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 submitted by a FidoNet SysOp will be rejected if it is
properly attributed and legally acceptable. We will publish
every responsible submission received.
Table of Contents
1. ARTICLES ................................................. 1
COMMENTS ON INTERNETWORK POLICY .......................... 1
Netmail Handling within Fidonet .......................... 5
Results from IFNA Vote ................................... 13
2. WANTED ................................................... 21
WANTED: Korean War Veterans .............................. 21
3. LATEST VERSIONS .......................................... 23
Latest Software Versions ................................. 23
4. NOTICES .................................................. 26
New Anesthesia Echo ...................................... 26
The Interrupt Stack ...................................... 26
FidoNews 7-01 Page 1 1 Jan 1990
COMMENTS ON INTERNETWORK POLICY
- or -
Observations From The Cheap Seats
Whether for better or for worse, the IFNA election is over.
The question of what the ultimate result will be from the outcome
is one that can only be left to be answered in the future. Other
things, it appears, have been in the works that perhaps we should
be concerned about, so on with the new!
First and foremost would have to be the appearance of the
Internetwork Gateway Policy draft as presented by Tim Pearson in
FidoNews 651. There has obviously been a lot of effort put into
this proposal by such FidoNet luminaries as Bill Bolton (ZC3),
Steve Bonine (Zone 1 Coordinator), Randy Bush (Zone 1 netmail
gateway to Zones 2, 3, 4 and 5), David Dodell (retired Interna-
tional Coordinator and Zone 1 Coordinator), Rick Moore (FidoNet
Technical Standards Committee Chairman), Tim Pearson (Region 14
Coordinator), Vince Perriello (FidoNews Editor and BinkleyTerm
Author), Tim Pozar (InterNetwork Coordinator), and Matt Whelan
(International Coordinator). That's quite an impressive collec-
tion of titles, by anyone's definition.
Given the prominence of the individuals on this committee,
and that it has obviously been working on this proposal for quite
a long time, I'm at once forced to wonder why the draft couldn't
have been released prior to or during the IFNA election so that
people could have had a little more of an idea of the possible
alternatives should IFNA fail to succeed. However, I'll come
back to that later. Right now I'm going to address some of the
things that about the proposal that are troubling me, ignoring
the trend toward the micromanagement of FidoNet that began with
Policy 4 and continues with the current proposal.
You see, I believe that FidoNet always has been, and should
always remain above all a hobbiest network. I believe that most
of us run our systems for our own enjoyment and pleasure, and
that we're not overly concerned with anything beyond communicat-
ing with others who do the same. The results from the recent
IFNA election would appear to indicate that I'm correct in at
least the second, if not the first of these beliefs.
I also believe that FidoNet technology is a wondrous thing,
in that it allows us to accomplish the act of communicating with
each other with pretty fair reliability in a relatively simple
manner. It even works, and works well, for messages that need to
travel between systems in one network and systems in another, as
long as both systems are compatible with the FidoNet mail proto-
col. From an operational standpoint, it's no more difficult than
operating in a single network. A lot of us have been doing it
for a couple of years now, and though there have been a few
FidoNews 7-01 Page 2 1 Jan 1990
difficulties from time to time, most of these were a result of
personal problems, not technical issues. Even some of the tech-
nical difficulties that did occur could often be attributed to
simple operator error rather than problems with the technique
itself.
Certainly there must be special requirements and techniques
for passing mail between systems that use the FidoNet protocol
and those that do not, and certainly there must be agreements for
establishing connections to professional and/or commercial net
works that exist. However, the proposal as it stands would
appear to put more emphasis on protecting these other networks
from FidoNet than on protecting FidoNet and its hobbiest standing
from these professional and/or commercial giants. At least one
of the members of this committee has been espousing the necessity
of making FidoNet a professional network for years, and the
proposal shows more than a little of an influence in that direc-
tion.
But all of those special requirements and techniques simply
aren't necessary for communication between networks based on the
FidoNet protocol. However, now we have a proposal from a group
of individuals who apparently feel there is a need to increase
the complexity, the difficulty, and in most cases the cost for
anyone within FidoNet who wants to communicate with his neighbor
down the street who also runs a FidoNet compatible mail system
but happens to be a member of a different network, for whatever
reason. Interestingly enough, several of these same individuals
have been the most outspoken of the "my net or no net" camp - you
know, those folks who say "if you don't like it, you can leave",
knowing full well that they've got the biggest (and arguably
best) game on the block, and knowing that most people will just
resign themselves to take it on the cheek.
Note that I'm not saying that there aren't some good things
in the proposal. There most certainly are, for if nothing else
the document at least acknowledges the fact that there are net-
works based on the FidoNet protocol other than FidoNet itself in
existence and that they're not going to just dry up and go away -
an acknowledgment that previously had never been formalized.
There's also an indication that there may be some willingness to
establish agreements with these networks for communication be-
tween them and the resolution of problems that may occur. Howev-
er, even here the bully attitude reasserts itself in the "my way
or no way" philosophy and method of handling such problems. Other
FidoNet technology networks are, plain and simple, reduced to the
same status as private point networks by the proposal and its
mechanisms.
Now, all of this may not concern most of you in the least.
But it is, after all, remotely possible that someday you too may
want to join a different network for social reasons or special
benefits that it may offer. Should that happen, would you want
to be placed in the position of having to go through unnecessary
contortions simply to send a message to your FidoNet friend
across town? I wouldn't. However, getting back to my earlier
FidoNews 7-01 Page 3 1 Jan 1990
question about why this proposal was released at this time.
Frankly, if I were doing it and had control of the situation, I
could think of absolutely no better time. Why?
Because there are those who would see this as an undeniable
attempt to increase the control of FidoNet by a few select indi-
viduals (as opposed to IFNA). Had it been released prior to or
during the IFNA election, it's entirely possible that the outcome
would have been much, much different. Also, there are a number
of proposals for a new FidoNet policy being worked on at the
present time, most of them based to one extent or another on
moving toward a truly democratic network. Should one of those be
passed and come into effect prior to this proposal, it certainly
might have a difficult time of passage without being reworked to
be a little more appropriate for a hobbiest network. Of course,
that's all conjecture on my part, but it seems a bit too conven-
ient to have happened just by coincidence. Because of all the
above, I want to make a couple of suggestions.
First, to all sysops of FidoNet or other FidoNet technology
networks. This proposal represents a serious threat to your
capability to continue communication with systems in other net-
works in the most efficient, cost-effective manner. Read it
closely. If implemented, it will in most cases take at least two
calls to send the message that now takes one, and additionally
will have to undergo some sort of processing on one or more
gateway systems, quite probably resulting in an increase in
costs, increase in time lag, and lower reliability as a result of
dependence on an increased number of other systems to be involved
in the transmission of your internetwork messages.
