would subscribers be
willing to pay for a portion, pro-rated amount, of the transfer?
Obviously a stickey point, but should be considered.
I certainly hope that this input is helpful. The possiblity of
using this type of relay system is exciting! Hopefully it will
be rewarding.
From Jim Ryan, in file FIDONET.NOT (May 26, 1984):
Jim Ryan
02 May 84
Notes on the FidoNet System
Tom Jennings has outlined, in his article dated 30 Apr 84, a
proposal for FidoNet-- a communications network for Fido and
other message systems.
I have some comments and suggestions for improvement of the
FidoNet system.
-----
If FidoNet were to use a structure similar to DecNet, the
networking system for Digital computers, a person could send a
message using the syntax :
To : -F01 Tom Jennings
meaning "Send this message to FidoNet Node 1, addressed to Tom
Jennings". A message to all could be coded as :
To : -F01 All
and a message going to all systems could be coded as :
To : -F All
The originating Fido system could keep a log of all messages in
all areas that are flagged to other FidoNet nodes, and send them
with a record indicating there originating node, and area
description :
Message : 25
From : -F01 Tom Jennings
FidoNews 6-23 Page 17 5 Jun 1989
To : All
Subject : FidoNet List
(Area : General )
-----
In my opinion, the major drawback to the FidoNet system is the
reliance on the SysOp to foot the bill for the long distance
charges to all the FidoNet nodes he needs to send mail to. This
may make the system prohibitive to smaller users.
An alternate idea would be to send the FidoNet mail through an
alternate system such as MCI Mail or Compuserve. In this manner
each sysop would only be paying the charges of the various host
systems instead of the long distance charges to each FidoNet
node.
For example : If Tom (or some other willing volunteer) would
write a FidoNet mail system on Compuserve, a sample session might
run like this (with the FidoNet computer handling the
input/output) :
host : Welcome to Compuserve
User Id : XXXXX,XXX
Password : ____________
Compuserve Information Service
XX-XXX-XX at XX:XX:XX
FidoNet Host System
Login : FIDO-01
Pass : XXXXXXX
Welcome FIDO-01
Checking for mail
Ready to send mail
(CIS sends mail to FidoNet node)
Ready to recieve mail
(FidoNet node sends mail to CIS)
Thank you for using FidoNet
(logoff)
The disadvantages of this system (especially on CIS or the
Source) would be transmission speed. Unless you want to spend
the extra $12.00 per hour for 1200 baud service, your stuck with
300 baud.
But the advantages would be a central point for all FidoNet
messages, and probably much greater efficiency.
FidoNews 6-23 Page 18 5 Jun 1989
-----
Well, those are my comments. I think the idea of a national BBS
network is fabulous, but it's up to us to figure out the nit-
picking details!!!!!
Jim Ryan
From Richard P. Wilkes, in file FIDONET.RPW (May 26, 1984):
FIDONET: Response 5/24/84
Richard P. Wilkes
WILKES SOFTWARE SYSTEMS
With all due respect to Tom Jennings, I feel the FidoNet
implementation as described in the FIDONET.DOC file is not
practical. Let me explain, hopefully without becoming too
verbose.
I have been working on networking systems for seven years now.
One thing that truly amazes me is the effort by every implementor
to reinvent the wheel. Now, sometime when the wheel doesn't
exist, you have to create it. But in this case, there are
already MANY different ways to network computers together that
WORK; if a network is to be designed, let's chose one that won't
leave us isolated from the "rest of the world."
People in the micro BBS environ often are totally unaware that
there is a working, FREE, network of mini and microcomputers
exchanging gigabytes of mail around the country (by phone). Some
are part of the Arpanet, but the one we should examine is UUCP, a
network of machines running Unix.
The UUCP mailer is not small, but could be modified (with great
effort) to run on a PC. I know that vortex!lauren@RAND-UNIX is
working on an MSDOS version. Note that the address format shown
here is a standard. Messages addressed in this manner can be
gatewayed through many networks to finally reach its destination.
"vortex" is the UUCP machine; "lauren" is the username (for
Lauren Weinstein); RAND-UNIX is the Arpanet gateway.
Now, all of this may not seem like it has much to do with
FidoNet. But, the viability of such a network depends on several
vital points:
1) Virtually no cost or minimal cost that could be easily
absorbed by local administrations (as they do now).
2) Connectivity with other systems.
3) Personal mailboxes, a feature unsupported by Fido to date.
