FidoNews is published weekly by the International FidoNet
Association as its official newsletter. You are encouraged to
submit articles for publication in FidoNews. Article submission
standards are contained in the file ARTSPEC.DOC, available from
node 1:1/1. 1:1/1 is a Continuous Mail system, available for
network mail 24 hours a day.
Copyright 1989 by the International FidoNet Association. All
rights reserved. Duplication and/or distribution permitted for
noncommercial purposes only. For use in other circumstances,
please contact IFNA at (314) 576-4067. IFNA may also be contacted
at PO Box 41143, St. Louis, MO 63141.
Fido and FidoNet are registered trademarks of Tom Jennings of
Fido Software, 164 Shipley Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94107 and
are used with permission.
We don't necessarily agree with the contents of every article
published here. Most of these materials are unsolicited. No
article will be rejected which is properly attributed and legally
acceptable. We will publish every responsible submission
received.
Table of Contents
1. EDITORIAL ................................................ 1
2. ARTICLES ................................................. 2
Appeal to the IC re: the arbitrary impostion of p4 ....... 2
D'Bridge 1.21 - A Quick Review .......................... 7
Fido/FidoNet Routing, Topology, History, and Recent Cha .. 9
Keep The Issue Clear! .................................... 17
Notes on Net Numbering ................................... 19
3. WANTED ................................................... 24
Ham Radio Articles Needed! ............................... 24
4. LATEST VERSIONS .......................................... 25
Latest Software Versions ................................. 25
And more!
FidoNews 6-28 Page 1 10 Jul 1989
Let's start this week's Editorial with a couple of questions:
1) To those of you promoting Democracy in Fidonet: didn't you
notice we've tried this before with IFNA?
2) To those of you thinking right now, "He's GOT to be kidding":
what did YOU do to help make the IFNA idea work? What proof can
you offer that YOUR idea of Democracy in Fidonet is better than
the original concept of IFNA? That more people will flock to
your banner?
Frankly, what seems to be going on in this network is an epidemic
of "screw whoever's in charge". This seems to date back to about
the time that IFNA was founded. In fact, it might be IFNA's
fault. Nobody seemed to care whether they had a voice in the net
before Messrs. Kaplan, Baker, Henderson and Jennings got on that
stage in Colorado and told them they could HAVE one.
Since that time, we've had nothing but mikey wars played over and
over and over again. Sometimes the participants changed but the
basic issues seemed about the same. This Net 154 thing sounds a
lot like the Net 103 thing of a few years ago, the only
difference being WHAT the NC refused to go along with. The
result then was the same as the current one. An entire net was
excommunicated (of course the ratio of private to public nodes in
103 was a lot different, most of the nodes there had real people
running them).
About two years into the mikey wars, the *C's decided to
extricate themselves from the IFNA situation. In my opinion,
they drew the conclusion that the only thing you'd get from
enfranchising the entire Net (as IFNA wanted to do) was utter
chaos (which is all that IFNA had accomplished), so they
proceeded to play the "benevolent dictatorship" game that
persists to this day. If this is indeed what happened (nobody
has told me one way or the other) I can certainly sympathize.
What's happening these days? The "benevolent dictators" have
made a few unpopular decisions. Now there's more screaming for
democracy. Yeah, right. Let's try the IFNA thing again? I
can't see any reason why. IFNA is still here, it is a 501(c)(3)
organization, and all it needs is some guidance from its
membership. That is, when it can get some people interested in
democracy in Fidonet to become members. Re-connecting IFNA to
Fidonet is a minor thing once IFNA can be shown to have some
coherence.
Put up or shut up. Join IFNA and fix it. Or just bag the noise.
I for one am fed up with the mikey wars. Aren't you?
Reading Fidonews and the nodelist is pretty disturbing these
days. I spent half the day writing a program (so I'm a lousy
programmer) to put Milwaukee back in the nodelist. I think,
"hmmm, isn't this the job of the RCs, to make sure the nodelist
is complete and accurate?". Seems the job of RC has changed to
make sure that the nodelist is politically correct instead of
technically correct. What's going on here?
The crime was the refusal to swear an oath of allegiance to the
so-called policy 4. The crime was having a node listed that was
outside somebody's idea of geographical limitations. I submit to
you that the disease interfered much less with the smooth working
of the net than the cure. There are all kinds of reasons why
nodes will be listed outside their immediate geographic area and
if you look at the nodelist you'll see it's pretty common.
I submit to you that policy 3 places no limits on *where* a node
can be located.
As for policy 4, so-called, if that was somebody's idea of a bad
joke it has gone too far. By precedent policy must be ratified
by fidonet before it can be enforced, or before any reasonable
person can be expected to abide by it. Policy 4 has not been
ratified by fidonet, and I shall prove that the process of
ratification by the NCs was fraudulent and invalid in execution
as well as in design.
Have I not informed you that it is not acceptable in net 221?
Has not all of zone 2 informed you of the same thing? Why are we
not excommunicated, since "consistency", we are told by Steve
Bonine, is so important?
And who is Steve Bonine and who gave him authority to start
shrinking the nodelist according to his own political
proclivities?
Why is Milwaukee gone from the nodelist? Was the software
incompatible? Were calls going undialable? Was mail hour not
being observed? No.
Policy 3 was adopted by fidonet, and by IFNA. Policy 4 was
FidoNews 6-28 Page 3 10 Jul 1989
ratified by neither. Thus policy 4 remains a hypothetical
document, not an enforcable policy. Doesn't it? Or has some
coup d'etat suddenly transformed fidonet?
So here are several offical policy complaints:
I)
I deem it excessively annoying that my vote on policy 4
ratification was changed by my RC because he didn't approve of
it.
Documentation and proof available on request. It consists of the
message from Tom stating that he had altered my vote. I know,
it's hard to believe, but it's true.
I request that the ratification be declared null and void on that
grounds, and that the RC in question be reprimanded for violation
of basic, fundamental, democratic principles.
I further request that an ivestigation be launched to inquire
into the integrity of the policy 4 vote in general, and that all
RCs who violated basic democratic principles, i.e. secret
ballot, harassment of voters, attempts to get people to change
their vote, falisfication of returns, etc., be exposed and that
appropriate disciplinary action be taken against any RCs guilty
of these crimes against common decency.