Second, to all sysops of FidoNet. You should demand to have
a personal voice in the adoption of ANY policy that has the
potential, now or later, of affecting your day to day operation
in any manner. You should demand that any such election be
conducted in a similar manner to the IFNA election, i.e., that
any policy can only be implemented by a YES vote from over 50% of
the nodes in the network, and that no "formulas" be applied for
adjusting the outcome of the vote. Anything less than this, and
you are leaving yourself open to the possibility of being con-
trolled by the desires of a few individuals who "know what's best
for you".
Third, to all sysops of all other FidoNet technology net-
works. If you're also still a member of FidoNet, then now is the
time to let yourself be heard, both by the drafters of this
proposal and by your fellow sysops. You should also let those
within the hierarchy of whatever other network you may be a
member of know that you feel it's time for all the other networks
to attempt to overcome their differences and speak to the FidoNet
with a single voice, through netmail, newsletter articles, con-
ferences between FidoNet coordinators and those of your own
network, regaining control of your network's conferences from
FidoNet if necessary, or whatever other actions may be available
to you.
FidoNews 7-01 Page 4 1 Jan 1990
Last item from the cheap seats, to everyone. Whatever you
do or don't do, agree with or don't agree with, make sure to make
your opinions known. Along with any benefit comes responsibili-
ty, if nothing more than the responsibility to participate when
asked. Most of the time, it's just a matter of giving an honest
answer when you're asked what you think or how you feel about
something, or taking the time to cast your vote when there's an
election. If you do nothing else, at least make the attempt to
stand up and be counted when it's time!
John Roberts
FidoNet 1:385/49
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 7-01 Page 5 1 Jan 1990
Jack Decker
1:154/9, 11:154/8
NETMAIL HANDLING WITHIN FIDONET
The purpose of this article is to stimulate you to think for a
moment about netmail (also known as "Matrix Mail" if you run an
Opus system). I'd like to make some statements about netmail,
and ask how many of the following you'd agree with:
1) In the early days of Fidonet, netmail was what held us
together. Without it, we'd have been just a loose collection
of BBS's, if that.
2) In the past two or three years, most new sysops have joined
Fidonet primarily to gain access to echomail, and many sysops
don't even use netmail, nor offer it to their users.
3) From the user's perspective, sending or replying to a
message in echomail is thought of as being "free", while
sending netmail costs money, if the BBS you're using even
allows you to do so.
4) From the sysop's point of view, outgoing echomail costs
very little compared to outgoing netmail (for which a separate
call may have to be made to deliver each single netmail
message). The exception to this is in the (relatively few)
nets that have OGATEs.
5) If a sysop has a really important netmail message to send,
he'll usually send it directly to the destination system (using
"crash mail") rather than take the risk that it will be lost or
grunged in transit through other systems.
6) Calling an unknown node to deliver netmail can be risky.
While all nodes in Fidonet are supposed to be able to talk to
each other, it turns out that certain modems and/or mailers
will refuse to communicate more often than we'd like.
7) If you wish to send netmail within your own zone, and you
do not have an OGATE in your net, you must send it to the
destination node or to his net host on your own nickel (and
hope that your system and the one at the other end will
communicate).
8) Most sysops have no idea how to go about sending a netmail
message to someone in a different Fidonet-compatible network,
let alone to a non-Fidonet network such as Usenet, Internet,
etc.
9) If someone told a Fidonet sysop that he had an account on
Usenet, chances are that the Fidonet sysop would not be able to
tell that person how to address mail to the sysop at his
Fidonet address. In fact, most Fidonet sysops would never
expect to receive mail from another network in that manner.
FidoNews 7-01 Page 6 1 Jan 1990
10) Many messages that are currently placed in echomail could
go by netmail, which would cut down on much of the extraneous
and off-topic discussion that today permeates the echo
conferences.
11) It is much easier and less expensive to send netmail in
other networks (such as Usenet) because mail is routed through
other systems.
That's the end of the "pop quiz." How many of the above
statements did you agree with? If it was five or more, then
you probably realize that we have a bit of a problem with
netmail right now, in both Fidonet and most of the
"alternative" networks that use Fidonet technology.
How would you like to be able to handle outbound netmail in
this way: When you post a netmail message, if your system
"knows" the destination system (for example, it's another
system in your local calling area, or one with which you
regularly exchange netmail or echomail), your system would send
the message direct, as it does now. Or, if the message was
really important and had to get to the destination quickly,
your system would crashmail it to the destination, just as it
does now.
But, for all other netmail... the stuff that goes to systems
you don't "know" but which is not time-sensitive... you'd
simply dump it on one node in your net and he'd see that it got
delivered! That would be simple and convenient, right?
Ah, but what does that node do with it? Well, suppose he
collects all the long distance netmail from your net, and makes
ONE long distance call each night and dumps it on a node at the
regional level? Still pretty simple, right?
And what does the regional level node do? Well, if it's mail
for a net in his region, he holds it for pickup by the node
that calls in from that net (the netmail hub for that net, in
other words). Otherwise, he bundles it up and sends it to a
zone level node, which holds it for pickup by the proper
regional level node.
Now, this is all pretty straightforward up to the regional
level. Either you "know" the destination net of any given
message and send it directly to that net, or you don't, in
which case the message it sent "upstream." But above the
regional level, there has to be some way to know which regional
hub gets any particular netmail message. It would be nice to
assume that we'd always have one regional netmail hub for each
Fidonet region, but that may not always be the case. In
reality, we might have one hub that serves two adjacent
regions. Or, there may be some technical or economic reason
why a particular net may need to connect with a mail hub in a
different region. Since we're designing this from the ground
up anyway, we might as well build in some flexibility to handle
these types of situations.
FidoNews 7-01 Page 7 1 Jan 1990
So let's suppose we have a network-wide "topology map." This
would have to be maintained, but not anywhere near as
frequently as the nodelist. It could probably be distributed
as an SDS file. Its greatest benefit would be to those at the
regional level and above, so minor changes could probably be
made manually (and immediately) by sending out netmail messages
to the parties who really need the information.
The map would make the assumption that each mail hub knows how
to get to the levels above and below it (that is, the full
net/node address of those nodes above and below it), so the map
itself would really only have to list net, region, or zone
numbers. That way, when the functions of a particular hub are
transferred to a different node, the map doesn't necessarily
have to be redrawn.
As an example, the following might be the basic outline for a
map for a mythical zone 6 that has three regions (67, 68, and
69) which each serve three nets:
NET REGION ZONE
230 67 6
311
395
320 68
373
377
121 69
162
331
(This may seem like it reads backwards, but it creates a
smaller file than if written the other way around, and is
probably easier to parse).
So, if you want to send a message to zone 5, net 373 and it
arrives at the zone-level node, it can check the "map" and
determine that it can send the message to the region 68 hub.
A couple more technical points about the map: First, there
would be separate maps for each zone, not a combined map. It's
really nobody's concern how mail is routed in a different zone
from their own. Also, it would be permissible to have listings
ABOVE the first zone listing, particularly during the time
frame when this scheme is first being implemented. This would
indicate regions that have intra-regional routing but that do
not tie into any zone-wide routing scheme (yet). Net hubs
would know that in such cases they could not use the regional
hub to send mail outside of their own regions. Actually, a
fourth field could be used in such a case, to indicate those
other regions that a particular region DOES connect with (see
the technical appendix at the end of this article).
