Volume 6, Number 25 19 June 1989
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
| _ |
| / \ |
| /|oo \ |
| - FidoNews - (_| /_) |
| _`@/_ \ _ |
| International | | \ \\ |
| FidoNet Association | (*) | \ )) |
| Newsletter ______ |__U__| / \// |
| / FIDO \ _//|| _\ / |
| (________) (_/(_|(____/ |
| (jm) |
+---------------------------------------------------------------+
Editor in Chief: Vince Perriello
Editors Emeritii: Dale Lovell
Thom Henderson
Chief Procrastinator Emeritus: Tom Jennings
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
A European Response ...................................... 2
The European Situation ................................... 4
"FOOLS" in FidoNet ....................................... 8
FidoCon '89 Update ....................................... 9
Thoughts on the Nodelist ................................. 14
An April Fool joke that wasn't ........................... 22
European Autonomy and Domestic Meddlers .................. 31
3. COLUMNS .................................................. 32
The Lost FidoNet Archives - Volume 3 ..................... 32
And more!
FidoNews 6-25 Page 1 19 Jun 1989
=================================================================
EDITORIAL
=================================================================
Hello, I'm back. Thanks to Harry Lee for assembling files and
running MAKENEWS last week (and the hour or two of work that
precedes and follows that).
There seems to be no lack of articles about FidoNet these days.
I think that's just fine. Glad to see it. Maybe a little
controversy will get us all more interested in what this is all
about. At the very least it will warm up the old varicose veins!
This week there are a number of articles about the initiative(s)
taken recently in Zone 2, two of them in response to an earler
article by Daniel Tobias, and one by TJ, which addresses the
issue in his usual brief but cutting fashion. There is also more
material by Daniel, and by Jack Decker. Isn't there anyone else
in Zone 1 who has something to say? These guys are so prolific
they're putting you all to shame ...
This week we're restarting the "Lost FidoNet archives" series
after a one-week hiatus. We've gotten some more stuff and it
should be running for a while now.
On to other things: the "Current Versions" page in FidoNews has
recently been accused of an unreasonable bias towards certain
compression methods and computing platforms. To address this, I
feel that we would have to expand this page to a relatively
unreasonable length for a weekly repeat. How does everyone feel
about opening this page up to a monthly section, with coverage
for additional software, and for non-MSDOS systems?
Finally, somewhere (I believe that it was in Daniel's article
last week or so) there was some mention of turnaround in
FidoNews. Basically, I try to keep a two or three week retention
on stories, but if things back up I'll move more stuff. Or, if a
story has particular immediate relevance, I'll try to get it
right in. I know a couple of things fell by the wayside last
week because I didn't notice them before I sent everything to
Harry, but in general, that's the way it will work.
Well, on to the rest of the newsletter. Enjoy!
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 6-25 Page 2 19 Jun 1989
=================================================================
ARTICLES
=================================================================
A European Response"
by John Burden
2:255/112
Reading the recent article by Daniel Tobias regarding the
"European situation" was a depressing experience in that it
seemed to typify some of the reasons why Europeans feel out of
tune with IFNA and want a more democratic structure.
Daniel seems to miss the fact that POLICY4E has been in force for
12 months in Europe without any apparent disapproval by IFNA. It
is hard to know how the Europeans voted on POLICY4.06 as all
we've seen reported so far are the global figures. But I'd
hazard a guess that several of the NO votes were from this side
of the Atlantic. (And while we're talking about votes, take a
few moments to look in the current world nodelist, see how many
nodes there are in total, then see how many folks actually wanted
POLICY4.06 enough to say so. Did someone say 152?)
Like it or not, it is a sad fact that IFNA and democracy seem not
to know each other very well. If you are minded to challenge
this claim, just cast your eyes on a recent copy of Fidonews and
see how many (do I mean how few?) directors there are in Zone 2.
Fidonet will probably always have an inbuilt American majority
for many valid reasons. For that very reason I believe it is
incumbent upon IFNA to ensure that there is adequate
representation for zones outside zone 1, so that these zones may
have a meaningful voice.
Whilst I believe that Daniel's reference to a "Declaration of
Independence" was tongue-in-cheek, let us carry on with that for
just a few more lines. The UK has a long history of
colonisation, as do many other European nations. However, except
way back in the darkest days of colonialism, we *did* allow our
colonies to vote AND TO HAVE SELF-GOVERNING STATUS. So, if the
analogy to colonial times is relevant, so is our claim to have a
meaningful voice.
Unless Daniel and I have read different versions of a proposed
European Fidonet policy, I think he may be mistaken when he says
we want to be "not subject to overall FidoNet policy". I read it
with entirely the opposite understanding, namely, that we want to
be free to make our own zone policy, but subject to overall IFNA
policy. What we are asking is that the overall IFNA policy
should permit such self-governing at zone level.
The claim that the American coordinator shouldn't have to pay
long distance charges to distribute a nodelist including a
lengthy list of European nodes is so far wide of the mark that it
FidoNews 6-25 Page 3 19 Jun 1989
can't go unchallenged. The reality is the exact opposite (and
always will be as long as North American nodes outnumber the
rest), namely that here in Europe, with our higher telephone
charges, we pay a LOT of money shunting an enormous US nodelist
around.
In his article, Daniel claimed " the Europeans ... should ...
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." Well, we weren't even
going so far as wanting "wide" latitude, just a bit more latitude
and a bit more democracy.
The idea to charge nodes a fee to operate within Fidonet in
Europe is not something that Daniel is alone in finding
controversial. Whilst most UK sysops are reported to be against
the idea. I can see benefits in it. Personally, I don't go
along with the idea that *Cs should have to dig deep all the time
just to fulfil their roles effectively. OK, I know a lot of us
finish up out of pocket because we're doing something we chose to
do as a hobby, but that just isn't good enough if someone has to
attend meetings, briefings, deputations, etc on a continental
basis. This is particularly relevant in Europe at the moment, as
here in the UK we have a draft Parliamentary Bill that will
effectively outlaw bulletin board systems.
In conclusion his article in Fidonews 623, Daniel says "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). As we are asking for exactly that for Europe, it sounds as
though we might still be talking the same language after all.
Comments, etc to John Burden on 2:255/112.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 6-25 Page 4 19 Jun 1989
The European Situation, an informed perspective
By Ron Dwight ZC2
2:515/1
This article is my reaction to an article in FidoNews 623 by
one Daniel Tobias of 1:380/7. I am disturbed that the Fidonews
editorial staff would publish such an article without checking
into the facts of the matter beforehand. Anyway, on with the
article, my first for FidoNews.
Zone 2 has been operating, quite successfully under POLICY-4E
for almost 18 months. The only critisism of this, that I have
read has been within the last few weeks. If other zones have
been so concerned about zone 2 operating under a different
policy, why have we heard nothing of this before this time? I
suggest the reason is that POLICY-4E and POLICY-3 mesh so well
together that there has been and will be no problem with this.
As to the statement that this amounts to a "Declaration of
Independance" by the European nodes, I feel this is an extreme
overreaction to a statement which has NEVER BEEN MADE. The
situation in zone 2 is vastly different to that in zone 1. We
have many different languages and cultures to contend with. We
do not have the benefit of a common regulatory system within the
various PTT's and what may be perfectly legal in one country
(region) may well be unlawful in another.
Zone 2, Europe as you call it (wrongly), has no desire at this
point in time to break away, be divided from, removed from, split
apart or in any other way severed from, any of the other zones in
FidoNet. Zone 2 has special needs due to it's special nature.
These needs must be addressed if we are to proceed, as we ALL
wish, in an orderly manner to a better FidoNet.
QUOTE from Danial Tobias:
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.
END quote
I am sorry that Mr. Tobias is "not entirely thrilled with the
manner in which they did it". I repeat Mr. Tobias, it has not
been done and I object in the strongest possible terms to your
stating that it has. The remarks you have made here seem to be
designed to fuel a fire dissention between zone 2 and the rest of
FidoNews 6-25 Page 5 19 Jun 1989
FidoNet, a fire which is non-existant and totally unnecessary.
QUOTE from Danial Tobias:
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?
END quote
Your reaction above seems to be due to the zone 2 rejection of
the proposed POLICY (4.06). Mr. Tobias, the proposed policy
document was placed for a democratic vote by the *C structure.
The votes from zone 2 overwhealmingly rejected this proposal.
This is democracy in action and people letting their opinions be
known. I get the impression from your article that a democratic
vote is ok as long as eveyone goes along with your opinion. Free
speech is about people being able to express their own opinions
and have that expression respected. I see absolutely no need of
reactions such as, "They (zone 2) don't agree with us (zone 1)
therefore they must be reactionaries and should no longer be a
part of Fidonet." Forgive me if I misinterpret your article, but
this is how it comes across on this side of the water.
QUOTE from Danial Tobias:
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
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.
END quote
Please read the first sentence of the above quotation at least
twice. You are stating, as a matter of record, that European
policy specifically requires a mandatory fee. Could you kindly
send me a copy of this "European policy" which contains such a
statement? For your information and the ACCURATE information of
Fidonet, no such document exists and no such document has every
been written. POLICY-3 does not contain such a clause, POLICY-4E
FidoNews 6-25 Page 6 19 Jun 1989
does not contain such a clause, the proposal which I have been
working on and which, at this point, I alone have been working
on, does not contain such a clause. Your, incorrect, statements
concerning this matter are inflammatory in the extreme and
excessively annoying.
I just love this mention of the "Spirit of FidoNet." Where do
you obtain this belief as to what FidoNet actually is? I have
never seen, in any FidoNews, in an article, in any communication
from TJ or in any policy, that Fidonet should be free and
financially supported by the few who can afford it. I firmly
believe that FidoNet provides the means for global communication
but it does not provide the means for financing same. We should
not allow FidoNet to bleed dry, those who would support us as
this path does not lead us to future stability.
For your information: At EuroCon III it was decided that an
attempt should be made to establish a European organisation to
benefit Fidonet in zone 2. Among other things, the folks at
EuroCon III felt it would be necessary to charge a fee to every
node in zone 2 in order for this organisation to operate in a
successful manner. The majority of people at EuroCon III, please
read that again, felt that in order to ensure the future success
and stability of this organisation, the fee would have to be
mandatory. There is absolutely nothing in any policy document of
which I am aware which states that a zone, region, net or node
must pay any fee in order to be a part of FidoNet.
