Copyright 1990, Fido Software. All rights reserved. Duplication
and/or distribution permitted for noncommercial purposes only.
For use in other circumstances, please contact Fido Software.
FidoNews is published weekly by the System Operators of the
FidoNet (r) International BBS Network. It is a compilation of
individual articles contributed by their authors or authorized
agents of the authors. The contribution of articles to this
compilation does not diminish the rights of the authors.
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.
Fido and FidoNet are registered trademarks of Tom Jennings of
Fido Software, Box 77731, San Francisco CA 94107, USA and are
used with permission.
Opinions expressed in FidoNews articles are those of the authors
and are not necessarily those of the Editor or of Fido Software.
Most articles are unsolicited. Our policy is to publish every
responsible submission received.
Table of Contents
1. ARTICLES ................................................. 1
A Coherent Look At Gateways .............................. 1
READIT! - Version 1.00 Release Information ............... 5
Announcing the VOLUNTEER echo ............................ 7
2. COLUMNS .................................................. 8
A View from the Bridge ................................... 8
3. LATEST VERSIONS .......................................... 10
Latest Software Versions ................................. 10
4. NOTICES .................................................. 13
The Interrupt Stack ...................................... 13
FidoNews 7-07 Page 1 12 Feb 1990
A Coherent Look At Gateways
By: Jason Steck
1:104/424@FidoNet
Over the past two or three years, many networks have
sprung up based, to varying extents, on the FidoNet technical
standards for session protocol and, more problematically,
addressing. With the establishment of built-in support for
zones in popular software, the so-called "OtherNets"
experienced a population explosion both in number of nets and
number of sysops belonging to them.
The primary device used to create an OtherNet was, and is,
the use of a unique zone number. FidoNet was already using
zones 1-3 (and is now up to 5 with rumors of a 6), therefore
OtherNets began utilizing zone numbers ranging from 7
(AlterNet) to the upper limit of the existing nodelist
processors (99 -- EggNet). This upper limit now stands at 255
(internal QuickBBS limit) and is poised to move upward to
Binkley's inherent limit of 4096.
While there is obviously little danger of running out of
zone numbers or even, with a modicum of coordination, the
duplication of a zone among two networks, the "pseudo-zone"
scheme of network creation fails badly when internetwork
communication is desired. The purpose of this article is to
address the previously proposed schemes in comparison to the
gateway concept as introduced by FidoNet Gateway Policy and as
in operation at UFGates around the world.
Under a pseudo-zone scheme, a sysop in one network is
often unable to respond to messages originating in another
network. For example, let's say a sysop in the current zone
1-5 FidoNet receives a message from a node in zone 98. Chances
are, the FidoNet sysop has no idea even what network zone 98
is, let alone how to respond. The sysop simply does not have,
and could not get without significant and unnecessary
investigation and effort, the zone 98 nodelist information.
This problem is especially significant in the netmail response
to echomail in which case both parties are likely to be unknown
to each other and separated by large (and expensive) geographic
distances.
As the OtherNets have grown, a number of suggested
solutions have been put forward. To wit:
1) Set up zonegates between FidoNet and the OtherNets.
FidoNews 7-07 Page 2 12 Feb 1990
Rationale: With this system, no node number is truly
unknwon so long at that network's number is unique and is
listed in the FidoNet nodelist as a zonegate. For example,
zone 98 mail could be sent to 1:1/98 for forwarding into
Mil-Net (that's who it is, by the way). The zonegate, by being
"known" to both networks, would function as the interface
point.
Disadvantages: First, there is a serious problem with
cost. Why should a FidoNet sysop (me) in Denver wishing to
contact an AlterNet node in Denver (say, Larry Kayser) be
required to route through a zonegate in, say, New York (the
likely site of such a zonegate)? Such a system is too limited
in scope and rigid for internetwork operation. Zonegates are
designed, and function quite well, as ocean-spanning cost
savers. However, they are NOT designed to handle internetwork
connectivity in cases where the two networks exist in the same
broad geographic area.
Secondly, a zonegate arrangement FORCES OtherNets to be
dependant and parasitical on FidoNet. True independance is not
possible when a network's communication depends entirely on the
goodwill of ANOTHER network's nodelist prodcution and on the
development of another network's technology base. A zonegate
system, by its design, is OWNED by the administrators of the
network where it is listed. A superior system would allow for
internetwork implementations on a diversified, local sysop
level rather than at the network administrative level.
2) Destroy OtherNets or cut them off from FidoNet
Rationale: The rationale for this "solution" is based on
two basic assumptions: First, that FidoNet is the "one true
network" and that OtherNets are inherently parasitical.
Historically, at least, this assumption has some basis in fact.
FidoNet did exist FIRST in the amateur networking field and the
OtherNets were dependant on FidoNet for maintainence of the
technology base and, later, for echomail. The second
assumption is that OtherNets are totally political "SchismNets"
established solely as a reaction to personal or political
problems in FidoNet. If both assumptions are accepted, then
the "solution" becomes natural.
