Volume 6, Number 25 19 June 1989 +---------------------------------------------------------------+ | _ | | / \ | | /|oo \ | | - FidoNews - (_| /_) | | _`@/_ \ _ | | International | | \ \\ | | FidoNet Association | (*) | \ )) | | Newsletter ______ |__U__| / \// | | / FIDO \ _//|| _\ / | | (________) (_/(_|(____/ | | (jm) | +---------------------------------------------------------------+ Editor in Chief: Vince Perriello Editors Emeritii: Dale Lovell Thom Henderson Chief Procrastinator Emeritus: Tom Jennings FidoNews is published weekly by the International FidoNet Association as its official newsletter. You are encouraged to submit articles for publication in FidoNews. Article submission standards are contained in the file ARTSPEC.DOC, available from node 1:1/1. 1:1/1 is a Continuous Mail system, available for network mail 24 hours a day. Copyright 1989 by the International FidoNet Association. All rights reserved. Duplication and/or distribution permitted for noncommercial purposes only. For use in other circumstances, please contact IFNA at (314) 576-4067. IFNA may also be contacted at PO Box 41143, St. Louis, MO 63141. Fido and FidoNet are registered trademarks of Tom Jennings of Fido Software, 164 Shipley Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94107 and are used with permission. We don't necessarily agree with the contents of every article published here. Most of these materials are unsolicited. No article will be rejected which is properly attributed and legally acceptable. We will publish every responsible submission received. Table of Contents 1. EDITORIAL ................................................ 1 2. ARTICLES ................................................. 2 A European Response ...................................... 2 The European Situation ................................... 4 "FOOLS" in FidoNet ....................................... 8 FidoCon '89 Update ....................................... 9 Thoughts on the Nodelist ................................. 14 An April Fool joke that wasn't ........................... 22 European Autonomy and Domestic Meddlers .................. 31 3. COLUMNS .................................................. 32 The Lost FidoNet Archives - Volume 3 ..................... 32 And more! FidoNews 6-25 Page 1 19 Jun 1989 ================================================================= EDITORIAL ================================================================= Hello, I'm back. Thanks to Harry Lee for assembling files and running MAKENEWS last week (and the hour or two of work that precedes and follows that). There seems to be no lack of articles about FidoNet these days. I think that's just fine. Glad to see it. Maybe a little controversy will get us all more interested in what this is all about. At the very least it will warm up the old varicose veins! This week there are a number of articles about the initiative(s) taken recently in Zone 2, two of them in response to an earler article by Daniel Tobias, and one by TJ, which addresses the issue in his usual brief but cutting fashion. There is also more material by Daniel, and by Jack Decker. Isn't there anyone else in Zone 1 who has something to say? These guys are so prolific they're putting you all to shame ... This week we're restarting the "Lost FidoNet archives" series after a one-week hiatus. We've gotten some more stuff and it should be running for a while now. On to other things: the "Current Versions" page in FidoNews has recently been accused of an unreasonable bias towards certain compression methods and computing platforms. To address this, I feel that we would have to expand this page to a relatively unreasonable length for a weekly repeat. How does everyone feel about opening this page up to a monthly section, with coverage for additional software, and for non-MSDOS systems? Finally, somewhere (I believe that it was in Daniel's article last week or so) there was some mention of turnaround in FidoNews. Basically, I try to keep a two or three week retention on stories, but if things back up I'll move more stuff. Or, if a story has particular immediate relevance, I'll try to get it right in. I know a couple of things fell by the wayside last week because I didn't notice them before I sent everything to Harry, but in general, that's the way it will work. Well, on to the rest of the newsletter. Enjoy! ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 6-25 Page 2 19 Jun 1989 ================================================================= ARTICLES ================================================================= A European Response" by John Burden 2:255/112 Reading the recent article by Daniel Tobias regarding the "European situation" was a depressing experience in that it seemed to typify some of the reasons why Europeans feel out of tune with IFNA and want a more democratic structure. Daniel seems to miss the fact that POLICY4E has been in force for 12 months in Europe without any apparent disapproval by IFNA. It is hard to know how the Europeans voted on POLICY4.06 as all we've seen reported so far are the global figures. But I'd hazard a guess that several of the NO votes were from this side of the Atlantic. (And while we're talking about votes, take a few moments to look in the current world nodelist, see how many nodes there are in total, then see how many folks actually wanted POLICY4.06 enough to say so. Did someone say 152?) Like it or not, it is a sad fact that IFNA and democracy seem not to know each other very well. If you are minded to challenge this claim, just cast your eyes on a recent copy of Fidonews and see how many (do I mean how few?) directors there are in Zone 2. Fidonet will probably always have an inbuilt American majority for many valid reasons. For that very reason I believe it is incumbent upon IFNA to ensure that there is adequate representation for zones outside zone 1, so that these zones may have a meaningful voice. Whilst I believe that Daniel's reference to a "Declaration of Independence" was tongue-in-cheek, let us carry on with that for just a few more lines. The UK has a long history of colonisation, as do many other European nations. However, except way back in the darkest days of colonialism, we *did* allow our colonies to vote AND TO HAVE SELF-GOVERNING STATUS. So, if the analogy to colonial times is relevant, so is our claim to have a meaningful voice. Unless Daniel and I have read different versions of a proposed European Fidonet policy, I think he may be mistaken when he says we want to be "not subject to overall FidoNet policy". I read it with entirely the opposite understanding, namely, that we want to be free to make our own zone policy, but subject to overall IFNA policy. What we are asking is that the overall IFNA policy should permit such self-governing at zone level. The claim that the American coordinator shouldn't have to pay long distance charges to distribute a nodelist including a lengthy list of European nodes is so far wide of the mark that it FidoNews 6-25 Page 3 19 Jun 1989 can't go unchallenged. The reality is the exact opposite (and always will be as long as North American nodes outnumber the rest), namely that here in Europe, with our higher telephone charges, we pay a LOT of money shunting an enormous US nodelist around. In his article, Daniel claimed " the Europeans ... should ... work within the system to get a POLICY4 passed that allows for wide latitude for zone policies taking into account the varied circumstances of different world regions." Well, we weren't even going so far as wanting "wide" latitude, just a bit more latitude and a bit more democracy. The idea to charge nodes a fee to operate within Fidonet in Europe is not something that Daniel is alone in finding controversial. Whilst most UK sysops are reported to be against the idea. I can see benefits in it. Personally, I don't go along with the idea that *Cs should have to dig deep all the time just to fulfil their roles effectively. OK, I know a lot of us finish up out of pocket because we're doing something we chose to do as a hobby, but that just isn't good enough if someone has to attend meetings, briefings, deputations, etc on a continental basis. This is particularly relevant in Europe at the moment, as here in the UK we have a draft Parliamentary Bill that will effectively outlaw bulletin board systems. In conclusion his article in Fidonews 623, Daniel says "I'd like to see FidoNet preserved as an international network, held together by one consistent policy statement (with some latitude allowed for local policies within the constraints of the global one). As we are asking for exactly that for Europe, it sounds as though we might still be talking the same language after all. Comments, etc to John Burden on 2:255/112. ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 6-25 Page 4 19 Jun 1989 The European Situation, an informed perspective By Ron Dwight ZC2 2:515/1 This article is my reaction to an article in FidoNews 623 by one Daniel Tobias of 1:380/7. I am disturbed that the Fidonews editorial staff would publish such an article without checking into the facts of the matter beforehand. Anyway, on with the article, my first for FidoNews. Zone 2 has been operating, quite successfully under POLICY-4E for almost 18 months. The only critisism of this, that I have read has been within the last few weeks. If other zones have been so concerned about zone 2 operating under a different policy, why have we heard nothing of this before this time? I suggest the reason is that POLICY-4E and POLICY-3 mesh so well together that there has been and will be no problem with this. As to the statement that this amounts to a "Declaration of Independance" by the European nodes, I feel this is an extreme overreaction to a statement which has NEVER BEEN MADE. The situation in zone 2 is vastly different to that in zone 1. We have many different languages and cultures to contend with. We do not have the benefit of a common regulatory system within the various PTT's and what may be perfectly legal in one country (region) may well be unlawful in another. Zone 2, Europe as you call it (wrongly), has no desire at this point in time to break away, be divided from, removed from, split apart or in any other way severed from, any of the other zones in FidoNet. Zone 2 has special needs due to it's special nature. These needs must be addressed if we are to proceed, as we ALL wish, in an orderly manner to a better FidoNet. QUOTE from Danial Tobias: As a Libertarian politically, I have no moral objection to the European nodes declaring independence from the Americans, which sort of turns the tables on the Americans who did a similar thing to Europe over 200 years ago. However, I'm not entirely thrilled with the manner in which they did it. They are claiming to be fully autonomous and self-governing, not subject to overall FidoNet policy, but yet, they still consider themselves part of the FidoNet, and are in the nodelist distributed in zones 1, 3, and 4 as well as their zone. END quote I am sorry that Mr. Tobias is "not entirely thrilled with the manner in which they did it". I repeat Mr. Tobias, it has not been done and I object in the strongest possible terms to your stating that it has. The remarks you have made here seem to be designed to fuel a fire dissention between zone 2 and the rest of FidoNews 6-25 Page 5 19 Jun 1989 FidoNet, a fire which is non-existant and totally unnecessary. QUOTE from Danial Tobias: It seems to me, if they want their full independence, they should have to leave FidoNet altogether, and become a different network like AlterNet and EggNet. Under those circumstances, they would no longer be in the FidoNet nodelist, or have the rights to the name FidoNet under Tom Jennings' license, unless they engaged in separate negotiations to secure such privileges. After all, why should the American coordinator structure pay long distance charges to distribute a nodelist including a lengthy list of European nodes, if those nodes refuse to accept the authority of the FidoNet Policy which is supposed to cover ALL zones? END quote Your reaction above seems to be due to the zone 2 rejection of the proposed POLICY (4.06). Mr. Tobias, the proposed policy document was placed for a democratic vote by the *C structure. The votes from zone 2 overwhealmingly rejected this proposal. This is democracy in action and people letting their opinions be known. I get the impression from your article that a democratic vote is ok as long as eveyone goes along with your opinion. Free speech is about people being able to express their own opinions and have that expression respected. I see absolutely no need of reactions such as, "They (zone 2) don't agree with us (zone 1) therefore they must be reactionaries and should no longer be a part of Fidonet." Forgive me if I misinterpret your article, but this is how it comes across on this side of the water. QUOTE from Danial Tobias: As for the specific elements of European policy, the most controversial one is their mandatory fee for nodes. That's the element most in conflict with existing policy, and some might argue it contravenes the general spirit of FidoNet. That more than anything else might compel European nodes to leave FidoNet, since I don't know if the rest of the network would be willing to adopt a policy permitting zones (and perhaps regions or nets) to impose mandatory charges. That would open up a real can of worms; even if it is permitted, some controls would likely be placed to prevent the possibility of profiteering NCs, RCs, or ZCs imposing excessive charges for