It is recognized as policy violation to send a message under
someone else's name and network address. Surely sending a
falsified vote is just as serious. Indeed, it strikes me as
vastly more serious!
II)
I deem it excessively annoying that the ballot on policy 4 was
not secret and that some NCs were subjected to verbal abuse and
intense pressure to vote in accord with the RC's wishes. The
results of the ballot are clearly a sham as a result of that.
I.E. it is certain that many votes were influenced by pressure
from RCs. Mine wasn't influenced. When he failed to convince me
to vote as he wanted he just changed my vote.
I request that the ratification be declared null and void on that
grounds.
III)
I deem it excessivley annoying that no vehicle for debate and
discussion of the proposed policy 4 preceded the ratification
vote. Yes, I was sent copies and asked to comment. When I did
comment to Tom all I got back was a stream of abusive insults and
an insistence that I hadn't read the document. In other words
rather than debate or discussion, the only role I was allowed was
FidoNews 6-28 Page 4 10 Jul 1989
that of making comments to a person who simply denounced them and
obviously didn't carry them further. Discussion requires that
all points of view be heard (not necessarily accepted, but at
least heard) by all parties to the process.
I request that the ratification be declared null and void on that
grounds.
IV)
I deem it excessively annoying that precedent in the adoption of
policy was completely disregarded. Fidonet consists of sysops,
not coordinators. Coordinators are the administrative servants
of, not the masters of the net. Precedent demands that any
ratification process be open to all sysops.
I request that the ratification be declared null and void on that
grounds.
V)
I deem it excessively annoying that 96% of sysops were
disenfranchised from the ratification of policy without any
constitutional, moral or legal grounds, or precedent, and in
complete violation of any recognizable notion of democratic
priopriety in Western Civiliation,
I request that the ratification be declared null and void on that
grounds.
VI)
I deem it excessively annoying that I am forced to spend a lot of
time and effort correcting the errors in the current nodelist
(i.e. the removal of all of Milwaukee).
I request that the nodelist be corrected and that the person(s)
responsible for the errors and ommissions be suitably
reprimanded.
VII)
Whereas precedent in fidonet demonstrates that policy is adopted
by consensus, and whereas no device for consensus of the net has
been employed, and whereas *C sysops alone have arrogated the
right to adopt policy, and whereas this represents a fundamental
and basic violation of every principle of due process recognized
in western civilization, and whereas severe abuses of the
electoral process can be demonstrated, and whereas it has already
been used to eliminate substantial numbers of fidonet-capable,
mail-hour honouring nodes from the nodelist, for political
reasons alone,
I deem policy 4 to be excessively annoying and request that it be
FidoNews 6-28 Page 5 10 Jul 1989
officially junked, and that the process of consideration, review
and ratification be re-started in a recognizably democratic
fashion.
VIII)
Whereas the so-called "ratification process" of policy 4 was a
total sham and travesty of common decency, and whereas fidonet is
going to break asunder as sysops in general puke in disgust at
this,
I urge you to inhale a sweet breath of sanity and institute a
democratic, reasonable and proper means to establish new policy
for the net.
I doubt that the flagrant abuse in Region 12 was typical of what
happened in other regions. But no precautions whatsoever were in
place to prevent it and the result therefore cannot possibly have
a shred of credibility. We were effectively told how to vote and
reservations were dismissed out of hand. Not just mine either,
this happened to other NCs. I have copies of the correspondence
which show that.
In the vernacular this means that policy 4 is viewed as having
about as much moral and legal authority as the tanks in Tianenmen
square. Very many are afraid to speak out right now. We have
entered a reign of terror and strong-arm tactics. No one wants
to be excommunicated, but it is clear that the results of
exercising the right to freedom of speech entail this penalty.
It is a brutal quashing of the democratic aspirations of
thousands of fidonet sysops and has already proven itself to be
wholly negative and counter-productive. The nodelist has shrunk
. . . the balloting was falsified, even Tom Jennings is
staunchly opposed. Is any further argument really required?
There are many more arguments which can be mustered, but I think
the facts presented here speak for themselves. Policy 4 contains
several highly objectionable provisions, mostly those which give
RCs policy-making responsibilities to the exclusion of sysops.
The most objectionable thing, however, is the arbitrary
psuedo-democratic way it was imposed on fidonet. It is simply
unimaginable that this could possibly ever be acceptable within
democratic societies. It is quite unthinkable.
IX)
Whereas the healthy democratic functioning, growth and prospering
of fidonet is of great concern to both myself and my net,
anything constructive you might have to suggest by which we can
help bring that about would be most sincerely appreciated.
Working withing fidonet to change and improve policy is now
virtually impossible. The RCs have erected a system which not
only fails to encourage participation from sysops, it positively
excludes it. While nearly all the sysops I talk to find the
current situation intolerable, few have any ideas as to what can
be done about it. The RCs have effectively insulated themselves
FidoNews 6-28 Page 6 10 Jul 1989
from fidonet
The fact that policy 3 is valid and enforcable, while policy 4 is
neither, and the hopeless disarray of IFNA at the moment leaves
all sysops with but one hope, and that hope is that the
International Coordinator will recognize the voice of reason and
the need of the net and act to rectify the problem.
Standard disclaimer - I have no affiliation with the author
of the software.
Recently D'Bridge 1.21, by Chris Irwin, came across the
Software Distribution System. By nature, I am always looking
for new toys, and the docs for D'Bridge promised something
different. I set up D'Bridge and asked for my "trial key", a
process one has to see to believe. When I ran "install", the
program checked the files and copied them into a working
directory. Running DB and answering questions led to a outbound
call to the support system of my choice for the trial key.
Rather than go into a detailed list of features and
comparisons, I'm going to describe my experience setting
D'Bridge up and operating it. D'Bridge, in a nutshell, is an
integrated mailer, echo handler, area fix station, terminal
program, and message editor with many unique features seamlessly
integrated into one package.
Setup was as easy as I have seen it, rivaling or surpassing
FrontDoor's renowned ease of setup. I seldom referred to the
documentation (more than 250 pages), there is a brief "help
line" displayed at the bottom of the screen, usually describing
what is expected. In less than an hour, I had the mailer and
echo handler set up and running.
