Volume 6, Number 27                                   3 July 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  .................................................  3
       Computer Literacy  ........................................  3
       FidoCon '89 Update  .......................................  6
       A network constitution?  ..................................  8
       Thoughts on the Nodelist (Revisited)  ..................... 11
       Multiple Nets in a Single Geographic Area  ................ 18
       More of My Opinions if Anyone Cares  ...................... 21
       SDNet/Works! UPDATE  ...................................... 25
       And we thought the mud-slinging presidential campaign w  .. 28
       A Short Story, With a Moral  .............................. 29
    And more!
     FidoNews 6-27                Page 1                    3 Jul 1989


    =================================================================
                                EDITORIAL
    =================================================================

    This is getting ridiculous.

    Frankly, at  this  point  I could care less who the good guys and
    bad guys are.  My suspicion is that both sides are at fault.  But
    this apparent  attempt  to  bury FidoNews in POLICY squabbles has
    gone far enough.

    To date I have printed  nearly  everything  that has been sent on
    the topic(s) in question, because of  our  open policy.  The only
    items I haven't printed were sent to the  Publications  committee
    for  review  in  one  case,  and exceeding the  MAKENEWS limit in
    another.  (The long article will be published after PubComm looks
    at it)

    The result:  some very HEAVY FidoNews editions.

    Has anyone benefitted from this?  Answer:  No.

    Is this serving the public interest? Answer: No.

    So what  can be done about this?  Change the Editorial Policy?  I
    think not.   I've  spent  some time thinking about it and I don't
    believe that any policy  can  be  drafted that will properly curb
    abuse of the FidoNews forum  without causing severe damage to the
    usefulness of FidoNews to the community at large.  And I'm not so
    certain  that  devising long-winded policy documents accomplishes
    much  more  in  this  network than usurping the  normal  role  of
    everyone's manners and good judgement, and putting all that  into
    the hands of others (however well-intentioned they might be).

    So we're down to ASKING.   PLEASE, DON'T SEND US SO MUCH MATERIAL
    ABOUT POLICY SQUABBLES.  If you feel  strongly  about  publishing
    something about some local issue, try to keep  it  down to one or
    two concise articles.  The current ratio of anywhere  from 4 to 6
    articles or more  per  dispute is just too much.  If there really
    are issues that we  can  all see, one well-written article should
    be able to make them  apparent.  All you accomplish by sending in
    20K of text a week is getting everyone pissed off at YOU.

    I  still  intend  to  print  what  I receive as long as it passes
    scrutiny for possible  legal problems by me or the Pubs committee
    (this isn't new, this is the policy we have been operating under)
    but I would like some  cooperation  from  certain  combatants  in
    America's Heartland and elsewhere to help keep FidoNews on track.

    There are important political issues facing the network.  We need
    a  forum that enjoys wide readership in order  to  discuss  them.
    Spending  too much time in a local Wisconsin dispute  will  drive
    the  Louisiana  or Luxembourg reader away.  I'm not taking  sides
    here.   I'm just telling it like it is.  PLEASE  give  this  some
    consideration.

     FidoNews 6-27                Page 2                    3 Jul 1989


    As always, thanks for shopping K-Mart, er, reading FidoNews ...

    -----------------------------------------------------------------
     FidoNews 6-27                Page 3                    3 Jul 1989


    =================================================================
                                ARTICLES
    =================================================================

    Claude F. Witherspoon
    Fido 1:288/525
    Home of KidsNews

              Computer Literacy to be Top National Priority

    Its that time of year again. Computer Learning Month will be upon
    us before we know it. With that in mind,  we  at  KidsNews  would
    like  to  share  the  following information in hopes to make this
    year even better than last year:

    COMPUTER  LITERACY  TO  BE  TOP   NATIONAL   PRIORITY   FOR   NEW
    INDUSTRY-SUPPORTED FOUNDATION

    PALO  ALTO,  Calif. (Feb. 13, 1989) -- In a bi-partisan effort to
    address the nation's eroding  educational  levels,  the  Computer
    Learning  Foundation (CLF) today announced plans for a year round
    campaign to promote computer literacy in North America. Supported
    by major software publishing companies, as well as Apple and IBM,
    CLF expects to recieve up to $1 million in funding this year.

    The  announcement  coincides  with  predictions  of  a   national
    technologigal  decline  touched  off by last week's release of an
    Educational Testing Service study that  showed  13-year-old  U.S.
    students  scoring  the  lowest  in an international comparison of
    mathmatics and  science  skills.  Earlier,  a  National  Research
    Council  study  reported  that American students were being *left
    behind*  by  a  mathematics  teaching   system   that   set   its
    expectations too low.

    The  establishment of the non-profit Computer Learning Foundation
    will extend the annual industry-sponsored Computer Learning Month
    (CLM) public  education  campaign  in  October  to  a  year-round
    initiative.  Last  year's  program  reached  more than 60 million
    people and was the catalyst for nearly  3,000  computer  literacy
    events in schools and cities throughout the U.S. and Canada.


    "With increasing concern over the high school drop-out rate, poor
    student performance levels  and  the  erosion  of  the  country's
    competitive  edge,  the  importance  of  having  an  educated and
    computer-literate  population  has  emerged  as  a  top  national
    priority  as  we  experience  a  quantum  leap  in  technological
    development," said Sally Bowman, director of CLF.

    Predictions by Forcasting International indicate that by the year
    2010  every  job in America will require some form of information
    technology skills.

    "Our number one goal  os  to  motivate  more  effective  uses  of
    technology  in  schools,  homes  and businesses by raising public
    recognition of what is really possible with computers.  In  1989,
     FidoNews 6-27                Page 4                    3 Jul 1989


    we  are  building a broader coalition of partners to reach out to
    children, adults and teachers from every socioeconomic background
    and help to increase computer compfort and confidence around  the
    country. Computer literacy goes well beyond Silicon Valley: is is
    the nation's future."

    In  1989,  for  the  first time, sponsorship of Computer Learning
    Foundation activities will be open to organizations  outside  the
    computer   industry.   Through  joint  promotional  tie-ins  with
    mass-marketers of consumer products, CLF expects  to  extend  its
    "You Won't Believe What You'll Achieve!" message nationwide.

    Industry  sponsorship  of CLM activities reached an all-time high
    in 1988, up 300 percent from 1987. The 1988 coalition of  support
    included 61 software and computer industry members, 52 U.S. State
    Departments  of  Education  and Canadian Ministries of Education,
    and 21 national non-profit organizations.

    CLF 1989 programs, using the theme "You Won't Believe What You'll
    Achieve!,"  will  offer  a  variety  of  programs  and  materials
    designed  to  reach millions of children, adults and educators in
    the U.S. and Canada. Books that address  computers  and  careers,
    school  lesson  plans  for all age ranges and educational levels,
    and more will be published and distributed by CLF in  the  coming
    year. Last year alone, CLM distributed millions of books, posters
    and  materials  as  part  of  its  efforts  to increase "computer
    confidence" amoung all age groups. This year, in addition to  its
    books,  CLF  will  also  distribute posters and Computer Learning
    Month event kits to schools and community groups to support their
    efforts in increasing computer literacy.

    CLF contest for individuals  and  educators  prompted  more  than
    100,000  entries last year during CLM. In 1989, CLF contests will
    focus on effective uses of the computer at school  and  home,  as
    well  as development of teacher training materials. Traveling art
    exhibits featuring creative work  done  by  school-aged  children
    using  computers  will be displayed at metropolitan libraries and
    airports throughout the country. And, for  the  first  time,  CLF
    will  communicate its computer literacy messages via a nationally
    syndicated television series entitled SOFTVIEW. The  CLF  series,
    which  begins  airing  in  late  February,  will  be  produced in
    conjunction with the Central Education Network (CEN) and is aimed
    at  increasing  elementary  and   secondary   school   educators'
    understanding  and  use of computers in the classroom. The weekly
    programs  will  feature  "hands-on"  lesson   plans   that   have
    effectively  incorporated computers and traditional materials, as
    well as creative computing ideas for the classroom.