I sincerely believe that a mandatory fee is SIGNIFICANTLY more
democratic than the way we operate at the present time due to the
need for people who are willing to help finance Fidonet mearly
because it is something they believe in. The present situation
demands the help of organisations or somewhat wealthy individuals
in order to operate the more senior positions. The post of ZC2
has already cost me more than I can really afford and that cost
is expected to rise when the nodelist comes to my second system.
Is it reasonable to limit the responsible posts ONLY to those
that can afford them, when there is significant talent and
dedication available from those who wish to see Fidonet improve.
Zone 1 has already demonstrated that an organisation which has
no mandatory membership fails badly. Have you ever heard of IFNA
having sufficient funding to support the IC and ZC's? It was
tried with Ken Kaplan and Ben Baker, but failed. The proposals
and I repeat they are PROPOSALS issued from EuroCon III were for
an organisation to help FidoNet and to provide some small means
of financial support to keep the vital lifeblood flowing. The
initial suggestion was for a fee from each and every node, but
was later changed to be from each and every net. This allows a
much larger degree of freedom for the collection of the required
fee. I also believe that this would involve the SysOps to a
greater degree in the operation and wellbeing of FidoNet.
Perhaps a couple MORE examples give some food for thought:
1) The zonegate in region 30 attempted to obtain voluntary
FidoNews 6-25 Page 7 19 Jun 1989
donations to keep running. It failed.
2) They also attempted to start an Echo to discuss the problem
It failed also.
3) The TAP project. Voluntary contributions in NO WAY account
for enough money to make it work.
I will even go so far as to making the following public
announcement. While I am zone coordinator of zone 2, no node
will be forced to pay a mandatory fee to be a part of FidoNet
unless such a payment has been previously agreed by a majority of
the SysOps, who care to vote, in zone 2. In other words, in
order for the European organisation to come into being with a
right to collect a mandatory fee from each net, the SysOps of
zone 2 must agree to this by a simple majority. I will
personally organise such a referendum when more has been decided
by the steering committee for the formation of the European
organisation. Until such a time, it would be deeply appreciated
if rumour and misinformation were not spread.
QUOTE from Danial Tobias:
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.
END quote
In conclusion, I basically agree with the above statement,
except that I feel very strongly that FidoNet should adopt a
truly world policy, containing little more than a definition of
Fidonet, it's history and the very highest levels of it's
organisation and ZMH's. It would then leave all zone specific
matters to each zone, which would create similar policies and
allow each region to neccessarily create it's own local policy
according to it's own needs.
I see little or no need for the very highest levels of FidoNet
organisation to concern itself with matters pertaining to the
very lowest levels. FidoNet has to work, the various componant
parts have to mesh together in a friendly and co-operative
manner. This is 'still' a hobby?
Cheers,
Ron Dwight, ZC2
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 6-25 Page 8 19 Jun 1989
"FOOLS" in FidoNet
A rebuttal for Jack Decker
Mike Ratledge, 1:372/666
Jack, you know that I have really been pretty quiet lately and
haven't bothered to respond to your flames, but the trash you put
in last week's FidoNews regarding Pete White surely caught my
eye, since you chose to dig out an eight-month old message from
*me* to make your point.
When Butch Walker asked me to commandeer ECHOPOL and get it to a
vote right after he resigned, several things were presented to me
as "givens" and not to be voted on either due to the fact that
they were obvious or requirements of the ZEC/NEC system. Since I
have no true authority to do any of this, except that granted by
Butch which was later confirmed by David Dodell (another long
story <grin>...), I didn't really have much input on those items,
beyond the fact that they were required.
One of those things was the prohibition of random message
delivery across regional boundaries for "backbone" echos.
I know you like to pick up on things and take them under your
wing as you have a personal zeal - just like me - to see the
network work better. The fact of the matter is that I *could*
have worded my "fools" comment better - it was certainly not
addressed to Jack Decker, and perhaps I should have made that
"foolish people".
Another fact is that there will always be those foolish people
that ignore the good of the masses and take it upon themselves to
break things!
And - there will always be fools like me that really *are* trying
to make FidoNet a better place for us.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 6-25 Page 9 19 Jun 1989
Les Kooyman
FidoCon Program Chairperson
1:204/501
FidoCon '89 Update: Dateline Silicon Valley
Planning for FidoCon continues at what is beginning to seem like
a hectic pace. As we get closer and closer to the actual date of
the convention, I'm sure we'll look back on this as our relaxed
time!
We've been successful enough at attracting speakers that current-
ly we're planning on 12 rather than 8 sessions. The conference is
still single-track, that is, only one session will be going on
att a time.
The current program listing for Fidocon '89 is as follows:
1: Tim Pozar on UFGATE
2: Vince Perriello and Bob Hartman on BinkleyTerm
3: Bob Hartman on Bix processing of FidoNet echomail
4: Phil Becker on TBBS
5: Tom Jennings on Fido
6: Chuck Forsberg on Zmodem and protocols
7: Mort Sternheim on FidoNet and IFNA
8: Chris Irwin/Joaquim Homrighausen on D'Bridge/Front Door
9: Rick Heming on Wildcat BBS software
10: OPEN
11: OPEN
12: OPEN
We'll be announcing the times and dates of the sessions in July,
in case you want to plan on attending a subset of the full con-
ference.
I would be remiss if I did not emphasize that the deadline for
discount registration is quickly approaching (July 15th). Both
the registration fee for the Convention itself and the hotel
discount rate increase on that date. The FidoCon registration
will increase from $60 to $75, and the discount hotel registra-
tion will END, meaning that you will pay full price for your
hotel room. So get those registrations in, folks! Please see the
registration form in this issue of FidoNews for details on the
way to proceed to take advantage of our discount offers. We'll
accept your registration for FidoCon after July 15 at the $60
rate if you netmail your registration form to 1:1/89 (the offi-
cial FidoCon '89 node) by midnight Pacific Time on July 15, and
(this is IMPORTANT) your hard copy confirmation and fees reach us
within 72 hours of that netmail reservation. This is important
both for payments by credit card or check. You cannot, however,
guarantee the discount hotel rate through netmail to 1/1:89, this
must be done as described in the registration form.
We've also arranged for discount automobile rentals through Alamo
Rent-a-Car. To take advantage of this discount, you need to call
Alamo at 1-800-327-9633 and request an automobile at the conven-
FidoNews 6-25 Page 10 19 Jun 1989
tion rate. Mention FidoCon '89 and the dates of the conference at
the time you request the convention rate. You must make your
reservation no later than 30 days prior to the event, which means
you would need to reserve your car by July 24th. All of the
following rates include automatic transmission, air conditioning
and radio. All of the discount rates include unlimited free
mileage.
Economy car (example: Geo Metro) $32 day/$109 week.
Compact car (example: Chevy Cavalier) $34 day/$120 week.
Midsize car (example: Pontiac Grand Am) $36 day/$135 week.
Standard car (example: Buick Regal) $38 day/$165 week.
Luxury car (example: Buick LeSabre) $40 day/$239 week.
Remember that you really don't have to rent a car in the San
Francisco Bay area if you don't want to, public transportation is
quite good. However, if you are interested in seeing as much as
possible of the area and making a real vacation of it, you should
consider a car, and these rates strike me as being very good.
That's all for the moment... see you in San Jose!
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 6-25 Page 11 19 Jun 1989
Some More Comments
by Daniel Tobias
1:380/7
Here are a few more comments since I wrote my last article,
which appeared in FidoNews 624.
First of all, I somehow managed to get my own node number
wrong when I asked for comments in reply (though I wrote it
correctly at the head of the article). It's 380/7, not
380/2, which was the number of a system I used to run which
no longer exists. I apologize for any inconvenience this
caused. Remember, send all constructive comments about my
article to 1:380/7. (Personal attacks, as always, should go
to NUL: on MS-DOS systems, or \dev\nul on UNIX machines.)
I see that POLICY4 has passed. I feel this is a good thing,
even though I disagree with some elements of this policy.
The rampant factionalism in FidoNet has pretty much stifled
progress of any sort for several years, so I'm glad to see
something moving forward, even if not in the direction I
would prefer. That's better than going nowhere. The old
POLICY3 had many obsolete elements, such as the lack of
reference to zones, that needed to be corrected, and it is
only the infighting and factionalism that prevented a
POLICY4 from being enacted long ago. Now, a new policy is
in effect, with a clearly-defined means by which it can be
further changed; this is a good thing, and will hopefully
end the stagnation and allow for significant progress in the
future.
Some people, I hear, are questioning the validity of the
process by which POLICY4 has been ratified; while they may
have some cogent arguments (after all, POLICY3 didn't give
any means of amendment, and it is a circular argument to
refer to POLICY4's amendment procedure to determine the
correct way of enacting itself), I fervently hope that they
do not press their argument to the point of leading to civil
war within the net over the question of whether POLICY4
should be considered to be in effect or not. This would
only lead to yet another round of infighting and backbiting,
and stifle further progress for years to come. It's much
better to use the means provided for POLICY5 ratification to
place a new policy into effect that handles the criticisms
of the present one, and that is the tack I intend to take.
It appears that by present policy the only way a POLICY
amendment can even legally be proposed is by the approval of
a majority of the RCs. I have no idea what their reaction
will be when I come out with my proposed POLICY5 document;
they could suppress it by refusing to even consider it. One
regrettable feature of POLICY4 is the oligarchic powers
granted the RCs; they select both the ZCs and the NCs, and
can suppress any consideration of POLICY change. They
maintain that they're not seeking personal power, and I
fervently hope they are right. If they're not seeking power
FidoNews 6-25 Page 12 19 Jun 1989
for themselves, then maybe they will give consideration to
amendments which will reduce their power somewhat, if
presented in the context of an entire POLICY5 proposal
designed to benefit FidoNet as a whole. One can hope,
anyway.
Some more notes on geographical exceptions: It may be
relevant to consider what other organizations with
geographically-defined regions and local chapters do in this
regard. For instance, Mensa has regions and chapters which
are defined in terms of zip-code ranges. However, members
may elect to be a member of a different local chapter, and
needn't get the approval of any official to do this. Maybe
somebody has more loyalty to his old hometown than to the
place he currently lives, or is planning on moving soon to
another city and wishes to begin receiving his new town's
local newsletter a few months ahead, or maybe he's just got
more friends on the other side of the regional boundary than
in the one to which he officially belongs. All of these are
reasons somebody might choose to join a different local
chapter, but at any rate, Mensa doesn't demand any reason or
explanation. To the best of my knowledge, no problems have
been caused by this policy. While Mensa has had its share
of factionalism and disputes (not unlike FidoNet), none of
them involve the making of exceptions to geography. (During
one local conflict, it was suggested by a member of the
losing faction that they switch their affiliation en masse
to an out-of-state group which they could then outnumber the
locals in and dominate its policy; however, this was never
actually attempted. If it was, I don't know what national
Mensa would do about it.)