These also gobble disk space.
4) net.news: This is the equivalent of country-wide SIGs.
FidoNews 6-23 Page 19 5 Jun 1989
Messages are gatewayed through several hosts and utimately reach
all systems where they are posted in message areas. Note that
messages may range from 5 to 500 *lines*.
Now, I could go on for many pages on the capabilities of systems
like these. Right now, you can mail a message and have it
delivered free to almost any university or major technology
corporation in the country via this network. Other networks also
allow file transfer (FTP).
I don't want to throw so much cold water on this that it never
gets done. However, I have been around long enough to know that
this ain't no one man task. Please, consider how naive the
notion is of a "simple" routing scheme for 40,000 pc's! [UUCP
gets around this by chaining host names. For example,
brl-bmd!jhu!aplvax!joe is a message address. To deliver it, the
holder contacts brl-bmd (Ballistic Research Lab). It need not
know where it is headed after that. brl transfers the message to
jhu (Johns Hopkins) which passes it on the the Applied Physics
Lab (aplvax). "joe" is a user on aplvax; the message is put in
his mailbox. This scheme may sound clumsy, but it works with
small, fairly static routing tables.]
The idea of a network is terrific. As a matter of fact, I was
working on interfacing with a UUCP host myself for a BBS that I
use to publish, CompuCenter. I came to these conclusions: 1)
you need at least a 33M hard drive at the major nodes, perhaps
more. This is expensive. 2) You need nodes that are
multi-caller. I mean, most of these systems are busy for HOURS.
You don't want mail delayed like that. And, major nodes would
have to spend so much time transferring that they would not be
usable for anything else. If you had one line dedicated to MAIL
with another for file transfer and another for messages, maybe it
would work. But hey, an IBM PC at 4.77MHz just ain't the baby
for that kind of load.
All in all, I'd say... wait. The technology is coming. With a
good multiprocessing environment with 5-6 serial lines, a high
speed processor (80286?), and 86M drives on the major nodes, we
can start to really work at making it a reality.
For the time being, I strongly urge that those that are strongly
interested in this type of system start doing some research.
When you can hold a reasonable discussion on file transfer
protocols (real ones, of course--NOT XMODEM), message headers and
formats, routing algorithms, connectivity analysis, delivery
systems and scheduling, plus some of the more intricate cost
analyses, we can join the work that is already advancing in the
"other world" so we are not left out once again.
I welcome any reasonable comments. I frequent Fido CLP --
Baltimore, only. [Other addresses mentioned by author removed
from this paragraph -- ed.]
Please, let's keep up the talk. But more importantly, we must
approach this formidable task with a little humility and a lot of
FidoNews 6-23 Page 20 5 Jun 1989
good, solid knowledge.
Sincerely,
Richard P. Wilkes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 6-23 Page 21 5 Jun 1989
Jack Decker
Fidonet 1:154/8 LCRnet 77:1011/8
HERE WE GO AGAIN!
One of the major problems we have in Fidonet is that of *C's
and *EC's trying to impose new policies before they have even
been formally adopted.
Last year about this time, they came out with ECHOPOL. Now,
Echopol was an extremely overly-restrictive document that
hardly anyone cared for, except the folks that helped write it
(and I think some of them weren't too sure about parts of it).
It has NEVER been formally adopted as policy in Fidonet, but
that hasn't stopped some *EC's from trying to enforce it as
though it has been voted on and formally adopted by the sysops
of Fidonet. Many sysops lost feeds of one or more echo
conferences as a direct result of premature enforcement of a
policy that was still in the draft stage (and that even now, a
year later, has not gained acceptance among the sysops of
Fidonet).
Well, here we go again. Now they've come out with POLICY4,
another overly-restrictive document that hardly anyone seems to
like. And guess what... although it's still in the draft
stage, and although the very first sentence states that "This
policy document has been released for vote by the coordinator
structure ..., AND IS NOT YET IN FORCE" (emphasis added), we
have at least one Regional Coordinator that is trying to
enforce the draft policy as though it had been signed, sealed,
and approved.
Someone in our net asked me recently why it always seems like
Spring is when things crawl out from under rocks.
