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 and for the Members of the
FidoNet (r) International Amateur Electronic Mail System. 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
FidoNet Gateway Policy ................................... 1
The Trouble with **C's ................................... 16
Operational Domain Gate .................................. 17
A LISTING OF KNOWN OTHERNETS ............................. 19
NEWS_CHECK 1.6 - A FidoNews pre-submission format check .. 21
response to abortion! .................................... 25
The Saudi Connection ..................................... 30
269 or not 269? .......................................... 32
The StarGate Conference Distribution System .............. 34
And more!
FidoNews 7-45 Page 1 5 Nov 1990
I have accepted the following document, the final draft version
of the FidoNet Gateway Policy, and it will be implemented as part
of FidoNet policy commencing immediately upon publication of this
issue of FidoNews.
I'm sure I'd better follow that statement immediately with some
points of clarification:
o When the first draft of the document was published in January,
a few people assumed it was designed to cut off communication
with other networks, especially FidoNet-technology (or 'break-
away') networks. This is entirely incorrect.
o The document is an attempt to establish a valid technical base
for increasing contact between the various networks. It is
designed to encourage communication between FidoNet and
_all_ other networks.
o The document was revised after publication in an attempt to
correct areas where its intent was clearly misunderstood. Its
implementation was further intentionally delayed to allow
discussion of its content, and an international echomail
conference was established for that purpose.
o This is definitely not a case of FidoNet telling others how to
run their nets. We are saying how others should behave when
present in our network, just as they should have the right
to say how we should behave when 'guests' in their 'house'.
o Please note where I said "commencing" in the opening paragraph
-- we will, naturally, allow time for adjustment where anyone
thinks that is necessary.
The Gateway Policy deliberately does not specify implementation
details. There are many ways to achieve its requirements, several
of which already exist in experimental or released software. The
aim was to specify the 'end', leaving the 'means' to the software
authors and users who have made our 'hobby' a hub of pioneering
creativity.
I thank everyone involved for their work on the document,
especially Tim Pearson and David Dodell for their effort,
perseverence and, in the end, patience.
FidoNews 7-45 Page 2 5 Nov 1990
FidoNet(tm) Internetwork Gateway Policy
July 22, 1990
Section 1 - Purpose
===================
This document sets forth the administrative policy require-
ments for interconnection between the FidoNet amateur interna-
tional electronic mail network and other electronic mail net-
works.
As an amateur network, membership in FidoNet is open and
available to any individual or group capable of meeting the
technical challenge and willing to participate constructively
within the technical and administrative guidelines employed
within FidoNet. FidoNet desires to extend this idea, "The free
exchange of information," to include other electronic mail net-
works. While connectivity with other networks can be beneficial
to all parties involved, it cannot be expected to operate smooth-
ly unless the parties involved understand and agree to observe
technical and administrative guidelines designed to promote the
orderly flow of traffic between networks and to provide a mecha-
nism for problem resolution should problems arise. This document
intends to address those points.
Section 2 - Definitions
=======================
"FidoNet"
---------
An amateur electronic mail wide area network consisting of
several thousand computer systems world wide. Most of these
systems operate electronic bulletin board (BBS) software giving
each system the capability to provide electronic mail services to
up to several hundred users. Detailed information on the techni-
cal and organizational aspects of the FidoNet mail network is
beyond the scope of this document. Further information can be
obtained from various FidoNet publications including the FidoNet
official policy document.
"Other Network"
---------------
FidoNews 7-45 Page 3 5 Nov 1990
The term "Other Network" will be used in this document as a
shorthand term referring to any other electronic mail network,
whether inherently compatible with the technology employed within
FidoNet or not. This term will often be used to refer specifi-
cally to the electronic mail network making application to Fido-
Net for a "Gateway" (defined below).
"Gateway"
---------
A gateway is a system of computers equipped with the hard-
ware and software necessary to pass electronic mail messages
(possibly of various types, see below) between FidoNet and a
specific Other Network. A Gateway acts as a translator, allowing
messages entered on a system in the Other Network and addressed
to a destination within FidoNet to be translated into a form that
is technically acceptable to and compatible with FidoNet and vice
versa. All messages originated in the Other Network and ad-
dressed to a destination within FidoNet are first routed to a
Gateway.
At a Gateway, the message is made technically acceptable to
and compatible with FidoNet and forwarded into FidoNet's wide
area network for delivery to its final destination. A message
originated within FidoNet and addressed to a destination within
the Other Network is handled in a similar manner.
"Netmail"
---------
The term Netmail, as used within FidoNet, refers to an
electronic mail message that is addressed to a specific physical
destination. Netmail messages can be addressed to a particular
individual at the destination site. Public messages can be read
by users other than the named addressee while private messages
cannot typically be read by any user other than the named ad-
dressee and the system administrator/operator at the destination
site. Further information on Netmail is available in other Fido-
Net technical and policy documents.
"Conference Mail"
-----------------
Echomail is the term used within FidoNet to refer to elec-
tronic "Conference Mail" messages that, while possibly containing
the name of a particular individual in the "To:" field, are
copied and distributed to multiple (possibly several hundred)
destination systems. Some Other Networks refer to their analo-
gous capability under the terms "GroupMail" or "newsgroup".
Echomail messages are segregated into "Conferences" based upon
the topic being discussed. Echomail message content is usually
restricted to the topic(s) for which the particular conference
was created. Several hundred Echomail conferences exist within
FidoNet dedicated to topics ranging from technical discussions of
various computer systems and peripherals to philosophy and reli-
gion. Further information on Echomail can be obtained by con-
FidoNews 7-45 Page 4 5 Nov 1990
sulting other FidoNet technical and policy documents.
"FidoNet Technology Network" (FTN)
----------------------------------
For the purposes of this document, a "FidoNet Technology
Network" (FTN) shall be defined as an Other Network whose message
format and transmission protocols strictly meet the technical
requirements set forth by the FidoNet Technical Standards Commit-
tee (FTSC). FidoNet Technology Networks are inherently techni-
cally compatible with FidoNet. Connectivity options are avail-
able to FTN's that are not (for technical reasons) available to
non-FTN Other Networks.
Internetwork Coordinator (INC)
------------------------------
The Internetwork Coordinator is the individual within Fido-
Net who has the responsibility for overseeing the granting, in-
stallation, and maintenance of FidoNet to Other Network Gateways.
The INC shall be designated by and act as the agent of the Fido-
Net International Coordinator.
Multi-Network (MultiNet)
------------------------
A "multinet" is a type of "super" network whose function is
to provide connectivity between many other networks and to allow
bidirectional communication between these networks.
Duplicate Message
-----------------
Because of the technology employed by some FidoNet Confer-
ence Mail distribution systems, improper routing information or
topology can cause multiple copies of the same message text to be
delivered to FidoNet systems. A duplicate message is as any
message arriving at a FidoNet node whose message body (the text
entered by the human originator of the message) is identical to
the message body of a previously received message. Messages
manually forwarded to another recipient are not considered dupli-
cates for the purposes of this document.
This section is intended to outline the administrative
framework under which Other Networks may connect to FidoNet.
FidoNet reserves the right to reject any Other Network Gateway
application for any reason.
FidoNews 7-45 Page 5 5 Nov 1990
3.1 - Other Network Connectivity to FidoNet Through "MultiNets"
---------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNet may elect to seek and obtain connectivity to various
multinet host facilities for the purposes of communicating with a
wide range of Other Networks. Any Other Network that desires to
communicate with FidoNet may elect to facilitate such communica-
tion via the multinet. However, FidoNet reserves the right to
refuse to deliver incoming message traffic arriving via such an
arrangement based upon the guidelines set forth in this document.
An Example:
FidoNet is now gated into Internet via UUCP. It has agreed
to the terms and conditions necessary for membership in and
connectivity to the Internet multi-network "umbrella". One
obvious method for achieving connectivity to FidoNet (and a whole
host of other wide area networks) is for the Other Network to
apply to Internet for a gateway. Under this scenario, the Other
Network is bound by the terms and conditions of Internet just as
FidoNet is. In this peer relationship, the terms and conditions
stated in this document are used by FidoNet to determine if Other
Network message traffic arriving at a FidoNet/Internet gateway
will be accepted into FidoNet.
3.2 - Connectivity Only Through Mutually Recognized Gateways
------------------------------------------------------------
While FidoNet has no desire to inhibit experimentation or
connectivity between consenting systems it must maintain the
technical and administrative integrity of its network. Hence-
forth, FidoNet will not permit non-FidoNet addresses to appear in
any addressing or routing control fields (Some current examples
include: the "From" or "To" address fields, the "* Origin" lines,
the "seen-by" fields, or the "^APath" fields.) of any netmail or
echomail messages traveling on any portion of FidoNet's wide area
network. This restriction applies to all present and future
FidoNet nodes. FidoNet nodes who wish to participate in Other
Networks may do so but must insure that all message traffic
transmitted to other FidoNet systems contain only valid FidoNet
addresses in the addressing and routing control fields. The Fido-
Net coordinators will enforce this requirement and are authorized
by the International Coordinator to take whatever action may be
necessary to prevent non-FidoNet addresses from entering Fido-
Net, including without limitation, referring the offending nodes
to this document and to the InterNetwork Coordinator for informa-
tion on how to establish proper Gateways. The sole exception to
this requirement is set forth in the following paragraph:
FidoNews 7-45 Page 6 5 Nov 1990
The exchange of message traffic, on an experimental or
private and closely controlled basis, between an Other Network
and a system or systems that happen to be members of FidoNet is
permitted and encouraged if such message traffic is confined to
the consenting FidoNet systems and is not allowed to travel on or
to any portion of FidoNet's wide area network that has not previ-
ously consented to carry such traffic and if such connectivity
does not prohibit the FidoNet system(s) from fulfilling the
technical and policy requirements necessary for membership in
FidoNet. FidoNet requests that the INC be informed of such ar-
rangements so that any unintentional "leakage" of Other Network
message traffic into FidoNet's wide area network may be rapidly
isolated and corrected.
The exchange of message traffic between any Other Network
and FidoNet on any basis other than the one mentioned in the
paragraph above shall only be done through mutually recognized
and proper Gateways meeting the requirements set forth in this
document.
3.3 - Administrative Agreement and Registration
-----------------------------------------------
FidoNet requires that an Administrative agreement be execut-
ed by and between the individual(s) responsible for the adminis-
tration of the Other Network and the FidoNet International Coor-
dinator, or the IC's authorized agent. This agreement should out-
line, at a minimum, the following items:
1 - The name of the organization.
2 - The name, address, and voice telephone number
where the administrator of the Other Network may
be reached. (Administrative contact and responsi-
ble party).