At any rate, it seems like organizations can allow members
to join out-of-town chapters without it causing undue
problems. Some exception might need to be made to prevent
blatant political tactics (like excommunicated nodes
rejoining the nodelist in a different region, coordinators
signing up all of their out-of-town friends to enhance their
power in FidoNet politics, etc.), but in general I see
nothing wrong with a node being allowed to join where its
sysop feels he fits best, even if it doesn't conform to his
strict geographical place. Such arrangements should be
between the sysop and his net coordinator (or region
coordinator if an independent node), with other coordinators
only being allowed to butt in if some clear harm is being
done to FidoNet by that particular geographical exception.
(e.g., if it imposes excessive costs on other nodes, or
assists the node involved in bypassing POLICY in some
manner.)
At any rate, once I write up a POLICY5 proposal, I'll make
it available for file-request on my system, and publish
excerpts from it in FidoNews. (I won't send the whole thing
here, since that would make for a very massive FidoNews, and
most of the text will probably be the same as POLICY4
anyway. I'll just send in the major changes, and let you
FidoNews 6-25 Page 13 19 Jun 1989
request the file from me if you want to examine the whole
thing.) Then, the next step will be to try to find people
who agree with my proposals, and see if I can get the RCs to
place it on the table for consideration. I don't know what
extent of lobbying is needed to accomplish this, but I'll
find out as I go along. If the RCs turn out to be dead set
against any amendment that cuts their power (such as
providing some bottom-up democracy, adding a way of
proposing POLICY changes that bypasses the RCs, and reducing
RC authority over geographical exemptions), it could prove
necessary to rally large masses of grunt sysops and NCs in
support of the amendment to convince the RCs to change their
minds.
Anyway, input from any concerned sysop is encouraged.
I've already gotten some feedback (despite the wrong address
given).
One point raised by a couple of people is that it would be
better to let separate policy amendments be voted on
individually instead of as a whole document. That will take
a little thought; due to the interrelatedness of the whole
document, it's hard to make piecemeal changes without
revising the whole thing. But maybe something can be worked
out; for instance, two separate methods of amendment, one to
make sweeping changes by proposing an entire revised
document, and another (simpler) method to propose minor
revisions via a list of specific changes referenced by
paragraph number. What do others think about this?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 6-25 Page 14 19 Jun 1989
Jack Decker
Fidonet 1:154/8 LCRnet 77:1011/8
Do you wonder why, if this is supposed to be a hobby and we're
all supposed to be having fun, that sometimes it seems like
we're all in the middle of a raging civil war? Do you ever
wonder if we really need the layers of bureaucracy, and pages
of Policy that are part of Fidonet? Do you ever wish that
we could all just communicate and have a good time and forget
all the politics? Then don't skip the following article...
THOUGHTS ON THE NODELIST
We're all familiar with the Fidonet nodelist. When we first
start out in Fidonet, we need to obtain a copy in order to
communicate with other Fidonet nodes. Thereafter, we need to
apply weekly nodediffs to keep it current. Many of us have
automated our batch files so that when a new nodediff shows up,
our systems automatically process it to create the latest
nodelist, without us having to even think about it (much to the
chagrin of the nodelist creators, who would like us to read the
comments that often appear at the front of the nodediffs).
For that reason, we rarely stop to think about the role the
nodelist plays in Fidonet. But let's consider some things
about the nodelist.
First, what is it, really? Reduced to its simplest level, it's
just a directory of nodes using compatible software to exchange
mail packets. In that respect, it's much like a telephone
directory. In fact, by comparing the nodelist with a telephone
directory, we can come perhaps come up with some new ways of
thinking about the nodelist.
A telephone directory lists "nodes" (businesses and residences)
that have compatible equipment (telephones) that can be used
for communication. Now, there are different types of telephone
directories. There are the directories published by the
telephone companies, which list anyone with a telephone who
wants to be listed. But there are also private telephone
directories. For example, many organizations publish
directories of their members. In order to have your phone
number listed in a particular organization's directory, you
have to be a member of the organization. Some churches publish
directories of their members. In order to be listed in their
directories, you have to be a member (or in some cases, just a
regular attendee) of that church.
The Fidonet nodelist, and indeed, all the "other" net
nodelists, are also private directories. There is not, at the
present time, a nodelist that will list any node that runs
Fidonet-compatible hardware and software, regardless of whether
or not they wish to be affiliated with the Network publishing
the nodelist. This is an important distinction. At the
present time, all nodelists are published by a Network, whether
FidoNews 6-25 Page 15 19 Jun 1989
it be Fidonet, Alternet, Eggnet, LCRnet, etc. These Networks
only publish the listings of individual "Nets" and nodes that
have affiliated with that Network. There is no "public"
nodelist that will publish the listing of any "Net" or node,
regardless of which Network that "Net" is affiliated with.
Why do people want to be listed in the telephone directory in
the first place? It's so others can communicate with them. If
someone knows your name, and the city you live in, they can
look in the directory (or get the Directory Assistance operator
to do it) and find out everything they need to communicate with
you (your phone number). You can choose to remain unlisted in
the directory, but then only those who already know how to
communicate with you will be able to do so. Much the same is
true of a nodelist listing. There are situations where nodes
exist that can be reached (either directly or through a Net
somewhere), but because they aren't listed in the nodelist,
only those who know about those nodes can reach them. In
Fidonet, there's the additional problem that some pieces of
software (e.g. Opus 1.03b) will refuse to send messages to
nodes not listed in the nodelist. So, not being listed in the
nodelist can make your node virtually unreachable to everyone
except those who already know how to go about getting mail to
you.
Now a word about copyrights (if you couldn't care less about
them, feel free to skip this and the next two paragraphs). The
telephone directory is copyrighted. So is the Fidonet
nodelist. But, in both cases it is what is known as a
"compilation copyright". A "compilation" is the act of taking
individual pieces of information, which individually may or may
not be in the public domain, and collecting and publishing them
in one single work. Even though the individual pieces of
information may not be copyrighted, the collection of those
pieces of information is copyrightable. You may have seen
collections of "public domain" software programs on diskettes.
The individual programs are still public domain, but the
collection of programs on that disk may be copyrighted. If the
disk is copyrighted under a "compilation copyright", then you
are still perfectly free to give away individual programs from
that disk to others, but legally, you can't just start making
full disk copies of that disk and start selling them for
profit.
Your name and telephone number are not copyrighted. But, the
telephone directory IS copyrighted. No one can simply
photocopy the pages out of the phone book, place them in their
own directory, and start selling that. In fact, they can't
even simply re-type the listings out of the phone directory
into the pages of their directory. So, you may ask, how do all
those "alternative" and "area-wide" phone directories manage to
publish without being the targets of lawsuits initiated by the
phone company? In one of two ways... either they buy the
listings (and the rights to re-publish them) from the phone
company, or they obtain the listings by some means other than
by copying them from the directory. For example, they could do
FidoNews 6-25 Page 16 19 Jun 1989
door-to-door canvassing, asking each resident for their name
and phone number. If they obtain the names, addresses, and
phone numbers through independent means, without simply copying
them from the telephone company's directory, then they can
publish them without any legal liability even though many of
the listings will probably duplicate those in the telephone
directory.
The information on your BBS that you provide to your Net
Coordinator for inclusion in the Fidonet nodelist is not
copyrighted. In fact, the nodelists for each individual "Net"
in Fidonet are not copyrighted. When the Net Coordinator sends
them to the RC, they do not bear a copyright notice (at least
not in any Net that I'm aware of, though it's possible that
some individual Nets do place a compilation copyright on their
Net nodelists). Your NC could just as easily send the same
list to someone who publishes a list of local BBS's in your
city (and that often happens). It's only when the listings are
collected into the complete Fidonet nodelist, and the
"compilation copyright" is attached, that the listings become
copyrighted. If someone gathers information on individual
nodes in a Net, or even if they get the entire nodelist for a
single Net from the NC (assuming the Net's nodelist is not
copyrighted, or that they obtain permission to use it), they
can include those listings in a larger nodelist without
violating the Fidonet nodelist copyright. Once again, the key
is that the listings were gathered by independent means, not
simply copied from the Fidonet nodelist.
Now, there is one big difference between the telephone
directory and the Fidonet nodelist. Your telephone directory
listing is never used for disciplinary purposes. If you make
obscene phone calls, you might go to jail, but as long as are
connected to the telephone system you have the right to be
listed in the phone book. If you hurl a letter to the branch
manager of your local telephone company that contains nasty
insults, he may get quite upset with you, but unless he wants
to face the wrath of his employers and the Public Utilities
Commission of your state (not to mention the possibility of a
nasty lawsuit), he had better not retaliate by deleting your
listing from the telephone directory.
But in Fidonet, your nodelist listing can be cut for
disciplinary reasons. The reason is because, as pointed out
above, the Fidonet nodelist is really a private nodelist. It's
not so much that you are being dropped from the nodelist as
that you are being dropped as a member of Fidonet (for all
practical purposes, they are one and the same).
Now we come to the whole point of this discussion. The main
reason that many sysops have joined Fidonet in the first place
was so that their systems could be listed in Fidonet's
telephone directory, which as it happens is (at the present
time) the largest such listing of compatible systems around.
Some sysops might say that they joined to get echomail, but
that can also be seen as a function of being listed in the
FidoNews 6-25 Page 17 19 Jun 1989
nodelist, because if the nearest source of echomail is listed
only in the Fidonet nodelist, and uses only the Fidonet
nodelist as his system's "phone book", then you have to be
listed in that same "phone book" before that system can send
echomail to you, and you yourself will have to use that "phone
book" to send echomail to him.
What I suspect is that many of you that are sysops didn't
realize at the time you joined Fidonet was that you were not
just signing up to be listed in the nodelist, you were also
joining a private organization. You were joining an
organization that imposes rules on the conduct of its members,
and that disciplines members that don't follow the rules by
removing them from the organization's telephone directory. Not
only that, but you were joining an organization in which the
members have little or no say in the formulation or enforcement
of the rules. You were joining an organization that had a
certain philosophy on how sysops within the net should be
"governed" (in my humble opinion, a philosophy that would be
right at home in the government of countries like Panama or
Communist China).