The message bearing the bad news was as follows:
From: Steve Bonine
Subject: Misplaced systems in net 154
* Original to Affected systems and coordinators @
1:115/777.0
cc: Ted Polczynski 154/0
Mike Bader 120/0
Bruce Casner 139/0
Mario D'Ulisse 222/0
Tom Kashuba 12/0
David Dodell 1/0
Jack Decker 154/8
Robert Kubichek 154/11
Mike Musolf 154/969
Examination of net 154 indicates that the following
systems should be in other nets:
FidoNews 6-23 Page 22 5 Jun 1989
154/8 in Sault Ste Marie should be in net 222, the
Sault Ste Marie net.
154/11 in Manitowoc should be in net 139.
154/969 in Gwinn, MI should probably be in net 120,
although I can't seem to find Gwinn on my map (there
is a misprint in the index).
Ted, please contact the appropriate NC's and get
these systems moved. I have no problem with
duplicate listings for three weeks, but I would
expect these systems to be in their correct nets and
removed from 154 no later than the end of June.
Thank you.
Now, there are a few interesting you should know about the
above:
First, the affected nodes are not really in the area of another
net. Two of the mentioned nodes are in the 906 area code,
which is the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. The U.P. is "no
man's land" as far as Fidonet is concerned, as there is no
active net operating in this area. Historically, Michigan's
Upper Peninsula has always had economic ties with Wisconsin
(most of our supermarkets are supplied from Wisconsin, for
example) and even telephone calls between Michigan's Upper and
Lower Peninsulas are routed through Wisconsin and around Lake
Michigan. So one could easily justify placing nodes in
Michigan's Upper Peninsula in a Wisconsin net (particularly
since intrastate calls within Michigan are billed at a MUCH
higher rate than interstate calls). Also, for the Gwinn node,
Net 154 IS geographically closer than any Michigan net.
Second, there is no way that node 154/8 should be in net 222,
according to strict interpretation of Fidonet Policy. The
reason is simple. Node 154/8 is located in Sault Ste. Marie,
Michigan, which is in Region 11. Net 222 is located in Sault
Ste. Marie, Ontario, Canada, which is in Region 12 and which is
NOT a local call from the Michigan Sault. Now, admittedly, if
it weren't for all this geographic nonsense that the *C's are
pushing, it might make a lot of sense for a node in Sault Ste.
Marie, Michigan to be in the Sault, Ontario net. But here we
have an RC that's trying to break a node out of a net because
he feels that node is not geographically entitled to be there,
and put it into another net in another region, where it is
definitely not supposed to be, according to the "standards"
he's trying to use!
Third, Node 154/8 is a private node, with the phone number not
even listed in the nodelist. I could put ANY city down for a
location, and no one would know the difference. Actually, it
is a "sister system" to 154/7, which IS located in Milwaukee
(actually in the suburb of Cudahy). The whole reason for the
existence of 154/8 is to allow easy remote control of 154/7,
FidoNews 6-23 Page 23 5 Jun 1989
since the actual sysop of 154/7 is out of town most of the
time. The two systems run the same software, and even have (in
effect) common netmail areas. It's a pretty unique setup, but
one that pretty much dictates that both nodes be in the same
net.
Someone is bound to ask why 154/8 isn't a point. Glad you
asked. For one thing, I do receive some echo conferences
directly from a different BBS in Net 154, that are not carried
on 154/7. For another thing, I have a point user (that uses a
Commodore Amiga, no less) that operates off of 154/8, and
receives echoes from here. So I do need to have full node
status, albeit private because my system is not up 24 hours a
day.
Anyway, our RC didn't make much of an attempt to discover any
of these facts. Apparently, he was just sitting around one day
and on his own initiative, decided to see who he could make
trouble for. I say that because no one had complained about
the placement of these nodes. He just decided he didn't like
the situation and wanted to force a change.
Now, the truth of the matter is that I don't think he had to
think too long or hard about who he wanted to bother. Make no
mistake, there are other nets in Region 11 that are much more
geographically diverse than ours. One other net in particular
has nodes in FOUR different area codes (and one of those area
codes is NOT technically in Region 11, although it is logical
for those nodes to be in that net), and covers a radius of
approximately 450 miles. But the RC has been looking to pick a
fight with Net 154 for quite some time. Why? I'm not sure.
But last year, he tried (unsuccessfully) to forcefully replace
Ted Polczynski, the Net 154 NC. He failed in this because no
one in Net 154 wanted to take Ted's job away from him!
Now, Ted has been in Fidonet longer than most NC's, and is an
At-Large member of the IFNA Board of Directors... he is not
some greenhorn kid who just got the NC post, and as far as I
can tell, Ted is well liked and highly respected by everyone in
Net 154. But, he is not the sort to take dictates from an RC
who bends Policy to suit his own convenience. So, Ted and
Steve have had some disagreements in the past. Not only that,
but Steve and I have also had a few differences of opinion.