    Published  with  permission  of  the Computer Learning Foundation
    (CLF), Palo Alto, Calif.

    I  have  initiated  a  National  Computer  Learning  Month   echo
    available  on Fido 1:288/525 by request. If you are interested in
    carrying the echo which uses the name NCLM, please send a request
    to Butch Witherspoon, Fido 1:288/525 (Continuous Mail (CM)),  and
    I  will  be  happy  to  tie you into the echo and send it to your
     FidoNews 6-27                Page 5                    3 Jul 1989


    system. You must be able  to  accept  continuous  Mail  for  this
    request.  This  offer  is  good  for  the U.S. only until someone
    offeres to gateway the echo to other regions. I would like to see
    the echo carried on the Backbone if folks are interested enough.



    -----------------------------------------------------------------
     FidoNews 6-27                Page 6                    3 Jul 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 6-27                Page 7                    3 Jul 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 6-27                Page 8                    3 Jul 1989


                       A network constitution?

      I know it may sound kinda funny...but do we need such a
    thing? I'm beginning to think that it might not be such a bad
    idea to help us improve and expand our network. I have been
    reading some of the echos floating around and the FIDOnet news
    letters and it is beginning to get pretty hostile. Anyway after
    some thought and discussion with other sysops I drafted the
    following document as a proposed "constitution" for a logical
    network called FREEnet. Such a net would include all sysops
    whether they are in a organized network or not.
      Now you are probably saying why? What good would this do
    me the regular BBS sysop? Wouldn't this just be another layer
    of stuff I would have to put up with! Well here in short and
    sweet are some of the reasons that such a collective body can
    be a benefit to you.
        1) It would allow each member more democratic input into
           the hows, whys, and whats of how the networks are run.
        2) A collective body could exert influence on the
           legislative bodies of state and federal governments.
           Issues like the FCC's rate setting for long distance
           telecommunication products/services.
        3) Representation in national/international standards
           meetings. Where things like X.400 are right now being
           put on paper. The future of ISDN and how that will
           impact Email and networking.
        4) A collective force that can influence the computer
           equipment producers and software vendors.

      There are a lot more reasons than I have listed above and
    I'm sure there are some that may or may not agree with the
    ones I've listed. But I hope that we can somehow get together
    as a group and tap some of the great potential we already have
    as sysops. To get this thing started we need people willing
    to function as a "constitutional congress" and designate
    a legislative working group for each of the 50 states and
    each over-seas country.
      I hope I have sparked some interest in this idea....
    Please contact me with your comments, thoughts, suggestions...
    anything that you feel like saying on this constitutional
    organization.

    David Winters
    The "Drifting Sysop"

    MCImail:  328-8890
    Telex:    6503288890
    CIS:      73327,1075
    Fido:     281/10 (route to 777/1)
    DDN/Arpa: [email protected]






     FidoNews 6-27                Page 9                    3 Jul 1989


                          FREEnet Constitution
                            9 June 1989


    PREAMBLE:

            The rights and interests of computer hobbyists around the
    world are diverse and ever changing. As each ventures to learn
    and grow the need to communicate with their peers is a necessity
    that fosters this expanding interest in the field.  This
    communication should be easy and agreeable with minimal
    interference from outside organizations. The RIGHT of these
    individuals to explore as they will must be protected and
    nurtured as a fundamental goal. To this end the following
    constitution is dedicated and drafted for those who hold to this
    basic purpose.

    ARTICLES of CONSTITUTION:

    1. This constitution shall be a document used as a foundation for
    all members participating in FREEnet and as a guide for
    operations. It is ratified by each individual member's decision
    to participate. As a guide it is not the absolute...but a living
    changing document.

    2. Each member of the network has the right to one vote on any
    issue that concerns this network, its operation, or this
    constitution and amendments. A member is an individual that has
    identified themselves as a willing participant to FREEnet and
    this constitution.

    3. All operations of FREEnet will be in accordance with the laws
    of the sovereign state in which the member resides. Any actions
    which conflict with these local laws...the local law will take
    precedence over the network constitution and amendments.

    4. Any operations or subjects not addressed in these articles or
    amendments are retained to the members and shall not be abridged
    without their consent and approval.

    5. There will be elected by simple majority a president and vice-
    president, who shall function as the executives for FREEnet. They
    retain the office for one year and have the power to appoint
    individuals as assistants as needed. All assistants will be
    confirmed by the legislative congress. The president will
    represent the FREEnet and its members on all matters not retained
    to the members or the congress. The vice-president will perform
    tasks assigned by the president.  The president also retains the
    right of the VETO on legislation written by the congress.

    6. The congress shall consist of members elected by majority in
    their area of operation. Each 50 members shall have one
    representative in the FREEnet congress. The area should consist
    of members who are closely located geographically. In remote
    areas of 5 or more there may be elected a representative upon
    approval of the judicial council. The representatives will retain
     FidoNews 6-27                Page 10                   3 Jul 1989


    office for one year. The congress has the power to put forth new
    legislation that effects the operation of FREEnet.

    7. The judicial council will consist of 12 members selected by
    the president and approved by the congress. Each judge will
    retain their office for two years. The judicial council will
    arbitrate questions about operations with reference to this
    constitution. The council has the power of REVISION for all
    legislation where conflicts arise with this constitution and
    amendments. The council will rule on matters between members,
    members and the FREEnet organization, and non-member
    organizations and FREEnet. The council may appoint sub-councils
    to performs judicial tasks as assigned.

    8. No member may hold more than one office in FREEnet.

    9. Amendments to this constitution may be enacted by: a 3/4
    majority of congress or by vote of 90 percent of the members.
    Legislation may be introduced by any congress representative or
    by a petition of 500 members. Introduced legislation must be
    approved by a 3/4 majority of congress

    10. The act of impeachment for any member, congress
    representative, or president requires the vote of 90 percent of
    congress and a majority of the judicial council.


    WE THE FOLLOWING SIGN THIS DOCUMENT IN GOOD FAITH AND WITH THE
    HOPE THAT IT WILL FOSTER EACH MEMBERS BEST INTEREST.


    -----------------------------------------------------------------
     FidoNews 6-27                Page 11                   3 Jul 1989


    Jack Decker
    (Formerly?) Fidonet 1:154/8
    LCRnet 77:1011/8

                 THOUGHTS ON THE NODELIST (REVISITED)

    This may well be my last Fidonews article as a member of
    Fidonet. In a scant few hours, the new Fidonet nodelist will be
    issued, and our Net will no longer exist as far as Fidonet is
    concerned (although we are still quite alive and well, thank
    you).

    This particular cloud may indeed have a golden lining, however.
    It has caused us to give some really serious thought to the
    matter of the nodelist, and as a result, the "Official Public
    Computer Network" Nodelist is now in production.  The current
    OPCNLIST and OPCNDIFF are requestable from 154/970, and that's
    also where you can send your Net's nodelist segment if you'd
    like to be included in the OPCN nodelist.  The only problem, of
    course, is that by the time you read this, 154/970 will no
    longer be in the Fidonet nodelist, unless something pretty
    miraculous happens between now and then.  Never fear, at the
    end of this article I'll give you enough information to
    temporarily plug a subset of Net 154 into your private nodelist
    long enough to file request a copy of the OPCN nodelist
    (assuming you can't find a distribution point nearer to you).