What I hear from a lot of Fidonet sysops is, "Hey, I joined
Fidonet so that I could communicate with other systems, get my
echomail, and have some fun. I didn't join to have the leaders
of some organization tell me how to run my system!" And if you
stop and think about it, that's really the truth. I'd guess
that fully 90% of the sysops in Fidonet really don't care what
happens at the higher levels of Fidonet, except when it
directly affect them. When you get right down to it, their
MAIN reason for joining Fidonet was to get into the Fidonet
nodelist, so that they could send and receive echomail and (in
fewer cases) netmail. The truth is that most sysops really
don't give a you-know-what about Fidonet as an organization
(particularly at any level above that of their own Net)... they
just want to be in the Fidonet "phone book" (which will in turn
allow them to send and receive echomail).
This is not a happy situation from either the point of view of
the *C structure or the common sysop. The *C structure would
like to "run a tight ship", with an organization of like-minded
sysops all pulling together toward the same goals. They are
visibly distressed by the "apathy" they see in Fidonet, and
even more upset by those sysops who challenge the current
structure. On the other hand, the average sysop either ignores
or resents the attempts to impose "structure" or "discipline"
on him or his system. He just wants to communicate and have
fun! So we have an organization divided against itself, and
like a nation divided against itself, such an organization
cannot stand for long.
If you still have trouble understanding this, let me try and
paint a mental scenario that might help. Suppose you have a
club of people who collect stamps. The club directors, in an
effort to make the hobby more interesting, start showing films
about the countries and people behind the stamps, and in order
FidoNews 6-25 Page 18 19 Jun 1989
to boost attendance at their club meetings, they advertise
these films in the local newspaper. And it works! Attendance
increases by a phenomenal amount in the following year. But,
it soon becomes apparent that most of the new members of the
club aren't really interested in collecting stamps... they're
interested in viewing travel films! And now, some of them are
starting insist that the directors of the club devote the
majority of the meetings to viewing travelogues, and to spend
relatively little time on stamp collecting business, which they
consider boring and not too relevant to their interests.
Obviously, that club has a problem! The leaders and some of
the old time members have much different expectations for the
club than the newer members, who are now in the majority.
A similar situation exists in Fidonet. You might say that
Fidonet is a victim of its own success. The leaders and some
of the long-time members of Fidonet have one set of goals,
while the newcomers (many of whom were attracted by the fact
that Fidonet had the largest "phone book" of compatible system
with which they could exchange echomail and netmail) in many
cases have a completely different vision of what Fidonet should
be. Is either group totally in the wrong? Not really. Going
back to the stamp club example, the old timers would argue that
it was a stamp club in the beginning, and the newcomers are
trying to change its original intent, while the newcomers would
argue that they're simply asking for more of the very thing
that the leaders used to attract them to the club in the first
place!
In the club example, the smart thing to do might be to start a
travel club for those interested in viewing the travelogues,
and get the stamp club back to its original purpose. But if
the leaders of the stamp club can't stand to let go of the
members that just aren't interested in stamps... if they figure
they can't afford to lose the dues money, or they perceive that
they will lose power if the membership splits, or they figure
it's super impressive to others to be able to say they're the
leaders of the largest stamp club in the state, or if they take
the attitude that "these new members should like stamps, and if
we try hard enough we can force 'em to take an interest in
stamps whether they want to or not!", they're going to have
REAL problems. Eventually the leaders may wind up being
replaced by folks who don't really care about stamps at all,
but only after a long, bitter, and divisive struggle!
Hopefully, I won't have to explain the parallels between the
above example and what's happening in Fidonet. The thing that
I think we have all lost sight of is that the vast majority of
systems that have come into Fidonet in the last couple of years
have been attracted to the network by the availability of
echomail. I would even daresay that most sysops see echomail
as a low cost alternative to commercial services such as
CompuServe or Genie. That is the main reason most of the newer
sysops joined Fidonet. Small wonder, then, that they are by
and large unimpressed with actions that are primarily intended
to facilitate the movement of netmail (or to achieve some other
FidoNews 6-25 Page 19 19 Jun 1989
nebulous goals), particularly when those actions have the
result of increasing their costs to receive echomail.
What is the solution for Fidonet? I know a lot of people won't
like this thought (particularly those in the present *C
structure), but I feel the only real, workable solution (and
the only one that will allow Fidonet to return to its original
intent, as the *C structure seems to desire) is to return
Fidonet to a smaller group of like-minded sysops with common
goals (I've actually read the comments of some *C's who have
said that they believe things were much better in Fidonet when
there were only a couple of hundred nodes. If that's what they
REALLY want, let's let them return to those happy times!).
Everyone else should be listed in a new, public nodelist that
is not controlled by any individual Network, but rather that is
open to all "Nets" and the nodes in those Nets. I hope to have
a proposal for such a nodelist ready for distribution within a
short time (it's in the draft stage now, I'm just waiting to
get back some initial comments).
Fidonet would still have its own nodelist, of folks who belong
to Fidonet and who agree to submit to the rules and regulations
of Fidonet. Ditto for "AnyOtherNet." But the sysops and NC's
of local "Nets" could choose to affiliate with one of the major
Networks, or with no Network at all. As long as they are
listed in the "public" nodelist, they will still be able to
receive mail from other systems, and to exchange echo
conferences that are not "restricted" to just one Network. The
nodelist would not be used for disciplinary purposes. If you
have problems with another node, you configure your system to
refuse mail from that node (using password protection or
similar methods) or in extreme cases you could call in the
authorities, as you'd do with an obscene telephone caller.
Keep in mind that RIGHT NOW anyone can configure their system
to "impersonate" another node, so dropping someone from the
nodelist in no way guarantees that you'll never hear from them
again!
Now, I ask you to please pay careful attention to the
following, because I know that those who oppose this idea will
try to claim that it would break up Fidonet. However, the fact
that a Net chooses to be listed in a "public" nodelist would
NOT necessarily mean that they are leaving Fidonet (unless the
Fidonet *C's decide to make it an either/or choice). It would
simply give you, as a sysop, the alternative to communicate
with other nodes without HAVING to subscribe to any particular
denominational viewpoint on how a network should be run. The
various Network nodelists could be viewed in the same way as
church member directories, in that they would presumably
contain the listings of those who adhere to a particular set of
beliefs (on how a network should be operated in this case).
The "public" nodelist would list all Nets (that choose to be
listed)... those that do choose to align themselves with a
particular operational philosophy, and those that do not. I've
never heard of a church giving a member the boot because they
allowed themselves to be listed in the "public" phone book, so
FidoNews 6-25 Page 20 19 Jun 1989
unless the Fidonet *C structure wants to be more authoritarian
than even the strictest of sects, they will not try to
discourage Fidonet sysops from being listed in the "public"
nodelist.
If the *C structure were smart, they'd even encourage those who
don't really adhere to their operational philosophy to be
listed in the "public" nodelist only. I don't mean they'd only
do that when a Net becomes an irritant to a particular *C,
either. What I mean is that once a public nodelist were
available, it might be wise for the *C structure to really lay
out their philosophy and say "if you can't agree with this, you
really shouldn't be here." Some *C's are saying this NOW, but
the problem is that in most cases, there's no other viable
place for a Net to go to (in many cases the choice is between
staying in Fidonet, or aligning your Net with another Network
that may have some equally objectionable policies, or trying to
start your own Network, none of which are particularly
attractive alternatives).
One other point that needs to be mentioned is that there are no
guarantees that the Fidonet nodelist will continue to be
published. If the *C structure of Fidonet decides that they
have lost "control" of Fidonet, or if the people in charge of
publishing the Fidonet nodelist simply get tired of doing it,
there's no absolute guarantee that it will continue to be
published. Should something like that happen, wouldn't it be
nice to have a "public" nodelist available?
When I originally let this idea out to a few people, one of the
comments I got back was on the order of "but how will we get
echomail?" My answer is, "for the present time, the same way
you get it now." People tend to want to view this as an
either/or situation... EITHER you're in the Fidonet nodelist,
OR you're in SomeOther nodelist. That does not necessarily
have to be the case. Consider the situation where you have a
Net that has a couple of nodes that the RC just doesn't like,
for any of a number of reasons (maybe they just happen to be on
the wrong side of some geographic boundary line). Now, in the
Fidonet nodelist, that Net could be listed, but without the
offending nodes. However, that same Net could be listed in the
"public" nodelist intact, with all its nodes (in most cases, it
could even be listed under the same Net number as it uses in
Fidonet if things are planned correctly). In such a case, it
would still be "legal" for any of the Fidonet nodes to receive
echomail from the Regional Echomail Coordinator, and if they
pass it on to one of the nodes that doesn't appear in the
Fidonet nodelist, chances are nobody will notice or complain
anyway - but if someone does, it could always be argued that
those systems are "points" for Fidonet purposes (after all,
they don't appear in the Fidonet nodelist, so they must be
points, right? And in Fidonet, you can send echomail to a
point system no matter where it's located, since points are not
bound by any sort of geographic restrictions).
If the "public" nodelist idea really catches on, though, I
FidoNews 6-25 Page 21 19 Jun 1989
expect that many REC's might eventually consider modifying
their policies to accommodate the "public" nodelist (although
not without some initial "kicking and screaming"; change never
seems to come easily in this hobby!). Please keep in mind that
the Echomail Coordinators are not part of the *C structure, and
in many cases do not really have a vested interest in
perpetuating that structure.
What I have tried to give to sysops here is a simple way to
break the stranglehold that the RC/ZC power structure has on
our ability to communicate with each other. It's not that I'm
anti-Fidonet (an accusation I fully expect to hear sooner or
later), but I am against the non-democratic, "top-down",
dictatorial power structure that we now have. I see a lot of
similarities between the present Fidonet power structure and
the ruling governments in certain countries where Fidonet nodes
aren't permitted. It appears that Zone 2 (Europe) has decided
to, for all practical purposes, pull out of what we think of as
"Fidonet" and form their own democratic organization (actually,
I'm quite surprised that they're allowed to remain in the
Fidonet nodelist... if a Region or Net in the United States did
the same thing, I'm sure they would be summarily dismissed from
Fidonet. But I guess the IC will overlook infractions at the
Zone level that would never be tolerated at the Region or Net
levels). While I agree wholeheartedly with Zone 2's desire for
a more democratic form of government, I do *NOT* agree with the
"nodelist tax" they have decided to impose on each node in
order to be listed in the nodelist. A "public" nodelist would
not help support a "top-down" governmental structure, and it
would give nodes a place to be listed without the requirement
of a "nodelist tax", so in effect it's the best of both worlds.