3 - A brief description of the organization.
4 - The name, address and voice telephone number where
the individual(s) responsible for the operation of
the FidoNet/Other Network Gateway(s) may be
reached. (Technical Contact(s))
5 - A list of computer system(s) requesting Gateway
status containing the following information:
o The name of the gateway system as it will
appear in the FidoNet nodelist.
o The Locality, State / Province / Department /
etc., and Country where the Gateway is
FidoNews 7-45 Page 7 5 Nov 1990
physically located.
o The name of the system administrator for the
particular Gateway.
o The complete data telephone number for the
Gateway, including country code.
o The maximum baud rate supported by the Gate-
way and all modem standards supported.
o The hours during which the Gateway will
support FidoNet dial up mail sessions. (*SEE
NOTE BELOW*)
o The date the Gateway is expected to become
operational.
o The FidoNet compatible session protocol(s)
supported
o If the Gateway is now a member of FidoNet,
the zone, net, and node number of the FidoNet
system applying for Gateway status.
NOTE: For a system to be granted Gateway status, it
must at least be available for FidoNet dial
up mail sessions during the FidoNet dedicated
mail period for the geographic locality
concerned. FidoNet calls its mandatory
dedicated mail period the "Zone Mail Hour".
The time for "Zone Mail Hour" varies through-
out the world and can be found in Appendix A
of the current FidoNet Policy Document.
6. A clearly worded statement indicating that the
responsible party in the Other Network and Fido-
Net agree to the terms and conditions set forth in
the Administrative Agreement and those in this
document (included by reference as a part of the
agreement).
3.4 - Application of FidoNet Administrative Policy
--------------------------------------------------
For the purposes of applying FidoNet policy, FidoNet will
view the entire Other Network as a single FidoNet "node" under
the control of the individual named as the "Administrative Con-
tact/Responsible Party" (or an authorized agent thereof) in the
administrative agreement outlined in paragraph 3.3 above. All
other systems and their users will be viewed by FidoNet as users
on the "responsible party's" node for the purposes of FidoNet
official policy application.
FidoNews 7-45 Page 8 5 Nov 1990
FidoNet holds the operator of a FidoNet node responsible
(from an administrative policy standpoint) for the actions of
that node's users, subordinate "point" systems, and the "point"
system's users. FidoNet views single or multiple Other Network
Gateways as a single "boss" node under the control of the "re-
sponsible party" and will apply FidoNet official policy accord-
ingly. FidoNet reserves the right to sever links to one or more
of the Other Network's Gateways as its final remedy for viola-
tions of administrative policy. (see the paragraph titled
"Points" in the "Overview" section and the paragraph titled
"Responsible for All Traffic Entering FidoNet Via the Node" in
the "Sysop Procedures" section of FidoNet's official policy
document, for further information).
3.5 - Supported Message Types
-----------------------------
FidoNet will grant Gateway interconnection for the purposes
of exchanging messages of the type defined above as "Netmail" and
optionally for the purposes of exchanging messages of the type
defined above as "Echomail". FidoNet will not grant Gateway
interconnection for the purposes of exchanging "Echomail" only.
The ability to generate a private and personal "Netmail" reply to
an "Echomail" message is one of the basic facets of FidoNet and
cannot be compromised.
3.6 - Acceptance Criteria (All Other Networks)
----------------------------------------------
The granting of Other Network Gateways into FidoNet is not
automatic nor is it based solely on the Other Network's ability
to demonstrate technical compliance with the objectives set forth
in section 4 below. Some other criteria include:
o The Other Network should have an individual will-
ing and able to carry out the role of "Responsible
Party" as defined herein. The Other Network
"administration" should be willing to help in
assuring that technical, social, and administra-
tive policy standards are consistently met in all
message traffic emanating from the Gateway(s).
FidoNet pledges to do likewise.
o The Other Network must have demonstrable stabili-
ty. It should have been in operation as a free
standing network for a period of time sufficient
to prove its reliability. It should be able to
prove that it has the technical and administrative
expertise to maintain and regulate reliable Gate-
ways over an extended period of time.
FidoNews 7-45 Page 9 5 Nov 1990
3.7 - Other Criteria (FTN Other Networks)
-----------------------------------------
Current FidoNet compatible software allows a system to par-
ticipate simultaneously in FidoNet and in other FTN networks,
completely isolating one network from the other; i.e., using only
valid FidoNet addresses in FidoNet traffic and only valid Other-
Net addresses in OtherNet traffic. This "isolated dual identity"
approach is simple to use and eliminates any need for gateways,
administrative controls, written agreements, etc. An OtherNet
node wishing to participate in FidoNet simply does so, isolating
their own memberships similarly to separating participation in
Compu$erve and the Internet.
This approach allows for FidoNet connectivity on a node by
node basis, speeds mail transfers (since messages from each node
enter FidoNet's wide area network at the point of origin rather
than having to first pass through a Gateway), gives each node
contact with a nearby FidoNet coordinator to provide FidoNet ser-
vices more effectively, and eliminates possible administrative
policy conflicts between the OtherNet and FidoNet as the node ad-
heres to FidoNet policy in FidoNet and to OtherNet policy in
OtherNet message traffic. Given the simplicity and advantages of
the isolated dual-identity scheme and the non-trivial technical
and administrative work of maintaining gateways and policies for
linked/gatewayed OtherNet connections to FidoNet, there is an
onus on OtherNets wishing to gate to FidoNet to show mutually be-
neficial technical and/or social considerations which would
justify the work of setting up gateways and administrative agree-
ments as opposed to merely encouraging OtherNet nodes who wish to
participate in FidoNet to do so in the simple isolated dual-
identity fashion discussed above. This is not meant to preclude
gateways to FTN OtherNets, but rather to place an onus to show
cause in order to reduce trivial or unnecessary formal gateways
and gateway agreements.
3.8 - Shared Echomail Conferences
---------------------------------
Echomail conferences shared between networks must be regis-
tered with the appropriate FidoNet echomail coordinator. It is
the responsibility of the Other Network and its Echomail
source(s) within FidoNet to insure that proper topology is ob-
served between the FidoNet / Other Network Gateway(s) and that
duplicate echomail messages do not enter FidoNet. It cannot be
overemphasized that all message traffic emanating from a Gateway
must contain only valid FidoNet addresses in the message's ad-
dressing and routing fields. Current examples include, without
limitation, the "from" and "to" addresses in the message header,
the *ORIGIN line address, the SEEN BY addresses and the ^APath
addresses.
FidoNews 7-45 Page 10 5 Nov 1990
3.9 - Network Integrity
-----------------------
In the event that FidoNet determines that significant harm
is being caused to the technical or social integrity of its
network, it may immediately sever links between the Other Network
Gateway(s) and FidoNet. FidoNet will make all reasonable at-
tempts to contact the "Responsible Party" as soon as possible
(before the severing of links if possible) to inform the Other
Network of the problem and to work toward its resolution.
At this time, FidoNet has not published a detailed technical
standard for Gateways. FidoNet reserves the right to develop,
implement, and require adherence to such a standard at a future
date. In the mean time, the following general guidelines are set
forth for Other Networks that desire to communicate with FidoNet.
4.1 - Technical Standards within FidoNet
----------------------------------------
The FidoNet Technical Standards Committee (FTSC) has de-
veloped and published technical standards for message packets and
mailer-to-mailer protocols. The Gateway system(s) must be able
to assemble and transmit FidoNet standard message packets using
FidoNet standard session protocol. A gateway must also be able
to receive and disassemble FidoNet standard message packets using
FidoNet standard session protocol. Translation from the Other
Network's internal message format to FidoNet standard packets and
vice versa is the responsibility of the Gateway.
4.2 - Logical Other Network Address
-----------------------------------
Software at a Gateway shall modify each message entering
FidoNet (whether Netmail or Echomail) such that FidoNet software
will interpret the logical address of origin of the message as
the Gateway's FidoNet address.
4.3 - Physical Other Network Address
------------------------------------
Software at a Gateway shall embed the Other Network address
(physical point of origin), in human readable form, at a predict-
able location in the message body immediately preceded by a
predictable identifier such that software designed to facilitate
the automatic inclusion of this information in FidoNet replies to
Other Network messages will be able to glean this information
from the other text in the body of the message reliably. This
requirement applies to Other Network messages entering FidoNet,
both Netmail and Echomail.
FidoNews 7-45 Page 11 5 Nov 1990
4.4 - FidoNet to Other Network Addressing (Netmail)
---------------------------------------------------
FidoNet users must be provided with a procedure for routing
what FidoNet defines as "Netmail" to Other Network users via a
Gateway. FidoNet users will be instructed to address netmail to
Other Network users to the FidoNet Zone:Net/Node address for an
Other Network Gateway.
The exact method by which these messages are forwarded to
their final destination within the Other Network is left to the
discretion of the Other Network. One obvious method is to have
the FidoNet user enter the "physical Other Network address" in
the proper location preceded by the proper identifier as outlined
in paragraph 4.4 above. FidoNet will help the Other Network in
educating FidoNet users on the proper form and location of the
additional address information necessary to route a FidoNet to
Other Network message to its final destination automatically via
a Gateway. FidoNet netmail arriving at a Gateway with improper
Other Network addressing information must either be corrected and
forwarded to the proper Other Network address or returned to the
FidoNet sender with text inserted notifying the sender that the
message was undeliverable.
4.5 - Echomail Standards
------------------------
Echomail entering FidoNet shall conform to FidoNet (FTSC)
standard format. FidoNet control, routing, and addressing infor-
mation in each message shall show that it originated from the
Gateway's FidoNet address. Internal Other Network routing infor-
mation (if any) attached to echomail messages must be removed at
the Gateway with the exception being the "Physical Other Network
Address" as defined in paragraph 4.3 above.
5.1 - Interpretation
--------------------
FidoNet retains the exclusive right to interpret the terms
and conditions stated herein based upon its representatives' best
understanding of those terms and conditions and upon its knowl-
edge of the original intent of the authors.
Draft Administrative Agreement
This agreement made this ________ day of _________,
__________ between "FidoNet" and
__________________________________________________, hereinafter
referred to as "Other Network", shall be mutually exclusive and
binding upon the parties herein until rescinded or revised by
agreements of the parties.
FidoNews 7-45 Page 12 5 Nov 1990
Article 1.
----------
Other Network and FidoNet desire to exchange electronic mail
between their respective networks. The parties do therefore
mutually covenant and agree as follows:
Article 2.
----------
The parties hereto agree that the FidoNet document titled
"Internetwork Gateway Policy" shall be controlling and is incor-
porated as if referenced and set out in full.
