Volume 7, Number 3 15 January 1990 +---------------------------------------------------------------+ | _ | | / \ | | /|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 submitted by a FidoNet SysOp will be rejected if it is properly attributed and legally acceptable. We will publish every responsible submission received. Table of Contents 1. ARTICLES ................................................. 1 PARALEGAL Echo ........................................... 1 The IGP, or Let's Destroy Othernets ...................... 2 Quo Vadis, FidoNet? ...................................... 12 2. LATEST VERSIONS .......................................... 19 Latest Software Versions ................................. 19 3. NOTICES .................................................. 22 The Interrupt Stack ...................................... 22 FidoNews 7-03 Page 1 15 Jan 1990 ================================================================= ARTICLES ================================================================= Loel Larzelere 1:226/70.1 The PARALEGAL Echo Some of you who have checked the echos that are available on the backbone since the first of the year may have noticed the new PARALEGAL echo. This echo is (primarily) for legal assistants, paralegals and others who work as support staff for attorneys. I've felt that it is important for paralegals to have a place to meet and share ideas. Our concerns are sometimes very much different than those of the attorney's we might work for. This may be surprizing, since a paralegal today will do almost everything that an attorney does except to represent a client in court. In fact, in a largely "paperwork practice" such as wills and estates, an attorney will likely sign on as representation, and then turn the whole estate over to the paralegal to administer. In many areas a paralegal has more experience than an attorney. This works out best for everyone as it allows the attorney to do what s/he does best, while the paralegal does what s/he does best. The PARALEGAL echo hopes to bring together those who work in the profession to share our problems and experiences. The echo originates from 1:226/180 and is on the backbone. NetMail to either 1:226/70 or 1:226/180 will get to me should you have any questions. I am happy to be the moderator of this echo, and hope that all participants will have an enjoyable time. ~~\ Loel /~~ ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 7-03 Page 2 15 Jan 1990 Joe Lindstrom Fidonet 1:134/55 Network 8:7500/55, 8:7500/9600, 8:75/0 Why Does FidoNet Dislike Othernets? =================================== Perhaps FidoNet doesn't have a problem with Othernets. Perhaps certain MEMBERS of FidoNet have problems with Othernets. Although I cannot for the life of me think why. My name is Joe Lindstrom. I run "Farpoint Station VHST" BBS here in Calgary Alberta Canada. My node numbers are shown above, the last two are administrative numbers denoting my responsibilities as Net Echo Coordinator for Net 7500 and as Regional Coordinator for Region 75 (Canada + Alaska). In FidoNews Issue 651, an article by Tim Pearson of node 1:286/703 appeared. It focused on a new document called the InterNetwork Gateway Policy. His article and the Policy itself are SEVERELY flawed, and operate on the basis that FidoNet is the ONLY TRUE NETWORK and that all others are merely sham, fly-by-night operations. The following appeared near the bottom of page 6: "The problem is compounded when more than one other network attempts to use the same illicit zone number." Why is a zone number not used by FidoNet deemed "illicit"? Are we members of othernets criminals of some variety? And if so, what is our crime? Refusal to think of FidoNet as "the only way to fly"? This policy attempts to "smoke one past us" (sorry, I rented "Weekend At Bernie's" last night). On the surface, it appears to openly embrace othernets, and seems to want to implement a policy that will further the goal of more open communications between FidoNet and othernets. As anyone here in Calgary can tell you, this has been MY fervent goal for quite some time. As an example, I can point to a few "shared" echo conferences between FidoNet Net 134 and The Network Net 7500. We will, hopefully, reach an agreement whereby we'll be allowing existing echoes to be distributed by the opposite Net. Obviously, policies regarding echo content and particularly a dispute mechanism must be in place before we can take that step, but we are working on it. Unfortunately, the Internetwork Gateway Policy threatens to throw a monkey wrench into the whole deal. In the paragraph "Administrative Objectives", Tim's article laments the lack of accountability. If a user in The Network behaves unruly in a FidoNet echo, how does FidoNet correct the problem? The policy's solution is to appoint one person to serve as the "official network gateway", to be fully responsible for the actions of the members of his network. Period. The othernet is relegated to the role of glorified POINTNET. And THAT is why we gotta talk about it (to