I don't expect everyone to agree with these ideas. I fully
expect they will be somewhat controversial. But, if the
Fidonet *C's really want to have a network of 5,000 nodes, then
they are going to have to learn to accept the wishes of the
majority of the 5,000, not just the will of the twenty or
thirty in leadership positions (above the Net level) or even
the will of just the few hundred that may have been around
since the very early days of Fidonet. On the other hand, if
what they would prefer is to have fewer nodes but ones that
support their philosophy, then having a separate "public"
nodelist would allow that to happen without cutting off
anyone's ability to communicate. I feel that unless something
is done to resolve the current conflicts between those with
differing ideas on where Fidonet should be headed, we're going
to continue to have the equivalent of "civil war" here in
Fidonet. And that sure isn't FUN for anybody!
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 6-25 Page 22 19 Jun 1989
An April Fool joke that wasn't
From a posting in Usenet submitted by Randy Bush, 1:105/6
From:
[email protected] (Chuq Von Rospach)
Newsgroups: news.admin
Subject: What you *won't* see April First....
Date: 28 Mar 89 17:25:46 GMT
Organization: Life is just a Fantasy novel played for keeps
Since the whole moderator/r.h.f blowup is de-escalating much
faster than expected (thanks, Karl, for cancelling the vote....)
I find that the April Fools parody I'd planned on posting isn't
really relevant any more. Sigh. These things happen. We'll try
again some other time....
I'm going to post it here, now, because I think there's a lesson
in it. The thing that really worried me about this whole
conflagration was that people who normally are pretty smart were
screaming for folks to come in and start regulating USENET.
USENET's worked quite well as an anarchy, and the thought of
adding a bureaucracy telling us 'do' and 'don't' scares me --
once you create the bureaucracy, controlling it becomes
problematic. It will continue fixing problems for you, whether
you want them to or not.
Note: this 'parody' is not funny. Unlike many of the annual
April Fools messages, it wasn't designed to be. It's hard to
poke fun at a network with no sense of humor any more, but that's
another posting at another time. This was aimed squarely at
scaring the sh*t out of the people screaming to get rid of
commercialism on the net without really thinking about what that
meant. So I took a couple of days and tried to find all of the
things that could plausibly be considered commercial and created
a (fortunately false) bureacracy to get rid of them. The results
scared me -- and I think they should scare everyone -- and taught
me a good lesson about asking for things without knowing what
that meant.
The cautionary tale: Beware of asking for things -- you might
get them. Hopefully, my next April Fools posting with have a
little more levity. The r.h.f furor brought out the worst in
everyone (including myself), and you can't write funny material
about things that have no kernel of humor in them. The funniest
thing about it was how serious everyone took it -- and all that
has at the kernel is a pitiable sadness. It's *just* a network
folks.
See ya next April Fools... Maybe.
chuq
------ [note: neither Gene, nor Greg, nor Rick had *anything* to
do with this. Don't send them mail about it....]
> Path: nsc!amdahl!walldrug!eminus!bloombeacon!hoa!uct!backbone
> From:
[email protected]
(Usenet Community Trust Administration)
FidoNews 6-25 Page 23 19 Jun 1989
> Newsgroups: news.announce.important,news.admin
> Followup-To: news.admin
> Subject: Commercialism on the net
> Message-ID: <
[email protected]>
> Date: 1 Apr 89 00:00:00 GMT
> Expires: 1 May 89 00:00:00 GMT
> Organization: Usenet Community Trust, Inc.
(A non-profit organization)
> Lines: 27
> Approved:
[email protected]
We of the backbone cabal have been following the commercialism of
USENET discussion with growing apprehension. Originally, we felt
that, like most USENET flame-wars, it would burn itself out over
time. Unfortunately, tempers continue to heat up and the
argument itself continues to grow. At the current time, the
volume in the anti-commercialism discussion now significantly
exceeds the volume of all of the material that could potentially
be described as commercial. We have never, not even during the
infamous Wobegon Wars, seen an argument blown so totally out of
proportion.
We had hoped this would resolve itself without our intervention.
The backbone feels strongly that a hands-off policy is the best.
However, this discussion has started to tax our disk capacities,
our data transfer links, our budgets and, frankly, our patience.
Because of this, and because we feel the emnity being generated
by this argument may be destructive to the basic fabric of
USENET, we have decided to take steps to stop this discussion.
Effective immediately, the Backbone Cabal will no longer forward
any message discussing the commercialism of the net.
It is obvious from the discussions that there is a mandate from
the users of USENET to do something about the commercialism on
USENET. You want someone who can protect the net from the
subversive forces of blatant commercialism. The backbone has the
organization in place to organize the controls needed to
implement these protections. Therefore, the members of the
backbone have decided the time has come to build a centralized
organization with the purpose of monitoring and controlling the
material posted to USENET so that the proper purposes of USENET
are served. To this end, we have identified all of the improper
postings being made to USENET and, effective today, started to
implement a plan to repair these problems.
Once we finish implementing these new restrictions, we believe
that we will finally have the non-commercial, unbiased and
free-spoken USENET you have mandated us to give you. The net
will finally be free of the commercial fetters that have held it
back, and the users will finally be able to use USENET for
anything they want to use it for, without the specter of
commercial abuse.
We feel that the implementation of this will significantly
increase the freedom of expression on USENET by limiting our
FidoNews 6-25 Page 24 19 Jun 1989
discussions to more appropriate topics and removing the crass
commercialism and vendor interference that inhibits free
discussion of ideas. In addition, the addition of these controls
will significantly improve our ability to reduce future problems,
as the backbone now have the bureaucracy and controls in place to
stop inappropriate discussions before they get out of control and
contaminate the network. Through these new restrictions and
regulations, we expect USENET to prosper and grow as the new
freedoms implied by these regulations allow you to better enjoy
the network.
You, the users -- no, the *owners* of USENET -- have given us an
obvious mandate to step in and protect you from the people who
would abuse and manipulate the network for their own private
gains. Through these new controls, we are implementing the will
of the people, restricting the inappropriate for the good of the
masses. By voluntarily given up that which doesn't matter, you
increase your freedoms. We are here to serve you, and by serving
you we shall be able to create a better network for you. There
are two phases to this.
First, in the short term, all backbone sites have installed
patches to the netnews software. These patches do contextual
keyword searches and will refuse to pass messages that meet the
keyword restrictions. As of now, these keyword restrictions
include:
o Any reference to rec.humor.funny in any newsgroup except
rec.humor.funny.
o Any reference to Brad Templeton, JEDR or Matt Crawford in
news.*
o Any use of the word "commercial", "commerce" or "income" or
any of the expected spelling variants. We may add other
keywords once we analyze the traffic flow.
o Any posting made from or that passes through a commercial,
public access system that charges a usage fee for access.
Free systems will not be affected, but any system that
generates revenue from its users, directory or indirectly,
will be refused access to the network. The most infamous
of these sites are Portal and the Well, but we have also
identified seven other systems qualify and will be
similarly restricted. We are also investigating whether to
extend this to corporate machines that chargeback access
time internally. Even though no money changes hands, there
is a revenue adjustment, and therefore it's a commercial
interaction.
These messages will be deleted silently. You will get no warning
that we have refused to pass them on.
The second phase of the commercialism changes involves
restructuring part of the net. The backbone feels strongly that
USENET should be non-commercial. Therefore, we will be taking
FidoNews 6-25 Page 25 19 Jun 1989
steps to guarantee that USENET becomes and stays completely
non-commercial. Over the next 90 days, we will be putting in
place software and procedures to enforce the following
restrictions on USENET traffic:
o All blatantly commercial newsgroups will be deleted. This
includes (but may not be limited to) the following. A
definited list will be published when our analysis of
traffic is complete.
biz.* comp.org.decus comp.newprod comp.org.ieee
comp.org.usenix comp.org.usrgroup comp.sources.wanted
misc.forsale misc.jobs.misc misc.jobs.offered
misc.jobs.resumes misc.wanted rec.arts.wobegon
o All moderators will be required to sign non-commercialism
contracts. Any moderator that refuses to agree to this
will be replaced or the group terminated. This contract
will require that all material on USENET be copyrighted to
the "USENET Community Trust" and not be redistributed on
any other network. The moderator will not be allowed to be
involved in any activity that allows them to generate
revenue, directly or indirectly, from their USENET
activities. The USENET Community Trust is a new,
non-profit organization that has been formed to maintain
and administer USENET and material that is distributed on
the network. Initially, the backbone will act as both
administrators and steering committee to UCT. We
eventually hope that, once the current emergencies
involving commercialized traffic are resolved, open
elections for members-at-large on USENET will be possible.
o All software distributed by USENET must from now on be in
source form only and be public domain. This specifically
excludes any binaries, shareware or demos. Also, the
public domain requirement precludes any copyright in any
form, so distribution of copyrighted sources of any type
will be disallowed. This includes, based on our
interpretation of the restrictions, any copylefted software
including all GNU distributions. The following groups will
be deleted as being obsolete because of this clause:
comp.binaries.amiga comp.binaries.apple2
comp.binaries.atari.st comp.binaries.ibm.pc
comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d comp.binaries.mac
o Many computer vendors directly or indirectly support their
products via USENET. This is a form of commercialism, as
it allows them to use USENET for free technical support,
marketing and sales promotion. This will be stopped. In
the following groups, we will no longer allow postings of
any type from any employee or representative of the company
being discussed. This will allow the users of the products
to be able to discuss it without the taint of commercialism
currently undercutting the utility of these newsgroups.