Paragraph 2.1 - Internetwork Gateway Policy
-------------------------------------------
Other Network and FidoNet agree to be bound by the terms and
conditions set forth in the FidoNet document titled "Internetwork
Gateway Policy" included by reference in Article 1 above.
Paragraph 2.2 - Gateway Certification
-------------------------------------
FidoNet and Other Network agree not to exchange or attempt
to exchange electronic mail via the proposed Gateway system(s)
other than on a limited and mutually agreed "test" basis until
both parties certify that the Gateway(s) are open for general
message traffic.
Paragraph 2.3 - Registration Information
----------------------------------------
Other Network agrees to provide FidoNet with complete and
accurate information as requested in Articles 3 and 4 below and
with any other information FidoNet may deem necessary as a prior
condition for the certification of any FidoNet/Other Network
gateways.
Article 3 - General Information.
--------------------------------
Is this system at present a FidoNet node? ___Yes ___No
If yes, Zone:_____ Net:______ Node:______
Article 5 - Termination
-----------------------
This agreement shall be terminated _______ days after the
giving of notice by either party at which point all Gateway
activities will cease.
Article 6 - Sole and Exclusive Agreement
----------------------------------------
This agreement is the sole and exclusive agreement between
the parties.
FidoNews 7-45 Page 15 5 Nov 1990
Article 7 - Remedies
--------------------
Both parties agree that their sole and exclusive remedy for
non compliance with the Internetwork Gateway Policy shall be to
terminate gateway activities.
Witnessed:
For FidoNet:
Name:___________________________________________
Title:___________________________________________
Date: ___________________
For Other Network:
Name:___________________________________________
Title:___________________________________________
Date:____________________
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 7-45 Page 16 5 Nov 1990
Arturo Batista
Fidonet 1:135/79.0
The Trouble with **C's
I have followed with great interest the current topic being
exposed in the FIDONEWS. Please note that I said the current
topic (singular), because I feel that it all comes down to a
determined effort by a few persons to take away the rights of
free expression and communication that we currently enjoy
(somewhat), and given to us by the US Constitution.
Abortion, the budget mess, the taxes mess, the determined
attempts at curtailing the free exchange of information in the
nation's BBSs, and last but not least the ECHOPOL fiasco, are all
directly related to a long and dangerous trend, of taking away
the right of the people to decide their own lives.
The fact that George Peace has singlehandedly raped the rest of
us by imposing this outrageous piece of fiction on 8000 others,
is strikingly similar to the way South Africa's white minority
has over the years raped the black majority. It is pure and
simple tiranical, detestable, terroristic and preposterous.
The same way that the pro-lifers and pro-choicers attempt to
force their views down everybody else's throat, and the same way
that the US Congress has attempted to regulate the BBSs, and the
same way that the control of this country have fallen in the
hands of demigods in Washington, that seem to gain office for
life, whithout hardly a peep from the people.
I urge all, to let George know your views on this watchamacallit
that he tries to force on the rest of us. I will hate the day
when a few (less than 1%, by my count) **C's will determine
policy that affects all of us, and even worst, gives a small
minority, proprietorship of the soul of FIDONET (read echoes),
that so many moderators have work so hard to set up and mold into
the wonderful forums that we have grown accustomed to.
It is not only amoral, it is also a disgrace that tactics better
suited for China or someplace in the Third world are attempted
here in the land of Jefferson, Hamilton and Lincoln.
It is time that the Policy be ammended to force elections for all
the **C's at regular intervals, not to far appart, to remind them
who is in charge, not too close to give them time to learn the
job. Elections, by the way, that include the body of FIDONET,
that other 99% that George has forgotten about.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 7-45 Page 17 5 Nov 1990
Tony Davis
1:147/100
1:1/100
Domain Addressing Gateway
I am proud to announce the existence of a Domain Addressing
Gateway currently operating in Fidonet. I also must plead guilty
of procrastination since I did volunteer to do this at Fidocon
90, and its now almost three months later.
Effective immediately, 1:1/100@fidonet will accept and deliver
domain addressed netmail to the domains of:
Fidonet
Alternet
Eggnet
Rbbsnet
Network
Kinknet
These networks are the only networks that I am aware of that are
currently operating the domain gating software. As any other
networks set up a node that can receive the domain addressed
netmail, the list will be expanded. 1:1/100 will operate as a
help node for domain questions, and hopefully will be able to
talk Ralph Merritt (who compiled the existing network lists I
worked from) into helping contact other networks.
The software (originally written by Jim Nutt and hacked by Bob
Hartman and Burt Juda) is available for file request by the
magic name of "DOMAIN" from:
1:13/13
1:147/100
1:107/528 (bark only)
Also available for anyone interested in the technical area of
Domains is a conference (both in Echo & Group formats) named
"DMNGATES". This conference should be available through the
normal distribution channels.
There are no requirements other then technical to be listed as a
recognized domain. The technical requirement is that a node in
the network be willing to setup the currently available software
(or create a functionally compatible piece of software). There
are no geographical or network restrictions. The technical
specifications for domain addressing are available in FSC-0038.
The current software has been set up with Binkley / Seadog /
Tims / and Frontdoor. It should function as is with most fidonet
compatible software.
FidoNews 7-45 Page 18 5 Nov 1990
Domain addressing is the way of the future. It will allow a
de-coupling of the nodelist that is getting too large to handle.
As an example, the current Fidonet nodelist, in archived form,
will not fit on a 360k disk. Using the domain method of
addressing, a netmail message could be sent to any node in
Fidonet, with only 1 phone number in the users nodelist. It also
does away with the problems created by the duplicate z:net/node
arrangement that is currently being used for inter network
communications. Zones were designed for different geographical
locations in a network, not different networks. Domain
addressing allows for the peaceful co-existence of different
geographical or political subgroups, and for these groups to be
treated as a fully independent network.
I am looking forward to working with this new method of
addressing, and the possibilities it allows us all in the
future. And I wish to thank the "pushers" who finally got me
moving; George Peace, Fabian Gordon, Burt Juda, and the rest of
the people that have worked hard at getting Domains implemented.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 7-45 Page 19 5 Nov 1990
Last Updated: 11/02/90
Ralph Merritt
1:269/111
Here is some info on various networks (that occupy zones) which
I've compiled from multiple sources. Hope you find it useful/
informative! The working copy of this textfile can be file-
requested as NETSALL.ART.
Zone (Zone/0) Fidonet FREQ from
Network Name Zone Coordinator Address 1:269/111
================== ==== ================ ========== =========
FidoNet N. America 1 George Peace 1:1/0 NODELIST
Fidonet Europe 2 Ron Dwight 2:515/1 "
Fidonet Oceania 3 Bill Bolton 3:711/403 "
Fidonet S. America 4 Pablo Kleinman 4:900/101 "
Fidonet Africa 5 Henk Wolsink 5:494/2 "
Fidonet Asia 6 Honlin Lue 6:720/13 "
MacList 6 Tom Heffernan 1:107/554 MACLIST
AlterNet 7 Karl Schinke 1:107/516 ANETLIST
RbbsNet 8 Rod Bowman 1:10/8 RBBSLIST
The NETWORK 8 Bob Hoffman 1:129/34 NETLIST
Paranet 9 Michael Corbin 1:207/109 PARANET
PhoenixNet 9 Glen Cranford n/a PHNXLIST
PernNet 10 James Pallack 1:325/101 PERNLIST
OPCN 11 Jim Grubs 1:234/1 OPCNLIST
KesherNet 18 Jason Frokin 1:108/185 KNETLIST
SIGnet 24 Jamie Penner 1:153/169 SIGNODES
" 25 William Mastop 1:153/170 "
" 26 Tom Mcgivern 1:103/328 "
" 27 Fabiano Fabris 2:310/11.22 "
" 28 J. Homrighausen 3:362/308 "
" 29 Borlong Lin 3:722/5 "
" 34 Andrew Farmer 1:163/115 "
EmergencyNet 31 Guy Hokanson 1:212/107 ENLIST
" 32 Vacant "
" 33 Vacant "
" 34 Vacant "
" 35 Vacant "
" 36 Vacant "
" 37 Vacant "
CandyNet 42 Dr Pepper 1:103/241 CANDYNET
ChatNet 44 Clive Walker n/a CHATLIST
ChatNet (USA) 45 Steve Freoschke n/a "
ChatNet (Germany) 49 Klaus M. Ruebsam 2:247/816 "
ChatNet (Spain) 46 Jordi Murgo n/a "
Vervan's Gaming Net 45 Ron Lahti 1:207/3001 VNETLIST
EchoNet 50 Ed Lawyer 1:261/3000 ENETLIST
HobbyNet 57 Joe Adamson 1:147/16 HOBBYNET
GhotiNet (USA) 60 John Marlett 1:116/18 FISHLIST
GhotiNet (Australia) 61 Graeme Nichols 3:714/404 "
ADULT_LINKS 69 Jim Deputy 1:103/158 69LIST
APINET 69 Robert Eckert 1:269/304 APINET
HAMLINK 73 Jim Grubs 1:234/1 HAMLINK
LCRNET 77 Tom Sirianni 1:105/301 LCRNODES
FidoNews 7-45 Page 20 5 Nov 1990
SpectroNet 77 David Musick 1:363/61 SPECLIST
BBSnet 86 Tom Hendricks 1:261/662
TrekNet 87 Rob Lehrman 1:203/57 TREKLIST
Alternet CDN 89 John Dunn n/a ANETLIST
Eggnet_Asia 96 Bob Germer 1:266/21 n/a
Eggnet_Europe 97 Bob Germer 1:266/21 EEGGLIST
MIL_NET 98 Kerry Buckingham 1:123/22
EggNet 99 Johnny Pulliam n/a EGGLIST
MetroNet 200 Jason Steck 1:104/424 METRONET
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 7-45 Page 21 5 Nov 1990
NEWS_CHECK 1.6
by
Mike Bartman
Crystal Gryphon Enterprises
Fidonet node 1:109/508
Have you ever though about sending something in for publication
in FidoNews, but were put off by the submission requirements? I
know they aren't very stringent as to content (as recent
discussions have mentioned, and proven!), but there are a lot of
rules for the *format* of submissions. They have to have
particular file extensions, there are restrictions on right
margins, you can't have funny control codes in the file (and how
many of us are *sure* that our word processors aren't putting in
the occasional "soft" return?), and you should also follow some
"appearance" guidelines to make your article look nice (like
having most lines flushleft, having most lines get near the 65
column mark, having a table of contents line at the beginning of
the article, etc.).