quote Kevin Pollak). FidoNews 7-03 Page 3 15 Jan 1990 First off, the policy states that "FidoNet reserves the right to reject any Other Network Gateway application for any reason." This can, and probably will, be applied to networks that are in some way "undesirable" to the Internetwork Coordinator. FidoNet and Alternet have been at odds many times, is Alternet to be disqualified because of this? "FOR ANY REASON", it says. It gets better. "Henceforth, FidoNet will not permit non-FidoNet addresses to appear in any addressing or routing control fields (some current examples include: the 'From' or 'To' address fields, the '* Origin' lines, the 'seen-by' fields, and the '^APath' fields.) of any netmail or echomail messages traveling on any portion of FidoNet's wide area network. Excuse me for asking... but who the hell CARES what node number is on the PATH line!? As I recall, the PATH lines show the actual path taken by this message, and that REMOVING nodes from that path was against echo policy. How exactly is anyone being hurt by this, or by an othernet address appearing anywhere else in a message? If an othernet address appears, it's probably because the node does not have a FidoNet address. He ain't in your nodelist. So you probably ain't gonna get a reply sent to him directly, no matter what scheme these Internetwork Policy makers come up with, short of a radical new method of moving the mail. The policy, therefore, outlaws such node numbers, effectively removing such nodes from FidoNet echo conferences. Hey, if they want FidoNet echo conferences they should join FidoNet, right? After taking great pains to convince us that FidoNet wants to impose no policies on members of othernets, it proceeds to do just that. What's the scoop here? And here I was, naively believing that this Policy wanted to SMOOTH the path of mail between two networks. Instead, all I see are obstacles. Need I point out that some folks are unable or unwilling to join FidoNet? For example, I'm the NEC for Net 7500 in The Network (incidentally, for the record, we're Zone 8, and have been for a longer period of time than RBBS-NET has). I feed about 25 or so nodes here their mail, owing to the fact that I have an HST modem and that I was one of the founding members of this network and kinda inherited the job. Of these, 6 or 7 are "private" nodes. That is, they are listed in the nodelist but do not have a dial-in telephone number. They do not observe the ZMH, but rather poll me regularly for my mail. Essentially, a glorified point. Now, under this plan, these people will have to find a willing bossnode in Net 134 if they wish to continue getting FidoNet echo conferences. Why? Because I have a FidoNet node number. I'm their feed. I'm soon going to be ineligle to feed them because, as a member of both networks, I will not be allowed to get FidoNet echomail from my Network feed. I will be expected - nay, required - to get my Fidonet echomail from a FidoNet source. So they'll have to find another feed, and the only other HST's in Net 7500 also have dual identities, so this alternate feed will have to be a 2400 baud one, thereby FidoNews 7-03 Page 4 15 Jan 1990 multiplying their costs by a factor of six. They cannot join FidoNet themselves because they can't observe ZMH. In other words, they're screwed. FidoNet is slipping them the cold steel. Here's an interesting paragraph, bottom of page 16: "Given the above advantages (of joining BOTH networks), the FTN Other Network must provide evidence of overriding technical or social considerations, must show cause why these considerations justify the establishment of a Gateway instead of merely allowing its individual nodes to use the 'dual identity' approach, and must satisfy FidoNet that such an arrangement will be mutually beneficial." Again, we're faced with "join FidoNet, or provide a damned good explanation of why we should allow you to participate in our echoes via a different source". Let me explain something. Right now, The Network gets a GREAT deal of FidoNet echomail. Messages coming in from FidoNet are modified slightly, as are messages going out. On an outbound message, my origin line looks something like this: --- ZmailQ V1.10 @8:7500/55.0 * Origin: Farpoint Station VHST (8:7500/55.0) Once it hits our gateway, presently Bob Hoffman at 1:129/34 aka 8:70/0, it gets changed as follows: --- ZmailQ V1.10 @8:7500/55.0 & No-Origin v3.6f # Origin: Farpoint Station VHST (8:7500/55.0) * Origin: The Network - G Rated Family Oriented (1:129/34.0) No fuss, no muss, it works and works well. If you gotta send me a reply, then do so and route it to 129/34. The fact that I COULD get the same echomail from a FidoNet source IS IRRELEVANT. Even now, without this new policy, we've been operating under the assumption that Bob is responsible for messages generating in The Network, and has on occasion had to remove users from FidoNet conferences. I myself have removed users from conferences on two occasions, after being asked to do so by the conference moderators. No problem, I understood THAT going