their personal profit. END quote Please read the first sentence of the above quotation at least twice. You are stating, as a matter of record, that European policy specifically requires a mandatory fee. Could you kindly send me a copy of this "European policy" which contains such a statement? For your information and the ACCURATE information of Fidonet, no such document exists and no such document has every been written. POLICY-3 does not contain such a clause, POLICY-4E FidoNews 6-25 Page 6 19 Jun 1989 does not contain such a clause, the proposal which I have been working on and which, at this point, I alone have been working on, does not contain such a clause. Your, incorrect, statements concerning this matter are inflammatory in the extreme and excessively annoying. I just love this mention of the "Spirit of FidoNet." Where do you obtain this belief as to what FidoNet actually is? I have never seen, in any FidoNews, in an article, in any communication from TJ or in any policy, that Fidonet should be free and financially supported by the few who can afford it. I firmly believe that FidoNet provides the means for global communication but it does not provide the means for financing same. We should not allow FidoNet to bleed dry, those who would support us as this path does not lead us to future stability. For your information: At EuroCon III it was decided that an attempt should be made to establish a European organisation to benefit Fidonet in zone 2. Among other things, the folks at EuroCon III felt it would be necessary to charge a fee to every node in zone 2 in order for this organisation to operate in a successful manner. The majority of people at EuroCon III, please read that again, felt that in order to ensure the future success and stability of this organisation, the fee would have to be mandatory. There is absolutely nothing in any policy document of which I am aware which states that a zone, region, net or node must pay any fee in order to be a part of FidoNet. I sincerely believe that a mandatory fee is SIGNIFICANTLY more democratic than the way we operate at the present time due to the need for people who are willing to help finance Fidonet mearly because it is something they believe in. The present situation demands the help of organisations or somewhat wealthy individuals in order to operate the more senior positions. The post of ZC2 has already cost me more than I can really afford and that cost is expected to rise when the nodelist comes to my second system. Is it reasonable to limit the responsible posts ONLY to those that can afford them, when there is significant talent and dedication available from those who wish to see Fidonet improve. Zone 1 has already demonstrated that an organisation which has no mandatory membership fails badly. Have you ever heard of IFNA having sufficient funding to support the IC and ZC's? It was tried with Ken Kaplan and Ben Baker, but failed. The proposals and I repeat they are PROPOSALS issued from EuroCon III were for an organisation to help FidoNet and to provide some small means of financial support to keep the vital lifeblood flowing. The initial suggestion was for a fee from each and every node, but was later changed to be from each and every net. This allows a much larger degree of freedom for the collection of the required fee. I also believe that this would involve the SysOps to a greater degree in the operation and wellbeing of FidoNet. Perhaps a couple MORE examples give some food for thought: 1) The zonegate in region 30 attempted to obtain voluntary FidoNews 6-25 Page 7 19 Jun 1989 donations to keep running. It failed. 2) They also attempted to start an Echo to discuss the problem It failed also. 3) The TAP project. Voluntary contributions in NO WAY account for enough money to make it work. I will even go so far as to making the following public announcement. While I am zone coordinator of zone 2, no node will be forced to pay a mandatory fee to be a part of FidoNet unless such a payment has been previously agreed by a majority of the SysOps, who care to vote, in zone 2. In other words, in order for the European organisation to come into being with a right to collect a mandatory fee from each net, the SysOps of zone 2 must agree to this by a simple majority. I will personally organise such a referendum when more has been decided by the steering committee for the formation of the European organisation. Until such a time, it would be deeply appreciated if rumour and misinformation were not spread. QUOTE from Danial Tobias: In conclusion, I'd like to see FidoNet preserved as an international network, held together by one consistent policy statement (with some latitude allowed for local policies within the constraints of the global one). If other systems, wherever in the world they may be located, wish to carry on networking under different rules, they've got every right to do so, but they're not then part of FidoNet. END quote In conclusion, I basically agree with the above statement, except that I feel very strongly that FidoNet should adopt a truly world policy, containing little more than a definition of Fidonet, it's history and the very highest levels of it's organisation and ZMH's. It would then leave all zone specific matters to each zone, which would create similar policies and allow each region to neccessarily create it's own local policy according to it's own needs. I see little or no need for the very highest levels of FidoNet organisation to concern itself with matters pertaining to the very lowest levels. FidoNet has to work, the various componant parts have to mesh together in a friendly and co-operative manner. This is 'still' a hobby? Cheers, Ron Dwight, ZC2 ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 6-25 Page 8 19 Jun 1989 "FOOLS" in FidoNet A rebuttal for Jack Decker Mike Ratledge, 1:372/666 Jack, you know that I have really been pretty quiet lately and haven't bothered to respond to your flames, but the trash you put in last week's FidoNews regarding Pete White surely caught my eye, since you chose to dig out an eight-month old message from *me* to make your point. When Butch Walker asked me to commandeer ECHOPOL and get it to a vote right after he resigned, several things were presented to me as "givens" and not to be voted on either due to the fact that they were obvious or requirements of the ZEC/NEC system. Since I have no true authority to do any of this, except that granted by Butch which was later confirmed by David Dodell (another long story ...), I didn't really have much input on those items, beyond the fact that they were required. One of those things was the prohibition of random message delivery across regional boundaries for "backbone" echos. I know you like to pick up on things and take them under your wing as you have a personal zeal - just like me - to see the network work better. The fact of the matter is that I *could* have worded my "fools" comment better - it was certainly not addressed to Jack Decker, and perhaps I should have made that "foolish people". Another fact is that there will always be those foolish people that ignore the good of the masses and take it upon themselves to break things! And - there will always be fools like me that really *are* trying to make FidoNet a better place for us. ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 6-25 Page 9 19 Jun 1989 Les Kooyman FidoCon Program Chairperson 1:204/501 FidoCon '89 Update: Dateline Silicon Valley Planning for FidoCon continues at what is beginning to seem like a hectic pace. As we get closer and closer to the actual date of the convention, I'm sure we'll look back on this as our relaxed time! We've been successful enough at attracting speakers that current- ly we're planning on 12 rather than 8 sessions. The conference is still single-track, that is, only one session will be going on att a time. The current program listing for Fidocon '89 is as follows: 1: Tim Pozar on UFGATE 2: Vince Perriello and Bob Hartman on BinkleyTerm 3: Bob Hartman on Bix processing of FidoNet echomail 4: Phil Becker on TBBS 5: Tom Jennings on Fido 6: Chuck Forsberg on Zmodem and protocols 7: Mort Sternheim on FidoNet and IFNA 8: Chris Irwin/Joaquim Homrighausen on D'Bridge/Front Door 9: Rick Heming on Wildcat BBS software 10: OPEN 11: OPEN 12: OPEN We'll be announcing the times and dates of the sessions in July, in case you want to plan on attending a subset of the full con- ference. I would be remiss if I did not emphasize that the deadline for discount registration is quickly approaching (July 15th). Both the registration fee for the Convention itself and the hotel discount rate increase on that date. The FidoCon registration will increase from $60 to $75, and the discount hotel registra- tion will END, meaning that you will pay full price for your hotel room. So get those registrations in, folks! Please see the registration form in this issue of FidoNews for details on the way to proceed to take advantage of our discount offers. We'll accept your registration for FidoCon after July 15 at the $60 rate if you netmail your registration form to 1:1/89 (the offi- cial FidoCon '89 node) by midnight Pacific Time on July 15, and (this is IMPORTANT) your hard copy confirmation and fees reach us within 72 hours of that netmail reservation. This is important both for payments by credit card or check. You cannot, however, guarantee the discount hotel rate through netmail to 1/1:89, this must be done as described in the registration form. We've also arranged for discount automobile rentals through Alamo Rent-a-Car. To take advantage of this discount, you need to call Alamo at 1-800-327-9633 and request an automobile at the conven- FidoNews 6-25 Page 10 19 Jun 1989 tion rate. Mention FidoCon '89 and the dates of the conference at the time you request the convention rate. You must make your reservation no later than 30 days prior to the event, which means you would need to reserve your car by July 24th. All of the following rates include automatic transmission, air conditioning and radio. All of the discount rates include unlimited free mileage. Economy car (example: Geo Metro) $32 day/$109 week. Compact car (example: Chevy Cavalier) $34 day/$120 week. Midsize car (example: Pontiac Grand Am) $36 day/$135 week. Standard car (example: Buick Regal) $38 day/$165 week. Luxury car (example: Buick LeSabre) $40 day/$239 week. Remember that you really don't have to rent a car in the San Francisco Bay area if you don't want to, public transportation is quite good. However, if you are interested in seeing as much as possible of the area and making a real vacation of it, you should consider a car, and these rates strike me as being very good. That's all for the moment... see you in San Jose! ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 6-25 Page 11 19 Jun 1989 Some More Comments by Daniel Tobias 1:380/7 Here are a few more comments since I wrote my last article, which appeared in FidoNews 624. First of all, I somehow managed to get my own node number wrong when I asked for comments in reply (though I wrote it correctly at the head of the article). It's 380/7, not 380/2, which was the number of a system I used to run which no longer exists. I apologize for any inconvenience this caused. Remember, send all constructive comments about my article to 1:380/7. (Personal attacks, as always, should go to NUL: on MS-DOS systems, or \dev\nul on UNIX machines.) I see that POLICY4 has passed. I feel this is a good thing, even though I disagree with some elements of this policy. The rampant factionalism in FidoNet has pretty much stifled progress of any sort for several years, so I'm glad to see something moving forward, even if not in the direction I would prefer. That's better than going nowhere. The old POLICY3 had many obsolete elements, such as the lack of reference to zones, that needed to be corrected, and it is only the infighting and factionalism that prevented a POLICY4 from being enacted long ago. Now, a new policy is in effect, with a clearly-defined means by which it can be further changed; this is a good thing, and will hopefully end the stagnation and allow for significant progress in the future. Some people, I hear, are questioning the validity of the process by which POLICY4 has been ratified; while they may have some cogent arguments (after all, POLICY3 didn't give any means of amendment, and it is a circular argument to refer to POLICY4's amendment procedure to determine the correct way of enacting itself), I fervently hope that they do not press their argument to the point of leading to civil war within the net over the question of whether POLICY4 should be considered to be in effect or not. This would only lead to yet another round of infighting and backbiting, and stifle further progress for years to come. It's much better to use the means provided for POLICY5 ratification to place a new policy into effect that handles the criticisms of the present one, and that is the tack I intend to take. It appears that by present policy the only way a POLICY amendment can even legally be proposed is by the approval of a majority of the RCs. I have no idea what their reaction will be when I come out with my proposed POLICY5 document; they could suppress it by refusing to even consider it. One regrettable feature of POLICY4 is the oligarchic powers granted the RCs; they select both the ZCs and the NCs, and can suppress any consideration of POLICY change. They maintain that they're not seeking personal power, and I fervently hope they are right. If they're not seeking power FidoNews 6-25 Page 12 19 Jun 