So, there's no doubt in my mind why Net 154 was singled out for
"selective enforcement."
But the purpose of this article is not to air our Regional
"dirty linen" nationally. Rather, it's a living example of the
type of abuse and heavy-handed regulation that we can probably
expect on a regular basis if POLICY4 is approved.
You see, Policy4 contains the following language:
1.3.2 Geography
Each level of FidoNet is geographically contained by
FidoNews 6-23 Page 24 5 Jun 1989
the level immediately above it. A given geographic
location is covered by one zone and one region within
that zone, and is either in one network or not in a
network. There are never two zones, two regions, or
two networks which cover the same geographic area.
If a node is in the area of a network, it should be
listed in that network, not as an independent in the
region. (The primary exception to this is a node
receiving inordinate amounts of host-routed mail; see
section 4.2). Network boundaries are based on
calling areas as defined by the local telephone
company...
What does the phrase "Network boundaries are based on calling
areas as defined by the local telephone company" mean? There
are at least two possible definitions I can think of offhand:
1) It means that if you're a local call from a net host, you
should be in his net, and if you're not in his local calling
area, you should not be.
2) It means that if you're in the same LATA (or maybe area
code?) as a net host, you should be in his net, otherwise you
should not be.
Now, under either definition, the two of the three Net 154
nodes that our RC is complaining would not qualify to belong to
ANY net. The third node, the one in Manitowoc, would not
qualify to belong to any net under definition 1, and WOULD
qualify to belong to Net 154, but NOT to Net 139 under
definition 2 (Manitowoc is in the Southeast Wisconsin LATA, as
is Milwaukee, while the Net 139 NC is in Neenah, which is in
the Northeast Wisconsin LATA).
Now of course, any *C could come along at any time and
interpret the above policy section in yet another way, but then
that would just be his opinion. Another *C could interpret the
same phrase in a completely different manner. "Calling areas
as defined by the local telephone company" could be interpreted
in a lot of different ways, I guess.
But, as I pointed out earlier, there are LOTS of nets around
that contain nodes that are not within the local calling area,
or even the same area code, as the net host. YOUR net may have
a few such nodes. I know for a fact that other nets in Region
11 have such nodes. But, our RC has been looking for a reason
to "get" Net 154, so I'm sure he'd notice things here that he'd
overlook in other nets... FOR NOW.
But if Net 154 falls, YOUR NET COULD BE NEXT! There is a
saying that "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts
absolutely." If the RC has the right to dictate which nodes
may or may not be in nets, there are several nets in Region 11,
and in all the other regions, that may have nodes added or
taken away without their consent.
FidoNews 6-23 Page 25 5 Jun 1989
Please stop for a moment and think about those nodes in your
net that are NOT a local telephone call from your Net
Coordinator. If POLICY4 passes, just about any of these nodes
could be subject to being pruned from your net, depending on
how the RC decides to interpret POLICY4 on a given day (and
whether or not he's holding a grudge against you, or someone in
your net).
You may not agree with me about Echopol, or any of other
numerous matters on which I've expressed an opinion. I can
live with that. But do you really want the RC to be able to
come in and prune and graft on your net, with you or your NC
having no say at all in the matter?
Some folks thought I was tilting at windmills when I sounded
the alarm about all this geographic nonsense while Echopol was
under consideration. Now that you see where it's leading, are
you still in favor of it? Do you really want the day to come
when the *C structure tells you exactly how you're going to run
your system, and all you get to do is pay the phone bills?
I feel that the potential for heavy-handed regulation by the *C
structure (particularly at the RC level and above) is
sufficient reason to:
1) Vote down POLICY4, if and when we ever get to vote on it
(and IGNORE IT if we DON'T get to vote on it... by the way, the
same applies to ECHOPOL).
2) Let other sysops (particularly those in other regions) know
the dangers in POLICY4 (that's a hint to any of you who still
have access to echoes such as IFNA or SYSOP... I don't!)
3) Push ever harder for a truly democratic and representative
structure in Fidonet, so that we can get rid of the petty
dictators. (This isn't Communist China, and we shouldn't have
to sit still for this type of dictatorship!).
4) Teach our *C's the difference between geography and network
topology, or get some new *C's who have the mental capacity to
understand the difference!