in. So along comes this new policy which, logically, asks for all these things, yet at the same time actively encourages that FTN Othernets join FidoNet as an "aka"? Failure to do so means you can't get your FidoNet echomail from your Zone Coordinator (Bob Hoffman), so I will soon be left with the choice of either resigning my position as NEC of Net 7500 (thereby screwing a lot of local nodes) or resigning my FidoNet node number (thereby screwing MYSELF and a lot of local nodes). FidoNews 7-03 Page 5 15 Jan 1990 There was nothing WRONG with the existing setup. But along comes FidoNet, who, like engineers, like to change things. Whether they need changing or not. The result of this Policy is that The Network is teetering on the brink of utter collapse. Bob Hoffman has issued a letter to all nodes stating that by January 15th 1990, all Network nodes must either drop their FidoNet aka's or be disconnected from FidoNet mail feeds. He didn't want to make this choice, and in fact has always tried to keep his nose OUT of our business. Network nodes are cutting their Network ties and going FidoNet-only. FidoNet nodes are cutting their FidoNet ties and going Network-only. This whole thing is POLARIZING us, not bringing us together!! So as a member of The Network and as a member of FidoNet, I state that the Internetwork Gateway Policy, in its present form, does far more damage to me and you than any previous FidoNet policy to date. It is draconian, restrictive, and shows a desire on the part of FidoNet to control all network activities, be they FidoNet or Othernet. All is not, however, lost. With a bit of work, and a heap of respect for othernets, this policy COULD be reworked into something we can live with. I'm already living with something SIMILAR to it. I would suggest that the authors of this policy consult with Bob Hoffman and find out exactly what it is we're doing here that works so well, and USE IT. Don't fix what ain't broke. Failing that, I strongly urge that the issue be put to a vote of all nodes. A failure to win a clear majority consensus would indicate a preference for the status quo. Do you really believe FidoNet will go for that, especially with the "no vote means vote no" policy used in the IFNA vote? I don't, but maybe they'll surprise me. I have been working very hard to tear a few holes in the Berlin Wall that seperates us. Here in Calgary, the issue was compounded by the fact that when Net 7500 was formed, it was comprised of many "undesirable" nodes (that Net 134 wanted nothing to do with). It is a credit to BOTH Nets that we've managed to get a bit of cooperation, and an upcoming vote in Net 134 will determine how far that cooperation is extended. I'm confident that they will wish to continue with the echo sharing we're doing here. The feeling here is that there are good people in both nets, and that your preference of network should be viewed the same as your preference for BBS software, mailer, etc., that being one of personal preference only. We should not discourage communications just because we happen to use different zone numbers. I sincerely hope that this feeling is prevalent throughout FidoNet, because I don't want to leave it. But if leave it I must, then leave it I shall. It's your choice. FidoNews 7-03 Page 6 15 Jan 1990 If you feel as I do, contact your *EC and MAKE YOUR FEELINGS KNOWN! Tell him or her that you feel the Internetwork Gateway Policy is restrictive and destructive, and should not be adopted in its current form. It will prevent you from talking to many people in othernets, who will simply not stand for this garbage and will stop participating in your favorite echo conferences. This hurts us ALL, each and every one of us. Sincerely, [~] Joey Philip Lindstrom, Sysop 1:134/55 & 8:7500/55 [~] ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 7-03 Page 7 15 Jan 1990 Reply on the InterNetwork Policy Steven K. Shapiro LoneStar CBCS 1:382/35 7:49/382 8:7102/35 99:9100/35 In the 651 issue of FidoNews, Tim Pearson 1:286/703 presented an article regarding the adoption of an InterNetwork Policy. Since then I have read several messages about this proposed policy and have given consideration to it as well as some of its ramifications. In the 652 issue of FidoNews, Jack Decker 1:154/9 replied to specific points of the document as well as the intent of the FidoNet members who have proposed this policy. I have also read several messages in various echos which are discussing some of the ramifications of this proposed policy. Well now it's my turn. As you can see from my byline, I am a member of probably the 4 most commonly recognized FTNs. I joined these nets in an effort to be able to communicate more readily with as many SysOps as I could here in Austin. In Austin we have an organization named the Central Texas SysOps Association (CTSA). The CTSA is a rather lame organization whose sole purpose in life seems to be nothing more than to bring SysOps together once a month to meet, discuss BBS related topics, and go to the local IHOP (International House Of Pancakes) for