1989 for themselves, then maybe they will give consideration to amendments which will reduce their power somewhat, if presented in the context of an entire POLICY5 proposal designed to benefit FidoNet as a whole. One can hope, anyway. Some more notes on geographical exceptions: It may be relevant to consider what other organizations with geographically-defined regions and local chapters do in this regard. For instance, Mensa has regions and chapters which are defined in terms of zip-code ranges. However, members may elect to be a member of a different local chapter, and needn't get the approval of any official to do this. Maybe somebody has more loyalty to his old hometown than to the place he currently lives, or is planning on moving soon to another city and wishes to begin receiving his new town's local newsletter a few months ahead, or maybe he's just got more friends on the other side of the regional boundary than in the one to which he officially belongs. All of these are reasons somebody might choose to join a different local chapter, but at any rate, Mensa doesn't demand any reason or explanation. To the best of my knowledge, no problems have been caused by this policy. While Mensa has had its share of factionalism and disputes (not unlike FidoNet), none of them involve the making of exceptions to geography. (During one local conflict, it was suggested by a member of the losing faction that they switch their affiliation en masse to an out-of-state group which they could then outnumber the locals in and dominate its policy; however, this was never actually attempted. If it was, I don't know what national Mensa would do about it.) At any rate, it seems like organizations can allow members to join out-of-town chapters without it causing undue problems. Some exception might need to be made to prevent blatant political tactics (like excommunicated nodes rejoining the nodelist in a different region, coordinators signing up all of their out-of-town friends to enhance their power in FidoNet politics, etc.), but in general I see nothing wrong with a node being allowed to join where its sysop feels he fits best, even if it doesn't conform to his strict geographical place. Such arrangements should be between the sysop and his net coordinator (or region coordinator if an independent node), with other coordinators only being allowed to butt in if some clear harm is being done to FidoNet by that particular geographical exception. (e.g., if it imposes excessive costs on other nodes, or assists the node involved in bypassing POLICY in some manner.) At any rate, once I write up a POLICY5 proposal, I'll make it available for file-request on my system, and publish excerpts from it in FidoNews. (I won't send the whole thing here, since that would make for a very massive FidoNews, and most of the text will probably be the same as POLICY4 anyway. I'll just send in the major changes, and let you FidoNews 6-25 Page 13 19 Jun 1989 request the file from me if you want to examine the whole thing.) Then, the next step will be to try to find people who agree with my proposals, and see if I can get the RCs to place it on the table for consideration. I don't know what extent of lobbying is needed to accomplish this, but I'll find out as I go along. If the RCs turn out to be dead set against any amendment that cuts their power (such as providing some bottom-up democracy, adding a way of proposing POLICY changes that bypasses the RCs, and reducing RC authority over geographical exemptions), it could prove necessary to rally large masses of grunt sysops and NCs in support of the amendment to convince the RCs to change their minds. Anyway, input from any concerned sysop is encouraged. I've already gotten some feedback (despite the wrong address given). One point raised by a couple of people is that it would be better to let separate policy amendments be voted on individually instead of as a whole document. That will take a little thought; due to the interrelatedness of the whole document, it's hard to make piecemeal changes without revising the whole thing. But maybe something can be worked out; for instance, two separate methods of amendment, one to make sweeping changes by proposing an entire revised document, and another (simpler) method to propose minor revisions via a list of specific changes referenced by paragraph number. What do others think about this? ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 6-25 Page 14 19 Jun 1989 Jack Decker Fidonet 1:154/8 LCRnet 77:1011/8 Do you wonder why, if this is supposed to be a hobby and we're all supposed to be having fun, that sometimes it seems like we're all in the middle of a raging civil war? Do you ever wonder if we really need the layers of bureaucracy, and pages of Policy that are part of Fidonet? Do you ever wish that we could all just communicate and have a good time and forget all the politics? Then don't skip the following article... THOUGHTS ON THE NODELIST We're all familiar with the Fidonet nodelist. When we first start out in Fidonet, we need to obtain a copy in order to communicate with other Fidonet nodes. Thereafter, we need to apply weekly nodediffs to keep it current. Many of us have automated our batch files so that when a new nodediff shows up, our systems automatically process it to create the latest nodelist, without us having to even think about it (much to the chagrin of the nodelist creators, who would like us to read the comments that often appear at the front of the nodediffs). For that reason, we rarely stop to think about the role the nodelist plays in Fidonet. But let's consider some things about the nodelist. First, what is it, really? Reduced to its simplest level, it's just a directory of nodes using compatible software to exchange mail packets. In that respect, it's much like a telephone directory. In fact, by comparing the nodelist with a telephone directory, we can come perhaps come up with some new ways of thinking about the nodelist. A telephone directory lists "nodes" (businesses and residences) that have compatible equipment (telephones) that can be used for communication. Now, there are different types of telephone directories. There are the directories published by the telephone companies, which list anyone with a telephone who wants to be listed. But there are also private telephone directories. For example, many organizations publish directories of their members. In order to have your phone number listed in a particular organization's directory, you have to be a member of the organization. Some churches publish directories of their members. In order to be listed in their directories, you have to be a member (or in some cases, just a regular attendee) of that church. The Fidonet nodelist, and indeed, all the "other" net nodelists, are also private directories. There is not, at the present time, a nodelist that will list any node that runs Fidonet-compatible hardware and software, regardless of whether or not they wish to be affiliated with the Network publishing the nodelist. This is an important distinction. At the present time, all nodelists are published by a Network, whether FidoNews 6-25 Page 15 19 Jun 1989 it be Fidonet, Alternet, Eggnet, LCRnet, etc. These Networks only publish the listings of individual "Nets" and nodes that have affiliated with that Network. There is no "public" nodelist that will publish the listing of any "Net" or node, regardless of which Network that "Net" is affiliated with. Why do people want to be listed in the telephone directory in the first place? It's so others can communicate with them. If someone knows your name, and the city you live in, they can look in the directory (or get the Directory Assistance operator to do it) and find out everything they need to communicate with you (your phone number). You can choose to remain unlisted in the directory, but then only those who already know how to communicate with you will be able to do so. Much the same is true of a nodelist listing. There are situations where nodes exist that can be reached (either directly or through a Net somewhere), but because they aren't listed in the nodelist, only those who know about those nodes can reach them. In Fidonet, there's the additional problem that some pieces of software (e.g. Opus 1.03b) will refuse to send messages to nodes not listed in the nodelist. So, not being listed in the nodelist can make your node virtually unreachable to everyone except those who already know how to go about getting mail to you. Now a word about copyrights (if you couldn't care less about them, feel free to skip this and the next two paragraphs). The telephone directory is copyrighted. So is the Fidonet nodelist. But, in both cases it is what is known as a "compilation copyright". A "compilation" is the act of taking individual pieces of information, which individually may or may not be in the public domain, and collecting and publishing them in one single work. Even though the individual pieces of information may not be copyrighted, the collection of those pieces of information is copyrightable. You may have seen collections of "public domain" software programs on diskettes. The individual programs are still public domain, but the collection of programs on that disk may be copyrighted. If the disk is copyrighted under a "compilation copyright", then you are still perfectly free to give away individual programs from that disk to others, but legally, you can't just start making full disk copies of that disk and start selling them for profit. Your name and telephone number are not copyrighted. But, the telephone directory IS copyrighted. No one can simply photocopy the pages out of the phone book, place them in their own directory, and start selling that. In fact, they can't even simply re-type the listings out of the phone directory into the pages of their directory. So, you may ask, how do all those "alternative" and "area-wide" phone directories manage to publish without being the targets of lawsuits initiated by the phone company? In one of two ways... either they buy the listings (and the rights to re-publish them) from the phone company, or they obtain the listings by some means other than by copying them from the directory. For example, they could do FidoNews 6-25 Page 16 19 Jun 1989 door-to-door canvassing, asking each resident for their name and phone number. If they obtain the names, addresses, and phone numbers through independent means, without simply copying them from the telephone company's directory, then they can publish them without any legal liability even though many of the listings will probably duplicate those in the telephone directory. The information on your BBS that you provide to your Net Coordinator for inclusion in the Fidonet nodelist is not copyrighted. In fact, the nodelists for each individual "Net" in Fidonet are not copyrighted. When the Net Coordinator sends them to the RC, they do not bear a copyright notice (at least not in any Net that I'm aware of, though it's possible that some individual Nets do place a compilation copyright on their Net nodelists). Your NC could just as easily send the same list to someone who publishes a list of local BBS's in your city (and that often happens). It's only when the listings are collected into the complete Fidonet nodelist, and the "compilation copyright" is attached, that the listings become copyrighted. If someone gathers information on individual nodes in a Net, or even if they get the entire nodelist for a single Net from the NC (assuming the Net's nodelist is not copyrighted, or that they obtain permission to use it), they can include those listings in a larger nodelist without violating the Fidonet nodelist copyright. Once again, the key is that the listings were gathered by independent means, not simply copied from the Fidonet nodelist. Now, there is one big difference between the telephone directory and the Fidonet nodelist. Your telephone directory listing is never used for disciplinary purposes. If you make obscene phone calls, you might go to jail, but as long as are connected to the telephone system you have the right to be listed in the phone book. If you hurl a letter to the branch manager of your local telephone company that contains nasty insults, he may get quite upset with you, but unless he wants to face the wrath of his employers and the Public Utilities Commission of your state (not to mention the possibility of a nasty lawsuit), he had better not retaliate by deleting your listing from the telephone directory. But in Fidonet, your nodelist listing can be cut for disciplinary reasons. The reason is because, as pointed out above, the Fidonet nodelist is really a private nodelist. It's not so much that you are being dropped from the nodelist as that you are being dropped as a member of Fidonet (for all practical purposes, they are one and the same). Now we come to the whole point of this discussion. The main reason that many sysops have joined Fidonet in the first place was so that their systems could be listed in Fidonet's telephone directory, which as it happens is (at the present time) the largest such listing of compatible systems around. Some sysops might say that they joined to get echomail, but that can also be seen as a function of being listed in the FidoNews 6-25 Page 17 19 Jun 1989 nodelist, because if the nearest source of echomail is listed only in the Fidonet nodelist, and uses only the Fidonet nodelist as his system's "phone book", then you have to be listed in that same "phone book" before that system can send echomail to you, and you yourself will have to