Disadvantages: Obviously, both assumptions are not always
true. However, the larger problem with this "solution" is the
judgementalism inherent in it. The entire object of networking
in the first place was to enhance communication. The above
"solution" to the internetwork problem is somewhat
understandable at times, but is ultimately counter to the
entire spirit of FidoNet and networking in general as it seeks
to LIMIT communications on the basis of some vague and subjective
political or social judgement which is passed. With such a
"Final Solution" to OtherNets, the debate leaves the technical
realm of HOW to communicate and enters an unpleseant political
realm where whole networks are condemned as criminals of a sort
or are required to pass personal, social, or political muster
with individual network administrators.
FidoNews 7-07 Page 3 12 Feb 1990
Furthermore, in recent times, various OtherNets have begun
to disprove the assumptions inherent in the above "solution".
OtherNets have developed unique personalities and atmospheres
in their own right, totally distinct from FidoNet. They have
extended old technology and occasionally developed new
standards and many have specifically endeavored to maintain
friendly, rather than schismatic relations with FidoNet and its
administrators.
3) Gateway Operations
Advantages: Although often confused with zonegates,
gateways operate quite differently and, ultimately, more
powerfully than zonegates while allowing for internal
sociopolitical independance not allowed by the "nuke 'em
solution". Zonegates are limited by design to a single system
at a single location. Gateways, on the other hand, can exist
in many locations simultaneously, each serving a smaller, more
managable area and providing local-call gateway access in more
cases. This leads to a couple of major advantages over the
zonegate solution: First, gateways are more reliable. If a
zonegate system goes down, the link is cut. If a gateway
system goes down, links only need to be switched to another,
already operating, gateway to the same network. 2) Gateways
are cheaper. A zonegate would only be a local call to the
immediate area of its physical location. However, since
gateway systems can be numerous and physically diversified,
gateways would be local calls to every area they existed in.
Where there is a need, there could be a gateway. People who
would be long (expensive) distance to a zonegate would be able
to call the gateway just down the road.
A further advantage is technical. With a zonegate
arrangement, the OtherNet is dependant on FidoNet technology.
Under a gateway system, ONLY the gateway(s) need "speak the
FidoNet language". In this way, the OtherNets are freed to
pursue extensions to FTSC technology or to even abandon it
altogether in favor of a totally different system while, at the
same time, utilizing gateways as "translators" to ensure
continued connectivity with the venerable FidoNet.
While it may not idealize each individual set of
preferences, prejudices, and opinions, the gateway option has
clear technical and sociopolitical advantages over the more
expensive and draconian "solutions" previously proposed.
Additionally, it is a supremely valid compromise to a seemingly
endless quagmire of internetwork political warfare over the
"ownership" of communications mediums and over the viability or
status of various networks or their internal administrative
techniques. Instead of arguing over "who's show is better" in
a futile attempt to hash out a uniform set of internal "rules"
for all networks, the gateway solution allows each network to
develop and maintain a unique identity without having to
undergo judgement from another network and without having to
reduce or eliminate connectivity options. The simple maxim of
the gateway is: "When in Rome, speak Latin". Quite simply,
messages in FidoNet have FidoNet addressability and obey
FidoNews 7-07 Page 4 12 Feb 1990
FidoNet technical standards. Similarly, messages in another
network follow THAT network's technical and addressing
standards.
A properly implemented gateway system will act as a
bridge, not a barrier, between networks. And, as such,
organizations (such as the FreeNet Project -- you didn't think
you'd get away without a plug, did you?) and individuals
interested in expanding network communications should at least
welcome the gateway concept and work towards its successful
establishment in FidoNet and elsewhere.
(For more information on the FreeNet Project, feel free to
contact me by netmail at 1:104/424@FidoNet. A future FidoNews
article will introduce the FNP and cover some gateway
procedures.)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 7-07 Page 5 12 Feb 1990
Bill Brendel
1:19/210
READIT! - The Nodelist Analyzer and Search Utility
READIT! Version 1.00 is a totally rewritten, newly formatted
version of the original Nodelist Search/Browse Utility. It is a
comprehensive, fast nodelist analyzer with multiple search and
match options. Sysop names are searched and matched via a
separate compiled sysop name file.
Version 1.00 has some exciting new features and dramatically
increased search speed over all previous releases.
READIT! is being released as three different programs for use
with the more common nodelist structures.
1) READIT_6! is designed to use pre-compiled "Version 6"
Nodelists (Nodelist.Idx and Nodelist.dat) commonly used with
BinkleyTerm and OPUS 1.10.
2) READIT_5! supports "Version 5" nodelists used with OPUS
1.03b (Nodelist.Idx and Nodelist.Sys).
3) READ_DOG! searches and analyzes SEAdog(tm)-style nodelists.
READIT! allows the Sysop to search nodelists with a variety of
keys, such as Sysop name, BBS name, Cities/States, Regions,
Hosts, individual nodes (and zone-sensitive information with
READIT_6!). Categorization of the nodelist by Region, Net (and
Zone, where applicable) is available through separate functions.