5) Get rid of Regions in Fidonet altogether (okay, I know
a lot of folks don't want to go that far... but please consider
the benefits vs. the disadvantages of the "Region" level of
Fidonet government. It seems that this is the level where most
of the real problems in Fidonet originate!).
I would also ask those of you who communicate regularly with
Net 154 to use a text editor and clip the Net 154 segment of
the nodelist some time in the next week or two, so that if our
RC decides to slash our whole net from the nodelist, you'll
still be able to talk to us by placing our nodelist segment in
a private nodelist.
Speaking of the nodelist... the only real "club" that the *C
FidoNews 6-23 Page 26 5 Jun 1989
structure has over any net or node is the ability to remove
them from the nodelist. I feel it is high time we had a
nodelist that is NOT used for disciplinary purposes. In other
words, you have a node that's Fidonet compatible, you get to be
in the nodelist, no matter what the *C structure thinks of you.
Obviously, this will never happen with the "official" Fidonet
nodelist. But, suppose that one fine day all of the NC's,
instead of sending their nodelist updates to their RC's, sent
them to a new organization whose sole purpose for existence was
to compile a Fidonet-compatible nodelist without regard to
politics, and who were pledged to NOT use the nodelist listing
for disciplinary purposes?
I've seen similar cooperative efforts spring up in Fidonet. We
now have a Software Distribution System and a Software
Distribution Network. Perhaps we also need a Nodelist
Distribution Network, that would simply distribute a St. Louis
format nodelist, not aligned with any particular group, but
simply dedicated to giving people the ability to communicate.
The only problem is that few people have access to the software
that creates the nodelists and nodediffs, and fewer still know
how to use it (I'd be tempted to write something myself if I
could figure out how to calculate that doggone checksum,
preferably using compiled BASIC).
ADDENDUM
I was going to write an article for Fidonews regarding a
message I had seen that was apparently received by David
Dodell, and then forwarded out to the *C structure. David was
apparently worried enough about this message to forward it out.
It read:
After giving the matter serious thought, I'm unable
to resolve (in my mind) why there is such a negative
feeling among the FidoNet higher ups against
democratic process. We are an amatuer organization.
To my knowledge, FidoNet is the only international
organization of its type WITHOUT ANY ELECTED
OFFICERS.
At this point I would want to ask all SysOps if there
is any interest in becoming part of a CLASS ACTION
against the ZONE and REGION structure of FidoNet? I
personally feel that I'm being DENIED my RIGHT to
select our officers. Even the corporate structure in
American business has to answer to the stockholders
<GRIN>
What I'm asking for is support in SUEing the
operators of all '/0' addresses above the network
level. The amount can be $1.00 but the issue is the
drafting of rational documents and election
procedures. I'm tired of 'good old boy' appointments
and 'pork barrel politics.'
FidoNews 6-23 Page 27 5 Jun 1989
Think about it..... Let the campaign slogan be:
Litigation '89
After what I've read in 2 years, there is no other
way!
Now, I have to admit that the thought of sysops bringing
lawsuits against other sysops scares me plenty, and I had
planned to write something along those lines. But after this
most recent unprovoked attack by our RC, I now have a new
appreciation of the frustration that the author of the above
message must have felt. We have an unpopular hierarchy that
simply refuses to yield to the call for reform and democracy in
Fidonet. These people weren't elected... in fact, most of us
aren't quite sure just how these people managed to achieve
their status in Fidonet. In more than one instance, one of the
most unpopular people in a region has managed to get himself
appointed RC or REC. And under present policy, there is no way
for the average sysop to have any input into this appointment
process!
I'm not printing the name of the author of the message, because
I'm still afraid that such a lawsuit might destroy Fidonet
entirely (sort of like cutting off your head to cure a
headache). But if the *C structure doesn't soon begin to
understand that most sysops do NOT approve of the dictatorial,
top-down government of Fidonet, I fear that an action such as
the one mentioned above is bound to occur sooner or later.
I'll tell you one thing, though. After this most recent
occurrence of getting the shaft from our RC, I have to admit
that the temptation to send this guy a a few bucks toward his
legal expenses is much stronger now!
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 6-23 Page 28 5 Jun 1989
1:115/982
CURTIS SAHAKIAN
THE FIDONET DEMOCRACY ECHO
THE FIDONET DEMOCRACY ECHO.....The purpose of this Echo is
to discuss the best way to implement a fully representative
democracy within FidoNet. This is not a *C bashing area.