D'Bridge can use any of three storage types; Fido, QuickBBS,
and TBBS. The editor allows you to define the area as local or
echomail, and you can pick the storage type for each area. Thus
you can have "normal" echoes imported into a QuickBBS message
base and have "sysop" echoes stored in Fido (single message per
file) format. For echo areas, you define the distribution and
how you want mail for each node handled (crash, normal, hold,
etc.). You can select autoaliasing (for echoes destined for a
different zone or network) and specify an origin line. You
chose a tag and security level along with an area number. There
are sort options for some fields. You can choose number of
messages or number of days for maintenance purposes, along with
a feature to ignore the first nnnn messages in an area.
Using the message editor is very straight forward and
controlled for the most part by function keys. All the features
one has come to expect in a modern message editor are there, and
more. You can search the text or headers of messages for
selected text (very nice!). Again, the features are too
numerous to mention.
The mailer portion is easily set up and quite intuitive.
Scheduling is done by a unique visual interface. Routing is as
simple or complex as one chooses, there is no mucking around
with external files. I tested D'Bridge with Opus 1.10, Opus
1.03, FrontDoor 1.99, Seadog 4.1 & 4.51, and Binkley 2.20.
FidoNews 6-28 Page 8 10 Jul 1989
There was no problem negotiating a session with any of them.
The built-in echohandler allows choosing several compression
methods, specific to individual nodes, and will handle nearly
any type of mail to come in. Further, it has a built-in AREAFIX
handler, and an option for automatically creating new areas for
previously unreceived echoes (terrific for echohubs). The
permutations of possible options is incredible, there is
something in the echohandler for everyone. It is quick and
works flawlessly in my setup, a tough test considering my 3
network membership.
The program uses overlays, which is nice for those running
under DesqView or DoubleDos. I've run D'Bridge under both, with
no problem. The docs warn that reducing available memory may
slow things down, this was never apparent on a 8 mhz turbo XT
clone. In one case, I had not allocated enough memory to load
the editor. At this point, many packages would give up the
ghost and fold up. D'Bridge printed the message "swapping to
disk" on the screen and carried on as though the stupid sysop
had done nothing wrong.
The terminal portion of the program is as good, if not
better, than those I've seen in other mailers. The protocols
we've all come to expect are all present, as is a dialing
directory, etc. It depends on the nodelist, which is unique to
D'Bridge and is handled by D'Bridge itself. Whenever D'Bridge
is started, it goes through a series of tests, one of which is
to make sure the nodelist is current. If it detects a
difference file, it automatically updates the "St. Louis"
nodelist as well as it's own nodelist. Simply amazing.
As with all but the simplest package, at some point support
becomes necessary. I am not a registered user, yet two
questions to my chosen support board (Optical Illusion) were
answered swiftly and correctly by Mark Moran (thanks Mark!).
Quite honestly, I was surprised by the support, given that I was
on a trial key, not a registered user.
All in all, this is one impressive package. The seamless
integration of so many functions is rivaled by the ease of use.
It is tough for me to imagine a situation from echostar on down
that D'Bridge couldn't easily handle. It is not shareware, it
is a commercial product (with a 20% reduction until mid-July),
well worth what Chris is asking (I'd still be running it and buy
it if I weren't unemployed!).
Fido/FidoNet Routing, Topology, History, and Recent Changes
Tom Jennings, 1:125/111
15 June 89
Fido/FidoNet, like all other FidoNet mailers and BBSs, generates
messages, and puts them into packets that are later delivered to
some appropriate destination by the mailer itself. All of the
different mailers use different approaches as to just how you
the sysop control where, how and when packets (and the messages
they contain) get delivered.
In light of all the mailer systems out there today, I don't think
many are aware of just how Fido/FidoNet does it's routing. With
a few recent changes you might find the design has become
interesting once again. (And starting July 89, Fido/FidoNet is
once again shareware. File Request "ABOUT" and "FILES" from
1:125/111 for complete details.)
FIDO
Fido was originally just a bulletin board; the first FidoNet was
a separate program that was run from a batch file with a few
small hooks into the BBS. (The origin of the Fido version 9 - 11
MAIL.SYS file.) Fido (the BBS) only let users generate messages;
FidoNet (the mailer) put messages into packets and delivered
them.
At this point, four years later, Fido and FidoNet are pretty well
integrated, and this latest revision completes the weld.
Logically, to the user and sysop, the two remain quite separate,
and many (non-FidoNet) Fido systems are BBS only. (Most of my
commercial customers are BBS only.) It is just as easy to run
FidoNet without Fido.
Fido's packeting/mailing system works in four discrete phases.
First, the destination node addresses for all the existing
messages is determined. This is done by the "router", more on
which follows. Second, the messages are put into packets by the
"packeter" (I never was very good at names). Third, the phase
that is most obvious to sysops watching the screen, is when the
packets are delivered; Fido makes outgoing phone calls and sends
the packets. Packets can also be received in between outgoing
calls. The last phase deletes un-sent packets, and marks the
original messages that went into the packets as "(SENT)" as
appropriate. This ends the FidoNet session.
Note that different from Opus and other similar mailers, Fido
only puts a copy of the message into a packet; during the fourth
phase Fido again processes each message, and marks it or deletes
it as determined by the success of that packet delivery.
This is a fairly large amount of processing to do when looked at
on a per-message basis, and is why Fido's FidoNet has always been
slower to packet than other systems. In return there are many
advantages, that will become more obvious later.
FidoNews 6-28 Page 10 10 Jul 1989
FIDO AND FIDONET
Originally, as was stated before, Fido and FidoNet were two
separate programs. Even when integrated into one package,
starting with Fido version 9 or 10, FidoNet was only usable when
a FidoNet scheduled event was actually running; "continuous
mail" is (relative to Fido) a new concept. Version 12 (Aug.
1987) could accept incoming continuous mail, but not send mail
unless a FidoNet event was running; starting with 12M Wazoo and
.REQ file requests are supported.
Starting with version 12N, the FidoNet portion of Fido can be
accessed at any time; packet creation and routing is under
complete control, and can be altered, automatically using the
routing language on a event by event basis throughout the day, or
manually as the sysop sees fit, up to the point when the specific
message has been delivered. Events themselves can be turned on
and off from within Fido, allowing very high-level control over
packet routing.