The last time I sent an article to FidoNews I spent a few days
worrying that I had done something wrong, missed a control code,
had a bare linefeed or something equally disastrous, and that my
article would be rejected and returned for corrections, or,
worse, that I would be the cause of the editor having to do extra
work to fix my blunders. I hate it when that happens! (And I'm
sure the editor isn't too thrilled by it either...)
It is easy enough to find out what the requirements and
recommendations are (just F'Req. ARTSPEC), but it is harder to be
sure you have not made some minor mistake, or missed a
requirement, or had your word processor "help" you without your
knowledge.
I suspect that many people have been put off sending in an
article more than once for fear of making a mistake, or not
wanting to take the time to read ARTSPEC. In many cases this may
even be a Good Thing, but even so, I'm in favor of greasing the
wheels of communication wherever I can and just count on being
nimble enough to avoid getting run over in the ensuing rush of
ideas.
Being a programmer, and having a copy of Turbo-Pascal 4.0 that I
had not used in a while, I decided to write a program a couple of
years back to make submitting without fear a little easier.
NEWS_CHECK is the result. Since there have been a couple of
changes to the submission requirements recently, I decided that
NEWS_CHECK needed a face lift, and that copy of Turbo Pascal 5.5
didn't look too busy...and NEWS_CHECK v1.6 was born.
FidoNews 7-45 Page 22 5 Nov 1990
NEWS_CHECK is intended for use by authors of articles for
FidoNews, Klore, or any other compatible newsletters, for
pre-submission verification of format. Once you have your
article written you just run NEWS_CHECK, give it the name of your
file and it will check it for fatal errors as well as non-fatal
"aesthetic" errors such as not being flushleft, having too many
blank lines at the top of the file, etc. It does not make any
changes to your submission file; it just lists errors and
suggestions to your screen. It is possible to redirect the
messages to a file for use as a reference while editing-in the
corrections. NEWS_CHECK will *not* check spelling or grammar!
You want miracles you go talk to Borland.
NEWS_CHECK looks for the following mistakes or ill-advised
practices:
1. Incorrect file name extension. Must be ART, SAL, WAN, COL,
LET, or NOT. Any other extension is flagged as a FATAL
error.
2. Non-Flushleft margin. Based on a percentage of the lines
in the file, not all of them. (I.E. If 50% of the lines in
a file are not flushleft a WARNING is generated.)
3. Right margin greater than 65 on any line generates a FATAL
error. If the line is over 65 characters long, but less
than 70, and all characters after column 65 are spaces,
then only a WARNING will be generated. This is the only
exception to the column 65 limit. This exception is based
on a comment made by a past FidoNews editor, and may not be
valid anymore, so ignore this warning at your own peril!
4. "funny characters". Control chars (except CR-LF pairs)
result in a FATAL error message. All characters must be in
the range 20 hex (SPACE) to 7E hex (~).
5. If the file is an ad or a notice (SAL, WAN, or NOT) a
WARNING is generated if the total length of the submission
is over 30 lines.
6. Checks for existence of a "contents" line at the top of the
file. Outputs a WARNING if there isn't one.
7. Checks for "dashed lines" at the beginning and end of the
file. Dashed lines result in WARNING messages. A "dashed
line" is any line consisting of at least 4 of only one type
of character (SPACE excepted). "# # # #" counts as a
"dashed line", for example.
8. Checks for excessive "whitespace" at top and bottom of the
file. More than 3 blank lines at the front or end of the
FidoNews 7-45 Page 23 5 Nov 1990
file generates a WARNING message.
9. Checks for articles that are "too narrow" (have the right
margin set to too low a value). If over 50% of the lines
in a submission don't reach at least column 55 a WARNING is
generated. There are times when narrowness is fine, but
most articles should have the right margin at 65 for the
best appearance after publication.
NEWS_CHECK is designed so that it may be run from a BAT file, and
it returns ERRORLEVEL codes to allow an automatic determination
of what happened with the check. An example of such a BAT file
is included, as are several test files that contain errors of
various kinds, and a (short) documentation file.
The program is available for file request from 1:109/508, and
possibly from other places by now, as NEWSCH16.ARC. If you have
any suggestions for improvement, or reports of problems, I would
appreciate hearing about them, but I can't guarantee that I will
fix or include all of them in future versions of the program
(though I will try). If you publish a FidoNews-like newsletter
(or even FidoNews!), but prefer other parameters for things like
margins, number of blank lines to allow, length of ads, etc.
please let me know. It is easy enough to generate a custom
version with these things changed. There is no charge for use of
this software, and none will be permitted. If you really like the
software a lot, then write a good article for FidoNews and
NEWS_CHECK it before you send it in.
By the way...NEWS_CHECK was written on an IBM PClone, using Turbo
Pascal 4.0 and 5.5 from Borland International. This would seem
to indicate that those folks who can't run IBM PClone software
under MS/PC-DOS are out of luck at the moment. If someone is
interested in porting NEWS_CHECK to a non-MS/PC-DOS
machine/operating system, I will seriously consider releasing the
source code to them, provided that the resulting software is made
available to the public under terms substantially like those of
NEWS_CHECK 1.6.
* * * *
Copyright Notice and disclaimer:
The NEWS_CHECK program and documentation are Copyright 1988, 1990
by Mike Bartman. All rights are reserved. Permission is granted
to anyone to distribute the documentation and software, provided
that no alterations are made to either, and no charge is made for
the distribution or the software.
No warranty or guarantee of any kind is implied or stated. You
use it at your own risk. The program has functioned on my 10mhz
AT Clone with no trouble, but this is no guarantee of future
behavior.
FidoNews 7-45 Page 24 5 Nov 1990
* * * *
Good luck and happy writing!
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 7-45 Page 25 5 Nov 1990
Thanks for the Encouragement
Steven Watsky
Before I get to the point of this, I'd first like to say thanks
to each of you who took the time to respond to my article on
abortion. I was urged by the sysops of two Baton Rouge BSS's to
allow the story to be sent up, and I agreed.
The story you read was published in the Baton Rouge magazine Gris
Gris. It was a gift to my friend, John Maginnis, the publisher of
the magazine on the occasion of his debuting a new statewide
political magazine.
I get the feeling from the tone of some of the responses I've
read that a few of you don't understand who I am, or what I did
for a living since 1972.
I was, until last month, a reporter. For the past four-and-a-half
years I was employed by United Press International, the world's
second-largest newsgathering organization. For those of you with
a strong belief that the media is liberal and pro-choice, I'm
very sorry. I oppose MOST abortions, with good reason, but that's
not the point here. I have never been accused by any of UPI's
estimated 50 million readers that my articles were one-sided or
favored one position over another. In writing the story, I
approached the issue in the only way I knew how -- it was a
spectacle from Day One until the last night of the 1990 session.
It was calculated to be spectacle, by both sides, to maximize
media impact. If the story offended you, good. It should have.
Such an emotional and philosophical issue belongs on a higher
plane than retail politics at the state level.
I was the president of the Capitol Correspondents Association
this year, the organization that oversees the activities of
reporters in the Louisiana State Capitol. In that capacity, I was
liason for countless national print reporters and network crews
that descended on Louisiana to watch the debate on banning
abortion. I was asked by ABC's "Nightline" program to moderate a
debate between two of the key players in the Louisiana abortion
debate because I was recognized BY BOTH SIDES on the issue as
being an unbiased and knowledgable source. I also was interviewed
by National Public Radio's "Morning Edition," and was interviewed
by CNN for a piece on how the Louisiana Legislature turned a bill
dealing with beating up people who desecrate the flag into the
"Crime of Simple Battery of Abortion."
All that being said, let's get to the point. The abortion debate
in Louisiana this year WAS a spectacle, not matched in this state
since the bitters legislative arguments over right to work laws
in the 1970s.
FidoNews 7-45 Page 26 5 Nov 1990
There's an old saying that there are two things you never want to
see being made: sausage and politics. Truly, the abortion debate
-- on both sides -- proved that statement 100 percent true.
I have never seen behavior like I saw this year from the pro-life
lobby. Yes, the article does pick on them more, but for a simple
reason: they overran the State Capitol in such numbers that it
was virtually impossible to move from one place to another, much
less get any work done. The pro-choice lobby had its act together
more than people realize; they simply sat back and let the
pro-life forces destroy any chance they had of passing a
restrictive abortion bill.
The failing here, I think, has to do with the church's role in
turning abortion into a political crusade. The problem with that
approach is that once you threaten a legislator, vow to campaign
against him in the next election, you've lost him for life. He'll
never vote for any other piece of legislation you support.
In mid-June, a very much pro-choice black lawmaker from Baton
Rouge was called out of the House during important debate by an
insistent citizen. This citizen proceeded to quote scripture to
the legislator about why abortion is murder. The legislator
patiently listened, thanked the citizen for the input, then
returned to his seat on the House floor. Moments later, a second
citizen called out the same legislator, who also quoted scripture
to the lawmaker. He again patiently listened, thanked the person
for the input, then returned to his seat. A third message came to
him requesting he meet a citizen outside the chamber. This nice
clean-cut young man threatened the lawmaker, then shouted,
"Repent, you asshole!" before he was led away by state troopers.
A couple of weeks after that shouting incident, a woman who owns
several pro-life pregnancy shelters in Louisiana testified in
committee on the bill to ban abortions. She assured the panel
members she could place each child in a good home if the mother
wished to give up the infant. Under Louisiana law, a person who
spends some measure of time lobbying on behalf of a bill is
banned from also possessing a press credential. The theory, as
legislative aides say, is that a member of the media could exert
undue influence on lawmakers by virtue of their position.
Well, this woman at about the same time got hired by a Christian
radio station to report on the abortion goings-on. She was
granted a State Police media I.D. -- the credential we use at the
Capitol to verify that a reporter really is a reporter and will
be given special priveleges in covering all types of legislative
hearings. This woman was warned she could no longer lobby the
bill because she was now a reporter. She said she understood. She
then walked into a Senate committee, signed a form saying she
wanted to lobby on behalf of the abortion bill and sat in the
area reserved for press.
FidoNews 7-45 Page 27 5 Nov 1990
The board of the Capitol Correspondents voted to immediately file
a protest against her action. The chairman of the committee, Sen.
Mike Cross -- a staunch foe of all abortions -- chewed the woman
out for the breach of security and refused to let her testify on
behalf of the bill.
This woman promptly whined that her constitutional rights were
being violated by the "devil-worshippers on press row." She
continued to lobby behind the scenes, but at this point, we
ignored her. By the way, we didn't ignore some of the female
reporters who wore purple, the abortion-rights color -- during
some of the debate. One was evicted from the chamber for the day
on my orders.