    I think the nicest compliment that we've received so far came,
    believe it or not, from an RC (not ours!), who said "Nice idea
    - perhaps what FidoNet was SUPPOSED to have been....."  This
    is, in fact, exactly what we're hoping for... to cut away all
    the political crap and return Fidonet (or at least, computer
    networking) to what it was originally intended to be.

    We have made one change in the way we're doing things.  We now
    support the Fidonet style usage of the CM flag, that is, CM is
    no longer assumed to be the default condition.  While we still
    feel that it would make more sense for CM to be the default
    (since the majority of nodes are now CM), we also recognize
    that it creates a hardship for NC's to have to make two
    separate nodelists (one for Fidonet, and the other for the OPCN
    nodelist).  So, you can now send the same Net nodelist to both.
    You still have the option of creating a nodelist just for the
    OPCN nodelist (since we do support some additional nodelist
    flags that Fidonet doesn't), but you don't HAVE to if you don't
    want to.

    Another reason you may wish to create a separate nodelist for
    the OPCN nodelist is that the OPCN nodelist allows you a lot
    more freedom to list all the nodes in your net.  If you have
    private nodes, or nodes that are outside your local calling
    area that you haven't been listing for fear of bringing down
    the wrath of the Fidonet *C's upon you, feel free to list these
    nodes in the OPCN nodelist.  The OPCN nodelist is in no way
    affiliated with Fidonet.  When you list your Net in the OPCN
    nodelist, think of it as though you're actually listing a
     FidoNews 6-27                Page 12                   3 Jul 1989


    private Net that just happens to use the same Net number as
    your Fidonet Net, but that need not contain exactly the same
    list of nodes as your net in Fidonet.

    If you're an NC, we would like to invite you to have your Net
    listed in the OPCN nodelist.  You may use the same Net number
    that you are now using in Fidonet (or in any other Network, so
    long as it does not conflict with an existing Fidonet Net
    number), so you need not alter your system's control files.
    Send your net's nodelist updates (under the filename NET.xxx,
    where the "xxx" is your net number) to George Kasica (the OPCN
    nodelist compiler) at 154/970.  (NOTE:  Should you have a four
    digit Net number, please use the filename xxxx.NET when you
    send your nodelist segment in to 154/970).  For those who'd
    like more involvement in this project, we'll be forming a
    "Nodelist Distribution Network" to assist in the distribution
    of the OPCN nodelist, and to assist in the gathering of
    nodelist segments from individual Nets.  For more information
    on the OPCN nodelist and/or the Nodelist Distribution Network,
    please send netmail to George.

    You might be asking why you would want your net listed in the
    OPCN nodelist.  There are several reasons, but here are a few
    of the main points:

    1)  We've deliberately tried to make the OPCN nodelist as
    non-political as possible.  You do not have to agree with
    anyone else's philosophy as to how a network should be operated
    in order to be in the OPCN nodelist.  Nor do you have to give
    up any existing affiliation with Fidonet or AnyOtherNet in
    order to be listed in the OPCN nodelist.  You should consider
    listing your net with us, if for no other reason than that we
    could be a valuable "second source" listing of Fidonet
    compatible nodes in the event that anything ever happens to
    disrupt publication of the Fidonet nodelist.

    2) We allow you to list ALL the nodes in your Net.  No need to
    "hide" certain nodes for fear that someone might complain that
    they're on the wrong side of a geographic boundary.

    3) If you are now listing certain nodes that are really full,
    operational BBS's in a Point Net because they don't quite meet
    certain technical standards, they can be listed as private,
    unlisted nodes in the OPCN nodelist.  We don't get our noses
    out of joint because you have private, unlisted nodes in your
    net.  And as long as the Net's NC can connect with the private,
    unlisted node to exchange mail, it's nobody's business if
    anyone else can (since all inbound mail to such nodes will be
    host-routed anyway).

    4) If you're now listing certain nodes as "private, unlisted"
    because you don't want your RC to know where they're really
    located, you can list the phone number and location in the OPCN
    nodelist (as far as the Fidonet people are concerned, these
    nodes don't exist, because they're not in their nodelist!).  We
    don't care where your nodes are located.  If you or they are
     FidoNews 6-27                Page 13                   3 Jul 1989


    willing to bear the expense to connect with each other, it's
    none of our business.

    At this point, I can just hear some folks screaming that we
    will increase the size of our nodelist by allowing private
    nodes to be listed indiscriminately.  Well, in the first place,
    we don't have a size problem yet!  But in the second place,
    part of the blame for that problem can be laid on the shoulders
    of the original designers of Fidonet software.

    You see, the original designers opted to go with what might be
    termed a "fully coupled" nodelist.  Simply speaking, this means
    that some pieces of software (Opus, for example) will not allow
    you to send netmail to a net/node that is not listed in the
    nodelist.  This prevents a user from sending mail to a
    non-existent node, BUT, it also means that all private nodes
    must be listed in the nodelist, or users of software that
    checks the nodelist for a valid address will not be able to
    send mail to such private nodes.

    Unfortunately, it soon got to the point where SOME people
    started screaming about the size of the nodelist, and decided
    that most private nodes had to go.  But to where?  That's about
    the time the whole concept of "points" and "point nets" were
    developed.  So now, users of systems that check the nodelist
    can now send messages to non-existent points.  What have we
    gained?  The net is no longer "fully coupled", since point
    addresses cannot be checked for validity, but we have added an
    extra layer of complexity.

    The Fidonet philosophy in cases like this seems to be to add
    more software complexity.  We in effect took a system that was
    functioning very well using only nets and nodes, and added
    "Points" and "Zones" which are essentially KLUDGES.  To fully
    support either of these extensions adds additional complexity
    and software problems that can reach out to bite sysops in the
    most unexpected ways.  I feel it would have been much better,
    and much simpler from a technical standpoint, to abandon the
    idea of the "fully coupled" nodelist and to simply route any
    traffic for "unknown" nodes to the appropriate net host.  In
    this way, "private, unlisted" nodes would not have to be in the
    nodelist, and we could have done without the "Point" kludge.

    To give you just one example of how these kludges can really
    screw up a system... I have a point off of my system, so I run
    ReMapper to remap netmail to his system.  I also have a node
    number in LCRnet, which uses Zone 77.  Just today, I discovered
    that if anyone sent me netmail at 77:1011/8, and the sender was
    running a fully "zone aware" system that put in the ^AINTL
    kludge line, ReMapper would happily readdress such messages and
    send them off to non-existent node 1/77!

    If those systems now operating as "Points" instead had "real"
    net node numbers (albeit private, unlisted ones), netmail and
    echomail routing to those systems would be a snap.
    Unfortunately, because there's still some "fully coupled"
     FidoNews 6-27                Page 14                   3 Jul 1989


    software out there, such private, unlisted nodes would have to
    be listed in the international nodelist to be accessible to
    everyone in the net.  If we could move away from the idea of
    the "fully coupled" network (which no longer exists anyway,
    when points are considered), then such private, unlisted nodes
    would only have to appear in the NC's nodelist, not the big one
    that gets sent around to everyone.

    Zones used as gateways to "other" nets are also a kludge, and
    you can blame the Fidonet *C structure for that one.  When
    Alternet first started out, they asked that a group of Net
    numbers be reserved for Alternet nodes.  This would have made
    things much simpler for everyone,  Unfortunately, small minds
    decreed that Fidonet had a God-given right to all possible net
    number combinations, so Alternet was forced to resort to the
    Zone kludge.  The small minds are still at work... Alternet
    first used Zone 4, and the *C's said they needed that for South
    America (they wouldn't have DREAMED of just skipping Zone 4 and
    using Zone 5).  So then Alternet changed over to using Zone 7.
    Now the Fidonet nodelist lists nodes 1/5, 1/6, and 1/7 as
    "future Zonegates", effectively telling the Alternet folks that
    they aren't authorized to use Zone 7, either.  But when
    penguins and polar bears start using computers, Fidonet will be
    ready for them!