a snack. Anyway, not all members of the CTSA are members of FidoNet, but they are members of OtherNets. So, to keep in touch via netmail and echomail with my fellow local SysOps, I joined all of the various nets here in Austin. So now I get 4 nodediff/nodelists every week (plus I add in an old RBBSNet nodelist just for completeness). When I last watched my Parselst batch program run, the statistics claimed just over 8,000 unique nodes. Hmmmm. Of that number about 6,000 were FidoNet. Simple statistics indicate that about %75 are FidoNet, and about %25 are OtherNets. In my book, %25 is non-trivial. Now, when I run the QSORT program, the statistics tell me that there are just somewhat over 4,000 unique SysOps in these nets. That seems to indicate that a good percentage of FidoNet SysOps desire membership in other networks in addition to FidoNet itself. Maybe their reasons are the same as mine, maybe they aren't. It doesn't matter what the reasons. It just matters that for some reason FidoNet SysOps want to belong to ADDITIONAL networks. FidoNews 7-03 Page 8 15 Jan 1990 One thing that I noticed in all this is that unless the actual zone was duplicated, there was no duplication of net/node numbers. (RBBSNet and Network share zone 8, so 8:1/0 was a duplicate last I checked). Anway, the point I am trying to make here is that there is a very valid argument to combine every node number from every net into a single nodelist. The list could be broken into blocks, or domains (as some people have started calling them). The most recent attempt at this was the OPCN. I viewed the OPCN as basically a phone book of nodes. One of the arguments for the need to implement the InterNet gates is that people want to be able to send netmail in response to echomail. Also that echo moderators want to be able to have control and have accountability on the part of all participants. IE: if a message is entered by a node which has a node number unknown to a reader, then the node which originated the message is not accountable and should be. I felt that the OPCN list would satisfy this concern. IE: if all nodes in all nets were included in this list, then everyone would be able to communicate with everyone else. Alas the OPCN was met with tremendous opposition. So it is pretty much evident that even though we have the ability to support this method of addressing the situation with a single nodelist solution, too many people are opposed to it. In my mind it was more a political issue rather than a technical (or technological) issue. So now we are left with having to figure out a way to allow each network to maintain it's autonomy. Rather than a single nodelist, we have (had) to find a way to get all of the individual nets to communicate in a method which was consistent, effective and technologically possible, ie: which could be done with current software rather than having to develop an entirely new generation of software. So here comes the the InterNetwork Gateway Policy Committee. I truly believe that this committee has the best interests of all networks at heart and was endeavoring to develop a method whereby all of the nets could communicate in a coherent and consistent manner. Now, the FidoNews article itself was about 42k characters in length. A little utility I have analysed this article and the proposed policy and my little utility claims that there are 5092 words, in 205 sentences, with an average of 24.8 words per sentence with an average of 5.3 characters per word yielding a document which requires a reader to have an 18th grade education to understand properly. Whew! FidoNews 7-03 Page 9 15 Jan 1990 Now in all that, I found just 3 sections which I oppose, request clarification to, or request modication of. For brevity I am just excerpting the pertinent fragments from each article. Here we go: 3.2 - Connectivity Only Through Mutually Recognized Gateways ------------------------------------------------------------ Henceforth, FidoNet will not permit non-FidoNet addresses to appear in any addressing or routing control fields (Some current examples include: the "From" or "To" address fields, the "* Origin" lines, the "seen-by" fields, and the "^APath" fields.) of any netmail or echomail messages traveling on any portion of FidoNet's wide area network. ------------------------------------------------------------ Since SeenBys are non-'active' information as far as the actual delivery of the mail is concerned, I feel that including your AKA in a SeenBy is acceptible. ie: Suppose you enter an echo mail message in a multinet echo such as SYSOP. Suppose a person wants to netmail you a reply, but your primary node number is in EggNet while his is in Network. Now suppose both of you are also members of FidoNet, but it is not your primary network. If the AKA's were in the SeenBys, then it would be possible for the person who wants to netmail you a reply to do so directly via the net common to both of you, FidoNet in this case. Also, as moderator of the Telix echo, sometimes I wish to do a topography analysis. I have a