You can have Fido create packets available for pickup, with any
arbitrary routing, at any time of day. For example, you can have
HOLD packets of long-distance systems waiting for pickup from
9:00AM til 6:00PM, while enabling outgoing calls on local-dial
systems, in between human callers, or any other construct allowed
by the routing language, without restriction. There is a
"penalty" of 30 - 60 seconds to prepare for a new schedule; once
started, access is in the under 100 mS range.
On my 8MHz "turbo" junk-pclone, 80mS 20 meg drive, Fido takes 30
seconds to load, create outgoing packets and be ready for an
incoming call (human or otherwise). On this crappy hardware,
incoming echomail is received, unpacketed, tossed, the echo areas
then scanned and outgoing packets made and delivered in 30 - 60
seconds, in between human callers, using DCM and barefoot
Fido/FidoNet 12N.
The largest network Fido/FidoNet can (mathematically!) handle is
(32767 * 32767 * 32767) or 3.5 x 10(e13) nodes; version 12's
implementation 65,535. A recompile (change a table index from 16
to 32 bits) will make Fido handle about 4 billion nodes with some
performance loss and increased (disk) overhead, about 2
bytes/node. Performance with 65,000 nodes would still be better
than Fido 12M's.
Current nodelist overhead (NODELIST.132) is: NODELIST.BBS
304,532 (physical data); NODELIST.NMP 53,920 (nodemap; see
below); NODELIST.IDX 53920 (main index); NODELIST.NDX 2900
(host index). NODELIST.SYS is no longer used.
FIDONET TOPOLOGY
The router design mimics exactly the FidoNet network topology.
The network went through four (so far...) stages: a "flat"
system, ie. point to point; addresses were a simple number 1 -
32767. The second formalized the concept of "nets",
FidoNews 6-28 Page 11 10 Jul 1989
incorporating the routing optimization formerly done with Fido's
primitive router. The third includes zones, which are similar
mathematically to nets, but in real life act quite differently,
with "zone gates" concentrating mail between zones (generally
continents) because of real-life issues of telephone connect
costs and equipment compatibility. The fourth adds "points",
allowing for the next (or current, I am a bit slow sometimes)
wave of BBS technology.
OOPS BACKTRACK A LITTLE:
A small aside on nets and regions: "regions" originally were
only a way for nodes not in a net (ie. not inside a local
calling area) to be syntactically compatible with the "net/node"
addressing scheme; since most nodes were in the most heavily
populated areas, cities, where nets naturally form, "regions"
would be where nodes not in cities would be found. Nodes in
regions (marked REGION in the nodelist) act as any other node,
but the mailers do not do the automatic routing to the "host" for
the region -- mail is sent direct, or point to point.
The function of region hosts as another layer of organizational
hierarchy is a recent addition, and not part of the topology
itself. Still further, there is nothing magic about the numbers
themselves -- regions being numbered 1 - 99, nets 100 - 999 etc
is a totally arbitrary decision on the part of the keepers of the
lists. The only magic numbers are 0's -- these indicate the host
for the entity, ie. zone, net or region.
ROUTER DESIGN
Back to the router design. While the hierarchical model of
net/node is extremely useful (if not indispensable) there are
still thousands of exceptions, usually on a system by system
basis; you forward mail for one system that is local but is a
toll call for other net members. Your net has a sugar daddy that
can make long distance outgoing calls. One system calls in to
pickup their mail. Commonly called systems are more efficiently
handled in some special way.
You need to remember that the mathematical model used frequently
has nothing to do with the "real" world. This is as it should
be. However, you need a good solid theoretical base for the
network otherwise the world falls apart. The router bridges the
two otherwise-incompatible worlds.
Fido's router design can handle any topology based on our address
syntax: zone:net/node, plus any arbitrary number of exceptions.
To do this, the router is very simple -- not complex.
Logically, the router is an N x N crossbar switch, where N is the
number of nodes in the nodelist. You can imagine a crossbar
switch by drawing on paper a grid:
Shown is a 5 x 5 crossbar switch. The O's represent an OFF (but
potential) connection; X's represent a ON connection. The
connection (3,2) is ON, all others closed. If a signal were
applied to Input 3, it would appear also on Output 2. (ASCII
graphics are terrible, sorry!) You will notice that by placing
X's and O's appropriately, any input can be connected to any
output.
A "real" crossbar switch can route one signal to many
destinations; just place X's along the same horizontal row in
the example above. Any node can route to any node; times (N)
nodes is (N * N) possible states. Not pleasant to think about in
real terms -- a 5000 node nodelist would mean 25,000,000 states
to represent on your disk! This is not a very useful side effect
for us; our messages have a single destination address.
Fido's router places one limitation upon the crossbar design:
there can be only one possible destination per node. It can
still be any possible node, but only one at a time. This means
the router can consist of (2 * N) entries -- the originating node
and the destination node.
You can imagine Fido's router as the crossbar switch above, or as
I do, a simple two column table:
----+----
1 | _
2 | _
3 | 2
4 | _
5 | _
The _'s represent potential, but OFF connections. #3 has been
routed to #2 by merely filling in that table entry. This table
is called the NodeMap.
(Fido's nodemap also contains a third column, where attributes
like HOLD, SEND-TO, PICKUP and other things are stored. These
attributes are built into the nodemap for programming convenience
only, they are not really part of the router per se.)
HOW THE ROUTER WORKS
At FidoNet mail time, Fido prepares the router files before
FidoNews 6-28 Page 13 10 Jul 1989
making packets and outgoing phone calls. The basic net host
routing is performed, then any routing specified by the sysop in
route language files.
At this point Fido performs any additional routing you may have
specified, such as overriding the routing, HOLD packets, enabling
only certain nodes or groups of nodes per schedule, etc. Things
like HOLD, PICKUP, SEND-TO and other basic concepts are as
attributes within the nodemap.
The nodemap is built on disk, and can be saved between schedules
so that it an be used over and over; this is called a "QUICK"
FidoNet event. It takes my Fido system mentioned above
approximately 90 seconds to completely build the nodemap (about
100 route language statements); subsequent "QUICK" events take a
fraction of a second.
PACKET CREATION
Fido creates packets when a FidoNet schedule starts (which is
controlled by Fido's scheduler and is outside this discussion).