    Now the Fidonet hierarchy wants other networks to use something
    called "domains", the implementation of which will require
    additional software and will make life that much harder for
    sysops, as well as making it totally impossible for users of
    most older software to send messages to those in other
    networks.  My guess is that most sysops will NOT run "domain"
    software.  The idea of adding yet another layer of complexity
    onto Zones, Nets, Nodes, and Points is probably just too much
    for the "average sysop" to stomach.

    (By the way, when you dial a 1-800- call, do you know how the
    phone company knows which long distance carrier to route it to?
    Simple... they look at the first three digits of the exchange,
    that is, the three digits following the "1-800-".  For example,
    if you dial "1-800-222-xxxx", the call is handled by AT&T.  If
    you dial "1-800-950-xxxx", it goes via MCI.  And if it's
    "1-800-877-xxxx", it goes by U.S. Sprint.  Aren't you glad the
    folks who are making decrees on how "alternate' networks must
    interface with Fidonet aren't working for the phone company?)

    We refuse to play these sort of politically-motivated games
    with the OPCN nodelist, and intend to just list nets in North
    America under Zone 11, nets in Europe under Zone 12, and so on,
    regardless of what "network" the net is affiliated with.  So,
    sysops who use the OPCN nodelist won't have to try to figure
    out if someone is in Fidonet, Alternet, Eggnet, LCRnet or
    WhatEverNet.  If they have the net/node number, and if the NC
    of that net has permitted it to be listed in the OPCN nodelist,
    they just type it in as if it were in their own net.  No
    Zonegating to "other" nets, no multiple outbound areas to
    maintain, no worries about whether all your software is "fully
     FidoNews 6-27                Page 15                   3 Jul 1989


    Zone-Aware" (it most likely isn't), and much less complexity
    all around.

    Before I close, I'd like to share with you part of a netmail
    message I received from Carl Linden in response to my first
    nodelist article.  It makes some very interesting observations,
    I think:

         I read your article with interest, Jack, and couldn't
         agree more.

         However: . . .

         The IFNA Nodelist already provides what you are
         advocating.  Following is an excerpt from the latest
         Nodelist:

    [Note that this is the text that appears at the front of the
    Fidonet nodelist, reformatted to fit Fidonews:]

         FidoNet Nodelist for Friday, June 16, 1989 -- Day
         number 167 : 04941

         Copyright 1989, International FidoNet Association
         (IFNA), Missouri Corporation.  All rights reserved.

         NOTICE:  This compilation is the property of IFNA as
         its created work.  This work includes certain
         individual portions provided to IFNA by operators of
         Fido and FidoNet Bulletin Boards.  IFNA has the right
         to create and distribute these Nodelists based, in
         part, on rights granted to it by those originating
         such portions.  Other than the rights granted IFNA,
         those creating and maintaining the portions retain
         all residual rights in and to each's individual
         portion.

         IFNA grants unlimited duplication and/or distribution
         for noncommercial purposes only and reserves all
         other rights, including, but not limited to, any
         commercial publication, distribution, republication
         or redistribution in any way of all or any part of
         the NodeList, except those nodes that are now or
         hereafter registered in this NodeList shall be and
         hereby are licensed to utilize this NodeList only in
         the technical operation of those nodes.  Any
         distribution authorized herein may include recovery
         of reasonable, actual costs of duplication and/or
         dissemination.

         No one is granted any other right to any use, sale,
         duplication or distribution of this compilation for
         any commercial purpose.....

    [Mr. Linden continues:]

     FidoNews 6-27                Page 16                   3 Jul 1989


         IFNA enjoys special tax status by being a corporation
         for the good of the general public.  IFNA cannot
         restrict its services to only its own members,
         members of FIDOnet, or any other organization.  If
         they do their preferred tax status is in jeopardy.

         So, the bottom line is that we already have a public
         nodelist.  Being listed in the nodelist is not at the
         pleasure of the *C's, or anyone else, it is required
         for IFNA to keep its preferred tax status.

         Ex-communication is currently used as a disciplinary
         measure by the *C structure if the *C does not like
         the views expressed by the "offender".  This is a
         violation of our right to Free Speech.  But,
         enforcing that is at best expensive & time consuming.
         A much better approach would be to challenge IFNA's
         preferred tax status if IFNA does live up to its
         purpose to serve the general public.

         For now I am not going to publicize this message in
         any of the echoes, but you are free to do so as a
         comment on your FIDOnews article.

    Now, I'm not holding my breath until the IFNA nodelist begins
    to fulfill its role as a truly "public" nodelist.  We'll be
    happy to do it if the IFNA doesn't want to.  But, there are a
    couple of points worthy of notice here.  First, the Fidonet
    copyright notice grants specific permission for others to use
    it for non-commercial purposes.  So, we COULD take the Fidonet
    nodelist and merge it into the OPCN nodelist (which could
    probably be described as "militantly non-commercial", to
    paraphrase Wynn Wagner) and issue a truly combined nodelist if
    we wanted to.  I would personally prefer not to do things that
    way, but apparently we wouldn't be violating anyone's copyright
    if we did!

    Second, regarding the recent expulsion of Net 154 from the
    nodelist by a Fidonet RC... the NC of Net 154 happens to be a
    member of the IFNA Board of Directors.  The IFNA claims
    ownership of the nodelist in the prologue to the nodelist.
    Doesn't it seem a bit ironic that a member of the IFNA Board of
    Directors (and his entire net) can be kicked out of the IFNA's
    nodelist by an RC who is not (to my knowledge) even in the
    IFNA, or at least not on the IFNA's Board of Directors?

    But the real question is, does the IFNA have the right, as a
    tax-exempt organization that is supposed to be serving the
    public, to ONLY accept nodelist segments provided to them by
    Fidonet *C's?

    If the IFNA is obligated to serve the public interest, and to
    specifically avoid furthering the goals of one particular
    private organization, such as Fidonet (and particularly, the
    RC/ZC/IC structure of Fidonet), then can they legally allow a
    small group of individuals (the *C's) to decide who will and
     FidoNews 6-27                Page 17                   3 Jul 1989


    who will not be allowed to be in the Fidonet nodelist?  By
    giving the *C structure control of who can and cannot be in the
    IFNA nodelist (based entirely on their private interpretation
    of Fidonet Policy documents), isn't the IFNA nodelist is being
    used to further the goals of a specific parochial group,
    namely, the Fidonet Coordinators at and above the RC level?
    Doesn't this violate the provisions of the IFNA's tax-exempt
    status?

    These questions are ones that I'm sure we will be asking in the
    weeks ahead!

    I promised to provide an abbreviated Net 154 nodelist that you
    can plug into your private nodelist long enough to get a
    message to us.  This is it.  Just use a text editor or word
    processor to clean it up and connect the two halves of each
    line.  If you're an NC, I hope you'll use this to send your
    Net's nodelist to 154/970, for inclusion in the OPCN nodelist!

    Host,154,/\/\ilwaukee/\/\etro,Milwaukee_WI,
              Ted_Polczynski,1-414-282-4181,9600,CM,HST
    Pvt,8,Northern_Bytes,Sault_Ste_Marie_MI,
              Jack_Decker,-Unpublished-,2400,
    ,970,Forecast_Office,West_Allis_WI,
              George_Kasica,1-414-321-7872,9600,CM,HST

    -----------------------------------------------------------------
     FidoNews 6-27                Page 18                   3 Jul 1989


    Steve Palm
    Fidonet 1:154/8.2
    LCRnet 77:1011/8.2

              MULTIPLE NETS IN A SINGLE GEOGRAPHIC AREA

    After reading the policy documents that hold FidoNet together,
    and  listening to some of the bickering going on in the
    Echomail areas, I have come to some conclusions.  Please bear
    with me as I point out what I see as some obvious points, which
    may have been overlooked from time to time by those whom it
    might benefit the most at the time.