utility which will read the Origin and SeenBy lines of echomail and produce a sorted listing of the nodes which the echo traverses. If the node numbers subordinate to the internet gate are stripped, then I cannot get an accurate topography of the echo. 3.7 - Other Criteria (FTN Other Networks) ----------------------------------------- Given the above advantages, the FTN Other Network must provide evidence of overriding technical or social considerations, must show cause why these considerations justify the establishment of a Gateway instead of merely allowing its individual nodes to use the "dual identity" approach, and must satisfy FidoNet that such an arrangement will be mutually beneficial. ----------------------------------------- Now just what the heck is this supposed to mean anyway? 'Overriding technical or social considerations'?? What kind of doublespeak is this? I think that this needs to be eliminated or reworded in such a way as to eliminate the complete ambiguity of the statement. FidoNews 7-03 Page 10 15 Jan 1990 4.4 - FidoNet to Other Network Addressing (Netmail) --------------------------------------------------- FidoNet netmail arriving at a Gateway with improper Other Network addressing information must either be corrected and forwarded to the proper Other Network address or returned to the FidoNet sender with text inserted notifying the sender that the message was undeliverable. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Hmmm. This is interesting. Does FidoNet agree to reciprocate in kind? IE: if I send a netmail message to the Zone 3 Zonegate and it is of an improper format, will the zonegate notify me? Using a US Mail example: If I send a letter to someone, but I address it incorrectly, the post office will either forward it if possible ie: in the case of them having a forwarding order on file, or they will return it to me. Depending on the class of mail, sometimes the post office will bill be for returning the undeliverable letter back to me. The difference between Netmail and US Mail is that when I place a stamp on the envelope, I have purchased services from the US Postal service. When I make a phone call to a Gateway, I have not paid the Gateway for anything. If I make a mistake, it is my responsibility. I feel it is unreasonable to require a member of an amateur net to incur additional expenses for the mistake of another individual. I would like to see this section modified in such a way that if a Gateway determines a netmail message to be unforwardable, that it create a HOLD message for the node which sent the erroneous message. If the sending node does not receive a reply in a reasonable amount of time, it would be his responsibility to contact the Gateway and obtain any HOLD messages. This puts the burden on the node which sends the undeliverable message. I also feel that it is not the responsibility of the Gateway to actually deliver the netmail message. All networks have a SysOp echo which all members of the network can/should subscribe to. I think that the Gateway should merely post a message in this echo stating that mail has arrived for node XXX. Thank you for your attention and consideration to this matter. Regards, Steve. FidoNews 7-03 Page 11 15 Jan 1990 ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 7-03 Page 12 15 Jan 1990 Mike Riddle 1:285/666.6 FidoNet 1:30102/6 FidoNet assigned Private Net Number, (Dare I Say It?) OPCN Listed Quo Vadis, FidoNet? ------------------- The recent article by Tim Pearson and accompanying draft Inter- network Gateway Policy Document, Fido News 6:51 at 6, prompted me to release what is perhaps a diatribe in our local community open echo conference. At the request of some local sysops, I rein- serted, my thoughts in the Net 285 sysops conference, and the NC 285 asked that I prepare this article for Fido News. The NC indicated that he did not agree with all, or even most, of what I had said, but that criticism of any sort was preferable to blindly jumping over a cliff (well, he didn't put it /quite/ that way, I guess). This article will explain what my concerns are and then include a slightly edited text of the debate in our local echo. I speak as one involved in telecommunications, as an operator, maintainer, and manager, for some twenty-plus years. The last seven of them have been in, among other areas, personal computer communications (BBSes). I apologize in advance for the length of the following, but after reviewing it I feel it sums up the debate, in the words of some of the participants, much better than I could. Please note that the concerns are NOT about the technical issues, such as duplicates in echomail, or smooth interoperability with other networks. The real issues are how the current coordinators acceded to their positions, how they remain there, the management and personal attitudes they represent within and without FidoNet, and how subordinate sysops can, or cannot, replace a coordinator who has not violated policy, but in whom they no longer have confidence. Let me say at the outset that I consider