FidoNews 7-01 Page 8 1 Jan 1990
Would you believe that we already have the beginnings of such a
netmail routing scheme in Fidonet, but few know about it? For
example, in at least one region that I know of, the Regional
Echomail Coordinator handles inter-net netmail within his
region, and in a different region, the Regional Coordinator
performs this service. Under policy, neither of these folks is
REQUIRED to perform this service, they just do it because they
are nice folks.
And in Fidonet Zone 2, it appears that netmail routing is being
accomplished routinely. A message from Tomas Gradin to me in
the NET_DEV conference (in response to an earlier message of
mine) stated:
I agree. We have done it exactly this way in Region
20 (consisting of the seven nets in Sweden) for
several years by now, and it works *excellently*! We
do it like this:
node -> [hub ->] NC -> RC -> NC -> [hub ->] node
Mail to other regions is sent by the RC to the RC of
the destination node, or to the proper zonegate.
The quoted line of yours shows exactly how I would
like FidoNet netmail to work in all regions/zones.
It's the best way, doubtlessly.
I've been around Fidonet long enough to know that if we try to
mandate any sort of netmail routing scheme upon the network, it
will never happen. For example, if we tried to pass a Policy
that stated that REC's or RC's HAD to handle netmail within
their region, those who don't want to do it will scream bloody
murder and try to make life miserable for everyone else, and
will do their darndest to make sure that the idea never comes
to fruitation. So, let's avoid that problem. What I propose
is that we create a totally new, totally voluntary position...
The zone/region/net NETMAIL Coordinator. This doesn't even
have to be an "officially recognized" position, though it would
be nice if it was. But, keep in mind that distribution systems
like the SDS and SDN got started without a whole lot of
"official" blessing, yet they are widely recognized within the
net now.
The one thing that would differentiate the Netmail Coordinator
(*NC) position from the others is that in this case we would
allow (and even encourage) folks to wear "two hats." It makes
a LOT of sense for an existing *EC or *C to also be the *NC for
his net, region, or zone. Only in the case where neither the
*EC nor *C wanted the job would we start asking for volunteers.
The reason, of course, is that it makes a lot of sense to
"piggyback" netmail on existing structures where possible,
rather than creating totally new structures where these are not
FidoNews 7-01 Page 9 1 Jan 1990
required. For example, if the Net Echomail Coordinator makes
outgoing calls to virtually everyone in his net every day, he
might not feel that it's such an imposition to deliver the
occasional piece of netmail at the same time, during the same
call (then again, he might, which is why we make it
voluntary!).
In order to make this work, those who volunteer to be Netmail
Coordinators would be wise to agree to follow a few common
sense rules:
1) Delivery of mail takes precedence over political
considerations. In other words, you don't withhold delivery of
someone's mail in order to make a political statement.
2) Every reasonable effort should be made to deliver netmail.
It's not reasonable to expect you to make a call to Timbuktu to
deliver mail on your nickel, but you should be willing to "go
the extra mile" to see that mail passing through your system
gets delivered.
3) If you're at the region level or above, no checking for the
existence of a node is allowed before mail delivery is
attempted. If the NET number is valid, you at least should
deliver it as far as the net hub for that net. The net hub
just might know what to do with it, even if you don't! The
destination node may be a new node that's not yet in the
nodelist, or a private node in that net that's not listed in
the nodelist, or even a node that's existed for years but that
through some accident or screwup by man or machine, got omitted
from this week's nodelist.
4) Anyone who has a "chip on their shoulder" in regard to the
alternative networks will probably not make a good Netmail
Coordinator, and probably should not apply for the position.
Eventually "Domain Gating" may be worked into this scheme
(indeed, "Domain Gating" really only becomes viable when a
netmail routing scheme such as this one exists on both sides of
the Domain gate!) so if you just can't stomach the idea of
handling mail that originates in networks other than your own,
you probably ought to let a more open-minded individual take
the position.
5) You also probably shouldn't get into this if you think
you're going to charge other people money for providing this
service. One of the major problems we've had in Fidonet is
people who take a position with the idea that somehow it's
going to financially enrich them, and when that doesn't happen,
they start pushing for "chargeback" schemes and the like (which
generally go over like lead balloons, and cause all sorts of
problems, flames, and policy complaints).
FidoNews 7-01 Page 10 1 Jan 1990
6) Geographic boundaries are not idols, and are not "cast in
concrete." If it makes more sense (from a cost standpoint, or
for some technical reason such as modems or mailers that refuse
to communicate with each other at a reasonable speed), a net
distribution point may be allowed to connect into the netmail
routing scheme at some point outside of their own region.
That's why we have the topology map! Even though I use the
word "region" in this proposal, it's not my intent to say that
netmail routing regions must *exactly* follow Fidonet regional
boundaries. It's also not my intent to say that mail going
between political subdivisions MUST flow through the next
higher level. If the Netmail Coordinators of two different
nets or regions wish to send direct to each other, that should
be encouraged since it will take some of the load off of the
system at the next higher level!
Those of you who think that this idea stinks (for whatever
reason) probably wonder why anyone would volunteer their time
and, to some extent, their money to provide this service. My
answer to that is that I don't know WHY folks do things for
others, but many do. Consider again the SDS and SDN nodes,
which in many areas spend no small amount of money to bring the
"latest and greatest" software into their nets, in most cases
without recompense. Also consider that many nets have echomail
hubs that absorb the expenses incurred in bring echoes into the
net. Still other nets presently have OGATEs that send outbound
netmail at their own expense. Why do any of these folks do
what they do? For that matter, why do sysops set up free
BBS's? I don't know, but I'll bet there's more folks out there
who would be happy to have a chance to make a meaningful
contribution to this hobby that we call Fidonet.
Technical Addendum:
==================
My actual proposal for the map differs slightly in
implementation from the very general outline mentioned above.
The actual format would be:
Note that in the above example, no zone is specified until the
seventh line. Nodes list above that line are not tied into the
zone-wide netmail routing scheme, but do participate in
multi-regional routing between regions 24-27. Eventually the
fourth field may become unused, but in the beginning it will
allow netmail routing to begin in portions of the zone prior to
implementation of a full zone-wide delivery system. In other
words, the fourth field would be considered temporary, and
would probably be abolished after zone-wide netmail routing
becomes a reality.
The ";Zone_Map" keyword is REQUIRED and allows the list to be
expanded with other useful information, with each type of
information having its own specific format. For example, if it
were desired to place the actual network addresses of the
regional hubs in the map (again, as a temporary measure until
full zone-wide routing is achieved), it could be done in this
way:
;Region_Hubs 24,24/0
25,25/99
26,265/111
...and, it would even be possible to include Domain Gating
information to make it easy for folks to find domain gates.