Our friend with the Christian radio station probably won't be
back next year. On the second-to-last night of the 1990
legislative session, she told several sergeants-at-arms in the
House the 20 women with her wearing the "Abortion is Murder"
stickers on their blouses were actually reporters and authorities
had run out of press passes for them. I'm not real sure what this
woman had in mind trying to get 20 of her friends down on the
floor of the House of Representatives, but I can tell you that
the action was a felony in Louisiana. But we ignored that too.
Ironic, isn't it? A woman working for a Christian radio station
who runs a string of pro-life shelters stoops to attempting to
commit a felony to impress her friends, or perhaps to save the
15,000 fetuses that are aborted in Louisiana each year.
One of the key players in the anti-abortion movement was the
Eagle Forum, the same group that year after year vehemently
opposes sex education in schools. They also support the death
penalty and give the impression that they would not want the
state to spend one extra nickle to support the children not
wanted by their mothers. Every effort to include language that
would make the state responsible for the childrens' welfare was
blocked by the anti-abortion forces in the Legislature.
Politics is the art of pragmatism. It is knowing what you have to
give up to get what you want. It is not a knee-jerk reaction to
an emotional issue. This was lost on the anti-abortion forces who
failed to understand how banning abortion would lead to an
increased number of people on the welfare rolls and would cost the
state countless thousands of dollars each year. Until they
address those questions, they will not win in Louisiana.
It is also important to know a bit about some of the people who
supported the anti-abortion legislation. Many were NOT in any way
shape or form in favor of such a ban. But, and this is sad to say
with such an emotional issue, they were in it for the money or
the votes. Reporters and Capitol workers snickered when some of
those "pious" lawmakers rose in support of the bill, knowing
those same lawmakers were chasing the 16-year-old legislative
pages and had led, shall we say, a checkered life.
FidoNews 7-45 Page 28 5 Nov 1990
The lead author on the bill, Baton Rouge Rep. Woody Jenkins, sent
a "questionnaire" out in August. It asked citizens across the
state if they supported his abortion ban. It also asked them to
send a donation -- apparently to retire Jenkins' campaign debt
for a failed U.S. Senate bid six years ago. Nothing wrong with
that, but the timing of the mailing was questionable.
Jenkins, for his part, spent the better of 1990 telling every
camera in sight that the majority of Louisiana citizens favored
his outright ban. He told every anti-abortion rally -- and
believe me, there were plenty -- that they were in the majority,
not the liberal abortionists. What Jenkins forgot to tell his
followers, and the cameras, is that the most recent survey on the
subject that was taken after the high-profile session shows a
whopping 6 percent of the people in Louisiana favor an outright
ban.
The sad lesson for a lot of lawmakers who got sucked in on the
"everyone wants to ban abortions in Louisiana" ruse is that when
they returned home after the legislative session, they were
pounded by their constituents. While they were busy creating
perfect soundbites for the national networks, the state began its
fiscal year without a budget and left untouched numerous critical
pieces of legislation that affect most of 4.1 million people in
Louisiana.
A year ago, ex-Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke -- now a Louisiana
state representative -- said he supported abortions for welfare
mothers. Duke is a master at veiling racism in the cloak of
conservatism, and this was no exception. Fast forward to this
year: Duke now opposes all abortions.
Nobody wants to say this in the media. I would not say this in
the media, but I will say it to you, the people who have a head
on their shoulders: a good deal of the anti-abortion debate in
Louisiana is a thinly disguised racist ploy. It's the poor black
women who are getting pregnant and feel they need the abortion.
Many get pregnant because they do not understand birth-control
methods -- methods the Eagle Forum opposes. As sentiments
continue to shift away from trying to achieve equality for all
races, more and more creative ways are found to cover racism with
a veneer of "conservatism" or "Christian beliefs." The
predominantly white Louisiana Legislature didn't see a problem
with banning abortions because it would not affect a majority of
their constituents.
During one of the rallies on the steps of the State Capitol, a
woman with an adoption agency from western Louisiana tried in
vain to convince some of the 1,000 "Christians" in attendance to
adopt some of the unwanted children she must take care of. No one
signed up. It helps to know the children were black.
FidoNews 7-45 Page 29 5 Nov 1990
D. Rice's response in the latest issue of FidoNews about school
prayer points up another angle of what I'm trying to get across.
About 5 years ago, I was watching Pat Robertson on the 700 Club.
He was urging his viewers to call Washington and convince their
congressmen to support a bill to prayer in school. Robertson was
incensed by this. He wanted the United States Congress to adopt a
policy of verbal prayer "because we don't want the Hare Krishnas
saying their own prayers." That statement, like some made in the
Louisiana abortion debate, seems to say that if you're in a
majority religion you have the right to decide the morals and
convictions of everyone. The framers of the U.S. Constitution
must be rolling in their graves.
As the editorial in FidoNews 7-43 pointed out, my article was NOT
about abortion. It was about the lengths that lawmakers and
special-interest groups will go to in order to achieve their
goals. These "lengths" include many not-so-Christian ideas such
as playing white lawmakers against black lawmakers, and
threatening and successfully bottling up the state's $8 billion
budget because the votes could not be found to override the
governor's veto.
The night the legislative session ended, I vowed never to cover
the abortion issue again if I could help it. I was accused by
both pro-life and pro-choice forces of caving in to the other's
demands of equal treatment. I carried out that vow a month ago.
I am now the public information officer for Louisiana Attorney
General William Guste. You might be interested to know that Guste
was one of the prime movers in the 1990 effort to ban abortions
in Louisiana. You might also be interested to know that Guste,
like many of us, learned a painful lesson this year: it is an
issue that leaves no middle ground and leaves no one without
physical and emotional scars. Guste, like the rest of the players
in this little drama will be back next year, Fighting the Good
Fight to ban abortion. But perhaps they'll use a different
tactic.
One can only hope...
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 7-45 Page 30 5 Nov 1990
Gary Lagier
1:208/2
New Echo "The Saudi Connection"
Some History:
Probably by now the majority of you have heard of a new echo
called "The Saudi Connection." Basically it allows you, the
sysop, to offer your callers a chance to send "letters" to
American Service personnel in the Saudi Arabian theater of
operations (Militarily known as Operation Desert Shield).
About 4 weeks ago Mark Niswonger, Sysop of CrossRoads BBS in
Manteca California started using his BBS to allow his students
to send messages to service personnel in Saudi Arabia. He did
this by uploading those messages in file format because his
American contact in Saudi Arabia did not have a net-mail
capable BBS. Neither did Mark.
About 3 weeks ago Mark told me about his local success with
this. He had received a grant from the local telephone company
to help defray phone costs, and several local businesses also
donated money to the operation. He was written up in several
local newspapers, reported on by a couple of radio and TV
stations, and in general the idea was catching on with his
callers.
Well, having no fear, I mentioned that this seemed like a very
good thing, and that it was a shame that it was only limited
to his own callers and school classes. I offered to be a
"gateway" to his system from the net-compatible BBSes all over
the country.
From that day on "The Saudi Connection" echo was born and it
has grown to more than 400 BBSes in about 3 weeks.
To Join:
Setup an echo with the tagname of SAUDI, make it for private
mail only. Then make a bulletin announcing this service. Send
netmail to 1:208/2 asking to poll for the SAUDI echo. Alter-
nately you can Freq (Magic Name) SLIST from 208/2 and see a
list of about 100 BBSes where you might want to set up a regu-
lar polling schedule.
Also, setup a sysop-only echo with tagname of SAUDI_INFO. This
will allow you to keep up with the latest in "The Saudi Connect-
ion" and to talk with other "Saudi Connection" sysops.
FidoNews 7-45 Page 31 5 Nov 1990
That's all there is to it!
You can help further by uploading this message or sending it to
other BBSes you feel might be interested in this service.
If there are any questions please do not hesitate to give me a
call at:
Gary Lagier
TurboCity BBS
1:208/2
(209) 599-7435
SAUDI Moderator
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 7-45 Page 32 5 Nov 1990
269 or not 269? THAT is the Question.
by Kwityer Bychin
Hi Ho, folks. First of all, before I start this week's
tirade, I want to address a netmail I got this week. Because
I've been starting my articles off with "Hi Ho, folks", some
NITWIT sent me a netmail asking me if I knew KERMIT THE FROG .
Now, I know of THAT OLD FROG, but I don't think he's the same
guy. Anyway, GET A LIFE, BONEHEAD...
Last week, if you found a program that'll unpack the Snooze,
you noticed that I beat up on ECHOPOL pretty good. Well, boys
& girls, it's gonna be TOUGH to top that one. But I'll give it
the 'ol college try...
Not content to beat the hell out of a document or a single
person, I figured I'd take a stab and kicking the collective
asses of an ENTIRE NET. Yeah! Why just piss of one person,
when you can get FIFTY?
Let me start by saying that I WANT some of WHATEVER IT IS,
that the boys in 269 are snorting, smoking, injecting, or are
otherwise applying to an available orifice. In Snooze 743,
some joker named AL SAVERIANO was rambling on incoherently
about his inability to get a bowl of soup in a Chinese laundry
and the significance of EIGHT BIT WHEAT TOAST or something.
And then, in 744, The Infamous MAHATMA RAVSIK actually
RESPONDS to it, as if it had some SOCIAL SIGNIFICANCE or was
even REMOTELY relative to ANYTHING TANGIBLE.
Then, two unnamed Looney Toons in 269 write ANOTHER article
comparing the Snooze to the NEW YORK TIMES.
*I* wanna know WHAT ELSE your NC is delivering along with
your nodediffs.
Not knowing who this SAVERIANO twit is, I decided to look
him up in the OFFICIAL FIDONET NODELIST [(c)1990 by Everyone
Except IFNA] . And lo and behold, I FOUND HIM! The host entry
for net 269 CLEARLY STATES "Saveriano is God"!! Did YOU know
that?? I bet not! To HELL with the NEW YORK TIMES, we have the
ALMIGHTY writing for the Snooze!
Anyway, the phone number on the host entry matches the
number on 269/101, so we gotta assume that the warden of that
asylum is a guy named GLEN JOHNSON. Well, his NAME might be
JOHNSON, but does he HAVE one? That's what I'D like to know
...
Hey JOHNSON, *WHAT* is the problem with the "people" in your
net, man?
FidoNews 7-45 Page 33 5 Nov 1990
Oh wait, let's look at this another way. Maybe we should
feel SORRY for him. I mean, what if YOU were the NC of some
net, and you had guys writing for the Snooze ANONYMOUSLY and
then putting their NAMES on the bottom of the article, had
some crazy man writing articles about dipping his wheat toast
in a bowl of soup the waiter won't give him, and had a guy
like MAHATMA RAVSIK, who will fight with ANYONE over ANYTHING,
ANY TIME for ANY REASON, in your net, how would YOU feel?? Did
GLEN'S JOHNSON *WANT* to be NC? Or was he SENTENCED to the
job??