the major issue facing Fido Net to be one of direction, both in the sense of where the network is headed and in the sense of who is heading the network. The recent turmoil over POLICY4, followed by the IFNA plebiscite, and now by the draft Gateway document, lead me to wonder if very many of the operators in FidoNet have given much thought lately to the nature and purpose of the network they belong to. I have also wondered if the *C structure has done the same. (The *C structure is a convenient shorthand for coordinators at all levels. It is not pejorative in nature.) POLICY 4, in my own mind, started the current difficulties. Whether or not it represents sound policy, the *C structure adopted it outside of the recognized means. The IFNA BOD didn't adopt it, nor did the network under the established process for amendment contained in POLICY 3. From where I sat (assistant sysop and long- time user), the two most controversial changes were mandatory FidoNews 7-03 Page 13 15 Jan 1990 membership in the local net (instead of being an independent node) and the selection of coordinators. In some cases, the exact number is unknown, most sysops in a network were forced into the network under POLICY 4. As a result, they never had any meaningful input in the selection of the NC. (I know this may start a rehash of the top-down v. bottom-up debate, but it's a real and valid concern.) To repeat what I said at the start of the last paragraph, the complaint has absolutely nothing to do with the wisdom of the policy changes. The complaint is about the process of change and what it said to many of us about the nature of the *C structure. This arguably autocratic bureaucracy now apparently intends to force itself onto other networks, both "Fido Technology Networks" and others, even as the only legal structure for Fido Net is winding up operations. This begs the question, what happens next? Does FidoNet, the network, continue as an unincorporated association, governed only by control of the nodelist? How, if at all, can sysops and users, the heart of Fido Net, have a voice in its management? Will the degeneration (and confusion) started by alternative networks, formed in response to perceived abuses by the *C structure, continue? As I say below, and as a fellow sysop says below, we need the *C structure. Someone has to insure that the system operates in a technically acceptable manner. Someone has to insure that addresses remain specific to the intended system. Those someones, however, have to be responsive, and the sysops and users they serve have to perceive them as responsive. The following discussion reflects some of the thoughts expressed recently in our local area. My Comments: FIDO702.NWS has an interesting non-cataloged article about the proposed Internet Gateway Policy which first appeared in FIDO651.NWS. I say non-cataloged, since the article is on page 4 but does not appear in the table of contents. While specifically addressed to the *C structure's proposed internet gateway policy document, the comments have broader applicability. The same narrow-minded and short-sighted, arguably ego-tripping, conduct that led to the proposed gateway document may have led to the demise of the International Fido Net Associate (IFNA). Those of you who follow the "politics" have noted the recent vote on the future of IFNA. The board of directors established that 50% of all listed nodes would have to vote "YES" to continue the organization. Not even 50% voted, so even though an overwhelming majority of those voting supported the reorganization and continuation of IFNA, the vote failed. FidoNews 7-03 Page 14 15 Jan 1990 The Chairman of the IFNA Board, as required by the resolution from the previous meeting and as mandated by the results of the vote, has called a special board meeting for later this month to WIND UP THE AFFAIRS OF THE ASSOCIATION. See the last page FIDO702.NWS, just following the "current systems" listing. Hey folks! It's only a hobby. Why and how did we get to this point? I hate to think of the potential for abuse in the future by the self-appointed and self-perpetuating "*C" structure if the board really goes through with this. Also, since IFNA owns the copyright and trademark to "FIDO," and we all use it by general permission and license from Tom Jennings, what happens legally, if not technically, in the future? I may just be a doom-sayer, but I see degeneration and anarchy if the *C's continue down their present path and no structured organization, such as IFNA, exists to stop them. It may be too late, but I encourage anyone who cares about the future of this HOBBY to contact a valid board member and suggest the vote was flawed, that the percentage of those voting should be sufficient to do it over in a manner that wasn't doomed to apathetic failure from the start. ***{flame off}*** To this a sysop replied: > The same narrow-minded and short-sighted, arguably ego- > tripping, conduct that led to the proposed gateway document > may have led to the demise of the International Fido Net > Associate (IFNA). > Hey folks! It's only a hobby. Why and how did we get to > this point.... It's unfortunate, but there are **STILL** quite a few out there who put their own personal needs and interests ahead of the collective needs of the network as a whole. That is the mentality that turned Fidonet into Fight-o-net and even though it's becoming unfashionable,it still persists. > It may be too late, but I encourage anyone who cares about > the future of this HOBBY to ... suggest the vote was flawed, Unfortunately, neither 'yes' nor 'no' held the majority. 