For every message in the netmail message area, Fido consults the
nodemap, in two steps:
First, the actual destination (for example: 1:125/111) is looked
up in the ADDRESS column of the nodemap. The ROUTE-TO column
FidoNews 6-28 Page 14 10 Jul 1989
determines where this message goes, ie. into which packet. If
the destination node is not found, the message is marked
(ORPHAN).
Secondly, Fido looks up the packet (ROUTE-TO) address (1:125/0)
itself, in the ADDRESS column. This is done to locate the
ATTRIBUTE bits for the destination node. If the bits indicate it
is OK to packet this message (SEND-TO set, etc) then the packeter
creates the packet.
This is done for all messages in the netmail area; once all the
packets are built then FidoNet can dial out, allow incoming
pickups, etc.
Messages put into packets are not modified in any way; packets
contain a copy of the original message. The post-FidoNet process
takes care of messages that have been sent.
FIDONET SESSION COMPLETION
When a FidoNet schedule is over, Fido processes packets that were
received from other mailers and cleans up any packets it had
created earlier.
Packets that are un-sent are merely killed; the messages that
these packet(s) were created from still exist in the netmail
area; when a FidoNet session start again, Fido may put the
messages into a packet to the same destination node or possibly
another; since packeting is done only before actual mailing the
routing can be altered at any point up to actual successful
transmission.
Packets that are sent, or picked up, are handled slightly
differently. The packets themselves are deleted, but Fido once
again refers to the router to mark the messages that comprised
the packet as (SENT), or kills them if they were indicated
(KILL/SENT) by the originator.
Appendix A: DEFAULT ROUTING
Fido/FidoNet's routing is not "built-in" nor hard-coded; if it
were not told otherwise, Fido would send messages to the
destinations in the message itself. The routing needed to make a
practical mailer are added as layers upon this base; the
tradeoff is speed vs. flexibility and accuracy. (Speed is, um,
somewhat improved over older implementations...)
What the real-life Fido does at FidoNet mail time is make a pass
through the table, and fill in the "default" routing that defines
the FidoNet topology, which is our zone:net/node with routing to
HOSTs for nets, which goes like this:
-For nodes in our own net, send direct (point to
point)
-For nodes in a net in our zone, outside our net,
FidoNews 6-28 Page 15 10 Jul 1989
send to it's host (net/0)
-For nodes in a region in our zone, sent direct
-For nodes in another zone, send to it's zone
host (zone:0/0)
The first three make sense in the network as we know it; the
fourth requires some background.
FidoNet's topology is based upon a gimmick: the address of the
logical host for any net or zone is composed of the number of the
net or zone, with the magic zero added as the least significant
address field. A net or region host is net/0 or region/0; a
zone host is zone:0/0. FidoNet sysops use net/0 routinely; no
one uses zone:0/0 routinely, if at all.
The difference is that the addressing scheme, the topology, is a
mathematical construct, and has nothing to do with the real
world, ie. overseas phone calls, governmental regulations,
manufacturer incompatibilities, etc. The addressing scheme needs
to be rigorous and provide a solid design base for all
implementations.
If we didn't have real-life complications like the above, never
mind how overloaded the poor zone host computer would be, the
mathematical model might fit the real world. Obviously it
doesn't, and never did.
The solution in Fido's scheme is to merely modify the default
routing. There exists a keyword in Fido's routing language
(called, not surprisingly, "ZoneGate") that does exactly what it
sounds like: it routes all mail destined for another zone to any
arbitrary node designated "zone gate".
Zone Gates were thunk up at the now notorious "New Hampshire
meeting" in '86 or so. The idea was to make it so that net/node
mailers, ie. not zone-aware, could route messages destined for
other zones. The thing was called the "IFNA Kludge", and
consists of two parts: (1) an addressing kludge to trick the
mailer to route the interzone message to a node in it's own zone,
and (2) to have the full zone:net/node origination and
destination addresses buried in the message body itself, hidden
behind a line that began with Control-A, so that message editors
could learn to ignore it. (For your curiosity: full address
consists of the very first line in the message, that looks like:
"^AINTL z:n/f z:n/f", where the first address is the destination
node address, the second the originator.)
The addressing trick is: "Address the message for zone (N) to
node 1/(N) in my zone". Node 1/(N) is designated the zone gate;
for example, the zonegate for Europe, Zone 2, node 1/2, in the
North American zone 1. And so on.
Fido is a registered trademark of Tom Jennings
FidoNet is a registered trademark of Tom Jennings
FidoNews 6-28 Page 16 10 Jul 1989
(Sorry, I gotta say this!)
NEW SOFTWARE POLICY
This is the new (June 1989) software policy for the Fido/FidoNet
package. Please read it carefully.
First, some important definitions:
Hobbyists run BBSs for their own personal reasons. Their BBS is
not associated with their employer or any business. How they run
their BBS is none of my business, ie. private, public,
subscription, collective or chattel slavery.
Commercial users are companies, corporations, proprietorships or
any other business entities that run a BBS, either publicly or
privately, associated with their business. "Non-profit" and "not
for profit" organizations are included in this category.
And here's the deal:
HOBBYISTS AND INDIVIDUALS: Fido/FidoNet is shareware; you can
download the software itself, minus documentation, from the Fido
Software BBS. There is no machine-readable documentation. (If
you thought the version 11 docs were unwieldy ... besides I pay
royalties to the author). I will provide no direct support.
Hobbyists can receive the latest version on diskette plus printed
and bound documentation for $50. If you later desire updates via
diskette instead of download, updates (including printed errata
sheet) cost $20 plus the original Fido Software diskette. $5
discount on either for US ca$h payment.
COMMERCIAL USERS: Fido/FidoNet is a usual licensable product;
the license fee is $175, as it has been for two years. You will
receive the latest software version, complete documentation, and
support via the Fido Software BBS and voice telephone. (This has
proved to be more than adequate for over two years.)
Deals, exceptions and special arrangements can be made on a case
by case basis. In all cases, bugs are fixed promptly, as they
have been for five years. This is basically the policy that was
in force through 1987. It worked pretty well, there were very
few problems, and most of those were caused by my ambiguity.