FidoNews 6-25 Page 26 19 Jun 1989
comp.lang.forth.mac comp.lang.lisp.franz comp.os.aos
comp.os.eunice comp.os.os9 comp.os.rsts comp.os.vms
comp.sys.amiga comp.sys.amiga.tech comp.sys.apollo
comp.sys.apple comp.sys.atari.8bit comp.sys.atari.st
comp.sys.att comp.sys.cbm comp.sys.cdc comp.sys.celerity
comp.sys.dec comp.sys.dec.micro comp.sys.encore
comp.sys.hp comp.sys.ibm.pc comp.sys.ibm.pc.digest
comp.sys.ibm.pc.rt comp.sys.intel comp.sys.intel.ipsc310
comp.sys.m6809 comp.sys.m68k comp.sys.m68k.pc
comp.sys.mac comp.sys.mac.digest comp.sys.mac.hypercard
comp.sys.mac.programmer comp.sys.masscomp comp.sys.misc
comp.sys.next comp.sys.northstar comp.sys.nsc.32k
comp.sys.proteon comp.sys.pyramid comp.sys.ridge
comp.sys.sequent comp.sys.sgi comp.sys.sun comp.sys.super
comp.sys.tahoe comp.sys.tandy comp.sys.ti
comp.sys.ti.explorer comp.sys.transputer
comp.sys.workstations comp.sys.xerox comp.sys.zenith
comp.sys.zenith.z100 comp.unix.aux comp.unix.cray
comp.unix.i386 comp.unix.microport comp.unix.xenix
o Finally, many newsgroups are indirectly commercial. These
groups include postings that make product recommendations,
post comparative analysis material, book reviews and the
like. Any posting that, directly or indirectly, attempts
to sway a reader into purchasing or avoiding a product is
now to be considered commercial and will no longer be
tolerated.
comp.arch comp.bugs.4bsd comp.bugs.misc comp.bugs.sys5
comp.compilers comp.databases comp.dcom.lans
comp.dcom.lans.hyperchannel comp.dcom.modems
comp.dcom.telecom comp.editors comp.emacs comp.fonts
comp.laser-printers comp.lsi comp.lsi.cad comp.misc
comp.os.misc comp.parallel comp.periphs
comp.periphs.printers comp.sources.amiga
comp.sources.atari.st comp.sources.bugs comp.sources.d
comp.sources.games comp.sources.games.bugs
comp.sources.mac comp.sources.misc
comp.sources.unix comp.sources.x comp.terminals
comp.terminals.bitgraph comp.terminals.tty5620 comp.text
comp.text.desktop comp.unix comp.unix.questions
comp.unix.ultrix comp.unix.wizards comp.windows.misc
comp.windows.ms comp.windows.news comp.windows.x
misc.consumers misc.consumers.house misc.invest misc.misc
misc.taxes rec.arts.anime rec.arts.books rec.arts.comics
rec.arts.drwho rec.arts.int-fiction rec.arts.misc
rec.arts.movies rec.arts.movies.reviews
rec.arts.sf-lovers rec.arts.startrek rec.arts.tv
rec.audio rec.autos rec.autos.sport rec.autos.tech
rec.aviation rec.backcountry rec.bicycles rec.birds
rec.boats rec.equestrian rec.food.cooking rec.food.drink
rec.food.veg rec.games.vectrex rec.games.video
rec.gardens rec.guns rec.ham-radio rec.ham-radio.packet
rec.misc rec.models.rc rec.motorcycles rec.music.beatles
rec.music.bluenote rec.music.cd rec.music.classical
rec.music.dementia rec.music.folk rec.music.gaffa
FidoNews 6-25 Page 27 19 Jun 1989
rec.music.gdead rec.music.makers rec.music.misc
rec.music.reviews rec.music.synth rec.pets
rec.photo rec.scuba rec.skiing rec.skydiving rec.travel
rec.video sci.electronics
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Greg Woods, Gene Spafford and Rick Adams, official shills.
The Usenet Community Trust, Inc. (A non-profit organization)
Chuq Von Rospach -*- Editor,OtherRealms -*- Member SFWA
[email protected] -*- CI$:73317,635 Delphi:CHUQ -*- Applelink:CHUQ
[This is myself speaking. No company can control my thoughts.]
USENET: N. A self-replicating phage engineered by the phone
company to cause computers to spend large amounts of their owners
budget on modem charges.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 6-25 Page 28 19 Jun 1989
142/158 28 May 89 19:05:00
From: Stuart Henderson of 2:255/13.0
To: Vince Perriello of 1/1.0
Files: Uk-Modem.Art
As you may or may not know, in the UK a Conservative MP, Emma
Nicholson, is trying to outlaw hacking and it looks very likely
as if she will get a Private Members Bill passed, as she as much
support. However, it appears very much from a re-type that I
have of this that it will completely outlaw bulletin boards and
the like. I do not know the source of the re-type, but I am
enclosing it because I feel that this is one of the types of
thing that FidoNews is for. Although some may know of this, I am
certain that exposure in FidoNews will strengthen the cause of
English bulletin boards. It would appear that if this was
passed, and it looks increasingly likely that it will, the entire
structure of bulletin boards over here will break down. Looking
at the file, it appears that anyone having a modem is liable to
having it confiscated and so on, as although its owner may
currently have no intent of using it to gain illegal access, they
have the means and could subsequently have the intent.
I hope that you decide to publish the re-type.
Stuart
Here is a complete retype of Emma Nicholsons Private Members bill
that will be in force by th end of this year Please note it is
retrospective!!!! and outlaws hackers, BBS's and conferences!
-----
The Bill.
Offences
1.1(a) A person who effects unauthorized access to a computer or
computer system either
(i) to his own or another's advantage; or
(ii) to another's prejudice;
or
(b) being reckless as to whether his actions would result in
(i) his own or another's advantage; or
(ii) another's prejudice;
shall be guilty of an offence.
1.2 A person who without lawful authority or reasonable excuse
has in his custody or under his control anything with the
intention of effecting unauthorized access to a computer or
computer system to enable some act or acts to his own or
another's advantage or to another's prejudice, shall be guilty of
FidoNews 6-25 Page 29 19 Jun 1989
an offence.
1.3 A person who, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse,
transmits, receives, or causes to be transmitted or received by
means of wire, radio, or television communications including
electro-magnetic waves, any writing, signals, signs, pictures or
sound
(a) with the intention of committing an act
(i) to his own or another's advantage; or
(ii) to another's prejudice;
or
(b) being reckless as to whether his actions would result in
(i) his own or another's advantage; or
(ii) another's prejudice;
shall be guilty of an offence.
1.4 A person commits an offence if he effects unauthorized access
ot the computer of another for an unauthorized purpose.
Penalties.
2.1 A person guilty of an offence under section 1.1 above shall
be liable -
(a) on conviction on indictment, to a fine, or to
imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or to both; or
(b) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding level 5 on
the standard scale.
2.2 A person guilty of an offence under subsection 2 or 3 of
section 1 above shall be liable -
(a) on conviction on indictment, to a fine, or to
imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or to both; or
(b) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding level 5 on
the standard scale.
2.3 A person guilty of an offence under section 1.4 above shall
be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5
on the standard scale
Powers of search and seizure.
3.1 if it appears to a Justice of the Peace, from information
given on oath, that there is reasonable cause to believe that a
person has in his custody or under his control -
(a) anything which he or another has used, whether before or
after the coming to force of this act, or intends to use,
FidoNews 6-25 Page 30 19 Jun 1989
for the making of anything contravention of section 1.2
above; or
(b) any unauthorized documentation obtained by the un-
authorized accessing of a computer of another, whether
before of after the coming to force of this act; or
(c) anything, custody or control of which, an offence under
section 1.2 of above; he may issue a warrant authorising
a constable to enter and search the premises.
3.2 If it appears to a Judge of the Crown Court from the
information given to him on oath that there is reasonable cause
to believe an electronic device os being used to unlawfully
access the computer of another, he may authorize monitoring of
such a device, by the police, by electronic means, in order to
intercept the transmitted data and to produce evidence of
unauthorized access.
3.3 A constable may at any time after seizure of anything
suspected of falling within paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection 1
of this section (whether the seizure was effected by virtue of a
warrant under that section or otherwise) apply to a magistrates'
court for an order under this subsection with respect to object
t; and the court, if it is satisfied both that the object falls
within any of those paragraphs and that it is conductive of the
public interest to do so, may make such order as it thinks fit of
the forfeiture of the object and its subsequent destruction or
disposal.
3.4 Subject to subsection (5) below the court by, or before,
which a person is convicted of an offence under this Act may
order anything shown to the satisfaction of the court to relate
to the offence to be forfeited and either destroyed or dealt
with in such other manner as the court may order.
3.5 The court shall not order anything to be forfeited under
subsection (4) above where a person claiming to be the owner of,
or otherwise interested in it, applies to be heard by the court
unless an opportunity has been given to him to show cause why
the order should not be made.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 6-25 Page 31 19 Jun 1989
Tom Jennings, 1:125/111
Since I see my name is getting dragged into this, I thought I'd
respond on the subject of Zone 2's autonomy, which is really an
issue of control.
First of all, no one need worry about trademark abuse; I am in
contact with all parties involved, and there is nothing to worry
about. Things will be settled to everyones benefit and
satisfaction. No further discussion is needed on this matter.
It is none of our business how Zone 2 (or any other zone) runs
their network(s), other than how they interface to us, just as it
is no business to net 125 how net XYZ runs theirs, unless it
somehow physically affects our operation. If they have different
criteria for joining a network, what business is it of ours? To
meddle ahead of time "in case they do something awful", is silly;
they are no more (or less) likely to do something stupid than we
in Zone 1 are. Europe is not just the U.S.-only-different; it is
a totally different environment, socially, technically, legally
and politically. Europe is none of our damn business.
Zone 1 is not the police force of the world. Have we not learned
our lessons from other arenas? We do not "have" a unified world-
wide network, nor is such a thing even desirable. What we do have
is a number of cooperative networks, that can cooperate in a
world-wide networking effort. This is a critical difference.
Unfortunately, meddlers and control freaks will not give up until
everything not exactly like themselves is squashed or controlled.
Or they are in turn removed. We have a growing bureaucracy in our
Zone 1 that wants to reorganize us from being a bottom-up
network, where sysops choose their net hosts and other /0's, and
determine how to run their own BBS, nets and lives, to one
(according to POLICY4) where the existing bureaucracy picks their
own region and net hosts. Bureaucrats always tell us, if they can
control this one more thing, then all the problems will be
solved.
Our network has never run smoothly, and I propose that it will
*never* run smoothly; this is good, not bad. It means we're
alive, only dead rigid bureaucracies are pure order. (Or pretend
they are.) Excessive order is not good for any organism. It
stifles creativity and free expression. Let's take a hint from
history, OK?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 6-25 Page 32 19 Jun 1989
=================================================================
COLUMNS
=================================================================
THE LOST FIDONET ARCHIVES
VOLUME THREE
Compiled by various members of FidoNet
Edited by Vince Perriello
This is the third article in a series which reprints documents of
historical significance to FidoNet. This week we feature Tom
Jennings' original FidoNet History document from February 1985.