This is not a place to keep saying 'You can't do this.",
"Democracy in FidoNet is impossible.", or "You are
preaching treason and will be excommunciated." This area
is for rational discussion and debate on HOW we will make
FidoNet democratic not IF we will. When you enter this
Echo and participate, you accept the premise that making
FidoNet fully representative is a foregone conclusion and
your purpose here is to discover HOW it will be done and
WHEN it will be done. Personal attacks of any kind are
not tolerated. Name calling, libelous or slanderous
pronouncements, deliberate distortion of facts or insertion
of misinformation are not tolerated. No shouting matchs
or ego contests. Everyone is welcome and encouraged to
make constructive comments and to offer solutions. We all
know what the problems are. Everyone is encouraged to use
their common sense and to offer well thought out plans of
action.
At present, you may link into DEMOCRACY in the Midwest
(Chicago) at 1:115/982, and in Southeast (Florida) at
1:135/14, 1:135/10, or 1:133/302. We are looking for
Denver, Texas, California and New England Hubs. The Echo
is open to anyone with a REAL interest in the goals stated
above and the intent to observe the simple conference
guidelines. If you are interested in picking it up and
distributing it call any of the above hubs. It is
intentionally being kept off the backbone. We need more
hubs to spread the word! The echo is has only just
recently started and is already is filling up with a great
deal of constructive comment and discussion. Lets hear
your thoughts!
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 6-23 Page 29 5 Jun 1989
Jacek Szelozynski
Quick Cat BBS, 2:286/201.10
xx48-58-523319
Gdansk, Poland
Something Exotic - Polish traffic in Net/Echo Mail
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Poland is a country in Europe placed between USSR, East Germany,
Czechoslovakia and Baltic Sea. And I am one of three Polish BBSes
SYSOP. Just few weeks ago we joined the Net/Echo Mail as a point
of AINEX-RBBS in Holland. Now we exchange netmail and joined
COMMS, CLONE, C_ECHO, PENPAL, INTERNAT, TELIX and ZMODEM echoes.
Soon it turned out that messages from Poland in worldwide echoes
are quite a sensation so I decided to drop you all a line an
enlighten you a bit on "BBSes in communist country".
First some history. Our adventure with BBS has started in March
1988 from WILDCAT! 1.03 brought from USA by Stach Roth, my fellow
sysop and programmer in our company. There has been one BBS in
Poland at that time but it worked very irregularly and we did
want to create something better and more reliable. Soon Polish
adaptation of WILDCAT! was ready (the knowledge of English is not
too popular in Poland). We started our run on the 12th of August
1988. Browsing various BBSes in Europe I have met Arjen Lentz and
very soon it was clear that our software can not do everything we
would like our BBS to do. There was urgent need to implement Z-
Modem (a must on poor Polish lines) and the version of WILDCAT!
we used could not work with Net and Echo Mail.
So what could we do? One day we got Quick BBS version 2.03 and
from 10th of March 1989 we continue our activity as Quick Cat
BBS connected to The Box mailer.
The most often asked question in the messages is "Do commies
allow for such an activity as using modems?". I am sorry if my
reply does not agree with certain prejudices, but we are not
at all restricted in anything we do. At least nowadays. We only
had to register our modem in the Main Post Office and check if it
meets Polish homologation. Anyway... The condition of Polish
telephone lines is in some places so poor that commies do not
have to be afraid one day their monopoly will be threatened by
thousands of modem transmissions. We have some 500.000 PC's in
Poland (even buying true-blue COCOM registered IBM PS2/80 or
Honeywell or HP is not a problem at all) but the idea of modem
communication is not very popular as yet. Most of the computers
are used in working places and they rather do book-keeping or
accounting jobs than send/exchange messages. The latter are
rather transmitted by faxes. However there ARE few fanatics in my
country for whom connecting Poland into European modem net is not
just a mere hobby.
Why do I say "European", not "worldwide"? The reason is simple.
Poland (as by now) only has direct telephone links with Europe...
If I want to call to USA or Australia I have to wait about 2 - 3
days for the operator-made call. There's probably another good
FidoNews 6-23 Page 30 5 Jun 1989
reason why Polish government doesn't have to be afraid of
modems. All in all THEY (not modems!) control the telephone
network and switching it all off is very easy.