I wanna tell all these lunkheads to KWITYER BYCHIN, but I
can't tell IF they're bitchin' about ANYTHING, and if so, WHAT
they're bitchin' about. And WHO wrote MAHATMA RAVSIK's article
for him? We all KNOW he can't even spell his own NAME, so
SOMEBODY musta wrote it FOR him. Maybe those two anonymous
guys named Erik & Peter....
I think we should make this SAVERIANO guy the next ZONE
COORDINATOR. Yeah, good idea. That way, if the nodediff
doesn't come out, you can write to him, ask why, and get a
response like "Ah yes, the nodediff. I musta SMOKED it with
the WHEAT TOAST at MAHATMA RAVSIK's house while we were
stuffing THE JOHNSON in the NEW YORK TIMES" . Oh wait, I
forgot, he's already GOD, so is ZC a promotion or what? Maybe
we'll make him IC.
So I'm giving the NITWIT OF THE WEEK AWARD to NET 269. These
guys should stay off the keyboards and work on their BASKET
WEAVING.
K.B. '90
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 7-45 Page 34 5 Nov 1990
The StarGate Conference Distribution System -
What is it?
As a service of sysops from FidoNet, AlterNet, Eggnet, and
Phoenix/Net, a groupmail distribution system has been set up to
facilitate the distribution of conferences. For over 2 years,
this series of systems, located strategically around the United
States has been known as the STARGATE system.
The STARGATES make available all Alliance conferences, and all
the "backbone" conferences 'gated' from echomail, as GROUPMAIL.
The STARGATE nodes are listed in the ANETLIST as 7/1xx numbers.
All are 9600 baud, HSTs, PEPs, and even Hayes V96s. There
are systems in the Philadelphia area, Dallas, California,
Michigan, Oklahoma, Wisconsin, St. Louis, Tennessee, Maryland,
Bedminster PA, and of course, New Jersey, for your convenience.
Sites currently in the planning stages include Atlanta & Chicago.
We are particularly in need of a volunteer from Canada, and given
the new "Reach Out World" program from AT&T, are confident that
affordable arrangements can be made.
Any nodes wishing to become STARGATEs are welcome to apply.
They must be willing to fulfill the following requirements:
1) Own a 9600 baud modem (all brands).
2) Be willing to call NJ nitely for no more than 10 minutes
3) Be running a continuous mailer capable of update file requests
4) Be willing to make the conferences available to others.
Once again, please let me reiterate that this system is available
as a service to other sysop at no charge, though donations for
the operation of the system are always welcome.
For further information, contact 520/583@AlterNet,
107/583@FidoNet, or 9220/583@EGGNet.
The following is a list of the current StarGate nodes and their
software set-ups:
ANet FNet Location Software
520/583 107/583 North Jersey SEAdog/Kitten/GROUP/HST_DS
520/562 107/5000 " " " " /PEP
49/2004 385/49 Oklahoma TIMS/TBBS/GROUP/HST_DS
520/1015 North Jersey SEAdog/GROUP/Kitten/HST
7/102 107/567 North Jersey SEAdog/GROUP/PEP/MO
49/34 124/6101 Dallas, TX SEAdog/GROUP/Phoenix/HST_DS
45/0 104/739 Parker, CO SEAdog/GROUP/TIMS/HSTDS
45/1 104/519 Parker, CO SEAdog/GROUP/TIMS
45/2 104/520 Parker, CO SEAdog/GROUP/TIMS/V96
FidoNews 7-45 Page 35 5 Nov 1990
520/911 266/15 Philadelphia SEAdog/QBBS/GMail/HST
721/11 116/11 Nashville, TN PreNM/GMM/Phoenix/HST
521/2005 261/628 Baltimore, MD FroDo/RA/GMAIL/HST
7/112 120/54 Detroit, MI FroDo/Maximus/GROUP/HST
7/110 102/1008 California PreNM/GMM/Phoenix/HST
440/2035 238/200 Wisconsin SEAdog/GROUP/Kitten/HST
129/106 Pittsburgh FroDo 1.99/OPUS/HST
157/540 Ohio TIMS/TBBS/HST
520/547 1/111 North Jersey SEAdog/GROUP/PCB/V96-V42bis
520/369 107/69 Central NJ SEAdog/GROUP/HST/MO
100/9@phnxnet Philadelphia FroDo 1.99/Phoenix/HST
Secondary Sites:
520/528 107/528 New Jersey SEAdog/GROUP/Kitten/HST
520/557 107/557 New Jersey SEAdog/Kitten/GROUP/HST
520/323 107/323 New Jersey SEAdog/Kitten/GROUP/HST_DS
9:100/1@PhnxNet Lawrence, KS FD 1.99/GROUP/Phoenix/HST
For a list of the conferences carried by the stargates, file
request "GROUP.LOG" from a stargate system near YOU!
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 7-45 Page 36 5 Nov 1990
Wayne Robinson
Fidonet 1:269/309 aka /300
The State of the Universe?
Anyone who knows Al Saveriano, and admits to it, is likely
not in touch with a reality other people would feel
comfortable with. As for Bob Moravsik, well, he is a lawyer,
need I say more? The negative implications of admitting that
I not only know these people, but network with them, should
tell you something about myself, if not the universe at
large. Ah yes, the universe.
It is a little known fact, that if you do not rely upon a
Chinese waiter to read Wonton backwards, and thereby deliver
not_now the soup, but instead shift your fingers over one
key space to the right and type instead 'epmypm', that you
are guaranteed not only to receive no wonton soup, but cause
the delivery of a strange picquante fish stew, known only in
the northern provinces, instead.
This, of course, has no bearing on the heretofore UNVERIFIED
Moravsik Equation, wherein the relationship between the
Game_Boy Scandal of '88 and arbitrary rhymes can be
extrapolated via Mr. Moravsik's converse method. Not at all!
By taking the sum of the ASCII values of 'IEC' (note: not
'iec'), and applying it as a constant to the series before
the sequential division by 11, 11/2, 11/4, and 11/8, one may
in fact add a dynamic aspect to the formula, and partially
negate the otherwise static nature of the data. This, by no
means will validate any significant properties. REVERSED
order is significant when and only when this dynamic
inference is true, and verified by Johnson's Law of Imputed
Formation, "All causal imputations are inferential." Let me
repeat with emphasis, ALL causal imputations ARE inferential.
I don't see how it can be made any clearer than that.
I also take umbrage with Mr Moravsik's mention of 'True
Topology' and feel that this is not a fitting subject for
this forum. I don't feel that this issue should indeed be an
issue, as it issued from Mr. Moravsik in the last issue of
this publication. I am sure there are more than a few who
will agree with me in these various respects.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 7-45 Page 37 5 Nov 1990
Pablo Kleinman (4:900/101)
Latin American FidoNet Coordinator
Coordinator of the WorldPol Project
Quote of the Day:
"The time has come"
-- Midnight Oil, Australian rock band
An International Policy for an International FidoNet
FidoNet has grown as large as probably nobody ever imagined.
Today, it comprises a number of around eight thousand nodes all
over the world.
The current FidoNet Policy document, commonly known as Policy4,
was written mainly by the North American Region Coordinators and
replaced Policy3 a year and a half ago without the consent of the
sysops in FidoNet, but just of a majority of the same
coordinators.
If we take a comprehensive look at the nodelist, we shall notice
the enormous variety of different countries listed on it. For
those of you still not familiar with them, here they are as of
November 1st, 1990 (in alphabetical order): Argentina,
Australia, Austria, Belgium, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada,
Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany,
Great Britain, Greece, Holland, Hong Kong, Israel, Italy, Japan,
Kenya, Macau, Malaysia, New Zealand, Norway, Papua-New Guinea,
Poland, Portugal, Puerto Rico, Russia, Singapore, South Africa,
Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, Thailand, United States,
Venezuela, and Zimbabwe (I hope I'm still not missing anything).
All these countries have different governments and laws, they
have different economies and telecommunication systems; and
something as important: customs are different in the different
countries.
The current policy document, maybe ideal for North America,
represents a problem for nodes in other parts of the world such
as Africa, Asia, Europe and Latin America. Some current Policy
requirements are _useless_ or _unenforceable_ in many regions,
and some other needed procedures are not addressed by Policy4.
FidoNet, being an international organization, must adopt a
federal form of administration and regulation. It is the only
way to guarantee that each Zone, Region and Network will be able
to operate the best way possible.
Another issue addressed during the last year by the members of
FidoNet is "democracy": Policy4 rejects democratic election
means for coordinators, and rather establishes a mechanism that
does not let the average sysop the right to vote, installing a
system of "rotation of the elite" where coordinators are elected
by coordinators. Practice has shown not only that democracy is
FidoNews 7-45 Page 38 5 Nov 1990
possible, but that it benefits the network, and this should be
reflected by policy.
And finally, there is an alternative: product of more than a
year of work by a group of sysops of different parts of the
world (it was a project open to everyone that wished to
participate): a new policy proposal for FidoNet, known as the
FidoNet Worldwide Policy Proposal or WorldPol, was written.
The Worldwide Policy Proposal (version 1g), implements a
decentralized administration, and proposes a total
democratization of the entire network, letting every Zone
establish its own election methods according to what is
customary in each of them.
WorldPol will make possible a goal long overdue: the smooth
operation of FidoNet, worldwide.
Unfortunately, the current Policy document does not allow every
sysop to decide, and only the Network, Region and Zone
coordinators are entitled to vote. But to change this, you
should make your voice be heard, and tell your coordinators,
your representative, to vote to adopt WorldPol!
For all of us that want FidoNet to change for better, we finally
have a good chance to make it happen.
Here is a copy of the letter sent to the International
Coordinator of FidoNet, Matt Whelan, requesting the vote to
decide over WorldPol's future:
Buenos Aires, November 3, 1990
Message to:
Matt Whelan, FidoNet International Coordinator
Dear Matt,
This message is to request you to convoke for a net-wide vote to
decide whether the proposal known as "FidoNet Worldwide Policy"
or "WorldPol", version 1g, will replace the current Policy4,
according to the procedures described in chapter 8, sections
8.1 through 8.6 of the current Policy document.
We expect the vote to be announced the soonest possible.
Our suggestion is that the vote begins on November 15th and
that the deadline to vote is set for December 15th, 1990,
before the Christmas season begins.
We hope that a vote-receiving site is set-up in every zone,
and that a reliable procedure, to guarantee that each vote is
computed correctly, is used for the election.
FidoNews 7-45 Page 39 5 Nov 1990
Thank you very much.