A new option allows simple nodelist editing giving the sysop the
ability to quickly update node information (node name, phone
number, continuous mail flag, password, etc...) without having to
recompile the nodelist.
Results may be saved as commented disk files or sent to printer
output.
The three versions of READIT! may be found on the SDS nodes or
directly from 1:19/210 or 7:764/2036 under the following names:
READIT_6.ZIP ==> Version 6 nodelists (OPUS 1.10 and BT)
READIT_5.ZIP ==> Version 5 nodelists (OPUS 1.03b and BT)
READ_DOG.ZIP ==> SEAdog-style nodelists (SEAdog and TBBS)
File requests and update are available from 1:19/210 or
7:764/2036 under the following magic-filenames:
READIT6 ==> READIT_6.ZIP
FidoNews 7-07 Page 6 12 Feb 1990
READIT5 ==> READIT_5.ZIP
READDOG ==> READ_DOG.ZIP
READIT! is released as shareware.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 7-07 Page 7 12 Feb 1990
Ralph Merritt, 1:269/111
ANNOUNCING THE VOLUNTEER ECHO
Intro
-----
VOLUNTEER is a new echo which for the dissemination of information
related to volunteer work. The scope of this echo will cover
Federal, State, County, Local, Public and Private volunteer work
(basically any volunteer work). If you have time to volunteer,
hopefully this echo will help you find an organization to assist.
If you are a volunteer, you can share your knowledge with readers
of this echo. If you are not a volunteer, hopefully this echo will
provide a level of awareness and insight regarding volunteer work.
Backround
---------
What made me form this echo? Well, perhaps it can be called a case
of self-realization. In my family, my sister is a volunteer member
of our town's First Aid Squad, and besides riding calls she teaches
CPR and keeps the squad's books; my father volunteers his time as a
hunter safety instructor and keeps our church's books; my mother
works the information desk as a volunteer at the local hospital; my
brother just joined the First Aid Squad and has been active in many
of the service clubs in High School and church.
What do I do as a volunteer? Nothing. Something I hope to correct
shortly. Many of us receive so much, but don't return much. So as
I educate myself on volunteer work and find some organization that
can put up with me for my free time, I'd like to share the informa-
tion I gather with the Fidonet network through the echomail media.
Initial Availability
--------------------
VOLUNTEER will initially be available for linkage via. 1:269/111;
this system, which I sysop, is mail-only, running Front Door (I am
using the "old" version that supports SEAlink), with a 9600 HST
modem, open 24 hours a day. Hopefully volume will rise to a level
that enables this echo to be carried on the Fidonet backbone.
As a side note, although as of now I am not PC-Pursuitable, I am
moving in March 1990 and the new phone number (as of NODELIST.068)
will be accessible via. PC Pursuit (my node address will NOT change).
Questions, comments, requests for linkages, co-moderators, volunteers,
et. al. welcome of course. I can be reached at 1:269/111, 6:6001/5,
7:520/953 or 99:9220/202.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 7-07 Page 8 12 Feb 1990
Howdy. I was going to parody an Andy Rooney column this week,
but considering the trouble he's been in recently, I guess I'll
skip it.
Do you ever wonder why some celebrities keep getting caught with
their foot in their mouth? I do.
I mean, does it taste good to them, or something? ;-)
I'd like to talk a little about internetwork messaging. It
seems that there's been a lot of hullabaloo about all this since
the first 'alternate' network popped up. Sysops tend to be a
very over protective breed about their network, their bbs
software, their unpacker, their front end mailer...
Unfortunately, this all means that we talk a lot less to each
other. ("You're not in my nodelist, therefore you don't exist.
POOF!") This is just plain silly.
Now, it seems like 2 or 3 guys 'at the top' want to see this
document put in place for FidoNet. I asks meself, "Self... why
is this necessary?" You know what? I couldn't find an answer.
There aren't tons of dupes coming thru the echo feeds. No one
seems to be dumping tons of netmail on the gateways, so WHY all
this nonsense about signing agreements, and stuff? If the
messages aren't compatible, the software won't pass them on, so
what's the big deal? I think it has to do with "CONTROL".
Well, anyway, this document is supposed to be "put up to a
vote". A vote of who? Are you and I going to vote on it?
Don't bet on it. IFNA was probably the last chance on getting
any sort of legitimate democracy put in place in this network,
and you can kiss that goodbye. (Whatever happened to Jason
Steck, anyway? He had a proposal "all set" to go in place on
12/3/89. Maybe he sent it thru one of those gateways the
document talks about, and it got deleted 'cause the gate didn't
like his looks?)
Well, I just don't think its necessary, so I'm sure *I* won't
have a say in whether we put it in place or not.
BTW, just for the record, NO, I don't hang up on someone because
they're not in my network. That's the same as hanging up on
someone because they're black, jewish, gay, or poor, no matter
what anybody else says. Private clubs are a thing of the past.
FidoNews 7-07 Page 9 12 Feb 1990
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 7-07 Page 10 12 Feb 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 7-07 Page 13 12 Feb 1990