SHAREWARE DISTRIBUTORS: I do not wish Fido/FidoNet to be
distributed by "shareware distributors", "libraries" or other
similar organization. The problems are too numerous to count:
shipping ancient, incomplete versions; missing critical files;
giving out incorrect information regarding support; giving bad
operating advice, etc. Never mind the fact that they are using
the software for profit, regardless of claims to the otherwise
and suggesting that their customers pay instead.
Bernard Levine, Box 2404, Eugene OR 97402
Not copyrighted -- please circulate
Most of the arguments for and against gun bans address such
marginal issues as the protection of hunting and target shooting
versus the prevention of crime. They avoid the central issue,
which is the protection of liberty against the inroads of
tyranny. In fact the Constitution is equally silent on sport
shooting and on crime prevention. The Constitution's Second
Amendment guarantees our right to keep and bear arms strictly as
the means of last resort by which a free people can and ought to
resist tyranny, whether the threat of tyranny be foreign or
domestic, military conquest or political subversion.
Certainly guns are dangerous. So are cars. Certainly guns, like
cars, should be kept from the hands of the irresponsible and the
deranged. Nonetheless guns, like cars, are an essential
ingredient of our freedom. When the Bill of Rights states, "the
right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed", it does not mention "sporting" arms or any chimerical
"right" to hunt. If you are "pro-gun" but think that hunting and
target shooting are the real issues, then you, like President
Bush, have naively surrendered the moral high ground to the foes
of liberty in a pusillanimous and futile attempt to appease them.
Whatever high-sounding or devious excuses they might offer, gun
ban advocates really want to support tyranny. This is true of the
press and broadcast moguls, who profit most from a frightened,
passive, helpless audience. It is true of the radical
legislators, who rightly view an armed public as the ultimate
deterrent to their revolutionary agenda of redistributive "social
justice". It is most especially true of police chiefs and senior
police officials, the very men who always assume absolute power
in the police-states that spring up whenever radical revolutions
succeed.
The news publishers, the radical legislators, and the police
bureaucrats are natural allies in promoting gun bans. The advance
of the states monopoly on power (which is what tyranny means)
enhances their individual influence, strengthens the power of
their organizations, and advances their shared dogma, that an
"enlightened" police-state (namely one with them in charge) is
more "just" to the "poor and downtrodden" than is a government
based on individual liberty.
By themselves the publishers, the legislators, and the police
chiefs could not subvert the Constitution and enact gun bans.
Therefore they drum up the support of the most readily swayed
part of the public, all the tremulous dewy-eyed naifs who are
ignorant of history and mystified by our political and economic
system. These frightened followers are unable to grasp the nature
of cause and effect, so the media have taught them that guns
cause crime. They are unable to tell right from wrong, so they
have been led to believe that self-defense is an "injustice to
the poor". They cannot distinguish statesmanship from psychosis,
so they glorify violent criminals as "free spirits" and the
FidoNews 6-28 Page 18 10 Jul 1989
"shock troops of the movement". These innocents form a powerful
team with the would-be tyrants and their journalistic apologists,
for without an ignorant, foolish and self-destructive public that
is intoxicated by wishful thinking and seduced by government
programs (remember Weimar Germany?) there can be no tyranny --
and no tyrannical gun bans.
I'll keep it short this week, since I've said about all I care to
about the present policy debates and squabbles, and the editor
has decreed that such talk is not desirable for FidoNews anyway.
(I disagree; the future of FidoNet will be decided by what
happens regarding its policy documents and internal politics, and
as the official journal of the net, FidoNews is the best place to
discuss such things. And, even local squabbles could be relevant
to the global discussion if basic principles of policy get
adjudicated therein. I do, however, agree with the editor that
such discussion can get tiresome if it continues on one subject
long after all viewpoints have been aired repeatedly.[ I didn't
decree anything, I just asked for people to try to observe some
kind of self-limits, specifically to keep interesting topics from
being over-aired past the limits of boredom -- ed.] )
Just one thing I'd like to comment on: Jack Decker's (otherwise
good) article makes some strong attacks on FidoNet for failing to
respect AlterNet's assignments of zone and net numbers, and
criticizes zones, points, and the proposed domain addresses as
"kludges" which shouldn't be necessary.
I disagree. FidoNet was the entity which created the concept of
zone, region, net, and node numbers in the first place, and they
were created to represent geographical areas rather than
political groupings; they're not some "public resource" that
must be parceled out to all network entities which wish to use
similar addressing systems. FidoNet has the right to use its own
numbering system in whatever way it wishes, in accordance with
its POLICY document, and without reference to whatever numbering
scheme non-FidoNet systems may use.
Other networks (AlterNet, EggNet, LCRNet, FamilyNet, et al) have
similar sovereignty with regard to their own numbering; they may
use zones, regions, nets, and nodes in whatever manner THEY
choose.
In the absence of some agreement between the networks in
question, no network has the right to compel any other to
circumscribe its numbering in order to prevent conflicts between
nodes of the two networks. After all, most of the alternative
nets broke off from FidoNet because they wished autonomy
regarding network policies, so it is presumptuous of them to
expect any of the separate network entities to automatically
bring their policy regarding number utilization into harmony with
any other in the absence of diplomatic negotiations of some sort.
I could declare myself to be the leader of "FishNet", and claim
to encompass Zones 11 through 32 inclusive (for instance, Zone 17
will cover all FishNet nodes in the western half of the Andromeda
Galaxy), but I wouldn't expect FidoNet, AlterNet, or AnyOtherNet
to instantly relinquish all plans to use any of these numbers in
deference to my wishes.
FidoNews 6-28 Page 20 10 Jul 1989
Sure, I'd like to see harmony between the different networks, and
a well-established gatewaying system. For this to come about,
somebody needs to get representatives of the nets together to
negotiate something. I hear such a thing was tried at last
year's FidoCon, which resulted in a FidoNet/AlterNet gateway
officially in place; however, it was later removed for some
political reason of which I have no knowledge. That's too bad,
and I hope talks can be established towards reinstating a gateway
of some sort. If such gateway is determined by all parties to be
best done through zone numbering, then numbers can be reserved
for all participating networks by common consent.
However, it may be best in the long run to go to a domain system,
despite Decker's distaste for it; this best preserves the full
autonomy of different networks, as well as (if domain addressing
is implemented in a sufficiently flexible manner) enabling the
possibility of future links to non-FidoNet-compatible networks.