The syntax might be:
In the first example, the "Hairnet" gate would be the one
actually accessed by the region 24, region 25, and net 124 hubs
for transmission of inter-net mail. In other words, this field
would be for informational purposes ("this is the domain gate
we are currently using") rather than as an imperative ("if you
are in region 24 you MUST use this gate only!").
Having this information available from one centralized location
within a zone would make it much easier for mail hubs to
construct meaningful routing control files. None of the above
is "cast in stone" and I am certainly open to suggestions on
how it might be improved. One thing to keep in mind is that
the more information that is included with the map, the more
useful it becomes, BUT it will have to be updated more
frequently.
FidoNews 7-01 Page 12 1 Jan 1990
One other note... I have deliberately avoided mentioning the
ZoneGate in this document because, although I feel it would be
better if the ZoneGate were at the "top of the pyramid" in any
netmail routing scheme, the current ZoneGate operators may not
wish to participate. Therefore, for the time being, if a piece
of mail for another zone turns up on a Netmail Coordinator's
system, it should be handled just like any other piece of mail
destined for the ZoneGate's net (for example, in zone 1, it
would be handled just like any other piece of mail going to net
105). Also, the current zone 1 ZoneGate operator has indicated
that he will destroy rather than deliver mail that originates
in a network outside of Fidonet; therefore, if full
inter-domain routing ever becomes a reality, it may be
appropriate at that time for the Netmail Coordinators to find
an alternate routing for mail which originates in other domains
(but which is destined for a Fidonet node in another zone).
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 7-01 Page 13 1 Jan 1990
Steve Bonine 1:115/777
Chair of IFNA Elections and Nominations Committee
At this Summer's FidoCon, the IFNA Board of Directors passed a
resolution affectionately known as YPOP (Yellow Piece of Paper)
which decreed that a vote would be taken to determine the future of
IFNA. The rules for this vote were published in FidoNews 644. The
polls were open during the month of November, and the vote totals
were tabulated and reported up the FidoNet coordinator structure
during the month of December. This article reports those results.
The resolution passed by the Board stated that the outcome of the
vote was to be based upon the total of ELIGIBLE voters, not on the
number of actual votes received. It thus was as important to
develop a count of eligible voters as to record the votes received.
Network Coordinators who conducted the vote were requested to
forward three numbers: YES votes, NO votes, and number of eligible
voters.
A mechanism was developed to adjust the total of eligible voters to
compensate for nets which did not report any results or for which
no number-eligible was reported. This mechanism, described in the
published rules, involves calculating a ratio of the number of
eligible voters to the number of nodelist entries and then applying
that ratio to nets which did not report.
In summary, the numeric results are as follows:
YES votes received: 1417
NO votes received: 480
Eligible voters reported: 3741
Nodelist entries represented by these 3741 voters: 4373
Nodelist entries represented by nets not reporting: 1484
Calculated eligible voters in nets not reporting: 1269
Total eligible voters: 5010
Percentage of eligible voters voting YES: 28%
As Chair of the IFNA Nominations and Elections Committee, the Board
of Directors should consider this my formal report that the
required majority of eligible voters was NOT received in this
election.
Now that I have presented the numbers, I want to editorialize just
a bit.
I want to thank everyone who helped conduct this election. The
cooperation from the entire FidoNet coordinator structure was
excellent and quite gratifying. After all, it wasn't the coordina-
tors who asked for this, and it is no small amount of work to hold
this type of election, especially in a large net. Considering the
number of people involved and our experience level at doing this,
the number of problems encountered was vanishingly small.
FidoNews 7-01 Page 14 1 Jan 1990
Which brings me to a related topic. There are almost 2,000 votes
tallied in this election. I am certain that, somewhere, there must
be a typo or a net's vote which somehow was mis-recorded. Let's
not nitpick on this. A few votes one way or the other really isn't
going to change anything. A few HUNDRED votes wouldn't change the
outcome. In fact, it would take more than 1,000 additional YES
votes to change the outcome. Everyone involved has done their best
to insure accuracy, and flames about misrecorded votes just aren't
called for.
In conclusion I present the vote tally by net. This list is based
upon NODELIST.300, which was the nodelist-of-record for the
election. It does not purport to reflect current reality in terms
of NC names, etc. The line length was chopped at 65 characters to
allow it to appear in FidoNews with one line per net, which
mutilated some NC's names; for that I apologize. The three numbers