use that "phone book" to send echomail to him. What I suspect is that many of you that are sysops didn't realize at the time you joined Fidonet was that you were not just signing up to be listed in the nodelist, you were also joining a private organization. You were joining an organization that imposes rules on the conduct of its members, and that disciplines members that don't follow the rules by removing them from the organization's telephone directory. Not only that, but you were joining an organization in which the members have little or no say in the formulation or enforcement of the rules. You were joining an organization that had a certain philosophy on how sysops within the net should be "governed" (in my humble opinion, a philosophy that would be right at home in the government of countries like Panama or Communist China). What I hear from a lot of Fidonet sysops is, "Hey, I joined Fidonet so that I could communicate with other systems, get my echomail, and have some fun. I didn't join to have the leaders of some organization tell me how to run my system!" And if you stop and think about it, that's really the truth. I'd guess that fully 90% of the sysops in Fidonet really don't care what happens at the higher levels of Fidonet, except when it directly affect them. When you get right down to it, their MAIN reason for joining Fidonet was to get into the Fidonet nodelist, so that they could send and receive echomail and (in fewer cases) netmail. The truth is that most sysops really don't give a you-know-what about Fidonet as an organization (particularly at any level above that of their own Net)... they just want to be in the Fidonet "phone book" (which will in turn allow them to send and receive echomail). This is not a happy situation from either the point of view of the *C structure or the common sysop. The *C structure would like to "run a tight ship", with an organization of like-minded sysops all pulling together toward the same goals. They are visibly distressed by the "apathy" they see in Fidonet, and even more upset by those sysops who challenge the current structure. On the other hand, the average sysop either ignores or resents the attempts to impose "structure" or "discipline" on him or his system. He just wants to communicate and have fun! So we have an organization divided against itself, and like a nation divided against itself, such an organization cannot stand for long. If you still have trouble understanding this, let me try and paint a mental scenario that might help. Suppose you have a club of people who collect stamps. The club directors, in an effort to make the hobby more interesting, start showing films about the countries and people behind the stamps, and in order FidoNews 6-25 Page 18 19 Jun 1989 to boost attendance at their club meetings, they advertise these films in the local newspaper. And it works! Attendance increases by a phenomenal amount in the following year. But, it soon becomes apparent that most of the new members of the club aren't really interested in collecting stamps... they're interested in viewing travel films! And now, some of them are starting insist that the directors of the club devote the majority of the meetings to viewing travelogues, and to spend relatively little time on stamp collecting business, which they consider boring and not too relevant to their interests. Obviously, that club has a problem! The leaders and some of the old time members have much different expectations for the club than the newer members, who are now in the majority. A similar situation exists in Fidonet. You might say that Fidonet is a victim of its own success. The leaders and some of the long-time members of Fidonet have one set of goals, while the newcomers (many of whom were attracted by the fact that Fidonet had the largest "phone book" of compatible system with which they could exchange echomail and netmail) in many cases have a completely different vision of what Fidonet should be. Is either group totally in the wrong? Not really. Going back to the stamp club example, the old timers would argue that it was a stamp club in the beginning, and the newcomers are trying to change its original intent, while the newcomers would argue that they're simply asking for more of the very thing that the leaders used to attract them to the club in the first place! In the club example, the smart thing to do might be to start a travel club for those interested in viewing the travelogues, and get the stamp club back to its original purpose. But if the leaders of the stamp club can't stand to let go of the members that just aren't interested in stamps... if they figure they can't afford to lose the dues money, or they perceive that they will lose power if the membership splits, or they figure it's super impressive to others to be able to say they're the leaders of the largest stamp club in the state, or if they take the attitude that "these new members should like stamps, and if we try hard enough we can force 'em to take an interest in stamps whether they want to or not!", they're going to have REAL problems. Eventually the leaders may wind up being replaced by folks who don't really care about stamps at all, but only after a long, bitter, and divisive struggle! Hopefully, I won't have to explain the parallels between the above example and what's happening in Fidonet. The thing that I think we have all lost sight of is that the vast majority of systems that have come into Fidonet in the last couple of years have been attracted to the network by the availability of echomail. I would even daresay that most sysops see echomail as a low cost alternative to commercial services such as CompuServe or Genie. That is the main reason most of the newer sysops joined Fidonet. Small wonder, then, that they are by and large unimpressed with actions that are primarily intended to facilitate the movement of netmail (or to achieve some other FidoNews 6-25 Page 19 19 Jun 1989 nebulous goals), particularly when those actions have the result of increasing their costs to receive echomail. What is the solution for Fidonet? I know a lot of people won't like this thought (particularly those in the present *C structure), but I feel the only real, workable solution (and the only one that will allow Fidonet to return to its original intent, as the *C structure seems to desire) is to return Fidonet to a smaller group of like-minded sysops with common goals (I've actually read the comments of some *C's who have said that they believe things were much better in Fidonet when there were only a couple of hundred nodes. If that's what they REALLY want, let's let them return to those happy times!). Everyone else should be listed in a new, public nodelist that is not controlled by any individual Network, but rather that is open to all "Nets" and the nodes in those Nets. I hope to have a proposal for such a nodelist ready for distribution within a short time (it's in the draft stage now, I'm just waiting to get back some initial comments). Fidonet would still have its own nodelist, of folks who belong to Fidonet and who agree to submit to the rules and regulations of Fidonet. Ditto for "AnyOtherNet." But the sysops and NC's of local "Nets" could choose to affiliate with one of the major Networks, or with no Network at all. As long as they are listed in the "public" nodelist, they will still be able to receive mail from other systems, and to exchange echo conferences that are not "restricted" to just one Network. The nodelist would not be used for disciplinary purposes. If you have problems with another node, you configure your system to refuse mail from that node (using password protection or similar methods) or in extreme cases you could call in the authorities, as you'd do with an obscene telephone caller. Keep in mind that RIGHT NOW anyone can configure their system to "impersonate" another node, so dropping someone from the nodelist in no way guarantees that you'll never hear from them again! Now, I ask you to please pay careful attention to the following, because I know that those who oppose this idea will try to claim that it would break up Fidonet. However, the fact that a Net chooses to be listed in a "public" nodelist would NOT necessarily mean that they are leaving Fidonet (unless the Fidonet *C's decide to make it an either/or choice). It would simply give you, as a sysop, the alternative to communicate with other nodes without HAVING to subscribe to any particular denominational viewpoint on how a network should be run. The various Network nodelists could be viewed in the same way as church member directories, in that they would presumably contain the listings of those who adhere to a particular set of beliefs (on how a network should be operated in this case). The "public" nodelist would list all Nets (that choose to be listed)... those that do choose to align themselves with a particular operational philosophy, and those that do not. I've never heard of a church giving a member the boot because they allowed themselves to be listed in the "public" phone book, so FidoNews 6-25 Page 20 19 Jun 1989 unless the Fidonet *C structure wants to be more authoritarian than even the strictest of sects, they will not try to discourage Fidonet sysops from being listed in the "public" nodelist. If the *C structure were smart, they'd even encourage those who don't really adhere to their operational philosophy to be listed in the "public" nodelist only. I don't mean they'd only do that when a Net becomes an irritant to a particular *C, either. What I mean is that once a public nodelist were available, it might be wise for the *C structure to really lay out their philosophy and say "if you can't agree with this, you really shouldn't be here." Some *C's are saying this NOW, but the problem is that in most cases, there's no other viable place for a Net to go to (in many cases the choice is between staying in Fidonet, or aligning your Net with another Network that may have some equally objectionable policies, or trying to start your own Network, none of which are particularly attractive alternatives). One other point that needs to be mentioned is that there are no guarantees that the Fidonet nodelist will continue to be published. If the *C structure of Fidonet decides that they have lost "control" of Fidonet, or if the people in charge of publishing the Fidonet nodelist simply get tired of doing it, there's no absolute guarantee that it will continue to be published. Should something like that happen, wouldn't it be nice to have a "public" nodelist available? When I originally let this idea out to a few people, one of the comments I got back was on the order of "but how will we get echomail?" My answer is, "for the present time, the same way you get it now." People tend to want to view this as an either/or situation... EITHER you're in the Fidonet nodelist, OR you're in SomeOther nodelist. That does not necessarily have to be the case. Consider the situation where you have a Net that has a couple of nodes that the RC just doesn't like, for any of a number of reasons (maybe they just happen to be on the wrong side of some geographic boundary line). Now, in the Fidonet nodelist, that Net could be listed, but without the offending nodes. However, that same Net could be listed in the "public" nodelist intact, with all its nodes (in most cases, it could even be listed under the same Net number as it uses in Fidonet if things are planned correctly). In such a case, it would still be "legal" for any of the Fidonet nodes to receive echomail from the Regional Echomail Coordinator, and if they pass it on to one of the nodes that doesn't appear in the Fidonet nodelist, chances are nobody will notice or complain anyway - but if someone does, it could always be argued that those systems are "points" for Fidonet purposes (after all, they don't appear in the Fidonet nodelist, so they must be points, right? And in Fidonet, you can send echomail to a point system no matter where it's located, since points are not bound by any sort of geographic restrictions). If the "public" nodelist idea really catches on, though, I FidoNews 6-25 Page 21 19 Jun 1989 expect that many REC's might eventually consider modifying their policies to accommodate the "public" nodelist (although not without some initial "kicking and screaming"; change never seems to come easily in this hobby!). Please keep in mind that the Echomail Coordinators are not part of the *C structure, and in many cases do not really have a vested interest in perpetuating that structure. What I have tried to give to sysops here is a simple way to break the stranglehold that the RC/ZC power structure has on our ability to communicate with each other. It's not that I'm anti-Fidonet (an accusation I fully expect to hear sooner or later), but I am against the non-democratic, "top-down", dictatorial power structure that we now have. I see a lot of similarities between the present Fidonet power structure and the ruling governments in certain countries where Fidonet nodes aren't permitted. It appears that Zone 2 (Europe) has decided to, for all practical purposes, pull out of what we think of as "Fidonet" and form their own democratic organization (actually, I'm quite surprised that they're allowed to remain in the Fidonet nodelist... if a Region or Net in the United States did the same thing, I'm sure they would be summarily dismissed from Fidonet. But I guess the IC will overlook infractions at the Zone level that would never be tolerated at the Region or Net levels). While I agree wholeheartedly with Zone 2's desire for a more democratic form of government, I do *NOT* agree with the "nodelist tax" they have decided to impose on each node in order to be listed in the nodelist. A "public" nodelist would not help support a "top-down" governmental structure, and it would give nodes a place to be listed without the requirement of a "nodelist tax", so in effect it's the best of both worlds. I don't expect everyone to agree with these ideas. I fully expect they will be somewhat controversial. But, if the Fidonet *C's really want to have a network of 5,000 nodes, then they are going to have to learn to accept the wishes of the majority of the 5,000, not just the will of the twenty or thirty in leadership positions (above the Net level) or even the will of just the few hundred that may have been around since the very early days of Fidonet. On the other hand, if what they would prefer is to have fewer nodes but ones that support their philosophy, then having a separate "public" nodelist would allow that to happen without cutting off anyone's ability to communicate. I feel that unless something is done to resolve the current conflicts between those with differing ideas on where Fidonet should be headed, we're going to continue to have the equivalent of "civil war" here in Fidonet. And that sure isn't FUN for anybody! ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 6-25 Page 22 19 Jun 1989 An April Fool joke that wasn't From a posting in Usenet submitted by Randy Bush, 1:105/6 From: chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach) Newsgroups: news.admin Subject: What you *won't* see April First.... Date: 28 Mar 89 17:25:46 GMT Organization: Life is just a Fantasy novel played for keeps Since the whole moderator/r.h.f blowup is de-escalating much faster than expected (thanks, Karl, for cancelling the vote....) I find that the April Fools parody I'd planned on posting isn't really relevant any more. Sigh. These things happen. We'll try again some other time.... I'm going to post it here, now, because I think there's a lesson in it. The thing that really worried me about this whole conflagration was that people who normally are pretty smart were screaming for folks to come in and start regulating USENET. USENET's worked quite well as an anarchy, and the thought of adding a bureaucracy telling us 'do' and 'don't' scares me -- once you create the bureaucracy, controlling it becomes problematic. It will continue fixing problems for you, whether you want them to or not. Note: this 'parody' is not funny. Unlike many of the annual April Fools messages, it wasn't designed to be. It's hard to poke fun at a network with no sense of humor any more, but that's another posting at another time. This was aimed squarely at scaring the sh*t out of the people screaming to get rid of commercialism on the net without really thinking about what that meant. So I took a couple of days and tried to find all of the things that could plausibly be considered commercial and created a (fortunately false) bureacracy to get rid of them. The results scared me -- and I think they should scare everyone -- and taught me a good lesson about asking for things without knowing what that meant. The cautionary tale: Beware of asking for things -- you might get them. Hopefully, my next April Fools posting with have a little more levity. The r.h.f furor brought out the worst in everyone (including myself), and you can't write funny material about things that have no kernel of humor in them. The funniest thing about it was how serious everyone took it -- and all that has at the kernel is a pitiable sadness. It's *just* a network folks. See ya next April Fools... Maybe. chuq ------ [note: neither Gene, nor Greg, nor Rick had *anything* to do with this. Don't send them mail about it....] > Path: nsc!amdahl!walldrug!eminus!bloombeacon!hoa!uct!backbone > From: admins@utc.usenet.org (Usenet Community Trust Administration) FidoNews 6-25 Page 23 19 Jun 1989 > Newsgroups: news.announce.important,news.admin > Followup-To: news.admin > Subject: Commercialism on the net > Message-ID: <4-1-1989@medusa.cs.purdue.edu> > Date: 1 Apr 89 00:00:00 GMT > Expires: 1 May 89 00:00:00 GMT > Organization: Usenet Community Trust, Inc. (A non-profit organization) > Lines: 27 > Approved: admins@utc.usenet.org We of the backbone cabal have been following the commercialism of USENET discussion with growing apprehension. Originally, we felt that, like most USENET flame-wars, it would burn itself out over time. Unfortunately, tempers continue to heat up and the argument itself continues to grow. At the current time, the volume in the anti-commercialism discussion now significantly exceeds the volume of all of the material that could potentially be described as commercial. We have never, not even during the infamous Wobegon Wars, seen an argument blown so totally out of proportion. We had hoped this would resolve itself without our intervention. The backbone feels strongly that a hands-off policy is the best. However, this discussion has started to tax our disk capacities, our data transfer links, our budgets and, frankly, our patience. Because of this, and because we feel the emnity being generated by this argument may be destructive to the basic fabric of USENET, we have decided to take steps to stop this discussion. Effective immediately, the Backbone Cabal will no longer forward any message discussing the commercialism of the net. It is obvious from the discussions that there is a mandate from the users of USENET to do something about the commercialism on USENET. You want someone who can protect the net from the subversive forces of blatant commercialism. The backbone has the organization in place to organize the controls needed to implement these protections. Therefore, the members of the backbone have decided the time has come to build a centralized organization with the purpose of monitoring and controlling the material posted to USENET so that the proper purposes of USENET are served. To this end, we have identified all of the improper postings being made to USENET and, effective today, started to implement a plan to repair these problems. Once we finish implementing these new restrictions, we believe that we will finally have the non-commercial, unbiased and free-spoken USENET you have mandated us to give you. The net will finally be free of the commercial fetters that have held it back, and the users will finally be able to use USENET for anything they want to use it for, without the specter of commercial abuse. We feel that the implementation of this will significantly increase the freedom of expression on USENET by limiting our FidoNews 6-25 Page 24 19 Jun 1989 discussions to more appropriate topics and removing the crass commercialism and vendor interference that inhibits free discussion of ideas. In addition, the addition of these controls will significantly improve our ability to reduce future problems, as the backbone now have the bureaucracy and controls in place to stop inappropriate discussions before they get out of control and contaminate the network. Through these new restrictions and regulations, we expect USENET to prosper and grow as the new freedoms implied by these regulations allow you to better enjoy the network. You, the users -- no, the *owners* of USENET -- have given us an obvious mandate to step in and protect you from the people who would abuse and manipulate the network for their own private gains. Through these new controls, we are implementing the will of the people, restricting the inappropriate for the good of the masses. By voluntarily given up that which doesn't matter, you increase your freedoms. We are here to serve you, and by serving you we shall be able to create a better network for you. There are two phases to this. First, in the short term, all backbone sites have installed patches to the netnews software. These patches do contextual keyword searches and will refuse to pass messages that meet the keyword restrictions. As of now, these keyword restrictions include: o Any reference to rec.humor.funny in any newsgroup except rec.humor.funny. o Any reference to Brad Templeton, JEDR or Matt Crawford in news.* o Any use of the word "commercial", "commerce" or "income" or any of the expected spelling variants. We may add other keywords once we analyze the traffic flow. o Any posting made from or that passes through a commercial, public access system that charges a usage fee for access. Free systems will not be affected, but any system that generates revenue from its users, directory or indirectly, will be refused access to the network. The most infamous of these sites are Portal and the Well, but we have also identified seven other systems qualify and will be similarly restricted. We are also investigating whether to extend this to corporate machines that chargeback access time internally. Even though no money changes hands, there is a revenue adjustment, and therefore it's a commercial interaction. These messages will be deleted silently. You will get no warning that we have refused to pass them on. The second phase of the commercialism changes involves restructuring part of the net. The backbone feels strongly that USENET should be non-commercial. Therefore, we will be taking FidoNews 6-25 Page 25 19 Jun 1989 steps to guarantee that USENET becomes and stays completely non-commercial. Over the next 90 days, we will be putting in place software and procedures to enforce the following restrictions on USENET traffic: o All blatantly commercial newsgroups will be deleted. This includes (but may not be limited to) the following. A definited list will be published when our analysis of traffic is complete. biz.* comp.org.decus comp.newprod comp.org.ieee comp.org.usenix comp.org.usrgroup comp.sources.wanted misc.forsale misc.jobs.misc misc.jobs.offered misc.jobs.resumes misc.wanted rec.arts.wobegon o All moderators will be required to sign non-commercialism contracts. Any moderator that refuses to agree to this will be replaced or the group terminated. This contract will require that all material on USENET be copyrighted to the "USENET Community Trust" and not be redistributed on any other network. The moderator will not be allowed to be involved in any activity that allows them to generate revenue, directly or indirectly, from their USENET activities. The USENET Community Trust is a new, non-profit organization that has been formed to maintain and administer USENET and material that is distributed on the network. Initially, the backbone will act as both administrators and steering committee to UCT. We eventually hope that, once the current emergencies involving commercialized traffic are resolved, open elections for members-at-large on USENET will be possible. o All software distributed by USENET must from now on be in source form only and be public domain. This specifically excludes any binaries, shareware or demos. Also, the public domain requirement precludes any copyright in any form, so distribution of copyrighted sources of any type will be disallowed. This includes, based on our interpretation of the restrictions, any copylefted software including all GNU distributions. The following groups will be deleted as being obsolete because of this clause: comp.binaries.amiga comp.binaries.apple2 comp.binaries.atari.st comp.binaries.ibm.pc comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d comp.binaries.mac o Many computer vendors directly or indirectly support their products via USENET. This is a form of commercialism, as it allows them to use USENET for free technical support, marketing and sales promotion. This will be stopped. In the following groups, we will no longer allow postings of any type from any employee or representative of the company being discussed. This will allow the users of the products to be able to discuss it without the taint of commercialism currently undercutting the utility of these newsgroups. FidoNews 6-25 Page 26 19 Jun 1989 comp.lang.forth.mac comp.lang.lisp.franz comp.os.aos comp.os.eunice comp.os.os9 comp.os.rsts comp.os.vms comp.sys.amiga comp.sys.amiga.tech comp.sys.apollo comp.sys.apple comp.sys.atari.8bit comp.sys.atari.st comp.sys.att comp.sys.cbm comp.sys.cdc comp.sys.celerity comp.sys.dec comp.sys.dec.micro comp.sys.encore comp.sys.hp comp.sys.ibm.pc comp.sys.ibm.pc.digest comp.sys.ibm.pc.rt comp.sys.intel comp.sys.intel.ipsc310 comp.sys.m6809 comp.sys.m68k comp.sys.m68k.pc comp.sys.mac comp.sys.mac.digest comp.sys.mac.hypercard comp.sys.mac.programmer comp.sys.masscomp comp.sys.misc comp.sys.next comp.sys.northstar comp.sys.nsc.32k comp.sys.proteon comp.sys.pyramid comp.sys.ridge comp.sys.sequent comp.sys.sgi comp.sys.sun comp.sys.super comp.sys.tahoe comp.sys.tandy comp.sys.ti comp.sys.ti.explorer comp.sys.transputer comp.sys.workstations comp.sys.xerox comp.sys.zenith comp.sys.zenith.z100 comp.unix.aux comp.unix.cray comp.unix.i386 comp.unix.microport comp.unix.xenix o Finally, many newsgroups are indirectly commercial. These groups include postings that make product recommendations, post comparative analysis material, book reviews and the like. Any posting that, directly or indirectly, attempts to sway a reader into purchasing or avoiding a product is now to be considered commercial and will no longer be tolerated. comp.arch comp.bugs.4bsd comp.bugs.misc comp.bugs.sys5 comp.compilers comp.databases comp.dcom.lans comp.dcom.lans.hyperchannel comp.dcom.modems comp.dcom.telecom comp.editors comp.emacs comp.fonts comp.laser-printers comp.lsi comp.lsi.cad comp.misc comp.os.misc comp.parallel comp.periphs comp.periphs.printers comp.sources.amiga comp.sources.atari.st comp.sources.bugs comp.sources.d comp.sources.games comp.sources.games.bugs comp.sources.mac comp.sources.misc comp.sources.unix comp.sources.x comp.terminals comp.terminals.bitgraph comp.terminals.tty5620 comp.text comp.text.desktop comp.unix comp.unix.questions comp.unix.ultrix comp.unix.wizards comp.windows.misc comp.windows.ms comp.windows.news comp.windows.x misc.consumers misc.consumers.house misc.invest misc.misc misc.taxes rec.arts.anime rec.arts.books rec.arts.comics rec.arts.drwho rec.arts.int-fiction rec.arts.misc rec.arts.movies rec.arts.movies.reviews rec.arts.sf-lovers rec.arts.startrek rec.arts.tv rec.audio rec.autos rec.autos.sport rec.autos.tech rec.aviation rec.backcountry rec.bicycles rec.birds rec.boats rec.equestrian rec.food.cooking rec.food.drink rec.food.veg rec.games.vectrex rec.games.video rec.gardens rec.guns rec.ham-radio rec.ham-radio.packet rec.misc rec.models.rc rec.motorcycles rec.music.beatles rec.music.bluenote rec.music.cd rec.music.classical rec.music.dementia rec.music.folk rec.music.gaffa FidoNews 6-25 Page 27 19 Jun 1989 rec.music.gdead rec.music.makers rec.music.misc rec.music.reviews rec.music.synth rec.pets rec.photo rec.scuba rec.skiing rec.skydiving rec.travel rec.video sci.electronics Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Greg Woods, Gene Spafford and Rick Adams, official shills. The Usenet Community Trust, Inc. (A non-profit organization) Chuq Von Rospach -*- Editor,OtherRealms -*- Member SFWA chuq@apple.com -*- CI$:73317,635 Delphi:CHUQ -*- Applelink:CHUQ [This is myself speaking. No company can control my thoughts.] USENET: N. A self-replicating phage engineered by the phone company to cause computers to spend large amounts of their owners budget on modem charges. ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 6-25 Page 28 19 Jun 1989 142/158 28 May 89 19:05:00 From: Stuart Henderson of 2:255/13.0 To: Vince Perriello of 1/1.0 Files: Uk-Modem.Art As you may or may not know, in the UK a Conservative MP, Emma Nicholson, is trying to outlaw hacking and it looks very likely as if she will get a Private Members Bill passed, as she as much support. However, it appears very much from a re-type that I have of this that it will completely outlaw bulletin boards and the like. I do not know the source of the re-type, but I am enclosing it because I feel that this is one of the types of thing that FidoNews is for. Although some may know of this, I am certain that exposure in FidoNews will strengthen the cause of English bulletin boards. It would appear that if this was passed, and it looks increasingly likely that it will, the entire structure of bulletin boards over here will break down. Looking at the file, it appears that anyone having a modem is liable to having it confiscated and so on, as although its owner may currently have no intent of using it to gain illegal access, they have the means and could subsequently have the intent. I hope that you decide to publish the re-type. Stuart Here is a complete retype of Emma Nicholsons Private Members bill that will be in force by th end of this year Please note it is retrospective!!!! and outlaws hackers, BBS's and conferences! ----- The Bill. Offences 1.1(a) A person who effects unauthorized access to a computer or computer system either (i) to his own or another's advantage; or (ii) to another's prejudice; or (b) being reckless as to whether his actions would result in (i) his own or another's advantage; or (ii) another's prejudice; shall be guilty of an offence. 1.2 A person who without lawful authority or reasonable excuse has in his custody or under his control anything with the intention of effecting unauthorized access to a computer or computer system to enable some act or acts to his own or another's advantage or to another's prejudice, shall be guilty of FidoNews 6-25 Page 29 19 Jun 1989 an offence. 1.3 A person who, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, transmits, receives, or causes to be transmitted or received by means of wire, radio, or television communications including electro-magnetic waves, any writing, signals, signs, pictures or sound (a) with the intention of committing an act (i) to his own or another's advantage; or (ii) to another's prejudice; or (b) being reckless as to whether his actions would result in (i) his own or another's advantage; or (ii) another's prejudice; shall be guilty of an offence. 1.4 A person commits an offence if he effects unauthorized access ot the computer of another for an unauthorized purpose. Penalties. 2.1 A person guilty of an offence under section 1.1 above shall be liable - (a) on conviction on indictment, to a fine, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or to both; or (b) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale. 2.2 A person guilty of an offence under subsection 2 or 3 of section 1 above shall be liable - (a) on conviction on indictment, to a fine, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or to both; or (b) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale. 2.3 A person guilty of an offence under section 1.4 above shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale Powers of search and seizure. 3.1 if it appears to a Justice of the Peace, from information given on oath, that there is reasonable cause to believe that a person has in his custody or under his control - (a) anything which he or another has used, whether before or after the coming to force of this act, or intends to use, FidoNews 6-25 Page 30 19 Jun 1989 for the making of anything contravention of section 1.2 above; or (b) any unauthorized documentation obtained by the un- authorized accessing of a computer of another, whether before of after the coming to force of this act; or (c) anything, custody or control of which, an offence under section 1.2 of above; he may issue a warrant authorising a constable to enter and search the premises. 3.2 If it appears to a Judge of the Crown Court from the information given to him on oath that there is reasonable cause to believe an electronic device os being used to unlawfully access the computer of another, he may authorize monitoring of such a device, by the police, by electronic means, in order to intercept the transmitted data and to produce evidence of unauthorized access. 3.3 A constable may at any time after seizure of anything suspected of falling within paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection 1 of this section (whether the seizure was effected by virtue of a warrant under that section or otherwise) apply to a magistrates' court for an order under this subsection with respect to object t; and the court, if it is satisfied both that the object falls within any of those paragraphs and that it is conductive of the public interest to do so, may make such order as it thinks fit of the forfeiture of the object and its subsequent destruction or disposal. 3.4 Subject to subsection (5) below the court by, or before, which a person is convicted of an offence under this Act may order anything shown to the satisfaction of the court to relate to the offence to be forfeited and either destroyed or dealt with in such other manner as the court may order. 3.5 The court shall not order anything to be forfeited under subsection (4) above where a person claiming to be the owner of, or otherwise interested in it, applies to be heard by the court unless an opportunity has been given to him to show cause why the order should not be made. ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 6-25 Page 31 19 Jun 1989 Tom Jennings, 1:125/111 Since I see my name is getting dragged into this, I thought I'd respond on the subject of Zone 2's autonomy, which is really an issue of control. First of all, no one need worry about trademark abuse; I am in contact with all parties involved, and there is nothing to worry about. Things will be settled to everyones benefit and satisfaction. No further discussion is needed on this matter. It is none of our business how Zone 2 (or any other zone) runs their network(s), other than how they interface to us, just as it is no business to net 125 how net XYZ runs theirs, unless it somehow physically affects our operation. If they have different criteria for joining a network, what business is it of ours? To meddle ahead of time "in case they do something awful", is silly; they are no more (or less) likely to do something stupid than we in Zone 1 are. Europe is not just the U.S.-only-different; it is a totally different environment, socially, technically, legally and politically. Europe is none of our damn business. Zone 1 is not the police force of the world. Have we not learned our lessons from other arenas? We do not "have" a unified world- wide network, nor is such a thing even desirable. What we do have is a number of cooperative networks, that can cooperate in a world-wide networking effort. This is a critical difference. Unfortunately, meddlers and control freaks will not give up until everything not exactly like themselves is squashed or controlled. Or they are in turn removed. We have a growing bureaucracy in our Zone 1 that wants to reorganize us from being a bottom-up network, where sysops choose their net hosts and other /0's, and determine how to run their own BBS, nets and lives, to one (according to POLICY4) where the existing bureaucracy picks their own region and net hosts. Bureaucrats always tell us, if they can control this one more thing, then all the problems will be solved. Our network has never run smoothly, and I propose that it will *never* run smoothly; this is good, not bad. It means we're alive, only dead rigid bureaucracies are pure order. (Or pretend they are.) Excessive order is not good for any organism. It stifles creativity and free expression. Let's take a hint from history, OK? ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 6-25 Page 32 19 Jun 1989 ================================================================= COLUMNS ================================================================= THE LOST FIDONET ARCHIVES VOLUME THREE Compiled by various members of FidoNet Edited by Vince Perriello This is the third article in a series which reprints documents of historical significance to FidoNet. This week we feature Tom Jennings' original FidoNet History document from February 1985. Please note that most if not all of the FidoNet addresses, data line phone numbers, and company names and/or addresses mentioned in this or any of the other articles in this series are not to be considered reliable for current use in locating something or someone mentioned here. Refer to the current nodelist if you want to try to find any of the above. Following is the contents of FIDONET.DC1: FidoNet History and Operation 8 Feb 85 This is a long and convoluted document; it has been sorely needed for months now, and it finally got done. FidoNet is growing at a tremendous rate, and newer sysops don't have the information that us oldies (pre Sept 84 sysops) assume everyone knows; hence the history section here. There is a lot of extremely important material covered here that was assumed to be known by all; we are finding out otherwise. This also covers some of the dark mysterious secrets about the magical node numbers, and how the magical node lists appear from nowhere. Those of you that have been FidoNet nodes since way back when, spring and summer of 1984, and watched all this develop (such as it was) in full Technicolor, will know most of this; if you are a relatively new sysop, much of this may come as a suprise. Everyone should read this, experienced sysops, new sysops, and all Fido and FidoNet users. FidoNet is no longer just a piece of software; it has become complex organism. There are about 160 Fidos in FidoNet right now; this does not include Fidos being run as Bulletin Board only systems, just ones that you can converse with over the net. If the average number of users on each system is 300 people, you can start to guess at the scale of things today. HISTORY: When FidoNet was first tested, there were two nodes: myself here at Fido #1 in San Francisco, and John Madill at Fido #2 in FidoNews 6-25 Page 33 19 Jun 1989 Baltimore. John and I did all of the testing and development for the first pass at FidoNet. Its purpose: to see if it could be done, merely for the fun of it, like ham radio. It quickly became useful; instead of trying to call each others' boards up to leave messages, or expensive voice phone calls, Fidonet messages became more or less routine. This was version 7 of Fido sometime in June 84 or so; it did not have routing, file attach, retry control, error handling, cost accounting, log files, or any of the niceties since added. A packet was made, a call placed, the packet transferred, that was it. This was adequate for a month or two, when there were less than 20 nodes. In August of 84, the number of nodes was approaching 30; the net was becoming clogged, believe it or not. FidoNet wasn't too smart about making calls then. With 30 systems, coordination became difficult; instead of a simple voice phone call to the (very few!) sysops to straighten out problems like modems not answering, wrong numbers, clock problems, etc, it took days to get the slightest problem repaired. There were by now six nodes in St. Louis, and Fido #1 was making seperate phone calls for each, when obviously one could be made. Enter the beginnings of routing. The "original" FidoNet was very simple and friendly; you told me at Fido #1 that you had a FidoNet node ready, I put you in the list, with your phone number, and people called up and downloaded