    Geography is quite an issue.  Yes, it affects just about every
    aspect of the way your system interacts with others in FidoNet.
    You cannot become part of a Net that is outside of your
    predetermined Geographic area, unless you can prove beyond a
    shadow of a doubt that it will be of benefit to *everyone* else
    in FidoNet.  Well, maybe it isn't that bad, but it sure seems
    like it sometimes, doesn't it?

    It appears that things have been set up so that a certain
    Geographic area is covered by a specific Net.  Indeed, this may
    be the best way to approach this situation.  However, is it
    necessarily the best way to handle it in *all* cases?  I would
    think not...

    Many people have been quick to point out different cases in
    favor of multiple nets in a Geographic area, if needed.  For
    example, one person has repeatedly mentioned that Cellular
    phone companies are allowed to co-exist in the same area.  Yet,
    that doesn't in any way shape or form make it any more
    difficult for you to get your call through to someone, now does
    it?

    I was thinking on this, and thought that perhaps only having
    one Net in an area *would* be ideal.  I mean, after all, then
    you know that everyone in that area is going to be going to
    THAT net.  If you needed to get ahold of them, you would know
    exactly where to go ahead of time. There would be *no*
    guesswork involved.  And forget about those costly connections
    too.  One phone call to each area, and you won't have to worry
    about some facet of that group not getting it.

    I think we should even extend this idea a little further,
    outside of FidoNet altogether.  What about our broadcasters?
    Surely you must realize what an awful tragedy we have fallen
    into here!  I mean, after all, the FCC will allow you to have
    more than one FM, one AM, and one TV station in the same area!
    That should be stopped immediately!

    Consider advertising costs!  A business will have to put
    his/her advertisement on how many stations to cover the wide
    range of people in their own area.  And if a news bulletin
    needs to be delivered, *all* of the stations must be notified
    lest someone not hear about it.  Can you see the terror that
     FidoNews 6-27                Page 19                   3 Jul 1989


    lurks here?  You might listen to station X, while station Y is
    broadcasting just what you needed to know.  You have just
    missed it, and it will not be repeated.  Wouldn't it be great
    if you only *had* station Y to listen to?  Then you wouldn't
    have to worry!

    I hope that by now you can see the stupidity of this argument.
    It in no way shape or form helps out the community by allowing
    only one station.  In fact, it hurts it.  There is no variety.
    No way for the people to have their choice of what to listen
    to.

    Do you think FidoNet should be different?  Sure it might make a
    slight bit of change necessary.  But, if FidoNet is for the
    people, why shouldn't they be allowed a choice?  I find it
    difficult to believe that it would make it impossible for mail
    to flow.  Nets will still exist, so you will still have focal
    points to send things to.  It will still be disseminated from
    there.  You just won't have these stupid restrictions on where
    a person must get their stuff from.

    I am not making references here to say that FidoNet is entirely
    bad.  Obviously there are folks out there that feel parts of it
    are in rough shape, but I don't think anyone thinks it is *ALL*
    bad.  If they did, they wouldn't bother to use compatible
    software, now would they?

    In just the same way that people are allowed to choose which
    magazines to read, which radio stations to listen to, which
    movies to see, and which television programs to watch, I think
    that they should also be allowed to choose which Net to belong
    to.  I think this could even go a bit further...  They should
    be allowed to chose which NETWORK to belong to, and *NOT* be
    penalized for it not being FidoNet.

    I don't think that the Nodelist should be used as some sort of
    tool that is held over your head.  "If you don't jump when I
    say so, you are CUT!"  I know that it isn't supposed to be used
    that way, but there are several instances where it is and has
    been.

    I ask you to seriously consider this.  POLICY4 is now in
    effect.  Many people have said that it gives the upper echelon
    more power than they previously had.  If you want to see things
    change in FidoNet, *NOW* is the time.  Don't wait for POLICY5
    to come out eliminating the common sysop's view altogether.

    If you think that you are not affected by a certain person's
    argument and/or troubles, then think again.  How long will it
    be before you are the one on the chopping block, but there will
    be no one around to help you because everyone who might have
    backed you up has already been killed?

    Please, I ask you to seriously consider taking a stand to make
    FidoNet not only a system *FOR* the people, but one that is run
    *BY* the people. Where the people have real input, and their
     FidoNews 6-27                Page 20                   3 Jul 1989


    concerns are carefully looked into.  If something isn't going
    to kill anyone, then why should you say "No." just because it
    hasn't been done before?

    I know that this will take a lot of hard work, and that a lot
    of people are going to get involved.  It will definitely get
    worse before it gets any better.  But, I think that it is
    needed, and the sooner it happens the better.

    Thank you for taking the time to listen to me.  I would really
    appreciate it if you would drop me a note letting me know how
    you feel about this and related issues.

                                              Steve Palm @ 154/8.2

    -----------------------------------------------------------------
     FidoNews 6-27                Page 21                   3 Jul 1989


                 More of My Opinions if Anyone Cares
                          by Daniel Tobias
                               1:380/7

    Gee, the opinions on FidoNet policy expressed in FidoNews
    are getting more and more vicious.  I entered the FidoNet
    policy debate in the hopes of trying to resolve some of the
    venomous squabbles, but if anything, what I've written has
    only excerbated them.

    Some of the things I've seen in FidoNews 6-26 bring me close
    to recanting some of my earlier opinions.  In some earlier
    articles, I've regarded the passage of POLICY4 as generally
    a positive step, dismissed the allegations that the policy
    document is illegitimate due to irregularities in its
    ratification procedure, and stated that it should be
    considered binding on all zones despite the apparent intent
    of the Europeans to override it.  I believe this in spite
    many disagreements with the specific tenets of POLICY4; I
    simply feel that members of a private, voluntary
    organization who disagree with elements of its rules should
    either work within the system to change the rules (while
    obeying them until they are changed), or leave the
    organization and join or start another that is more
    philosophically compatible.  While much in POLICY4 is not to
    my liking, I generally felt it was livable until a better
    POLICY5 can be devised.

    However, FidoNews 6-26 gives me some pause.  I see there
    that a node was excommunicated due to a good-faith
    disagreement as to the validity of POLICY4.  I think this is
    going overboard; so long as the node doesn't actually
    violate the policy document, it shouldn't be kicked out due
    to the philosophical opposition its sysop holds.  He should
    have been asked simply to apologize for the unintentional
    violation (the bombing run), and asked to promise not to do
    it again, but shouldn't have been excommunicated unless he
    actually committed further POLICY4 violations.  (And,
    despite the authoritarian elements of POLICY4, there still
    is very little that an individual node (other than a *C) can
    do which is excommunicatable; there is little change from
    POLICY3 in this regard.  Most of the changes, rather, deal
    with administrative things of little interest to the average
    sysop.)

    The same is true of the Europeans; I sincerely hope that my
    earlier comments about Zone 2 policy don't help cause the
    excommunication of any Zone 2 node for the "crime" of
    claiming that POLICY4 does not apply to them (as wrong as I
    feel this opinion to be); action, if any is taken at all,
    should be only in response to an actual policy complaint
    with regard to a specific violation (e.g., if a node is
    asked to pay a mandatory charge and refuses).  To the extent
    my previous comments may have disagreed with this position,
    I now recant them.  The EuroCon report in the current
    FidoNews seems to show the Europeans attempting to create
     FidoNews 6-27                Page 22                   3 Jul 1989


    constructive activity in their zone, and bring about grass-
    roots democracy, something which deserves commendation
    rather than condemnation; if elements of their plan conflict
    with POLICY4 I must regrettably opine that they are
    technically invalid and would not stand up upon appeal if
    challenged, but I hope the good elements of their plan can
    be adopted into a new POLICY5.