Pablo Kleinman, supported by:
Mats Knuts for Region 20 Sweden
Ola Garstad for Region 21 Norway
Matti Lattu for Region 22 Finland
David Rance for Region 25 Great Britain
Hanno van der Maas for Region 28 Holland
Staf Weyts for Region 29 Belgium
Clement Studer for Region 30 Switzerland
Werner Illsinger for Region 31 Austria
Pascal Brisset for Region 32 France
Giorgio Rutigliano for Region 33 Italy
Richard W. Burton for Region 34 Spain
Daniel Kalchev for Region 35 Bulgaria
Ido Ophir for Region 40 Israel
Dimitris Hatzopulos for Region 41 Greece
Daniel Docekal for Region 42 Czechoslovakia
Jan Stozek for Region 48 Poland
Andrus Suitsu for Region 49 Estonia
Wing Lee for Region 51 Singapore/Malaysia/Thailand
Charles Miranda for Region 80 Brazil
Luis Corominas for Region 90 Argentina
- - - - -
Finally, here is the latest (1g) version of WorldPol once
again, for you to see what is going to be voted:
FidoNet Worldwide Policy Document Version 1g
September 21, 1990
This Worldwide Policy document has been released for vote by
the Coordinator structure and is not yet in force.
1 FidoNet
This document installs an international (inter-zonal) policy
for sysops who are members of the FidoNet organization of
bulletin board systems worldwide. FidoNet is defined by a list
of nodes (NodeList) issued on a weekly basis by each of the Zone
Coordinators, on behalf of the International Coordinator.
Each FidoNet Zone is entitled to issue its own policy
document, according to its own needs and customs. This
International Policy, determines general rules which must be
specified -and may not be contradicted- by the Zone Policies.
Regions and local Networks may also issue their own policies,
provided such policies do not contradict this International
Policy or the respective Zone's policy.
FidoNews 7-45 Page 40 5 Nov 1990
1.1 Overview
FidoNet is an amateur electronic mail system.
As such, all of its participants and operators are unpaid
volunteers. From its nearly beginning in 1984, as a few friends
swapping messages back and forth mainly in North America, it
consists now of an International community of more than seven
thousand systems all over the world.
FidoNet is not a common carrier or a value-added service
network and is a public network only as much as the independent,
constituent nodes may individually provide public access to the
network on their system.
FidoNet exists to provide electronic mail services to its
member sysops.
To efficiently provide such services, various structure and
control mechanisms are essential. The structure is organized into
multiple nets, with decentralized administration.
This document delineates all of the procedures at the
international level of FidoNet, as well as some general rules for
the lower levels (intra-zonal), developed to manage the network.
Authorities in the international level not defined by this
document, shall be defined by the Zone Coordinators Council and
the International Coordinator.
2 Language
Each zone has the right to determine its own official language.
At the international (inter-zonal) level, for practical
purposes, FidoNet adopts English as its official language. All
the FidoNet documents issued at the international level must
exist in English. Translation into other languages is encouraged.
3 Access to FidoNet
FidoNet membership is open to everybody that fulfills the
technical standards described in paragraph 5.9. Lower-level
policies may issue additional restrictions only if particularly
authorized by the Zone Coordinator Council.
4 Organization
The organizational structure of FidoNet, has been developed to
distribute the administration and control of FidoNet, to the
lowest possible level, while still allowing for coordinated
action over the entire system.
FidoNews 7-45 Page 41 5 Nov 1990
Effective administration is made viable by operating in a
top-down manner.
This means, that a person at any given level is responsible to
the level above, and responsible for administrating the level
below.
If a person at any level above sysop is unable to properly
perform their duties, the person at the next level may replace
them. For example, if a Region Coordinator fails to perform, the
Zone Coordinator may cause the Coordinator to be replaced.
Coordinators may also be removed by a majority vote of the level
below. For example, if network Coordinators in a region lose
faith in the ability of a Region Coordinator to effectively
perform, they may vote to have a new Coordinator elected.
4.1 International Coordinator
The International Coordinator (IC) is the Executive Officer of
FidoNet and coordinates the joint production of the master
nodelist by the Zone Coordinators. The International Coordinator
is responsible for creating new zones in FidoNet, but can only do
so with the approval of the Zone Coordinator Council.
The International Coordinator is selected by unanimous vote of
the Zone Coordinators, and removed by a majority vote of the Zone
Coordinators.
4.2 Zone Coordinator Council
The Zone Coordinator Council (ZCC) consists of the Zone
Coordinators -each having a single ballot- and the International
Coordinator. In the event of a ZCC vote tie, the International
Coordinator may cast an additional vote to untie the election.
The Zone Coordinator Council is the legislative body of
FidoNet, it represents each of the zones in FidoNet. It is the
highest authority of the network's Top-Down organization.
4.3 Zones and Zone Coordinators
A zone is a geographic area containing one or many regions,
covering one or more countries.
The Zone Coordinator is the Executive Officer of the Zone, and
the zone's representative to the other zones.
The Zone Coordinator compiles the nodelists from all of the
regions in the zone, creates a master nodelist and a difference
file, which is then distributed over FidoNet within the zone. A
Zone Coordinator does not perform message-forwarding services for
any nodes in the zone, whereas the Zone Coordinator is
responsible for the formation and/or administration of one or
more zone-gates to provide interzone mail facilities.
FidoNews 7-45 Page 42 5 Nov 1990
The method used for selection of Zone coordinators is left to
the discretion of the relevant Zone Policy. In the absence of a
Zone Policy selection method, Zone Coordinators are elected and
removed by a majority vote of the Region Coordinators in the
Zone.
4.4 Regions and Region Coordinators
A Region is a well-defined geographic area containing nodes
which may or may not be combined into networks. A typical Region
will contain many nodes in networks, and a few independent nodes
which are not part of the network.
The Region Coordinator maintains the list of independent nodes
in the region, and accepts nodelists from the Network
Coordinators in the Region.
These are compiled to create a regional nodelist, which is sent
to the Zone Coordinator. A Region Coordinator is encouraged to
perform message-forwarding services for nodes within the region,
but is not forced to, unless the appropriate Zone or Region
policy imposes such a requirement.
The method used for selection of Regional coordinators is left
to the discretion of the relevant Zone or Region Policy. In the
absence of such a policy selection method, Region Coordinators
are elected and removed by a majority vote of the NCs in the
Region.
4.5 Networks and Network Coordinators
A network is a group of nodes, normally but not exclusively in
a local geographic area. Networks coordinate their mail activity
to decrease cost.
The Network Coordinator is responsible for maintaining the list
of nodes for the network, and for forwarding netmail sent to
members of the network from other FidoNet nodes. The Network
Coordinator may make arrangements to handle outgoing netmail, but
is not required to do so, unless the appropriate Zone, Region or
Net policy imposes such a requirement.
The method used for selection of Network coordinators is left
to the discretion of the relevant Zone/Region/Net Policy. In the
absence of such a policy selection method, Network Coordinators
are elected and removed by a majority vote of the Nodes in the
Network.
4.5.1 Network Routing Hubs
FidoNews 7-45 Page 43 5 Nov 1990
Network Routing Hubs exist only in some networks. They may be
appointed by the Network Coordinator, in order to assist the
management (especially routing tasks) of the network.
4.6 Individual systems (Nodes)
The smallest subdivision of FidoNet is the individual system,
corresponding to a single entry in the nodelist. The system
operator (SysOp) formulates a policy for running the board and
dealing with the users. The sysop must mesh with the rest of the
FidoNet system to receive and send mail, and the local policy
must be consistent with other levels of FidoNet.
4.6.1 Users of an individual system
The sysop is responsible for the actions of any user when they
affect the rest of FidoNet (i.e. if the user is annoying, the
sysop is annoying). The users have no rights under this policy
document.
4.6.2 Points
A point is a system that is not in the nodelist, but
communicates with FidoNet through a node defined to as bossnode.
A point is generally regarded in the same manner as a user and,
for example, the bossnode is responsible for mail from the point.
Points are addressed using the bossnode's nodelist address; for
example, a point system with a bossnode of 125/111 might be known
as 125/111.6. Mail sent to the point will be sent to the
bossnode, which then routes it to the point.
Point operators are not FidoNet members, they are only users of
a FidoNet node, as any other regular user; they have no rights
under this policy document.
5 General Procedures for All Coordinators
5.1 Making Available Difference Files and Nodelist
Each Coordinator is responsible for obtaining and making
available for file request and download by users, on a weekly
basis, nodelist difference files and complete nodelists.
5.2 Processing Nodelist Changes and Passing Them Upstream
Each Coordinator is responsible for obtaining nodelist
information from the level below, processing it, and passing the
results to the level above.
The timing of this process is determined by the requirements
imposed by the level above.
FidoNews 7-45 Page 44 5 Nov 1990
5.3 Ensure the Latest Policy is Available
A Coordinator is responsible to make the current version of the
International Policy available to the level below, and to
encourage familiarity with it.
5.4 Minimize the Number of Hats Worn
Coordinators are encouraged to limit the number of
FidoNet-related Coordinator functions they perform. A Coordinator
who holds two different positions, compromises the appeal
process. For example, is the Network Coordinator is also the
Region Coordinator, sysops in that network are denied one level
of appeal.
Multiple hats are also discouraged due to the difficulty of
replacing services when a coordinator leaves the net.
5.5 Be a Member of the Area Administered
A Coordinator must be a member of the area administered. This
is, a Network Coordinator must be a member of the network he is
to coordinate.
A Region Coordinator must be either a member of a network in the
region, or an independent in a region.
5.6 Encourage New Sysops to Enter FidoNet
A Coordinator is encouraged to operate a public bulletin board
system which is freely available for the purpose of distributing
Policy and Nodelists to potential new sysops. Dissemination of
this information to persons who are potential FidoNet sysops is
important to the growth of FidoNet, and Coordinators should
encourage development of new systems.
5.7 Tradition and Precedent
A Coordinator is not bound by the practices of predecessor.
However, it must be clear that Coordinators are bound by all
requirements of this document, both as FidoNet sysops and as
Coordinators. The holding of a Coordinator title does not grant
license to annoy others or to flaunt policy.
5.8 Technical Management
The primary responsibility of any Coordinator is technical
management of network operations. Decisions MUST be made only
on technical grounds. A Coordinator has the responsibility to act
as objectively as possible; objectivity must be considered an
essential factor when making a decision.
FidoNews 7-45 Page 45 5 Nov 1990
5.9 Exclusivity of Zone Mail Hour
Zone Mail Hour is the heart of FidoNet, as this is when network
mail is passed between systems. Any system which wishes to be a
part of FidoNet must be able to receive mail during this time
using the protocol defined in the current FidoNet Technical
Standards Committee publication (FTS-0001 at this writing). It
is permissible to have greater capability (for example, to
support additional protocols or extended mail hours), but the
minimum requirement is FTS-0001 capability during this one hour
of the day.