the list; done! Well ... at first, "everyone knew each other"; we were in more or less constant contact. However, when the node numbers got into the twenties, there were people bringing up FidoNodes who none of us knew. This was good, but it meant we were not in close contact anymore. The Net started to deteriorate; every single week without fail there was at least one wrong number, usually two. To impress on you the seriousness of wrong numbers in the node list, imagine you are a poor old lady, who every single night is getting phone calls EVERY TWO MINUTES AT 4:00AM, no one says anything, then hangs up. This actually happened; I would sit up and watch when there was mail that didn't go out for a week or two, and I'd pick up the phone after dialing, and was left in the embarrasing position of having to explain bulletin boards to an extremely tired, extremely annoyed person. There were also cases where the new node really wasn't up yet, and the number given was a home phone to be used temporarily, but I'd forget that, and include it in the list anyways. Or the new node wasn't really up yet, and we'd all make calls to it and it would not answer, or worse, the modem would answer but the software wasn't running, and we'd get charged for the call. This obviously could not go on. We had to have some way to make sure that at least the phone numbers were correct! I started a FidoNews 6-25 Page 34 19 Jun 1989 new policy; before giving out a node number and putting it in the list, I had to receive a FidoNet message from the new node, directly. This verified that at least the new Fido was half way running. At the time, Fido had a provision whereby Fido #1 could set the node number remotely; I'd send a message back, and presto! a new node was up. Well, this didn't work properly either; at the same time, the Fido software was changing so rapidly, to accomodate all the changes (literally a version a day for a few weeks there) that I was losing new node requests, wrong numbers caused by illegible handwriting, all sorts of problems. Out of laziness I would still assign nodes "word of mouth", and got in the same trouble as before. The people in St. Louis (Tony Clark, Ben Baker, Ken Kaplan, Jon Wichman, Mike Mellinger) had their local Fidos going strong, and understood what FidoNet did, how it worked, and what it was about. They volunteered to take over the node list, handle new node requests, and leave me with the software. They tightened up on the FidoNet message requirement, and in a few months, had the "error rate" (wrong numbers, etc) down to practically zero, where it is today. Though I did the programming, Ken Kaplan, Ben Baker, and the crowd in St. Louis did much of the design and most of the testing of routing, forwarding, and local nets. They still remain the experts on the intricacies of routing, and help sysops set up local nets. Please keep in mind the entire process, from two nodes to over 50, took only three months! Fifty nodes is more than it sounds; at that level it becomes a large scale project. FidoNet went from about 50 nodes in Sept 84 or so, to the current 160+ in Jan/Feb of 85. FidoNet today is a network quickly approaching the levels of complexity of commercial networks, and has many more capabilities than many "mini" networks, such as USENET, which has no routing or hosts. Only ARPAnet has some of the features of FidoNet. The southern California local network is three levels deep, with hosts in Orange, LA, Ventura, San Berdino and San Diego counties. FidoNet is just too large today to run as an informal club. The potential for error is just too high to include numbers at random within the node list. I imagine we are in a predicament today what the radio ameteur operators had a number of years ago. The requirements for new FidoNet nodes are pretty minimal, and they appear to be arbitrary and harsh if you aren't aware of what's going on. This is to spell them out in detail, so everyone will understand the process. FidoNet'S PURPOSE: Very simple; it is a hobby, a non-commercial network of computer FidoNews 6-25 Page 35 19 Jun 1989 hobbiests ("hackers", in the older, original meaning) who want to play with, and find uses for, packet switch networking. It is not a commercial venture in any way; FidoNet is totally supported by it's users and sysops, and in many ways is similar to ham radio, in that other than a few "stiff" rules, each sysop runs their system in any way they please, for any reason they want. THE STIFF RULES: Actually, not as bad as it sounds; basically, politeness as a rule: 1. New nodes, see below. 2. If your system is going to be down for a week or more, please let Fido 51 know. They can take you out of the list while you are gone, so other FidoNet sysops won't be wasting phone calls. 3. If you change your phone number, or decide to stop running Fido, let them know, so other FidoNet sysops won't be wasting phone calls. The thing to keep in mind is that FidoNet's telephone calls to send mail are costing someone money; if you are down just for a night or so, don't worry about it, just make sure your modem doesn't answer. THE NODE LIST Obviously (if you are a FidoNet sysop that is) the node list is a text file containing all the names, phone numbers and other things on each node, and as distributed by Fido 51, routing information for the many local networks. It is a very compact list, and so there is no clue as to how that list is made. Here is the current process for new nodes to obtain a node number, and get into the node list. This assumes you want to run a public access Fido; specialized systems are covered seperately, below. SET UP FIDO Of course, you should get your Fido running first; no sense in trying to run mail if your Fido doesn't run! In your FidoNet area, enter a message for Fido #51, and include the following information: 1. Your boards name 2. City and state 3. Sysops name 4. Board phone number 5. Maximum baud rate; 1200 assumed otherwise 6. Hours of operation; 24 hrs assumed otherwise FidoNews 6-25 Page 36 19 Jun 1989 7. Way to contact the sysop during the day. This is not absolutely necessary, but it makes it easier if there is some problem. Most of this is pretty obvious. The sysops voice phone number will be kept secret; it will not be given out. It is only used if there is some problem, and a FidoNet message can't be sent for some reason. For Fidos that want to run with an unlisted phone number, a few other things are needed: 8. A public FidoNet to act as mail host 9. The systems actual phone number A host is required for an unlisted number, so that you can receive mail. (If you don't want to receive mail, then there is no reason for you to be part of FidoNet!) The host system will have to have the unlisted phone number, of course. Fido 51 needs to have the phone number also, but it will be kept secret. This is so that they can contact you directly if there is any problem, such as a known bug or a question, or if your host drops out of the network, so there is some way to contact the local nodes. GETTING A NODE NUMBER This is the part that seems so arbitrary if you aren't aware of what's happening. What happens is: you send Fido 51 the message described above. When they receive it, they put the stuff into the node list and fido list, pick you a node number, and mail a copy of it to you the next weekend. This tests your system at the same time; you have to be able to sucessfully send and receive mail in order to get the node number. Out of it, you get a copy of the latest lists. NOTE: Fido 51 does not mail out copies of the lists to everyone on a regular basis; it would mean too many phone calls ($$$ ...). You can get the new node list Friday evening at Fidos 10 and 51, or Fidos 1 and 2 later that weekend or early the next week, and usually most any other busy Fido. If it all works, then 1) you know your system is working 2) Fido 51, the node list keepers, knows it's working 3) the other 160 or so Fido sysops know that your system was working at least as recently as the last node list. Print out the last few weeks nodelists; compare all the changes, not just the additions. This is why node numbers aren't given out "word of mouth", or at other sysops request. It has to be done directly, as a test. WHAT FIDO 51 REALLY DOES FidoNews 6-25 Page 37 19 Jun 1989 Making the node list is more than just typing in the information; they make sure that the information in the list is accurate as possible. This frequently means voice phone calls to double check, or calls to the new system to see what the problem is; sometimes it is as simple as the wrong baud rate, the time wrong on the new system, so that it is not running FidoNet at the right time. Ken Kaplan and Ben Baker do the node list work when they have "spare time"; please be patient! As the number of new nodes increases every week, response time goes up. Currently, the node list is done once a week; new node requests must be received in Wednesday nights mail (by Thursday morning) so that they can work on it Thursday night, and send it out on Friday night, so that you will have it over the weekend. The volume of mail is such that it may take a few days to get out. (Please note that Fido 51 is an unattended node; there is no one there to answer Y)ells unless someone happens to walk by. The machine is located at Data Research Associates, who kindly donated the phone line, and runs on a DEC Rainbow 100+, donated by Digital Equipment Corp.) Fido 51 is an extremely busy system; they receive 125 messages a week through FidoNet alone, so please be patient. CHANGES, MISTAKES AND UPDATES If you ever find wrong information in the node list, please send the information to Fido 51; they will include it in the next list. If you become part of a local net, ie. you have an incoming host, notify them, and it will be included in the node list also. Other changes might be baud rate (got a new modem!) hours of operation, board name or sysop, etc. SOME OTHER THINGS ... If you have questions or problems with any part of Fido or FidoNet, please ask. Here's where to go for problems: HARDWARE, SOFTWARE, PERFORMANCE OR INSTALLATION TROUBLES Call or FidoNet to Fido #1, me, Tom Jennings. FidoNet is best, if possible; that way, I have your "address and phone" handy. If not, then call Fido #1 and leave a message. If you leave it at G)oodbye, when you call back looking for a reply, remember to check in the ANSWERS area; Fido will NOT tell you if there is mail for you, you have to search for it. Fido #1 always has the latest versions of Fido for all hardware supported, available for download. Fido #1 ALWAYS runs one revision later than the released version; it is used to test new features or bug fixes, so that when released they will be FidoNews 6-25 Page 38 19 Jun 1989 working. Check the FIDO download area for the current Fido version. I have nothing to do anymore with maintaining the node list, nor do I hand out node numbers. ROUTING, NODE LIST, LOCAL NET QUESTIONS AND PROBLEMS Fido 51. Since they keep the list, they're the ones to contact for node list problems. If you want advice on how to set up a local net in your area, they can offer help and advice. SPECIALIZED SYSTEMS If you are setting up a private network, and it is to be truly private, what you do with it is your own business. If, however, there is any possiblility that members of your private network may wish to communicate with any members of the public network, you should contact Fido 51 for the allocation of a block of node numbers to be assigned by you to the nodes in your network. This is to avoid node number conflicts upon receipt of FidoNet mail in the public network. LOCAL NETS Neither I nor Ken Kaplan nor Ben Baker "run" FidoNet; local networks such as the one in Southern California and Massachusetts are entirely the responsibility of the sysops in the area; the only thing we ask is that the designated "incoming host" for that area be somewhat reliable, for the obvious reason that it will be receiving lots of phone calls from across the country. As a matter of fact, you are encouraged to form local networks, or join one that exists locally. IT makes it cheaper for other systems to send you mail, and generally streamlines FidoNet operation. Other than that, local nets are totally standalone; that is what they are for! For instance, SoCal can run their net anyway they please; it is their hardware, their phone lines, and their phone bills. It is their investment in work, and they should reap the benefits. If there is a "FidoNet policy", this is it. AND SO ON ... I hope FidoNet is a bit clearer now; if you have any suggestions, or want to volunteer to help, please let us know. Our only interest is in keeping the node list correct and up to date; this simple list is what ties the entire net together. Ken Kaplan Fido #100/51 314/567-4067 Tom Jennings Fido #125/1 415/864-1418 FidoNews 6-25 Page 39 19 Jun 1989 Ben Baker Fido #100/10 314/234-1462 ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 6-25 Page 40 19 Jun 1989 ================================================================= LATEST VERSIONS ================================================================= Latest Software Versions Bulletin Board Software Name Version Name Version Name Version Fido 12m+* Phoenix 1.3 TBBS 2.1 Lynx 1.30 QuickBBS 2.03 TComm/TCommNet 3.4 Opus 1.03b+ RBBS 17.2A* TPBoard 5.2* + Netmail capable (does not require additional mailer software) Network Node List Other Mailers Version Utilities Version Utilities Version BinkleyTerm 2.20 EditNL 4.00 ARC 6.02* D'Bridge 1.18 MakeNL 2.12 ARCmail 2.0 Dutchie 2.90C ParseList 1.30 ConfMail 4.00 FrontDoor 2.0 Prune 1.40 EMM 2.02* PRENM 1.47* XlatList 2.90 GROUP 2.10* SEAdog 4.51* XlaxDiff 2.32 MSG 3.3* XlaxNode 2.32 MSGED 1.99 TCOMMail 2.2* TMail 1.11* TPBNetEd 3.2* UFGATE 1.03 XRS 2.2 * Recently changed Utility authors: Please help keep this list up to date by reporting new versions to 1:1/1. It is not our intent to list all utilities here, only those which verge on necessity. ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 6-25 Page 41 19 Jun 1989 ================================================================= NOTICES ================================================================= The Interrupt Stack 9 Jul 1989 FidoNet's Zone 4 (Latin America) adopts 0800 GMT as new Zone Mail Hour, replacing the North American 0900 GMT schedule. 15 Jul 1989 Start of the SAPMFC&LP (Second Annual Poor Man's FidoCon and Lake Party) to be held at Silver Lake Park on Grapevine Lake in Arlington, Texas. This started as an R19-only thing last year, but we had so much fun, we decided to invite everybody! We'll have beer, food, beer, waterskiing, beer, horseshoes, beer, volleyball, and of course beer. It's an overnighter, so bring your sleeping bag and plan to camp out. Contact one of the Furriers (Ron Bemis at 1:124/1113 or Dewey Thiessen at 1:130/24) for details and a fantastic ASCII map. 2 Aug 1989 Start of Galactic Hacker Party in Amsterdam, Holland. Contact Rop Gonggrijp at 2:280/1 for details. 24 Aug 1989 Voyager 2 passes Neptune. 24 Aug 1989 FidoCon '89 starts at the Holiday Inn in San Jose, California. Trade show, seminars, etc. Contact 1:1/89 for info. 5 Oct 1989 20th Anniversary of "Monty Python's Flying Circus" 11 Oct 1989 First International Modula-2 Conference at Bled, Yugoslavia hosting Niklaus Wirth and the British Standards Institution. Contact 1:106/8422 for more information. 11 Nov 1989 A new area code forms in northern Illinois at 12:01 am. Chicago proper will remain area code 312; suburban areas formerly served with that code will become area code 708. ----------------------------------------------------------------- POLICY4 Vote Results David Dodell, 1:1/0 (aka 1:114/15) FidoNet International Coordinator FidoNews 6-25 Page 42 19 Jun 1989 I am pleased to announce the passing of POLICY4.06 as the new governing policy document for FidoNet. This document will be known as POLICY4 and has been placed into effect on June 9, 1989. The vote breakdown for all FidoNet Zones was: Yes -> 152 No -> 75 ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 6-25 Page 43 19 Jun 1989 ================================================================= REPORTS ================================================================= Nominations and Elections Committee 1:107/233 Report from Nominations and Elections Committee Well, to say the least, there have been a few problems with the Nominations process. The biggest is that in the rules for this year posted in FidoNews, there was a statement that Nominees did not have to be IFNA members. The problem is, that that is the way things were last year. You see, it was the intention of the drafters of the Bylaws that a Director not have to be a member, and therefore nothing was put into the original Bylaws to this effect. However, the lack of a definitive statement led to considerable controversy in regard to interpretations of the Bylaws on this matter, with some people making the point that the Bylaws indicated that only Regular Members had the right to vote and that requirement was extended to include the voting of a Director. In any event, in order to clear up this point there was a statement voted into the Bylaws in the last election to the effect that a Director must be a "member in good-standing." Unfortunately, this slipped past the committee and they left in last year's interpretation. This has presented a problem in a specific instance where one individual did receive sufficient nominations but, when the Committee checked memberships, found that the individual had proceeded under the published instructions. Due to this fact, the fact that the membership application from the individual is presently received and in processing, and that it appears that no one's interests would be served by ruling to the contrary, the committee has decided to validate the nomination. Accordingly, Kathi Crockett is hereby announced as being elected to the position of Director of Division 17, there being no one else who officially garnered a sufficient number of endorsements. This last point presents another problem. The Committee, as part of its charge to see to the nominations of qualified candidates, had indicated in a couple cases that it would assist others in finding additional supporters, in those areas where there were not enough IFNA members. However, despite attempts by the committee to get in both netmail and voice contact with the IFNA Secretary, no direct word was received by the Committee and indirect word did not arrive until well after the official cut-off date. The Committee is naturally upset about this situation and wishes to apologize to anyone who feels that they were affected. We expect to make amends by assisting such individuals, as may be legally possible, during the remainder of the election process. In addition, the Committee is recommending that the Bylaws be changed to not divide the responsibilities of the nomination FidoNews 6-25 Page 44 19 Jun 1989 process across separate offices to prevent such reoccurrences in the future. As to the rest of the election, the Nominations and Election Committee, in order to provide access to as many individuals as possible, intends to provide notice of any candidate who may be interested in a Directorial position and applies to be a write-in candidate. Eleven more positions are available, so if you are willing to join forces to work for the furtherance of the FidoNet technology, please express your interest by contacting the Committee via 1:107/233 or 1:107/210 prior to July 1. ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 6-25 Page 45 19 Jun 1989 OFFICERS OF THE INTERNATIONAL FIDONET ASSOCIATION Mort Sternheim 1:321/109 Chairman of the Board Bob Rudolph 1:261/628 President Matt Whelan 3:3/1 Vice President Bill Bolton 3:711/403 Vice President-Technical Coordinator Linda Grennan 1:147/1 Secretary Kris Veitch 1:147/30 Treasurer IFNA COMMITTEE AND BOARD CHAIRS Administration and Finance Mark Grennan 1:147/1 Board of Directors Mort Sternheim 1:321/109 Bylaws Don Daniels 1:107/210 Ethics Vic Hill 1:147/4 Executive Committee Bob Rudolph 1:261/628 International Affairs Rob Gonsalves 2:500/1 Membership Services David Drexler 1:147/47 Nominations & Elections David Melnick 1:107/233 Public Affairs David Drexler 1:147/47 Publications Rick Siegel 1:107/27 Security & Individual Rights Jim Cannell 1:143/21 Technical Standards Rick Moore 1:115/333 IFNA BOARD OF DIRECTORS DIVISION AT-LARGE 10 Courtney Harris 1:102/732 Don Daniels 1:107/210 11 Bill Allbritten 1:11/301 Mort Sternheim 1:321/109 12 Bill Bolton 3:711/403 Mark Grennan 1:147/1 13 Irene Henderson 1:107/9 (vacant) 14 Ken Kaplan 1:100/22 Ted Polczyinski 1:154/5 15 Scott Miller 1:128/12 Matt Whelan 3:3/1 16 Ivan Schaffel 1:141/390 Robert Rudolph 1:261/628 17 Neal Curtin 1:343/1 Steve Jordan 1:206/2871 18 Andrew Adler 1:135/47 Kris Veitch 1:147/30 19 David Drexler 1:147/47 (vacant) 2 Henk Wevers 2:500/1 David Melnik 1:107/233 ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 6-25 Page 46 19 Jun 1989 __ The World's First / \ BBS Network /|oo \ * FidoNet * (_| /_) FidoCon '89 in San Jose, California _`@/_ \ _ at The Holiday Inn Park Plaza | | \ \\ August 24-27, 1989 | (*) | \ )) ______ |__U__| / \// / Fido \ _//|| _\ / (________) (_/(_|(____/ (tm) R E G I S T R A T I O N F O R M Name: _______________________________________________________ Address: ____________________________________________________ City: _______________________ State: ____ Zip: ______________ Country: ____________________________________________________ Phone Numbers: Day: ________________________________________________________ Evening: ____________________________________________________ Data: _______________________________________________________ Zone:Net/ Node.Point: ___________________________________________________ Your BBS Name: ________________________________________________ BBS Software: _____________________ Mailer: ___________________ Modem Brand: _____________________ Speed: ____________________ At what hotel will you be staying: ____________________________ Do you want an in room point? (Holiday Inn only) ______________ Are you a Sysop? _____________ Are you an IFNA Member? ______ Additional Guests: __________ (not attending conferences) Do you have any special requirements? (Sign Language translation, handicapped, etc.) FidoNews 6-25 Page 47 19 Jun 1989 ______________________________________________________ Comments: ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ Costs How Many? Cost --------------------------- -------- ------- Conference fee $60 .................... ________ _______ ($75.00 after July 15) Friday Banquet $30.00 ................ ________ _______ ======== ======= Totals ................................ ________ _______ You may pay by Check, Money Order, or Credit Card. Please send no cash. All monies must be in U.S. Funds. Checks should be made out to: "FidoCon '89" This form should be completed and mailed to: Silicon Valley FidoCon '89 PO Box 390770 Mountain View, CA 94039 You may register by Netmailing this completed form to 1:1/89 for processing. Rename it to ZNNNXXXX.REG where Z is your Zone number, N is your Net number, and X is your Node number. US Mail confirmation is required within 72 hours to confirm your registration. If you are paying by credit card, please include the following information. For your own security, do not route any message with your credit card number on it. Crash it directly to 1:1/89. Master Card _______ Visa ________ Credit Card Number _____________________________________________ Expiration Date ________________________________________________ Signature ______________________________________________________ No credit card registrations will be accepted without a valid FidoNews 6-25 Page 48 19 Jun 1989 signature. Rooms at the Holiday Inn may be reserved by calling the Hotel at 408-998-0400, and mentioning that you are with FidoCon. Rooms are $60.00 per night double occupancy. Additional rollaways are available for $10.00 per night. To obtain these rates you must register before July 15. The official FidoCon '89 airline is American Airlines. You can receive either a 5% reduction in supersaver fares or a 40% reduction in the regular day coach fare. San Jose is an American Airlines hub with direct flights to most major cities. When making reservations, you must call American's reservation number, 800-433-1790, and reference Star number S0289VM. The official FidoCon '89 automobile rental agency is Alamo Rent a Car. Rates are as described below. All rates include automatic transmission, air conditioning, radio, and unlimited mileage. Economy car (example: Geo Metro) $32 day/$109 week. Compact car (example: Chevy Cavalier) $34 day/$120 week. Midsize car (example: Pontiac Grand Am) $36 day/$135 week. Standard car (example: Buick Regal) $38 day/$165 week. Luxury car (example: Buick LeSabre) $40 day/$239 week. To take advantage of this rate, call Alamo at 1-800-327-9633 and request the convention rate. Mention FidoCon '89, the location and dates. ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 6-25 Page 49 19 Jun 1989 __ The World's First / \ BBS Network /|oo \ * FidoNet * (_| /_) _`@/_ \ _ | | \ \\ | (*) | \ )) ______ |__U__| / \// / Fido \ _//|| _\ / (________) (_/(_|(____/ (tm) Membership for the International FidoNet Association Membership in IFNA is open to any individual or organization that pays a specified annual membership fee. IFNA serves the international FidoNet-compatible electronic mail community to increase worldwide communications. Member Name _______________________________ Date _______________ Address _________________________________________________________ City ____________________________________________________________ State ________________________________ Zip _____________________ Country _________________________________________________________ Home Phone (Voice) ______________________________________________ Work Phone (Voice) ______________________________________________ Zone:Net/Node Number ____________________________________________ BBS Name ________________________________________________________ BBS Phone Number ________________________________________________ Baud Rates Supported ____________________________________________ Board Restrictions ______________________________________________ Your Special Interests __________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ In what areas would you be willing to help in FidoNet? __________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ Send this membership form and a check or money order for $25 in US Funds to: International FidoNet Association PO Box 41143 St Louis, Missouri 63141 USA Thank you for your membership! Your participation will help to insure the future of FidoNet. Please NOTE that IFNA is a general not-for-profit organization and Articles of Association and By-Laws were adopted by the membership in January 1987. The second elected Board of Directors was filled in August 1988. The IFNA Echomail Conference has been established on FidoNet to assist the Board. We welcome your input to this Conference. -----------------------------------------------------------------