    Since the legitimacy of POLICY4 is under fire, I feel
    pressed to explain further why I accept its validity.  The
    main objection of those who deny its validity is that the
    sysops didn't get to vote on it; it was enacted unilaterally
    by the *C's.  The implication is that POLICY1 through
    POLICY3 were directly adopted by the sysops.  Actually, I
    was a sysop at the time (1986) that POLICY3 was enacted, and
    I don't recall getting a chance to vote on it.  I'm kind of
    vague by now as to just how it was adopted, but I think some
    high-placed *C's drafted it and nobody objected to its
    adoption (this being before the faction fights got going).
    No explicit vote was taken, though.  Regrettably, unanimous
    consent is now impossible given the size and diversity of
    the network.  As for a universal sysop vote, that has only
    been tried once, for the initial IFNA bylaws, and the result
    (a vote in which a tiny minority of the sysops participated,
    and numerous factions claimed to speak for the silent
    majority) led to the beginning of the horrible factionalism
    the net has had ever since, but didn't seem to have before
    that.  Given this, one can see some non-authoritarian
    reasons why this method was not used this time.  I think the
    *C vote was a reasonable compromise, and many NCs (including
    my own) took some effort to solicit net opinion on the
    policy and involve all of us in the decision.

    The "Lost Archives" section illustrates the decidedly non-
    democratic manner in which major policy change has been made
    in the past.  What is probably the biggest FidoNet change
    ever, the switch from a single node number to the net/node
    addressing system, was enacted by gathering together
    whichever FidoNet people happened to be in St. Louis at
    the time and having them hammer out a system.  Many of the
    nodes out in the far reaches of the net weren't even aware
    of the change until the last minute, let alone being allowed
    to vote on it.  However, it worked: the switch was made
    without major hassle or argument, due to the spirit of
    cooperation that pervaded FidoNet then.  Anyway, the trend
    was set that no democracy was explicitly needed to ensure
    the "legitimacy" of change.  To change this, a new POLICY
    document will have to be passed giving explicit sysop
    democracy; no such "voting rights" are expressed or implied
    in any current or prior document.   As it now stands, the
    *C's can be considered the "officers" of FidoNet, and are
    entitled to take whatever action they deem necessary in the
    absence of a "constitution" giving specific limits on their
    powers and granting specific political powers to the sysops
    as a whole.  To remedy this, policy change is needed, and
    POLICY4 at least gives a specific mechanism by which it can
     FidoNews 6-27                Page 23                   3 Jul 1989


    be amended, unlike the earlier policy documents.

    Jennings stated in that "lost" archive that the change back
    in 1985 was intended to promote "DECENTRALISM"; his (valid)
    objection to current policy decisions is that they instead
    promote centralism.  (And, it is my position that this is
    not new to POLICY4, but was implicit in all the POLICY
    documents beginning at the time that Jennings stopped
    writing them himself.)  It is incumbent on FidoNet to adopt
    a new policy more in line with the ideals of its founder,
    promoting more liberty, decentralism, and democracy.

    If this does not occur, I might find myself agreeing with
    Jack Decker's plan for a completely nonpolitical nodelist.

    Meanwhile, I hope the feuding factions can attempt to defuse
    their rivalries.  I really don't think many (if any) sysops
    or *C's can be fairly characterized as "Nazis", as somebody
    did in the last FidoNews.  The "Aryan Nation" NeoNazis run
    bulletin board systems, but none is in FidoNet.  Tossing
    around such names is demeaning.  In my opinion, while many
    sysops and *Cs have very strong opinions on net politics,
    they are generally sincerely-held beliefs about what is best
    for FidoNet, rather than a desire for tyrannical power over
    others.  Maybe a couple of real tyrants exist (and I'm not
    positive who they are; the issue is clouded by all the
    namecalling being flung back and forth), but they are vastly
    outnumbered by those who simply want to do what is right.
    Perhaps some of the well-meaning feuders can try to back off
    a little bit from one another's throats, and accept that
    there may be something to the other side's viewpoint.

    In the case of the node excommunicated for refusing to
    accept the validity of POLICY4, some give-and-take on the
    part of both antagonists could lead to this sysop making a
    productive contribution to future evolution of FidoNet
    policy from the inside, instead of sniping at FidoNet from
    the outside.  The excommunicated sysop might think of
    issuing a statement like:  "While I still question the
    validity of the POLICY4 document, and will use every legal
    means at my disposal to cause it to be replaced by a more
    desirable policy, I promise [under duress from threat of
    excommunication] to refrain from violating any terms of this
    POLICY document so long as I remain in the nodelist and
    POLICY4 has not been replaced or overturned."  And the *C's
    involved should accept such a statement and reinstate the
    node, despite the continuing disagreement as to the
    legitimacy of POLICY4.

    Regarding the case of the net refusing to abide by
    geographical rules, if no great harm is done from allowing
    out-of-area nodes in the net in question, the RC should
    consider using the powers granted him by POLICY4 to allow
    the exception to be made.  This would not be undermining
    POLICY in any way, since such exceptions are specifically
    provided for.   However, if he continues to refuse the
     FidoNews 6-27                Page 24                   3 Jul 1989


    exemption, the net in question should back down (again, this
    may be openly done under duress, with a clear indication
    that this action is not agreeable to the net; the NC
    shouldn't be forced to lose face by recanting his opinion
    on the issue, so long as he yields in action), and then
    begin working towards the loosening of the geographical
    restrictions in a POLICY5 document so that the nodes may
    legally be reinstated later.

    In general, *C's should be reasonably tolerant and easygoing
    befitting FidoNet's status as an amateur, hobbyist network.
    There's no need to go eagerly looking for violations of the
    letter of POLICY and come down hard on them, in the absence
    of any complaint from parties involved.  On the other hand,
    sysops should recognize that POLICY4 is in fact the "law of
    the land" in FidoNet, and should try to obey it, while
    working to change the parts of which they disagree.

    If the *C's wish to show that they are not really
    authoritarians, they must tolerate a wide range of opinions
    from the sysops and lower-level coordinators, including
    opinions to the effect that the present policy document is
    flawed and possibly illegitimate, so long as the ACTIONS of
    these people do not violate policy.  On their own part,
    dissident elements should not become martyrs to their cause
    by brazenly violating policy and inviting expulsion from the
    net; they can work more productively towards reform if they
    remain in FidoNet.  If they instead feel that FidoNet is
    beyond saving, they should quit it now and join a net they
    like better, rather than starting counterproductive battles
    and daring the *C structure to excommunicate them.  If you
    do leave, please don't use your position outside FidoNet as
    a platform from which to continue factional squabbles within
    FidoNet; leave the rest of us who have remained to try to
    work out our own affairs, and devote your efforts to the
    affairs of whatever network you have decided to join
    instead.  Maybe then we both can progress.

    Anyway, the above is just my opinion, not necessarily
    representative of anybody else's.  I sincerely hope that I
    have done more to ease the internal fights than to fan their
    flames, but one never knows.  Some of you may already be
    raging mad about something I've said here or in an earlier
    article.  If so, please send me a message, explaining as
    calmly as possible why you think I'm completely wrong; I'll
    try to listen, and if you convince me, I won't be ashamed to
    completely recant earlier positions which prove on second
    thought to be invalid.  Bye for now.