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.
Following is the contents of FIDONET.DC1:
FidoNet History and Operation 8 Feb 85
This is a long and convoluted document; it has been sorely
needed for months now, and it finally got done. FidoNet is
growing at a tremendous rate, and newer sysops don't have the
information that us oldies (pre Sept 84 sysops) assume everyone
knows; hence the history section here. There is a lot of
extremely important material covered here that was assumed to be
known by all; we are finding out otherwise.
This also covers some of the dark mysterious secrets about the
magical node numbers, and how the magical node lists appear from
nowhere. Those of you that have been FidoNet nodes since way
back when, spring and summer of 1984, and watched all this
develop (such as it was) in full Technicolor, will know most of
this; if you are a relatively new sysop, much of this may come
as a suprise. Everyone should read this, experienced sysops, new
sysops, and all Fido and FidoNet users.
FidoNet is no longer just a piece of software; it has become
complex organism. There are about 160 Fidos in FidoNet right
now; this does not include Fidos being run as Bulletin Board
only systems, just ones that you can converse with over the net.
If the average number of users on each system is 300 people, you
can start to guess at the scale of things today.
HISTORY:
When FidoNet was first tested, there were two nodes: myself here
at Fido #1 in San Francisco, and John Madill at Fido #2 in
FidoNews 6-25 Page 33 19 Jun 1989
Baltimore. John and I did all of the testing and development for
the first pass at FidoNet. Its purpose: to see if it could be
done, merely for the fun of it, like ham radio. It quickly
became useful; instead of trying to call each others' boards up
to leave messages, or expensive voice phone calls, Fidonet
messages became more or less routine.
This was version 7 of Fido sometime in June 84 or so; it did not
have routing, file attach, retry control, error handling, cost
accounting, log files, or any of the niceties since added. A
packet was made, a call placed, the packet transferred, that was
it. This was adequate for a month or two, when there were less
than 20 nodes.
In August of 84, the number of nodes was approaching 30; the net
was becoming clogged, believe it or not. FidoNet wasn't too
smart about making calls then. With 30 systems, coordination
became difficult; instead of a simple voice phone call to the
(very few!) sysops to straighten out problems like modems not
answering, wrong numbers, clock problems, etc, it took days to
get the slightest problem repaired. There were by now six nodes
in St. Louis, and Fido #1 was making seperate phone calls for
each, when obviously one could be made. Enter the beginnings of
routing.
The "original" FidoNet was very simple and friendly; you told me
at Fido #1 that you had a FidoNet node ready, I put you in the
list, with your phone number, and people called up and downloaded
the list; done!
Well ... at first, "everyone knew each other"; we were in more
or less constant contact. However, when the node numbers got
into the twenties, there were people bringing up FidoNodes who
none of us knew. This was good, but it meant we were not in
close contact anymore.
The Net started to deteriorate; every single week without fail
there was at least one wrong number, usually two. To impress on
you the seriousness of wrong numbers in the node list, imagine
you are a poor old lady, who every single night is getting phone
calls EVERY TWO MINUTES AT 4:00AM, no one says anything, then
hangs up. This actually happened; I would sit up and watch when
there was mail that didn't go out for a week or two, and I'd pick
up the phone after dialing, and was left in the embarrasing
position of having to explain bulletin boards to an extremely
tired, extremely annoyed person.
There were also cases where the new node really wasn't up yet,
and the number given was a home phone to be used temporarily, but
I'd forget that, and include it in the list anyways. Or the new
node wasn't really up yet, and we'd all make calls to it and it
would not answer, or worse, the modem would answer but the
software wasn't running, and we'd get charged for the call.
This obviously could not go on. We had to have some way to make
sure that at least the phone numbers were correct! I started a
FidoNews 6-25 Page 34 19 Jun 1989
new policy; before giving out a node number and putting it in
the list, I had to receive a FidoNet message from the new node,
directly. This verified that at least the new Fido was half way
running. At the time, Fido had a provision whereby Fido #1 could
set the node number remotely; I'd send a message back, and
presto! a new node was up.
Well, this didn't work properly either; at the same time, the
Fido software was changing so rapidly, to accomodate all the
changes (literally a version a day for a few weeks there) that I
was losing new node requests, wrong numbers caused by illegible
handwriting, all sorts of problems. Out of laziness I would
still assign nodes "word of mouth", and got in the same trouble
as before.
The people in St. Louis (Tony Clark, Ben Baker, Ken Kaplan, Jon
Wichman, Mike Mellinger) had their local Fidos going strong, and
understood what FidoNet did, how it worked, and what it was
about. They volunteered to take over the node list, handle new
node requests, and leave me with the software. They tightened up
on the FidoNet message requirement, and in a few months, had the
"error rate" (wrong numbers, etc) down to practically zero, where
it is today.
Though I did the programming, Ken Kaplan, Ben Baker, and the
crowd in St. Louis did much of the design and most of the
testing of routing, forwarding, and local nets. They still
remain the experts on the intricacies of routing, and help sysops
set up local nets.
Please keep in mind the entire process, from two nodes to over
50, took only three months! Fifty nodes is more than it sounds;
at that level it becomes a large scale project. FidoNet went
from about 50 nodes in Sept 84 or so, to the current 160+ in
Jan/Feb of 85.
FidoNet today is a network quickly approaching the levels of
complexity of commercial networks, and has many more capabilities
than many "mini" networks, such as USENET, which has no routing
or hosts. Only ARPAnet has some of the features of FidoNet. The
southern California local network is three levels deep, with
hosts in Orange, LA, Ventura, San Berdino and San Diego counties.
FidoNet is just too large today to run as an informal club. The
potential for error is just too high to include numbers at random
within the node list. I imagine we are in a predicament today
what the radio ameteur operators had a number of years ago.
The requirements for new FidoNet nodes are pretty minimal, and
they appear to be arbitrary and harsh if you aren't aware of
what's going on. This is to spell them out in detail, so
everyone will understand the process.
FidoNet'S PURPOSE:
Very simple; it is a hobby, a non-commercial network of computer
FidoNews 6-25 Page 35 19 Jun 1989
hobbiests ("hackers", in the older, original meaning) who want to
play with, and find uses for, packet switch networking. It is
not a commercial venture in any way; FidoNet is totally
supported by it's users and sysops, and in many ways is similar
to ham radio, in that other than a few "stiff" rules, each sysop
runs their system in any way they please, for any reason they
want.
THE STIFF RULES:
Actually, not as bad as it sounds; basically, politeness as a
rule:
1. New nodes, see below.
2. If your system is going to be down for a week or more,
please let Fido 51 know. They can take you out of the
list while you are gone, so other FidoNet sysops won't be
wasting phone calls.
3. If you change your phone number, or decide to stop
running Fido, let them know, so other FidoNet sysops
won't be wasting phone calls.
The thing to keep in mind is that FidoNet's telephone calls to
send mail are costing someone money; if you are down just for a
night or so, don't worry about it, just make sure your modem
doesn't answer.
THE NODE LIST
Obviously (if you are a FidoNet sysop that is) the node list is a
text file containing all the names, phone numbers and other
things on each node, and as distributed by Fido 51, routing
information for the many local networks. It is a very compact
list, and so there is no clue as to how that list is made.
Here is the current process for new nodes to obtain a node
number, and get into the node list. This assumes you want to run
a public access Fido; specialized systems are covered
seperately, below.
SET UP FIDO
Of course, you should get your Fido running first; no sense in
trying to run mail if your Fido doesn't run! In your FidoNet
area, enter a message for Fido #51, and include the following
information:
1. Your boards name
2. City and state
3. Sysops name
4. Board phone number
5. Maximum baud rate; 1200 assumed otherwise
6. Hours of operation; 24 hrs assumed otherwise
FidoNews 6-25 Page 36 19 Jun 1989
7. Way to contact the sysop during the day. This is
not absolutely necessary, but it makes it easier
if there is some problem.
Most of this is pretty obvious. The sysops voice phone number
will be kept secret; it will not be given out. It is only used
if there is some problem, and a FidoNet message can't be sent for
some reason.
For Fidos that want to run with an unlisted phone number, a few
other things are needed:
8. A public FidoNet to act as mail host
9. The systems actual phone number
A host is required for an unlisted number, so that you can
receive mail. (If you don't want to receive mail, then there is
no reason for you to be part of FidoNet!) The host system will
have to have the unlisted phone number, of course.
Fido 51 needs to have the phone number also, but it will be kept
secret. This is so that they can contact you directly if there
is any problem, such as a known bug or a question, or if your
host drops out of the network, so there is some way to contact
the local nodes.
GETTING A NODE NUMBER
This is the part that seems so arbitrary if you aren't aware of
what's happening. What happens is: you send Fido 51 the message
described above. When they receive it, they put the stuff into
the node list and fido list, pick you a node number, and mail a
copy of it to you the next weekend.
This tests your system at the same time; you have to be able to
sucessfully send and receive mail in order to get the node
number. Out of it, you get a copy of the latest lists.
NOTE: Fido 51 does not mail out copies of the lists to everyone
on a regular basis; it would mean too many phone calls ($$$
...). You can get the new node list Friday evening at Fidos 10
and 51, or Fidos 1 and 2 later that weekend or early the next
week, and usually most any other busy Fido.
If it all works, then 1) you know your system is working 2) Fido
51, the node list keepers, knows it's working 3) the other 160 or
so Fido sysops know that your system was working at least as
recently as the last node list. Print out the last few weeks
nodelists; compare all the changes, not just the additions.
This is why node numbers aren't given out "word of mouth", or at
other sysops request. It has to be done directly, as a test.
WHAT FIDO 51 REALLY DOES
FidoNews 6-25 Page 37 19 Jun 1989
Making the node list is more than just typing in the information;
they make sure that the information in the list is accurate as
possible. This frequently means voice phone calls to double
check, or calls to the new system to see what the problem is;
sometimes it is as simple as the wrong baud rate, the time wrong
on the new system, so that it is not running FidoNet at the right
time.
Ken Kaplan and Ben Baker do the node list work when they have
"spare time"; please be patient! As the number of new nodes
increases every week, response time goes up. Currently, the node
list is done once a week; new node requests must be received in
Wednesday nights mail (by Thursday morning) so that they can work
on it Thursday night, and send it out on Friday night, so that
you will have it over the weekend. The volume of mail is such
that it may take a few days to get out.