Well, back to the subject. As I mentioned there are two other
BBSes in Poland too, one in Warsaw and one in Krakow. All use
Quick BBS. Being an echo pioneer in Poland is quite difficult and
very expensive. If say (proportionally to your wages) you pay one
dollar per minute of Holland - Poland call, then I my costs are
at least twice as high. I am alone so I have to download all the
support I need from abroad on my sponsor expenses. Necessity
however is the mother of invention, so we create the utils we
need too. E.g. Stach (writes in C) created extended log-viewer
utility and now he writes dBase format data base utility to
browse and search any records you wish ON-LINE!
In fact I have two sponsors. The other one in Holland sends my
netmail all over the world if I have a bug report for someone. I
do not have a phone at home, so the BBS is in my working place.
There are some 8 (yes, eight, not a mistake) phones per 100
people in Poland and one have to wait about 15 years to get one
connected. Crazy, eh? But I am not guilty of that situation so I
do not have to be ashamed. All the troubles and difficulties do
not make me feel like giving it up either, I am really a fanatic
of all the mailing beasts and the ROYAL troubles they can cause.
Installing the new BBS I used to work on it day by day from 5 pm
till midnight for over a month and even longer. It is not a
problem for a night killer like me.
The users of our BBS (we have 72 participants) are mainly
programmers. As I said modeming idea in Poland is not very
popular as yet and we do work hard to convince people that it
is faster and cheaper to use modem sometimes. I am sure
connecting Gdansk to worldwide FidoNet is a step in right
direction.
If you have any questions you are welcome! I'll try to reply all
messages (if there will be any :)). You can leave messages to us
in the Echoes mentioned above or call directly, and of course by
Netmail to 2:286/201.10 (or 2:2/102.10).
We run our Quick Cat everyday from 22:00 till 09:00 GMT+1, number
is: xx48-58-523319.
Happy modeming!
Jacek Szelozynski, Quick Cat BBS, Point of AINEX RBBS.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 6-23 Page 31 5 Jun 1989
The Veterinarian's Corner
Excerpts from the ANIMED GroupMail Conference
by Don Thomson, 1:102/1005
> The problem .... was that it was CONSTANTLY using the couch for
> a toilet. He was always spraying it, and it smelled horrible...
You bring up a good, albeit difficult, topic on cats and
elimination problem behavior. The first step towards arriving at
a solution is to make a distinction between spraying (which is
delivering a forceful urine stream to a vertical surface - the
tail is held erect, quivering, while the behavior occurs) and
innapropriate elimination - the basic squatting and leaving the
results on a horizontal surface.
Generally the approach to spraying behavior is different than the
approach to innapropriate elimination behavior, although with
some cats the two may occur in the same area.
Let me first address the 'easier' of the two behaviors-
inappropriate elimination - or truely 'using the couch as the
sandbox.' Here I will address generalities on the subject, some
of which may not be germain to your parents plight, but need to
be considered in other similar instances.
Urinary tract infections which create a sensation of urgency to
eliminate is a cause that must first be ruled out. Not all
bladder infections (cystitis) are accompanied by blood, so a
urinalysis and/or urine culture may be warrented in certain
instances to make sure this is a behavioral rather than medical
problem. There are also age-related 'senile' or 'weakness'
related causes in geriatric cats that may contribute to
elimination problems in some cats.
Behaviorally, though, we have two general categories, each of
which have an approach. There are 'Aversions' to the litterbox,
or 'Attractions' to the innapropriate area. Lastly, there are the
'Emotional' disturbances that may effect an elimation problem.
Aversions: This may in some cases be as simple as not cleaning
out the litterbox frequently enough. Other times it may be that
one particular cat will not use the catbox that another cat has
eliminated in. For some reason a cat may find the smell of
certain litters offensive - this may be the case in those who use
certain chlorophyll containing kitty litters or the use of strong
deodorizors or perfumes. Some cats find kitty litter itself
aversive and require actual sand. Fortunatly, sand is cheeper
than kitty litter anyway. Interrupting the cat while using the
litterbox to administer medications etc may create an 'aversion
by association' to using the litterbox. Sometimes, too, the
owners preferred location of the litterbox may be the cause of
FidoNews 6-23 Page 32 5 Jun 1989
the adversion and a change in location may be in order.
Attractions: One of the biggest problem with urinating in the
wrong spot is that it quickly becomes self perpetuating by virtue
of the scent left behind. Cats and dogs have a tremendous
interaction between smell and certain behaviors, such that even
the scent of urine triggers a behavioral elimination response. It
is of absolute importance that the area be completely cleansed of
the urine smell. There are improved commercial products on the
market, and some people find that carbonated soda water works
well. Feeding a cat in the previously soiled area may also reduce
the likelyhood of using the spot again.