(UUCP gateways already exist, but they're very kludgey; I hope
future FidoNet software allows smoother addressing of
inter-network mail using domains.) With each independent network
represented by its domain name, there would be no need to parcel
out numbers to each network in a non-conflicting manner;
assignment of zones, regions, and nets could be done by each
network on whatever internal basis it wishes. It would then be
clear that Zones 1 through 4 (and any other FidoNet zones that
may be added later) are part of the single network (domain),
FidoNet; AlterNet would have its own domain rather than being
confusingly referred to as "Zone 7" as if it were simply another
geographical zone of FidoNet; and the profusion of other
networks existing or likely to sprout up in the future (a healthy
trend, in my opinion, since it promotes experimentation in both
technical and policy areas, and gives new sysops a wide choice of
possible affiliations) will be able to join the "greater FidoNet"
gatewaying complex by picking an unused domain identifier,
without cutting the address space of any pre-existing network,
since each network needs only one domain. "Domain-aware" mailers
could be written which allow multiple nodelists to be present on
one system, each keyed to a particular domain. If a message is
addressed to a domain that you have the nodelist for, it would be
sent directly; otherwise, it would go through a pre-arranged
gateway.
Admittedly, domains, zones, and points ARE kludgey, and not fully
supported by present software. I hope, however, that future
software will be more understanding of these concepts. In a
rapidly-changing field like computers, it is not possible to
preserve standards forever; they must change with the times.
The old NET/NODE addressing is insufficient for the present
conglomeration of intercommunicating systems, and must be
supplemented even if it produces some confusion in the
changeover, just as the original change from single node numbers
to NET/NODE combinations was both necessary and temporarily
confusing.
I'll be interested to see what develops. (It would be boring if
it always stayed the same, wouldn't it?)
FidoNews 6-28 Page 21 10 Jul 1989
1: Complete dissolution of current Fido-Net doctrine.
Everything goes.
2: Installation of new officers.
I, _your_name_goes_here_, am the Chief. Big Cheese. Top
Dog. Head honcho. UC (Universal Coordinator). GOD.
Buddha. Mohammed. Rambo.
3: Appeals process.
If you don't do what I say, quit or I'll kick you out.
4: Topology.
From midnight until noon, you can only call someone who's
geographically south and east of you. From noon 'til
midnight the reverse is true. Anyone south and west or north
and east of you is off limits. Except during ZMH... no-one
calls ANYBODY for ANY REASON. You may not exchange mail with
anyone farther than thiry miles from you; if you are thirty
miles away from the nearest node you must remove yourself
from the nodelist; if you have friends more than thirty
miles from you... tough. See 3:. On groundhog day, though,
anyone can call anyone, anywhere. But only if the sun is
out. Or was out the previous Tuesday. Any questions? See
3:.
5: New Policy.
There will never again be a new policy.
6: Ratification.
By unarcing this FidoNews you accept this policy as ratified.
7: The Future.
Nobody likes a dictator. In time you will be killed or will
be responsible for killing somebody else. Do the right and
honourable thing: abdicate immediately and name as a
successor somebody without a modem.
8: Afterwards.
You have a responsibility to any BBS networks forming after
this dissolution. That responsibility is to make entirely
FidoNews 6-28 Page 23 10 Jul 1989
certain that it never becomes civilized or organized past the
point of (roughly) Policy 2.
Over the last two months I have compiled an Amateur Radio
newsletter called the Fidonet HAM/PACKET digest. It has been
widely acclaimed from Zone 1 to Zone 3 and I appreciate all of
the comments that I have received. I would also like to thank
Tom Jennings for allowing me to use the Fidonet moniker in the
main file header. These files are mainly a compilation of radio
related bulletins, messages, and stories found in the HAM,
PACKET, and SHORTWAVE echo areas. If you are interested in
seeing them they can be file requested at 9600HST from 231/30 and
they are named as follows. HAM0101.ARC, HAM0102.ARC, and
HAM0103.ARC will get you the first three issues and at this time
issues 4 and 5 are due out but I have run into a snag of sorts,
that being little or no information coming to me to put in the
issues. If this newsletter is to continue, I must have input,
there is a lot going on right now in the amateur community, the
FCC is giving our bandwidth away, the No-Code controversy
continues here in the United States, and field day is upon us. I
know from talking to other amateurs in Australia, Europe, and the
US that we do not have a problem with finding something to talk
about (hi hi). So, if you have anything that you would like to
contribute, and I will print anything as long as it is radio
related, send it to me. I know a lot of you have articles
printed in the various magazines, well I don't want to infringe
on your income, so send me those articles that no one else wants,
I know that my stack of reject letters will end up in the
Smithsonian Institute in the "Most Frustrated Author of All Time"
display. I'll leave the future of this newsletter up to you, the
worldwide amateur community. BTW, if you are a PEP
system...these issues can still be had via FREQ from 231/161, our
local PEP node.
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.
14 Jul 1989
200th anniversary of the storming of the Bastille
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.
20 Jul 1989
Twentieth anniversary of Neil Armstrong's first moonwalk.
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.
Nominations and Elections Committee
1:107/210 or 1:107/233
IFNA ANNUAL ELECTION BALLOT
RULES FOR THE ELECTION
Only members of IFNA in good standing may vote. This ballot is
being mailed (via Air Mail outside North America) to all such
members as of the cut-off date of July 4, 1989. Those who were
not members in good-standing as of that date but whose membership
status changes between then and the ballot due date are also
entitled to vote. Ballots may be printed from the FidoNews
article and utilized for this purpose or in the event that the
official mailed ballot becomes lost.
Ballots may be submitted in one of two methods: They may be
mailed to the address given below or they may be submitted by
hand at FidoCon '89 in San Jose, California. The due date for
mailed ballots is Noon, Thursday, August 24, 1989. Ballots to be
handed in at FidoCon are to be done so prior to Noon, Friday
August 25, 1989.
Any ballot received after the above cut-off dates is subject to
invalidation.