shown are YES votes, NO votes, and number-eligible. In those cases
where the number-eligible is blank (including those indicated as
"no report"), the eligible count was adjusted using the ratio
technique described above.
YES NO Elig
12 4 26 Net 100,St Louis Area,St Louis MO,J Harre
16 3 33 Net 101,Boston Metro,Swampscott MA,HAL DuPrie
10 1 61 Net 102,SoCalNet,Los Angeles CA,Richard Martz
14 3 28 Net 103,Orange Co CA,Anaheim CA,Jim Bacon
8 13 71 Net 104,Denver Area Net,Denver CO,Rod Lamping
6 28 62 Net 105,VanPort Net,S Wash & N Ore,The Curmudgeon
4 6 74 Net 106,Houston Area,Houston TX,Merrilyn Vaughan
84 10 100 Net 107,NY/NJ MetroNet,East Brunswick NJ,Fabian G
5 1 6 Net 108,CincyNet,Cincinnati OH,Jesse Armontrout
51 2 89 Net 109,Spooks R Us Net,DC MD NoVA Metro,Bill And
1 7 8 Net 110,DAYTON Area,Dayton OH,Decker Doggett
0 0 Net 112,NE Florida Coast,Jacksonville FL,Dana San
17 9 48 Net 114,Phoenix Area,Phoenix AZ,John Valentyn
20 8 42 Net 115,ChicagoLand,Chicago IL,Tom Etheridge
0 0 Net 116,Greater Tenn Area,Nashville TN,Mike Black
no report Net 117,Brazos County Area,College Station TX,Pau
11 1 13 Net 119,ChicoNet,Chico CA,Bob Campbell
12 2 Net 120,Detroit MetroNet,Ferndale MI,Mike Bader
2 0 4 Net 121,Madison Area,Madison WI,John Galvin
4 1 Net 123,Mid-South Net,Memphis TN,Bill Paul
no report Net 124,Dallas Metroplex,Dallas TX,Jon Sabol
12 1 31 Net 125,SF Bay Net,San Francisco CA,Mike Moore
14 1 23 Net 128,Southern Colorado,Colorado Springs CO,Woo
32 1 34 Net 129,Pitt-Net,Pittsburgh PA,Paul Kelly
5 1 42 Net 130,FTW Gateway,Fort Worth TX,George Braswell
10 9 36 Net 132,New England-North,Nashua NH,Kath Kirby
8 0 Net 133,ATLNET,Atlanta GA,Steve Antonoff
15 13 29 Net 134,Southern Alberta,Calgary Alta,Norbert Lan
FidoNews 7-01 Page 15 1 Jan 1990
18 1 38 Net 135,SFLorida Net,Miami FL,Christopher Baker
1 1 4 Net 136,Del Rio,Del Rio TX,James Johnston
0 0 Net 137,Fla Suncoast Net,Sarasota FL,George Emigh
0 14 15 Net 138,South Puget Sound,Washington,Steven Barne
7 0 8 Net 139,Eastern WI & U.P. MI,Neenah WI,Bruce Casn
1 8 25 Net 140,Sask Net,Saskatchewan Canada,Ken Read
26 21 77 Net 141,ConnCentral,New Haven CT,Emmitt Dove
7 1 10 Net 142,Hartford Area,Farmington CT,Maynard Marqu
10 1 21 Net 143,Silicon Valley,Sunnyvale CA,Jim Cannell
17 3 43 Net 147,OKC MetroNet,Oklahoma City,Kris Veitch
2 8 10 Net 150,First State,Wilmington DE,Dave Hart
0 0 Net 151,NC Net,Greensboro NC,Michael Hill
9 0 34 Net 152,The Oregon Network,Eugene OR,Paul Ortman
3 1 60 Net 153,Pacific Rim,BC MAN YUK NWT,Len Boscoe
13 0 20 Net 154,Wisconsin S.E.(lata),Milwaukee WI,Ted Pol
6 2 18 Net 157,Northeast OH,Cleveland OH,Bob Abbott
0 8 21 Net 159,Mid Michigan Net,Lansing MI,Bob Peel
6 0 13 Net 160,South TX Gulf Coast,Corpus Christi TX,Bob
11 0 34 Net 161,SF EAST BAY\VALLEY,Benicia CA,Derek Koopo
2 4 51 Net 163,Ottawa Net,Ottawa ON,Bruce Miller
1 2 40 Net 167,QUEBEC WEST,Brossard Que,Renald Loignon
11 18 43 Net 170,Tulsa Area,Tulsa OK,Bruce Bodger
3 0 19 Net 200,South Net,Malmoe Sweden,Mats Knuts
no report Net 201,Lafayette Net,West Lafayette IN,Don Ault
5 0 35 Net 201,Mid Sweden Net,Sweden,Thomas Bergstam
22 2 33 Net 202,San Diego Co CA,San Diego CA,Jim Dailey
4 0 22 Net 202,TCL-NET,Tungelsta Sweden,Hakan Andersson
30 11 41 Net 203,SacraMetro Valley Net,Sacramento Ca,Ralph
1 0 19 Net 203,West Swedish Net,Gothenburg Sweden,Anders
1 0 8 Net 204,Central Net,Orebro Sweden,Thomas Stjernst
2 3 16 Net 204,SF Peninsula Net,San Mateo CA,Les Kooyman
13 1 17 Net 205,Fresno/Central Valley,Clovis CA,Ken Wecte
no report Net 205,Norrland Net,Sundsvall Sweden,Roberth Lin
4 1 21 Net 206,Ventura County Net,Thousand Oaks CA,Steve
no report Net 207,Inland County Net,Colton CA,Rod Bowman
2 0 13 Net 208,Stockton/Modesto Net,Modesto CA,Stephen E
4 0 4 Net 209,Vega$Net,Las Vegas NV,Jeff Marsh
0 0 12 Net 221,SouWest O Net,London ON,Erik Sea
0 0 7 Net 222,The Soo Net,Sault Ste. Marie ON,Mario D'U
2 0 5 Net 225,Near North Net,North Bay ON,Jesse David H
24 1 30 Net 226,Buckeye Net,Columbus OH,David Pointer
3 0 5 Net 227,Michiana Net,South Bend IN,Bob Heide
5 2 22 Net 228,West Michigan Net,Grand Rapids MI,Kevin O
7 1 24 Net 229,Durham Net,Ajax ONT,Rick Bates
11 0 13 Net 230,DANE TECH,Denmark,Mik Tuver
5 10 22 Net 231,Central IN Fido Net,Indpls IN,Brian Murre
3 0 25 Net 231,DaneNet,Denmark,Johnny Odgaard
2 2 9 Net 232,Central IL,Peoria IL,Lee Busby
14 1 18 Net 233,Chambana Net,Urbana IL,Wayne Hamilton
13 1 14 Net 234,Maumee Valley Net,Toledo OH,Jim Dunmyer
no report Net 234,Mosquito Network Ass.,Denmark,Keld Hansen
no report Net 236,NE Indiana Net,Fort Wayne IN,Ron Kuhn
no report Net 237,State Line <HST>,Niles OH,Orren Zook
FidoNews 7-01 Page 16 1 Jan 1990
3 0 3 Net 238,Central WI,Schofield WI,William Huther
4 0 6 Net 240,QUEBEC EAST,QuebecCity Que,Doug Kitson
0 5 5 Net 241,European HST NET,West Germany FRG,Mario R
4 2 11 Net 242,AltiPlex Net,FRG,Leo Moll
no report Net 243,Big Science Net,West Germany FRG,Ruediger
8 0 17 Net 244,RHEIN-AREA-NET,West Germany FRG,Helmut Sa
1 4 8 Net 245,MUG-Net,West Germany FRG,Klaus Schaefer
4 0 10 Net 246,Bavarian Net,West-Germany FRG,Tommy Roede
0 0 9 Net 247,Niagara Net,St. Catharines ON,Hugh Mitche
1 6 13 Net 247,SchaWot Net Suedhessen,West Germany FRG,S
no report Net 248,Ara Net Wiesbaden,West Gemany FRG,Hans Ko