(Please note that Fido 51 is an unattended node; there is no one
there to answer Y)ells unless someone happens to walk by. The
machine is located at Data Research Associates, who kindly
donated the phone line, and runs on a DEC Rainbow 100+, donated
by Digital Equipment Corp.)
Fido 51 is an extremely busy system; they receive 125 messages a
week through FidoNet alone, so please be patient.
CHANGES, MISTAKES AND UPDATES
If you ever find wrong information in the node list, please send
the information to Fido 51; they will include it in the next
list.
If you become part of a local net, ie. you have an incoming
host, notify them, and it will be included in the node list also.
Other changes might be baud rate (got a new modem!) hours of
operation, board name or sysop, etc.
SOME OTHER THINGS ...
If you have questions or problems with any part of Fido or
FidoNet, please ask. Here's where to go for problems:
HARDWARE, SOFTWARE, PERFORMANCE OR INSTALLATION TROUBLES
Call or FidoNet to Fido #1, me, Tom Jennings. FidoNet is best,
if possible; that way, I have your "address and phone" handy.
If not, then call Fido #1 and leave a message. If you leave it
at G)oodbye, when you call back looking for a reply, remember to
check in the ANSWERS area; Fido will NOT tell you if there is
mail for you, you have to search for it.
Fido #1 always has the latest versions of Fido for all hardware
supported, available for download. Fido #1 ALWAYS runs one
revision later than the released version; it is used to test new
features or bug fixes, so that when released they will be
FidoNews 6-25 Page 38 19 Jun 1989
working. Check the FIDO download area for the current Fido
version.
I have nothing to do anymore with maintaining the node list, nor
do I hand out node numbers.
ROUTING, NODE LIST, LOCAL NET QUESTIONS AND PROBLEMS
Fido 51. Since they keep the list, they're the ones to contact
for node list problems. If you want advice on how to set up a
local net in your area, they can offer help and advice.
SPECIALIZED SYSTEMS
If you are setting up a private network, and it is to be truly
private, what you do with it is your own business. If, however,
there is any possiblility that members of your private network
may wish to communicate with any members of the public network,
you should contact Fido 51 for the allocation of a block of node
numbers to be assigned by you to the nodes in your network. This
is to avoid node number conflicts upon receipt of FidoNet mail in
the public network.
LOCAL NETS
Neither I nor Ken Kaplan nor Ben Baker "run" FidoNet; local
networks such as the one in Southern California and Massachusetts
are entirely the responsibility of the sysops in the area; the
only thing we ask is that the designated "incoming host" for that
area be somewhat reliable, for the obvious reason that it will be
receiving lots of phone calls from across the country.
As a matter of fact, you are encouraged to form local networks,
or join one that exists locally. IT makes it cheaper for other
systems to send you mail, and generally streamlines FidoNet
operation.
Other than that, local nets are totally standalone; that is what
they are for! For instance, SoCal can run their net anyway they
please; it is their hardware, their phone lines, and their phone
bills. It is their investment in work, and they should reap the
benefits. If there is a "FidoNet policy", this is it.
AND SO ON ...
I hope FidoNet is a bit clearer now; if you have any
suggestions, or want to volunteer to help, please let us know.
Our only interest is in keeping the node list correct and up to
date; this simple list is what ties the entire net together.
Ken Kaplan Fido #100/51 314/567-4067
Tom Jennings Fido #125/1 415/864-1418
FidoNews 6-25 Page 39 19 Jun 1989
Ben Baker Fido #100/10 314/234-1462
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 6-25 Page 40 19 Jun 1989
=================================================================
LATEST VERSIONS
=================================================================
Latest Software Versions
Bulletin Board Software
Name Version Name Version Name Version
Fido 12m+* Phoenix 1.3 TBBS 2.1
Lynx 1.30 QuickBBS 2.03 TComm/TCommNet 3.4
Opus 1.03b+ RBBS 17.2A* TPBoard 5.2*
+ Netmail capable (does not require additional mailer software)
Network Node List Other
Mailers Version Utilities Version Utilities Version
BinkleyTerm 2.20 EditNL 4.00 ARC 6.02*
D'Bridge 1.18 MakeNL 2.12 ARCmail 2.0
Dutchie 2.90C ParseList 1.30 ConfMail 4.00
FrontDoor 2.0 Prune 1.40 EMM 2.02*
PRENM 1.47* XlatList 2.90 GROUP 2.10*
SEAdog 4.51* XlaxDiff 2.32 MSG 3.3*
XlaxNode 2.32 MSGED 1.99
TCOMMail 2.2*
TMail 1.11*
TPBNetEd 3.2*
UFGATE 1.03
XRS 2.2
* Recently changed
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 6-25 Page 41 19 Jun 1989
=================================================================
NOTICES
=================================================================
The Interrupt Stack
9 Jul 1989
FidoNet's Zone 4 (Latin America) adopts 0800 GMT as new Zone
Mail Hour, replacing the North American 0900 GMT schedule.
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.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
POLICY4 Vote Results
David Dodell, 1:1/0 (aka 1:114/15)
FidoNet International Coordinator
FidoNews 6-25 Page 42 19 Jun 1989
I am pleased to announce the passing of POLICY4.06 as the
new governing policy document for FidoNet. This document
will be known as POLICY4 and has been placed into effect on
June 9, 1989.
The vote breakdown for all FidoNet Zones was:
Yes -> 152
No -> 75
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 6-25 Page 43 19 Jun 1989
=================================================================
REPORTS
=================================================================
Nominations and Elections Committee
1:107/233
Report from Nominations and Elections Committee
Well, to say the least, there have been a few problems with the
Nominations process. The biggest is that in the rules for this
year posted in FidoNews, there was a statement that Nominees did
not have to be IFNA members. The problem is, that that is the
way things were last year. You see, it was the intention of the
drafters of the Bylaws that a Director not have to be a member,
and therefore nothing was put into the original Bylaws to this
effect.
However, the lack of a definitive statement led to considerable
controversy in regard to interpretations of the Bylaws on this
matter, with some people making the point that the Bylaws
indicated that only Regular Members had the right to vote and
that requirement was extended to include the voting of a
Director. In any event, in order to clear up this point there
was a statement voted into the Bylaws in the last election to the
effect that a Director must be a "member in good-standing."
Unfortunately, this slipped past the committee and they left in
last year's interpretation. This has presented a problem in a
specific instance where one individual did receive sufficient
nominations but, when the Committee checked memberships, found
that the individual had proceeded under the published
instructions. Due to this fact, the fact that the membership
application from the individual is presently received and in
processing, and that it appears that no one's interests would be
served by ruling to the contrary, the committee has decided to
validate the nomination.
Accordingly, Kathi Crockett is hereby announced as being elected
to the position of Director of Division 17, there being no one
else who officially garnered a sufficient number of endorsements.
This last point presents another problem. The Committee, as part
of its charge to see to the nominations of qualified candidates,
had indicated in a couple cases that it would assist others in
finding additional supporters, in those areas where there were
not enough IFNA members. However, despite attempts by the
committee to get in both netmail and voice contact with the IFNA
Secretary, no direct word was received by the Committee and
indirect word did not arrive until well after the official
cut-off date.
The Committee is naturally upset about this situation and wishes
to apologize to anyone who feels that they were affected. We
expect to make amends by assisting such individuals, as may be
legally possible, during the remainder of the election process.
In addition, the Committee is recommending that the Bylaws be
changed to not divide the responsibilities of the nomination
FidoNews 6-25 Page 44 19 Jun 1989
process across separate offices to prevent such reoccurrences in
the future.
As to the rest of the election, the Nominations and Election
Committee, in order to provide access to as many individuals as
possible, intends to provide notice of any candidate who may be
interested in a Directorial position and applies to be a write-in
candidate. Eleven more positions are available, so if you are
willing to join forces to work for the furtherance of the
FidoNet technology, please express your interest by contacting
the Committee via 1:107/233 or 1:107/210 prior to July 1.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 6-25 Page 45 19 Jun 1989
OFFICERS OF THE INTERNATIONAL FIDONET ASSOCIATION
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 1:147/47
Nominations & Elections David Melnick 1:107/233
Public Affairs David Drexler 1:147/47
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 1:147/47 (vacant)
2 Henk Wevers 2:500/1 David Melnik 1:107/233
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 6-25 Page 46 19 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)
R E G I S T R A T I O N F O R M
Name: _______________________________________________________
Address: ____________________________________________________
City: _______________________ State: ____ Zip: ______________
Country: ____________________________________________________
Phone Numbers:
Day: ________________________________________________________
Evening: ____________________________________________________
Data: _______________________________________________________
Zone:Net/
Node.Point: ___________________________________________________
Your BBS Name: ________________________________________________
BBS Software: _____________________ Mailer: ___________________
Modem Brand: _____________________ Speed: ____________________
At what hotel will you be staying: ____________________________
Do you want an in room point? (Holiday Inn only) ______________
Are you a Sysop? _____________
Are you an IFNA Member? ______
Additional Guests: __________
(not attending conferences)
Do you have any special requirements? (Sign Language translation,
handicapped, etc.)
FidoNews 6-25 Page 47 19 Jun 1989
______________________________________________________
Comments: ______________________________________________________
______________________________________________________
______________________________________________________
Costs How Many? Cost
--------------------------- -------- -------
Conference fee $60 .................... ________ _______
($75.00 after July 15)
Friday Banquet $30.00 ................ ________ _______
======== =======
Totals ................................ ________ _______
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 ________________________________________________
Signature ______________________________________________________
No credit card registrations will be accepted without a valid
FidoNews 6-25 Page 48 19 Jun 1989
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.
The official FidoCon '89 automobile rental agency is Alamo Rent a
Car. Rates are as described below. All rates include automatic
transmission, air conditioning, radio, and unlimited mileage.
Economy car (example: Geo Metro) $32 day/$109 week.
Compact car (example: Chevy Cavalier) $34 day/$120 week.
Midsize car (example: Pontiac Grand Am) $36 day/$135 week.
Standard car (example: Buick Regal) $38 day/$165 week.
Luxury car (example: Buick LeSabre) $40 day/$239 week.
To take advantage of this rate, call Alamo at 1-800-327-9633 and
request the convention rate. Mention FidoCon '89, the location
and dates.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 6-25 Page 49 19 Jun 1989
__
The World's First / \
BBS Network /|oo \
* FidoNet * (_| /_)
_`@/_ \ _
| | \ \\
| (*) | \ ))
______ |__U__| / \//
/ Fido \ _//|| _\ /
(________) (_/(_|(____/ (tm)
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.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