    -----------------------------------------------------------------
     FidoNews 6-27                Page 25                   3 Jul 1989


    Ray Kaliss
    The SDN Project
    Fido 1:141/840

                     SDNet/Works! UPDATE 07/01/89

    It  has  been  six  months   since  SDNet/Works!  launched  the
    Shareware Distribution Network.   In that time, even  under our
    limited plans for growth, SDN has gained over 130 participating
    hobby BBS systems in the U.S., Canada and in European Zone 2.

    Starting out  and remaining a  non-profit and  hobby adventure,
    SDNet/Works! has attracted quality shareware authors to send in
    disks for distribution.  There are no fees of any kind involved
    for authors or sysops.

    Oopps,   you   missed   something   you   say?   ...   "What is
    SDNet/Works!?"

    SDNet/Works!  is  a  participation  of  hobby  BBS  sysops  and
    Shareware  authors.   Shareware  programs  are  received clean,
    complete  and  up  to  date,  directly  from  the  authors  and
    distributed to  the participating  sysop members  by routing in
    netmail.   The  transfers  are  done  automatically  by  simple
    utilities.  Once at the participating system, it is held for 30
    days in a special download only file area - there for users and
    other sysops alike to grab.  SDNet/Works! distribution is a way
    of removing the sometimes hazards of the user uploads.  It is a
    way to keep up to date on shareware versions and releases.

    SDNet/Works!  participating   BBS  systems   are  "distribution
    points"   for   the   shareware   programs.    Because   we use
    distribution points, the network and membership is limited  but
    the "points"  are available  for other  sysops to  File-Request
    from - or download.

    Net members run  a conglomeration or OPUS,  Binkley, FrontDoor,
    Dutchie, RBBS, Quickbbs, Wildcat!...  you name it!

          There are two reasons I write this short notice...

    1.  To  get  more  systems  interested  in  SDNet/Works!  as  a
    continuation of the  hobby adventure and  spread SDNet/Works!'s
    coverage by adding more distribution points.

    2.  To  let  sysops   know  there  are  official   SDNet/Works!
    participating BBSs nation wide in the U.S. - some in Canada and
    a few in Europe... these systems are for you, all sysops.   You
    can log on to the nearest one and make arrangements to find out
    what comes down  the SDN pike  every week, and  arrange to make
    File-Requests of SDN distributed software.

    Along with every shareware program shipped out by SDNet/Works!,
    there is an accompanying .SDA (Shareware Distribution Abstract)
    file.  The SDA is usually a two screen text description of  the
    program,  sometime  written  for  SDNet/Works!  by  the author,
     FidoNews 6-27                Page 26                   3 Jul 1989


    sometime by net members.

    All  SDNet/Works!  files,  recognized  by  the   (filename).SDN
    extension, are compressed with NoGates PAK format.  As soon  as
    PAK version 2.0  comes out, SDNet/Works!  will be the  first to
    compress BBS posted programs in a "security envelope" that  can
    be verified  as unchanged  from its  original packaging  at the
    SDNet/Works!   Distribution   Center  BBS.    Essentially  this
    "hacker proof seal" will be verifiable on SDNet/Works! files no
    matter  how  far  they  are  further  spread  from SDNet/Works!
    distribution points.  Our contribution  in a further effort  to
    preserve safety and the clean hobby spirit in BBSland.

    At  every  participating BBS  there  is  usually posted  a  net
    listing of  the locations and  numbers of  distribution points,
    with a file name of SDN_NET.xxx (xxx=update version).

    It's about  time you  contacted an  SDNet/Works! site  and took
    advantage of  the newest  service and  adventure the  hobby BBS
    world has to offer.

    * Project Management *
    SYSOP/CONN! - The SDN Project - Information and Publications
                - Ray Kaliss
                FidoNet 1:/141/840  203-634-0370 (2400 Baud)
                South Meriden, Connecticut USA

    SDN Central Distribution - System Coordinator
                - Charlie Smith
                FidoNet 1:141/880   203-628-4644 (9600 HST)
                Compu$erve 72417,375
                Milldale, Connecticut USA

                       * Regional Management *
                        ZONE 1 - North America
    Penguin Place    Hanford, CA          Don Barnes    1:205/2
    Innovations BBS  Chicago, IL          Peter Hur     1:115:736
    Channel 23       Orleans, ON, Canada, Chris Weisner 1:163/223
    Dog's Breakfast  Tom's River, NJ      Mike Fuchs    1:266/71
    Towne Crier Sys  Alliance, NE         Tony Mace 308-762-3360
    The Hour Glass   Tucson, AZ           Lyn Borchert  1:300/12
    Wilton Woods     Wilton, CT           John Alton    1:141/250
    Hotline Data     Langley, BC, Canada, Bryan Bucci   1:153/133
    StarScan         Montgomery, AL       Tom Jones     1:375/1
    American Fido    Oklahoma City, OK    John Knox     1:147/7
    Total Chaos      Jonesboro, AR        Dave Mingus   1:389/1

                  ZONE 2 - Europe/Africa/Middle East
    Zone Manager: Ernesto Hagmann  PC-Info <SFNA>
                  Titterten, Switzerland                2:300/51

    Clones Best Frd  Dortmund, W Germany,    T. Zumbrock 2:509/6
    Quick BBS AXE    Hilversum, Netherlands, V. Verhagen 2:512/27
    OS-68K Gepard Bx Zuerich, Switzerland,   A. Wyss     2:302/801

                          ZONE 7 - ALTERNET
     FidoNews 6-27                Page 27                   3 Jul 1989


    Zone Manager: Ivan Schaffel
                  The Library - New Haven, CT, USA,      7:640/390

                           ZONE 8 - RBBSNet
    Zone Manager: Terri Rossi
                  RTC BBS - Medford, NJ, USA             8:950/1

                           ZONE 9 - EGGNET
    Zone Manager: Ken Shackelford
                  AtlGate - Woodstack, GA, USA,         99:9000/1



    Please  don't  ask   a  distribution  point,   an  SDNet/Works!
    participant, to automatically send you new SDNet/Works!  files,
    he  or  she  has  enough  to  do  and  automatic  forwarding to
    non-SDNet/Works!  participants  is  against  our  policy... but
    distribution points  that have  File-Request capable  software,
    should have  it set  so you  can either  request a weekly FILES
    listing or a local  SDNet/Works! information echo in  the local
    nets it has been set up in.  Then you can File-Request, or  log
    on and download clean hazard free shareware for your own board.


    Ray Kaliss
    Project Manager
    SDNet/Works!



    -----------------------------------------------------------------
     FidoNews 6-27                Page 28                   3 Jul 1989


    Eric Asberry
    The Outpost, 1:236/2   (219) 486-8208

                           "Us" versus "Them"?

       Recently we have been inundated with numerous articles about
    the slobbering hell-hound RC's we have, and the near martial law
    status that our network is being run under.  These have
    inevitably been countered with articles portraying the "other"
    side as hell raising rebels who simply want to upset the balance
    and bring our net crumbling down to little more than chaos.

       Enough, already.  Which side am I on?  Neither.  POLICY4
    definitely has its problem areas.  We humans tend to be less
    than perfect, so it is not surprising that a policy document
    created by humans will probably be less than perfect, too.
    However, generally speaking, POLICY4 is a pretty reasonable set
    of guidelines for the net to follow.  It DOES need some change;
    for instance, the current system of selecting the *C structure is
    pretty ridiculous.