0 0 84 Net 250,Southern Ontario Net,ON,Bruce Smith
2 0 3 Net 251,Southern Net,South Coast UK,Jon Dunster
22 0 27 Net 252,South Central,Reading UK,David Rance
22 1 51 Net 253,Central Net,Droitwich UK,Pete Franchi
27 0 46 Net 254,London Net,London UK,Grant Burch
7 0 12 Net 255,SouthWest Net ,Exeter UK,John Burden
1 0 10 Net 256,Brit Net North,Tyneside UK,John Rawson
no report Net 257,The Home Counties Net,UK,Grant Burch
1 1 16 Net 258,Eastern Net [HST],Sandy UK,Alan Walker
4 0 6 Net 259,ScotNet,Barrhead UK,Donald Whannell
24 2 47 Net 260,EmpireStateNet,Syracuse NY,Mark Howard
32 2 49 Net 261,Chesapeake MetroNet,Baltimore Area,Bob Ru
3 0 6 Net 262,West Virginia Net,So Charleston WV,Mike H
4 1 21 Net 264,Mid Virginia Net,Richmond VA,Cabell Clark
0 1 11 Net 265,SOUTHERN NORTHERN VA NET,Woodbridge Va,Ri
1 11 22 Net 266,51st State,Burlington NJ,Bob Germer
7 0 7 Net 267,Adirondack Net,Glens Falls NY,Ross Callow
1 2 5 Net 268,Pocono Net,Hainesville NJ,Ed Crissey
2 4 15 Net 269,Garden State North,Caldwell NJ,Glen Johns
7 5 12 Net 270,Central PA Net,Middletown PA,Gary Rux
3 4 15 Net 271,Tidewater Va Net,Norfolk VA,Tom Cadorette
13 0 16 Net 272,South East NY Net,Poughkeepsie NY,Ray Hyd
5 10 35 Net 273,Philadelphia Metro,Bensalem PA,Thomas Lyn
no report Net 280,DFF Host Holland Capital,Amsterdam Hollan
30 2 32 Net 280,KC Area Net,Kansas City MO,Fred Armantrou
5 0 25 Net 281,DFF Holland North-West,Voorschoten Hollan
no report Net 282,DFF Holland-North/East,Heerenveen Holland
11 2 22 Net 282,Twin Cities Metronet,Mpls/St. Paul MN,Ste
no report Net 283,DFF Host Holland-Mid/East,Ommen Holland,P
3 0 9 Net 283,IowaNetEast,Iowa City IA,Jim Stepp
3 0 15 Net 284,DFF Host Holland South-East,Casteren Holl
2 1 3 Net 284,Springfield Area Net,Springfield MO,Phil
3 0 15 Net 285,DFF Host Holland South-West,Roosendaal Ho
3 2 8 Net 285,Tri City Network,Omaha NE,Phil Root
3 0 33 Net 286,Dutch Independent Network,Monster Holland
2 1 3 Net 286,Ozark Net,Joplin MO,Tim Pearson
1 0 1 Net 287,Cape Girardeau,Cape Girardeau MO,Bob Mari
1 0 6 Net 288,ILL EAST OF MISS,Granite City IL,Mark Veh
3 0 5 Net 289,Mid Missouri Net,Mexico MO,Linda Glover
4 0 5 Net 290,CIA Central Iowa Net,Des Moines IA,Dan Bu
no report Net 290,IBN 290,Brussels Belgium,Frank Verstraete
FidoNews 7-01 Page 17 1 Jan 1990
0 2 2 Net 291,Istari-Belgium,Mechelen-Belgium,Julien Va
0 0 2 Net 291,Wichita MetNet,Wichita Kansas,Mike Holcom
5 1 19 Net 295,Belgian Independant Nodes,Mortsel Belgium
3 3 12 Net 300,Pueblo NET,Tucson AZ,Don Appleton
no report Net 300,SwissNet,Titterten,Ernesto Hagmann
6 1 8 Net 301,High Mesa Net,Albuquerque NM,Jake Hargrov
no report Net 302,CACHE VALLEY NET,Smithfield UT,Dave Bell
no report Net 302,IVSS-Net [HST],Guntershausen,Nik Bombelli
4 0 4 Net 303,COWBOY NET,Wyoming,Casper WY
3 0 5 Net 304,Northern Arizona,Flagstaff Az,Linda Murph
3 0 5 Net 305,Whole Enchilada Net,Las Cruces NM,Scott H
no report Net 306,Northern CO,Ft. Collins CO,Rob Diehl
no report Net 307,SE COLO NET,Pueblo CO,Bryan Hall
8 0 8 Net 308,5-N-UP NET,Alamogordo NM,Greg Ament
3 0 4 Net 309,SOUTHERN AZ NET,Sierra Vista AZ,Robin Moo
no report Net 310,CHEYENNE ONLINE,Wyoming,Cheyenne WY
6 4 10 Net 310,ViennaNet,Vienna Austria,Werner Illsinger
5 0 5 Net 313,Lower Austria Net,Klosterneuburg Austria,
2 0 2 Net 316,StyriaNet,Graz Austria,Andreas Polz
2 4 21 Net 320,Marlboro Exchange,Marlboro CT,Joe Turner
no report Net 320,Paris Net,Paris,Mic Ralle
4 8 17 Net 321,MassNet West,Amherst MA,Mort Sternheim
no report Net 321,Tours Net,Tours,Pascal Brisset
1 10 21 Net 322,Lille Net,Halluin,Philippe Galle
no report Net 322,MassNet Central,Marlborough MA,Kevin Port
0 1 1 Net 323,Avignon Net,Avignon,Jacques Martin
no report Net 323,Rhode Island,Providence RI,Ray Vaughan
6 0 20 Net 324,MassNet NE,Danvers MA,Bob DeAlmeida
4 0 7 Net 325,Freedom of Choice,Vermont,James Pallack
no report Net 331,NorthernC,Italy,Alberto Morosi
no report Net 332,Italy88 Telnet,Italy,Claudio Boarino
no report Net 333,Fri-Ve-Net,Italy,Adolfo Melilli
no report Net 334,North-West Italy net,Italy,Franco Carcill
no report Net 335,Italia Centro Sud,Italy,Giorgio Rutiglian
5 0 5 Net 340,Canada West Net,Victoria BC,Mike Davey
7 0 10 Net 341,CASTILLA CENTRO,Spain,Enrique Lopez
14 2 17 Net 342,Northern Alberta,Edmonton Alberta,Tom Hal
8 0 Net 343,Catalunya Net,Spain,Jaime Roca
0 14 33 Net 343,Lesser Seattle Opera,Washington,LeRoy DeV
5 1 10 Net 344,NW Washington State,Washington,Dan Hartma
5 0 Net 345,ANDALUCIA,Spain,Peter Kjoege
3 0 10 Net 345,Pacific Region Fido,Honolulu HI,Ron Skate
3 0 Net 346,Levante Net,Spain,Javier Cueto
0 0 8 Net 346,WA Inland Empire,Spokane WA,Susan & Rober
4 0 7 Net 347,CNW NET The Last Frontier ,Kenneick WA,Ga
0 0 31 Net 348,Manitoba Net,Winnipeg MB,Chris Davis
0 0 1 Net 349,SoNet,Southern Oregon,Jonathan Talon
5 1 7 Net 350,Olympic Gateway,Grapeview WA,Ralph Sims
2 3 10 Net 351,North Island Coord,Nanaimo BC,Helen Marti
0 0 4 Net 352,Olympia Net Lacey WA,Sue Coleman
4 0 Net 360,Augusta Net,North Augusta SC,Ed Meloan
FidoNews 7-01 Page 18 1 Jan 1990
0 0 Net 361,Central Mississippi,Vicksburg MS,Vic Parr
0 0 Net 362,Chatta-NET METRO,Chattanooga TN,Shawn Sto
14 3 Net 363,ODIN-NC,Orlando FL,John Ervin
0 0 Net 365,North Central Fla Net,Ocala FL,Eric Carr
0 0 Net 366,NW Florida (HST),Ft. Walton Beach FL,Stev