This time is exclusively reserved for netmail. Many phone
systems charge on a per-call basis, regardless of whether a
connect, no connect, or busy signal is encountered. For this
reason, any activity other than normal network mail processing
that ties up a system during ZMH is considered annoying behavior.
User (BBS) access to a system is prohibited during ZMH.
Zone Mail Hour will be defined by each Zone Policy. In the
absence of a Zone Policy, it will be defined by the Zone
Coordinator.
6 Election and Referendum Procedures
Any election or referendum at any level of FidoNet, must be
democratic by western standards.
Each zone will issue its own election procedures, which must be
approved by the Zone Coordinator Council before implementation.
If a worldwide election, with the participation of all zones,
is to be held, the Zone Coordinator Council will determine the
election procedures.
7 Policy Referenda
7.1 International Policy
A referendum on International Policy modification is invoked by
the International Coordinator at the direction of a majority of
the Zone Coordinators, or a majority of the Region Coordinators
of all zones, a majority of the Network Coordinators of all
zones, or by one third of all the sysops in all zones.
All the members of FidoNet are entitled to vote on an
International Policy referendum, which is to be held according to
the procedures described by the Zone Coordinator Council before
the election is called.
FidoNews 7-45 Page 46 5 Nov 1990
7.2 Zone Policy
A referendum on Zone Policy modification is invoked by the Zone
Coordinator, by a majority vote of the Region Coordinators in the
zone, by a majority vote of the Network Coordinators in the
zone, or by one third of all the sysops in the zone.
All the members of the zone are entitled to vote on a Zone
Policy referendum, which is to be held according to the
procedures described on the Zone Policy. If such document does
not exist, the procedures will be determined by the Zone
Coordinator with the approval of the Zone Coordinator Council.
The formulation of Region and Network Policy documents is
encouraged, and must be regulated by the Zone Policy documents in
each zone.
7.3 Transition to a 'Worldwide Policy environment'
After the approval of this Worldwide Policy, the previously
existing policy will still be in effect for the Zone level until
the approval of a new Zone policy, according to the methods
provided in this document.
All the procedures introduced by this Worldwide Policy document
adjourn the procedures existing in the previous policy document.
8 Resolution of Disputes
The FidoNet judicial philosophy can be summed up in two rules:
1) Thou shalt not excessively annoy others.
2) Thou shalt not become excessively annoyed.
The parties involved in a dispute are encouraged to solve their
problems directly, without the intervention of a Coordinator.
8.1 Mediation Requests
Any of the parties involved may request the intervention of the
respective Coordinator: Network Coordinator if a dispute between
members of the same network, Region Coordinator if a dispute
between members of different networks on the same region; Zone
Coordinator if a dispute between members of different regions on
the same zone; International Coordinator if a dispute between
members of different zones.
FidoNews 7-45 Page 47 5 Nov 1990
The Coordinator requested as "mediator", will ask each party to
provide all the information before two weeks from the request and
will make a decision within forty-five days after he received all
the information from the involved parties.
A Coordinator, unable to resolve a dispute, may name a third
party to act as "mediator", provided the parties involved in the
dispute agree.
8.2 Appealing to a Mediator's Decision
A mediator's decision may be appealed to the immediately
superior level if considered unfair: Region Coordinators handle
appeals from decisions made by Network Coordinators; Zone
Coordinators handle appeals from decision made by Region
Coordinators; The International Coordinator handles appeals from
decisions made by the Zone Coordinators; and the Zone Coordinator
Council will handle appeals from decisions made by the
International Coordinator, being the Zone Coordinator Council's
resolutions, unappealable.
For appealing to a decision made by a third person named by a
Coordinator to act as mediator, it will be as if the Coordinator
made the resolution and the previously enumerated sequence of
appealing will be appropriate.
For appealing to a decision made by a mediator, the same terms
and procedures as for any Mediation Request apply.
8.3 Statute of Limitations
A mediation request may not be filed more than 60 days after
the date of discovery of the source of the infraction, either by
admission or technical discovery of the source of an infraction,
either by admission or technical evidence. Mediation requests may
not be filed more than 120 days after the incident, unless they
involve suspected unlawful behavior, in which the legal statute
of limitations of the country involved shall apply.
8.4 Echomail
Each FidoNet Zone is encouraged to establish it's Zone Policy
concerning the manner of handling Echomail and the resolution of
disputes arising from such distribution.
No sysop may be required to carry an echomail conference as a
condition of joining or remaining in FidoNet.
FidoNews 7-45 Page 48 5 Nov 1990
9 "CCC": Comments, Credits and Copyright!
This section will be automatically removed upon approval of this
document.
9.1 Comments on Implementation
This document is not final; FidoNet sysops are encouraged to
make suggestions for changes, as well as comments, which can be
addressed to FidoNet node 4:4/50 (The Policy5 Project).
This World Policy will be adopted according to the mechanisms
provided on the present policy document.
9.2 Credits
Here I list the names of some individuals that had some direct
or indirect influence in the shaping of this text (in
alphabetical order):
- Raul Artaza (4:900/106)
- Bill Bolton (3:711/403)
- Steve Bonine (1:115/777)
- Randy Bush (1:105/6)
- Billy Coen (4:900/110)
- Jack Decker (1:154/8)
- Daniel Docekal (2:42/0)
- Tomas Gradin (2:200/108)
- Rob Hoare (3:712/630)
- Alejandro Hopkins (4:900/211)
- Tom Jennings (1:125/111)
- Glen Johnson (1:269/101)
- Daniel Kalchev (2:359/1)
- Raymond Lowe (3:700/725)
- Rick Moore (1:115/333)
- George Peace (1:270/101)
- Jan Stozek (2:480/2)
- Matt Whelan (3:712/627)
- Gustavo Zacarias (4:900/202)
Special thanks go to Ron Dwight (2:515/1), for his enthusiastic
cooperation.
9.7 Temporary Copyright
This document is Copyright (C) 1990 by Pablo Kleinman.
Todos los Derechos Reservados / All Rights Reserved.
FidoNews 7-45 Page 49 5 Nov 1990
This document is protected under international copyright laws.
Unauthorized use is subject to criminal prosecution.
Disclaimer: This document was written by a Spanish-speaking
individual, that uses English as a second language. If you find
any semantic, morphologic or syntactic errors, please forgive.
TOTAL: 3031 WORDS!
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 7-45 Page 50 5 Nov 1990
"Captain's Log, Stardate 9011.4..."
by The Captain, 1:107/583@FidoNet 520/583@AlterNet 9:807/1@PNet
Let's talk ECHOPOL. I like the idea of an Echo policy. I even
like most of the current one that's been placed in effect
unilaterally by the *C structure. There are a few points I don't
like, some that don't make sense, yet all are certainly
correctible. I, and others, have pointed them out in conferences
like MODS_N_CS, MODERATORS, SYSOP, and others. I know that
George Peace has heard what has been said, because he's responded
in a very nice way. George seems to me to be an individual who
wants to do good in a no-win situation. He has the unfortunate
habit of sometimes saying what appear to be different things to
different people, but few of us are gifted with the oratory
skills of a William Jennings Bryan. God knows I'm not.
But in last week's FidoNews editorial, the editor of the day said:
George says that's one of the areas he wants to see fixed. Good.
It's one of the areas that most concerns me. But who is handling
this fixing (or is it FICTHing)? Where are the "we need to look
at this problem with EchoPol" postings? This discussion has thus
far consisted of a soliloquy by George. And random noise from a
few people who prefer to bash George's brownshirt tactics rather
than devoting time to trying to set things straight. Another
FICTH is brewing. I can detect the stench from here.
He then says:
Wake up and smell the coffee. And stop looking at the world
through sh*t-colored glasses.
It seems to me that the FidoNews editorial staff (whomever it is
this week) needs to wake up and smell the coffee. The very
discussion he's griping about is going on, unless he's
deliberately insulting us by calling our comments "brownshirt
tactics", which I unequivocably reject. Sure, a lot of people
objected to the way Echopol was turned on. I personally warned
George ahead of time (in public) that the method used was going
to draw attention away from the document. It looks like I was
right, but still we seem to be getting somewhere. I guess the
FidoNews editors just haven't seen it. That's too bad. But that
doesn't mean it doesn't exist, either.
Incidentally, to those who didn't like the way EchoPol was put
into effect: "Welcome to post-IFNA FidoNet." Guess you shoulda
voted "YES", huh? Don't say I didn't warn you...
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FidoNews 7-45 Page 51 5 Nov 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 7-45 Page 56 5 Nov 1990
6 Nov 1990
First anniversary of Van Diepen Automatiseert, 2:500/28
13 Nov 1990
Third anniversary of Fidonet in Austria (zone 2, region 31).
14 Nov 1990
Marco Maccaferri's 21rd Birthday. Send greetings to him at
2:332/16.0
16 Nov 1990
100% Democratically elected administration takes over the
coordination structure in Zone-4 Latin America
1 Jan 1991
Implementation of 7% Goods and Services Tax in Canada. Contact
Joe Lindstrom at 1:134/55 for a more colorful description.
16 Feb 1991
Fifth anniversary of the introduction of Echomail, by Jeff Rush.
31 Mar 1991
Jim Grubs (W8GRT) was issued his first ham radio license forty
years ago today. His first station was made from an ARC-5
"Command Set" removed from a B-17 bomber.
12 May 1991
Fourth anniversary of FidoNet operations in Latin America and
second anniversary of the creation of Zone-4.
8 Sep 1991
25th anniversary of first airing of Star Trek on NBC!
7 Oct 1991
Area code 415 fragments. Alameda and Contra Costa Counties
will begin using area code 510. This includes Oakland,
Concord, Berkeley and Hayward. San Francisco, San Mateo,
Marin, parts of Santa Clara County, and the San Francisco Bay
Islands will retain area code 415.
1 Feb 1992
Area code 213 fragments. Western, coastal, southern and
eastern portions of Los Angeles County will begin using area
code 310. This includes Los Angeles International Airport,
FidoNews 7-45 Page 57 5 Nov 1990
West Los Angeles, San Pedro and Whittier. Downtown Los
Angeles and surrounding communities (such as Hollywood and
Montebello) will retain area code 213.
1 Dec 1993
Tenth anniversary of Fido Version 1 release.
5 Jun 1997
David Dodell's 40th Birthday
If you have something which you would like to see on this
calendar, please send a message to FidoNet node 1:1/1.