Emotional Disturbances: This may be the result of early trauma
and individual 'personality' of the cat. We have reasonably good
luck in treating this type of behavior with mood altering
medications, actually synthetic progesterone derivatives. (Megace
or Ovaban, or injectable Depo-Provera). This medical approach is
not without a degree of risk of certain side effects, and for
this reason, the previously mentioned factors should be addressed
first.
After the causative factors have been addressed, then the cat
needs to 're-learn' to use the litterbox. Initially this may mean
confinement in a relatively small area of the house with the
litterbox placed where there is the highest likelyhood that it
will use it. Usually the bathroom is the most convenient place
because of tile or linoleum floor. As the cat learns to use the
box regularly, it can gradually be re-introduced into other parts
of the house. It should be watched fairly closely to make sure it
doesn't break training. Slowly through 'successive approximation'
it may be given more and more area, and the cat box slowly moved
to a place that is more convenient for the owner. Both changes
(increased area, and movement of the catbox should be gradual.
> Was there anything they could have done to keep this cat
> from ruining their furniture?
Maybe, Phil. But as you know, the process is difficult at times,
and there are, sadly, failures.... As your folks' cat sounds as
though it had a combination of factors acting, possibly a
combination of medical and behavoral modifaction would be needed.
Spraying behavior is another story......
DB Thomson, DVM
1:102/1005
9:871/16
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 6-23 Page 33 5 Jun 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 6-23 Page 34 5 Jun 1989
15 Jul 1989
Start of the SAPMFC&LP (Second Annual Poor Man's FidoCon and
Lake Party) to be held at Silver Lake Park on Grapevine Lake
in Arlington, Texas. This started as an R19-only thing last
year, but we had so much fun, we decided to invite everybody!
We'll have beer, food, beer, waterskiing, beer, horseshoes,
beer, volleyball, and of course beer. It's an overnighter,
so bring your sleeping bag and plan to camp out. Contact one
of the Furriers (Ron Bemis at 1:124/1113 or Dewey Thiessen at
1:130/24) for details and a fantastic ASCII map.
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 1:1/89
for info.
5 Oct 1989
20th Anniversary of "Monty Python's Flying Circus"
11 Oct 1989
First International Modula-2 Conference at Bled, Yugoslavia
hosting Niklaus Wirth and the British Standards Institution.
Contact 1:106/8422 for more information.
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.
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 6-23 Page 36 5 Jun 1989
__
The World's First / \
BBS Network /|oo \
* FidoNet * (_| /_)
FidoCon '89 in San Jose, California _`@/_ \ _
at The Holiday Inn Park Plaza | | \ \\
August 24-27, 1989 | (*) | \ ))
______ |__U__| / \//
/ Fido \ _//|| _\ /
(________) (_/(_|(____/ (tm)
You may pay by Check, Money Order, or Credit Card. Please send
no cash. All monies must be in U.S. Funds. Checks should be
made out to: "FidoCon '89"
This form should be completed and mailed to:
Silicon Valley FidoCon '89
PO Box 390770
Mountain View, CA 94039
You may register by Netmailing this completed form to 1:1/89 for
processing. Rename it to ZNNNXXXX.REG where Z is your Zone
number, N is your Net number, and X is your Node number. US Mail
confirmation is required within 72 hours to confirm your
registration.
If you are paying by credit card, please include the following
information. For your own security, do not route any message
with your credit card number on it. Crash it directly to 1:1/89.
Master Card _______ Visa ________
Credit Card Number _____________________________________________
Expiration Date ________________________________________________
No credit card registrations will be accepted without a valid
signature.
Rooms at the Holiday Inn may be reserved by calling the Hotel at
408-998-0400, and mentioning that you are with FidoCon. Rooms
are $60.00 per night double occupancy. Additional rollaways are
available for $10.00 per night. To obtain these rates you must
register before July 15.
The official FidoCon '89 airline is American Airlines. You can
receive either a 5% reduction in supersaver fares or a 40%
reduction in the regular day coach fare. San Jose is an American
Airlines hub with direct flights to most major cities. When
making reservations, you must call American's reservation number,
800-433-1790, and reference Star number S0289VM.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 6-23 Page 39 5 Jun 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.