0 0 Net 367,Puerto Rico Net,San Juan PR,Juan Davila
0 0 Net 369,Treasure Coast Net,Fort Lauderdale FL,W.C
0 0 Net 370,NE Georgia Network,Athens GA,Tracy Graves
9 0 Net 371,SW Florida Coast Net,Cape Coral FL,Steve
14 0 Net 372,Charleston Net,Charleston SC,Mike Ratledg
0 0 Net 373,Rocket City Net,Huntsville AL,John Emmert
0 0 Net 374,Space Coast Net,Titusville FL,Jerry Russe
3 0 Net 375,Central Alabama Net,Montgomery AL,Tom Jon
0 0 Net 376,Cola Net,Columbia SC,Shay Walters
0 0 Net 377,Tampa Bay Net,Tampa Fl,Brian Hart
10 0 Net 379,MetroLina Net,Charlotte NC,Cary Howell
8 0 17 Net 380,S'port/Bossier City,Shreveport La,Paul Br
no report Net 381,West Texas Net,El Paso TX,Rick Petersen
no report Net 382,Capitol City,Lake Travis TX,Michael Maste
1 4 6 Net 383,San Angelo Net,San Angelo TX,Dori Peterso
9 0 9 Net 384,South Louisiana,Houma LA,Raymond Barnes
no report Net 385,SW OklaNet,Lawton OK,John Roberts
3 1 4 Net 386,Galveston County Net,Texas City TX,Calvin
18 0 22 Net 387,San Antonio Net,San Antonio TX,Dieter Bel
no report Net 388,HOT NET Waco,Waco TX,Bob Brown
6 1 11 Net 389,East Arkansas Net,Jonesboro AR,Kevin Watk
no report Net 390,Southeast Louisiana Net,Slidell LA,Walt F
no report Net 391,NoWe ARk Net,Fayetteville AR,Bob Underdow
no report Net 392,Big Country Net,Abilene Tx,Cliff Capers
no report Net 393,TX TriAngle,Denton TX,Van Holland
4 0 4 Net 394,Hammond Area Sysop Assoc,Hammond LA,Ray W
3 0 3 Net 395,Killeen Area,Killeen TX,Marc Wolf
12 4 16 Net 396,New Orleans Area,New Orleans LA,John Souv
no report Net 397,Tip-O-Tex/Valley Net,Edinburg TX,Michael
4 0 14 Net 398,East Tex Net,Longview TX,David Miller
no report Net 402,HollyNet (02),Jerusalem Israel,Uriel Sega
no report Net 403,Tel Aviv (03),Tel Aviv Israel,Chaim Neuma
no report Net 405,Network 052,Kfar-Saba Israel,Alon Gingold
no report Net 480,Poland,PL,Jan Stozek
no report Net 481,Botswana Net,Gaborone Botswana,John Case
no report Net 491,Transvaal Net,Johannesburg RSA,Dave Pedle
no report Net 492,Peninsula Net,Cape Town RSA,Peter Sheldon
no report Net 494,Algoa Net,Port Elizabeth RSA,Bryan Haefel
19 0 77 Net 500,HCC net,Ede,Henk Wevers
no report Net 501,First Net,Malmoe Sweden,Mats Knuts
no report Net 502,Norway,Oslo Norway,Ola Garstad
16 2 51 Net 504,Finland 1st Net,Espoo Finland,Hannu Stran
no report Net 505,DK,Denmark,Per Holm
10 14 43 Net 507,KRAUT'S INN MAIL-ONLY,FRG (Germany),Diete
no report Net 508,Netherland1,Apeldoorn Holland,Ignaat Simo
1 0 4 Net 509,Tech Net,West Germany FRG,Michael Juergen
FidoNews 7-01 Page 19 1 Jan 1990
3 1 54 Net 512,PCC Net,Venray Holland,Joop Mellaart
6 1 7 Net 513,HCC(B)-BELGIUM,Wijnegem Belgium,David Gev
3 2 27 Net 515,Midnight Sun,Espoo Finland,Werner Cappel
no report Net 600,Singapore Area,SINGAPORE,Wing Lee
no report Net 608,Thailand Net,Thailand,Phoom Sanguanhong
no report Net 609,Malaysia Area,MALAYSIA,Jon Hiew
no report Net 610,Indonesia Net,Jakarta INDONESIA,James Fil
no report Net 620,Canberra Net,Canberra Australia,Scott Fur
no report Net 632,Melbourne Central Net,Melbourne Victoria
9 0 13 Net 633,Network 3:633,Melbourne Victoria Australi
2 1 4 Net 634,Southern & Western Melbourne Net,Melbourn
no report Net 635,Western & Northern Melbourne Net,Melbourn
no report Net 636,FrontDoor Australia,Frankston Nth Vic Aus
8 3 40 Net 640,QLD NET,Cairns Qld AUSTRALIA,Ray Chalmers
no report Net 670,Tasmania,Tasmania Australia,Alan Hughes
no report Net 680,STH AUST NET,FLINDERS PARK SOUTH AUSTRALI
no report Net 681,Southern Central Net,Inglewood Sth Austra
8 3 19 Net 690,The Golden State,Perth WA,Andrew Milner
12 0 52 Net 700,Hong Kong Net,Hong Kong,Louie Chan
5 4 31 Net 711,Coastal Opus,Springfield NSW,Kevin Mann
7 13 34 Net 712,SYDNEY NET,NSW AUSTRALIA,Colin Lean
8 1 13 Net 713,Sydney West,Penrith Australia,Ben Sharif
no report Net 714,WARRINGAH,Sydney NSW Australia,Graeme Nic
no report Net 720,TAIPEI Net,Taipei TAIWAN,Honlin Lue
no report Net 721,TAINAN Net,Kaohsiung TAIWAN,Shin-Huei Duh
no report Net 722,Mid TAIWAN Net,Changhua TAIWAN,Stronger S
no report Net 723,North TAIWAN NET,ChungLi TAIWAN,LeeAn
no report Net 724,Hsin Chu Net,HsinChu TAIWAN,Shean Yang Tz
no report Net 725,Taichung Net,Taichung TAIWAN,Chaur-Shyam
0 1 2 Net 770,Christchurch NET,CHCH NEW ZEALAND,Tony Ha
0 0 3 Net 771,Wellington NET,WGTN NEW ZEALAND,Jeremy Sc
7 3 11 Net 772,Auckland NET,AUCK NEW ZEALAND,Terry Bowde
0 10 12 Net 1200,TangoNET,Buenos Aires RA,Gustavo Zacaria
0 3 3 Net 1201,Red Litoral,Litoral RA,Gonzalo Borracer
2 0 Net 3600,The Chain Gang,Lake City Fl,Joe Vinci
0 0 Net 3601,North Florida Net,Gainesville FL,Robert
0 0 Net 3602,BHAMnet,Birmingham AL,Howard Duck
0 0 Net 3603,PinellasNET,St Petersburg FL,Bill Staab
0 0 Net 3604,MS Gulf Coast Net,Gulfport MS,Rick Maddo
0 0 Net 3605,Tally-Net,Tallahassee FL,Troy Kaser
0 0 Net 3607,North Alabama Net,Decatur AL,Jeff Fuller
2 0 Net 3608,Panama City Net,Panama City FL,James You
0 0 Net 3609,Gator Net,Cloud Lake FL,Clay Vagnini
3 0 Net 3610,Palm Bay Net,Palm Bay FL,Gary Blydenburg
2 0 Net 3611,Mid Ga Net,Macon GA,Jerry Toler
0 0 Net 3612,Pensacola Net (HST),Pensacola FL,John Br
0 0 Net 3613,West Central Ga Net,Columbus GA,Roger Ha
5 1 12 Region 10,Calif Nevada,Tustin CA,David Garrett
2 1 8 Region 11,Central,IL IN KY MI OH WI,Pat Mulcahy