Mailed ballots are to be sent to:
IFNA BALLOT
c/o Robert C. Halvorsen, CPA
Regency Center Suite 309
100 Smith Ranch Road
San Rafael, CA 94904 USA
The ballot is divided into two sections, one for Directors of
IFNA and one for Bylaws Amendments. In the Directors of IFNA
section, you may vote for six at-large directors. In addition,
if you reside in one of the Divisions listed, you may cast one
vote for Divisional Director for that Division only. Do not cast
a vote for any Divisional Director position if you are not a
resident of that Division. As no one has been officially
nominated in accordance with the Bylaws, all votes will have to
be in the form of write-ins of the names of the individuals you
choose.
In determining whether an individual has been elected, the total
votes casts for the individual in both At-large and Divisional
categories will be combined and analyzed, with the individual
with the largest number of valid votes being declared the
Divisional Director. Divisional votes cast for an individual not
elected as Divisional Director will still count towards the
FidoNews 6-28 Page 28 10 Jul 1989
position of at-large director. Therefore, DO NOT VOTE FOR THE
SAME INDIVIDUAL IN BOTH DIVISIONAL AND AT-LARGE CATEGORIES, as
this may nullify your ballot. Note that, if they were two
individuals you felt qualified to be your Divisional Divisional
Director, it would make no difference if you placed one in the
Divisional category and one in the at-large category, or
vice-versa.
For the Bylaws Amendments Section, simply vote either YAY or NAY
to accept or reject the amendment, respectively.
Voting results will remain confidential, but you must enter your
name and address for verification purposes.
It is not necessary to answer every question.
DIRECTORS OF IFNA
Divisional Directors VOTE ONLY FOR YOUR DIVISION!
Division 11 _______________________________
IL, IN, KY, MI, OH,
WI, Ont, Que, PEI,
NovaS, NBrun, Newf.
Division 13 _______________________________
NY, NJ, DE, MD, VA,
PA, WV
Division 15 _______________________________
AZ, CO, NM, UT, WY
As no proposed amendments were submitted by the membership in the
manner as stipulated in the Bylaws, the only bylaws amendments to
be voted are three that were implmented by the Board of Directors
in St. Louis in February of this year. According to Bylaw 41-f,
the "By-Laws may be changed by a two-thirds majority vote of the
Board of Directors. Such changes implemented by the Board of
Directors must appear on the next Ballot for confirmation by the
membership, but shall be in effect during the interim period."
As indicated above, these three bylaws have been in effect since
February; you are to vote for or against ratification.
46. Official communications of the Board of Directors or
Executive Commitee may be presented, in lieu of written form
as called for within these bylaws, through electronic means,
providing such means are secure and their authenticity
verifiable.
YEA _________ NAY _________
47. Any elected or appointed official may be removed for failure
to adequately perform the assigned duties as defined by the
Board of Directors.
(a) The Chairman of the Board of Directors may recommend the
removal of an appointed official to the Board of Directors.
The removal will be effective upon a majority vote of those
voting at a properly convened meeting of the Board or by
electronic mail or by postal mail.
(b) The Executive Committee may recommend the removal of a
Director or elected official to the Board of Directors. The
removal will be effective upon a majority vote of those
voting at a properly convened meeting of the Board or by
electronic mail or by postal mail.
YEA _________ NAY _________
48. An Alternate replacing a Director temporarily or permanently
assumes the seat on the Board of Directors but no other
elected or appointed position.
YEA _________ NAY _________
FidoNews 6-28 Page 30 10 Jul 1989
IMPORTANT! The following section must be completed for
verification purposes!
Name: __________________________ Division of Residence ______
From: Nominations and Elections Committee
To: All IFNA Members
Date: July 8, 1989
Subj: Additional Info on 1989 Annual Election
As you will notice by reading the 1989 Annual Ballot material,
with one exception, there have been no candidates officially
nominated by the membership. The one exception is Kathi Crockett
who, being the only official nominee for Division 17, has been
declared elected in accordance with provisions in the bylaws.
In order to assist you in the election process, the Nominations
and Elections Committee solicited volunteers via FidoNews and
other mediums. Those listed below have expressed interest in
serving FidoNet as a Director of IFNA. The Committee has, in
some cases, listed known qualifications. However, it should be
noted that those without qualifications listed should not be
considered as lesser candidates; we suggest that you investigate
through various forums to determine those who may best represent
your interests.
To this end, the committee will solicit a short statement from
each volunteer which we expect to publish in an upcoming issue of
FidoNews.
The Committee has not verified the qualifications of all of the
following and it is understood that the memberships of some are
"in process". Only those individuals marked with an asterisk
appear in the current IFNA membership list.
Name Zone/Net/Node Division Comments
Jerry Ablan 1:115/876 11
*Steven Barnes 1:138/49 17 Incumbent
Tom Hendricks 1:261/66 13 Present Alternate
Bor-Long Lin, MD 3:56/1 12 R56 EC
Carl Linden 1:10/1 10
John Rafuse 1:12/700 11 R12 EC
*John Roberts 1:147/14 19
*Kris Veitch 1:147/30 19 Treasurer, Incumbent
FidoNews 6-28 Page 31 10 Jul 1989
Our apologies to anyone who may have been inadvertantly left out
of this list. Please contact the Committee immediately at
1:107/210 if you are an IFNA member who wishes to be a candidate.
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
__
The World's First / \
BBS Network /|oo \
* FidoNet * (_| /_)
FidoCon '89 in San Jose, California _`@/_ \ _
at The Holiday Inn Park Plaza | | \ \\
August 24-27, 1989 | (*) | \ ))
______ |__U__| / \//
/ Fido \ _//|| _\ /
(________) (_/(_|(____/ (tm)
You may pay by Check, Money Order, or Credit Card. Please send
no cash. All monies must be in U.S. Funds. Checks should be
made out to: "FidoCon '89"
This form should be completed and mailed to:
Silicon Valley FidoCon '89
PO Box 390770
Mountain View, CA 94039
You may register by Netmailing this completed form to 1:1/89 for
processing. Rename it to ZNNNXXXX.REG where Z is your Zone
number, N is your Net number, and X is your Node number. US Mail
confirmation is required within 72 hours to confirm your
registration.
If you are paying by credit card, please include the following
information. For your own security, do not route any message
with your credit card number on it. Crash it directly to 1:1/89.
Master Card _______ Visa ________
Credit Card Number _____________________________________________
Expiration Date ________________________________________________
No credit card registrations will be accepted without a valid
FidoNews 6-28 Page 35 10 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.
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.