       But before classifying the entire *C structure as a bunch of
    ruthless villians, I think that people should give a little more
    thought as to all the things the *C structure is responsible for.
    They really are not a bunch of power hungry "dictators" in my
    experience.  I just recently became NC for our small net, and our
    RC (who has been called names aplenty) has been very helpful in
    setting things up for the transition.  If you think about it, the
    *C's really do quite a bit for us.  I tend to think some of them
    are a little nuts, but I suppose they are no more nuts for doing
    what they do than the average SYSOP is for using thousands of
    dollars worth of equipment to entertain total strangers!

       I think that the net's biggest problem is not POLICY4, not
    the *C structure, and not even those "rebellious fools" who want
    to "upset the balance" of things.  No, the REAL problem we face
    is the network's increasing failure to achieve its primary goal:
    communication.  Conversations can get pretty heated in echomail;
    tempers flare, egos bulge and for the most part, nothing gets
    solved.  We need to remember that the guy sitting at the
    computer hundreds of miles away is just as human as we are, and
    deserves the same consideration we desire for ourselves.  I
    think it would do us a great deal of good to just remember the
    "golden rule".  It would solve a lot of our problems, or at
    least make them easier to solve.  Perhaps it's just wishful
    thinking, but I for one am ready for the day when we can
    concentrate on improving the net's technical operation instead
    of bickering amongst each other.  The "lost Fidonet archives"
    have left me longing for the past...




    -----------------------------------------------------------------
     FidoNews 6-27                Page 29                   3 Jul 1989


    Steve Palm
    Fidonet 1:154/8.2
    LCRnet 77:1011/8.2

                     A SHORT STORY, WITH A MORAL

    Many years ago, Indian braves would go away in solitude to
    prepare for manhood.  One hiked into a beautiful valley, green
    with trees, bright with flowers.  There, as he looked up at the
    surrounding mountains, he noticed one rugged peak, capped with
    dazzling snow.

    "I will test myself against that mountain," he thought.  He put
    on his buffalo hide shirt, threw his blanket over his
    shoulders, and set off to climb the pinnacle.

    When he reached the top, he stood on the rim of the world.  He
    could see forever, and his heart swelled with pride.  Then he
    heard a rustle at his feet.  Looking down, he saw a snake.
    Before he could move, the snake spoke.

    "I am about to die," said the snake.  "It is too cold for me up
    here, and there is no food.  Put me under your shirt and take
    me down to the valley."

    "No," said the youth.  "I know your kind.  You are a
    rattlesnake.  If I pick you up, you will bite and your bite
    will kill me."

    "Not so," said the snake.  "I will treat you differently.  If
    you do this for me, I will not harm you."

    The youth resisted a while, but this was a very persuasive
    snake.  At last the youth tucked it under his shirt and carried
    it down to the valley.  There he laid it down gently.
    Suddenly, the snake coiled, rattled and leaped, biting him on
    the leg.

    "But you promised ---" cried the youth.

    "You knew what I was when you picked me up," said the snake as
    it slithered away.

    ------------------------ end of story ------------------------

    Moral(s):

    To people who might be tempted by things (i.e. drugs...),
    remember the words of the snake:  "You knew what I was when you
    picked me up"

    To those sysops of FidoNet:  You knew what it was when you
    agreed by policy to be in the NodeList.

    I just wish those nasty (UPPER) *C people didn't have to be
    such snakes...
     FidoNews 6-27                Page 30                   3 Jul 1989


    -----------------------------------------------------------------
     FidoNews 6-27                Page 31                   3 Jul 1989


    Steve Bonine
    115/777

                    The Facts Ma'am.  Only the Facts.

    Here are the simple facts concerning two current issues in
    FidoNet.  A great deal of smoke has been blown, in FidoNews and
    other forums, in an attempt to "blow up" issues which are really
    quite simple.

    Net 154
    --- ---

    As Regional Coordinator, I received a netmail message from a
    Network Coordinator pointing out that a system in net 154 was in
    the geographic area covered by his net.  Examination of the
    nodelist segment for net 154 disclosed three systems which were
    not within "Milwaukee Metro".

    I sent netmail to Ted Polczynski, the NC of net 154, asking him
    to arrange to move the affected systems to the correct net.  This
    is a routine matter which occurs from time to time; the message I
    sent was worded the same as previous messages to other NC's.

    Ted responded that he had the right to place any system in net
    154, regardless of its geographic location.  He explained that if
    a sysop did not wish to be in the local net, then it was in the
    best interest of FidoNet for that system to be listed in net 154.
    My response was that this did not solve the problem -- why could
    not the sysop obtain a listing in the correct net -- and thus was
    not in the best interest of FidoNet.

    Our opinions are moot, as Policy states "You may not assign a
    node number to a node in an area covered by an existing network."
    Repeated attempts by myself and David Dodell to obtain assurance
    from Ted that he would abide by Policy resulted in responses
    which did not address the question.  Four words would have taken
    care of this entire situation:  "I will observe Policy."


    Jim Grubs
    --- -----

    During the weekend of June 17, Jim Grubs conducted a bombing run.
    When confronted by formal policy complaints, Jim's response was
    that Policy4 did not apply to him, since he did not vote for it.
    He made the same statement in the national SYSOP conference.

    I sent Jim a netmail message, asking him to reconsider.  He
    refused.  I then removed his nodelist entry.

    The reason that I removed the entry, instead of letting the
    Network Coordinator do it, was because of Mr. Grubs' threat to
    use US Federal courts to protect his right to an entry in the
    FidoNet nodelist.  Although I feel that there is no grounds for
    such a lawsuit, I did not wish to place Jim's NC in the position
     FidoNews 6-27                Page 32                   3 Jul 1989


    of having to defend himself.  Under normal circumstances, I would
    not infringe upon the right of an NC to run the net, within the
    bounds of Policy.

    -----------------------------------------------------------------
     FidoNews 6-27                Page 33                   3 Jul 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 6-27                Page 34                   3 Jul 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.


    -----------------------------------------------------------------

     FidoNews 6-27                Page 35                   3 Jul 1989


    =================================================================
                                 REPORTS
    =================================================================

    Nominations and Elections Committee
    1:107/233 1:107/210

          LAST CHANCE TO VOLUNTEER TO BE AN IFNA DIRECTOR!

    Time is running out to send notice of your willingness to serve
    the FidoNet community as a Director of IFNA.  The Nominations and
    Elections Committee will indicate the names of all members who
    wish to appear on the upcoming ballot.  Please send notice of
    your interest immediately to the Committee at 1:107/210.

    Some thoughts to consider relative to this follow.


    WHAT IS IFNA NOW?

    IFNA, now, is what you have made it.  If that is not exactly what
    you expect, then perhaps you should consider how much you have
    done to make that happen.  IFNA is staffed solely by volunteer
    sysops.  As such, all of them already are very busy trying to
    maintain their systems, and meet the more pressing demands of
    everyday life.  The lack of extra time available to them shows in
    the lack of results seen around the Net.  But don't be fooled -
    just because YOU may not see evidence of IFNA at work first-hand,
    does not mean that it is not accomplishing things nor that others
    are not being benefitted.  Lots of behind-the-scenes work is
    being done, information and services are being provided to many,
    and plans - and dreams - are being formed for the future of
    FidoNet.

    If you believe in the future of FidoNet, and expect IFNA to do
    more things to promote it, then perhaps you shouldn't sit there
    expecting that someone else does it.  This is your chance to
    really see that it gets done the way you believe it should.


    WHAT WILL IFNA BE IN THE FUTURE?

    What you make it.

    -----------------------------------------------------------------
     FidoNews 6-27                Page 36                   3 Jul 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 6-27                Page 37                   3 Jul 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 6-27                Page 38                   3 Jul 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 6-27                Page 39                   3 Jul 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 6-27                Page 40                   3 Jul 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.

    -----------------------------------------------------------------


You are viewing proxied material from gopher.quux.org. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.