0 0 3 Region 12,EASTERN CANADA,ON PQ PEI NS NB NF,Tom K
0 1 2 Region 13,Mid Atlantic,DE DC MD NJ NY PA VA WV,Ge
FidoNews 7-01 Page 20 1 Jan 1990
3 0 13 Region 14,Mid West,IA.KS.MN.MO.NE.ND.SD,Tim Pears
2 0 12 Region 15,Mountain,AZ CO NM UT WY,Marv Carson
0 1 2 Region 16,New England,CT ME MA NH RI VT,Pete Whit
0 1 6 Region 17,North West,AK ALB BC HI ID MAN MT OR SS
3 1 15 Region 18,SouthEast/Caribbean,AL FL GA MS NC SC T
3 2 25 Region 19,TexArkOkLa,AR.LA.OK.TX,Tony Davis
0 0 2 Region 20,Sweden,S,Mats Knuts
no report 0 Region 21,Norway,N,Ola Garstad
0 0 4 Region 22,Finland,SF,Matti Lattu
0 0 1 Region 23,Denmark,DK,Per Holm
0 0 Region 24,West Germany,FRG,Michael Juergens
0 0 Region 25,British Isles,UK,Pete Franchi
0 0 1 Region 28,Holland,Oud-Beijerland,Hanno van.der.Ma
1 0 1 Region 29,Belgium,B,Staf Weyts
no report Region 30,Switzerland,CH,Clement Studer
1 0 3 Region 31,Austria,A,Werner Illsinger
no report Region 32,France,F,Pascal Brisset
no report Region 33,Italy,I,Giorgio Rutigliano
5 0 8 Region 34,Coordinador,SPAIN,Raymond Richmond
no report Region 40,Israel,IL,Ido Ophir
0 0 1 Region 48,BOTSWANA,Gaborone Botswana,John Case
2 2 4 Region 48,Poland,PL,Jan Stozek
18 1 19 Region 49,South Africa,RSA,Dave Pedler
no report Region 50,AUSTRALIA,MELBOURNE VIC AUSTRALIA,Simon
no report Region 51,ASEAN Region SINGAPORE,Wing Lee
no report Region 52,INDONESIA NET,Jakarta Indonesia,Jim Fil
0 0 1 Region 53,HONG KONG,Kowloon HK,Cordy Chan
0 0 1 Region 54,WESTERN PACIFIC OPUS,Cairns Qld AUSTRAL
no report Region 55,The Million Sq Mile Region Perth Wester
no report Region 56,TAIWAN NET,Taipei TAIWAN,Honlin Lue
no report Region 57,NEW ZEALAND,Christchurch NZ,Tony Hall
no report Region 60,Republica Argentina,Rosario SF/RA,Luis
0 0 3 Region 61,Red Venezolana,Caracas VZ,John Griffing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 7-01 Page 21 1 Jan 1990
Justin Norman
Norm's Hideaway
Sherwood, Oregon
1:105/205
W A N T E D
The Senior Advanced Placement History class at Sherwood High
School is putting together a book about the Korean War which will
include tales of veterans. We are looking for any vets who would
be willing to set a side a small part of time for an interview,
we will work to your schedule and pay all costs involved. This
project promises to be one of the best in many years and your
story would be of incredible help to our book. Please consider
our offer and let us know if you would like to help.
Please contact Justin Norman at one of the following locations:
Please contact us before January 3, 1990. You time and effort is
much appreciated. Call collect at 503/692-9660 if you need to.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 7-01 Page 22 1 Jan 1990
Wanted: Users and sysops to participate in a skydiving echo.
This echo might also include slope-soaring, para-sailing, and
hang-gliding in order to obtain a large enough group of
participants. Please send netmail to Dave Appel @ 1:231/30.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 7-01 Page 23 1 Jan 1990
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 7-01 Page 26 1 Jan 1990
A new echomail conference for the discussion of Anesthesia
related subjects has been created. The purpose of this echo
is to discuss different aspects of Anesthesiology, not only
between Anesthesia personnel, but also to answer any questions
and clear up any doubts about anesthesia to anyone in general.
Most people that are going to have surgery openly state that
they are not afraid of the surgery, but they are terrified of
the Anesthesia. Maybe this echo will help to allay some of
these fears. The echo is currently on the backbone for general
distribution. For any further information regarding this echo
please contact Mario Diaz, M.D.,moderator, at 135/8.
Area Tag: ANESTHESIA
Area Name: Anesthesiology Discussion Forum
Thom Henderson 1:107/528 Chairman of the Board
Les Kooyman 1:204/501 President
Fabian Gordon 1:107/323 Vice President
Bill Bolton 3:3/0 Vice President-Technical Coordinator
Kris Veitch 1:147/30 Secretary
Kris Veitch 1:147/30 Treasurer
IFNA COMMITTEE AND BOARD CHAIRS
Administration and Finance *
By-laws and Rules John Roberts 1:385/49
Executive Committee (Pres) Les Kooyman 1:204/501
International Affairs *
Membership Services Jim Vaughan 1:226/300
Nominations and Elections Steve Bonine 1:1/0
Public Affairs David Drexler 1:147/30.20
Publications Irene Henderson 1:107/9
Technical Standards Rick Moore 1:115/333
Ethics *
Security and Privacy *
Grievances *
* Position in abeyance pending reorganization
IFNA BOARD OF DIRECTORS
DIVISION AT-LARGE
10 Courtney Harris 1:102/732 Don Daniels 1:107/210
11 John Rafuse 1:12/900 Phil Buonomo 1:107/583
12 Bill Bolton 3:711/403 Mark Hawthorne 1:107/238
13 Fabian Gordon 1:107/323 Tom Jennings 1:125/111
14 Ken Kaplan 1:100/22 Irene Henderson 1:107/509
15 Kevin McNeil 1:128/45 Steve Jordan 1:206/2871
16 Ivan Schaffel 1:141/390 Robert Rudolph 1:261/628
17 Kathi Crockett 1:134/30 Dave Melnik 1:107/233
18 Andrew Adler 1:135/47 Jim Hruby 1:107/536
19 Kris Veitch 1:147/30 Burt Juda 1:107/528
2 Henk Wevers 2:500/1 Karl Schinke 1:107/516
3 Matt Whelan 3:54/99 John Roberts 1:147/14
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 7-01 Page 28 1 Jan 1990
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.