'Don't give a damn' won handily. {following from Fidonews 701} FidoNews 7-03 Page 15 15 Jan 1990 > YES votes received: 1417 > NO votes received: 480 > Total eligible voters: 5010 Although there were some improprieties that I know of, I don't think there was any wide-scale rigging. Some that I have talked to are so p*ssed off at the whole scene that they refused to participate. Also,in years past, the IFNA BOD (a term we seldom hear anymore) gained the same reputation that the current *C's have. To some, anarchy was the lesser evil. A user commented: Will somebody tell me what the big deal is? When I started using these BBS'es, you people were doing all kinds of good things with your networking and your file transfer. Now all I hear is bickering and lawsuits and power-playing. If somebody wants to be an ass, just tell him to find somebody else's BBS to be an ass on. It's getting to be as bad as CB radio. When I call a new BBS I can tell in about 1 minute if it will be worth it. If the opening says "Welcome" and tells you about all the features, I'll stay and look around. If they start off with "Rules, NO this and NO that" then I figure the guy is on an ego-trip and just hang the heck up. I further commented: > ...all sorts of good things with your networking and file > transfers and stuff.... Charlie, the problem is that the structure ("topology" is the current buzzword) that makes/lets it happen efficiently is, arguably, now controlled by the ego-tripping folks we can't seem to work with. FidoNet is broken down into Zones (North America, Australia, Europe, etc.),Regions (Midwest, New England, whatever), Nets (Tri-City, here in Omaha)and finally Nodes (this BBS). There are also things called Points, which FIDO tolerates but doesn't really like, since they normally aren't publicly accessible BBSes. Current Policy is that the lowest form of life in FIDO is the Sysop and associated BBS. (Double entendre absolutely intentional.) Thus, I operate more or less at the tolerance of the system as: 1:285/666.6. | | | |- Point 6 (The Inns of Court) | | |---- Node 666 (DRBBS Technical BBS) | |-------- Net 285 (Tri-City: Omaha, CB + ?) | | (Regions are here, but they don't mean much | | in the traffic routing. Their main contri- | | bution is in the (mis)management of the net) |----------- Zone 1 (North America) FidoNews 7-03 Page 16 15 Jan 1990 Each level above Sysop, i.e., Net, Region, and Zone, have Coordinators.The "*C" structure, since they are referred to as ZC, RC, and NC. The *C structure controls the NODELIST, which is how they get their power. If you aren't in the NODELIST, other systems can't route to you and some systems won't accept incoming traffic from you. The current *C structure, in just enough places and at just enough levels, is extremely difficult for many (mere) sysops to work with.Imagine, to use your example, if EVERY BBS you called started the log-on screen with RULES, RULES, DEMANDS and RULES. You wouldn't have any place to call. If we are to continue to network, we have to comply with the demands of the *C structure or find a way around it. The battle has been for control of this structure, with the incumbents,controlling the NODELIST, wanting "top-down" organization, and many local sysops wanting "bottom-up" organization. Several alternative networks have sprung up, and at least one attempt to issue an alternative nodelist with no rules at all. The technical problem is that the *C structure, at the least, deconflicts addressing conflicts. There /is/ a valid reason for it to exist, and many, perhaps most, of the *Cs are good people, trying hard to do their(volunteer, unpaid) jobs and please both their sysops and their 'superior' *Cs. But it doesn't take more than a few misguided RCs, or one or two ZCs, to ruin it all. The International FidoNet Association has been the legal structure for this network of hobbyists. The recent plebiscite was directed by the IFNA Board of Directors to see if the association should continue. At the present, it looks like it will cease operations, leaving FIDONET, the network, as an unincorporated association of individuals with only"POLICY" as rules. That would make it a virtual fiefdom of the *C structure and further anarchy (and probably technical problems with the network) will likely follow. What does this mean to the average local BBS user? Not much unless you do echomail, such as the CP/M Technical Echo on this BBS, or the Genealogy Echo on Friends, or the MJCN Echo on Firm Foundation, or the Amiga Echos, or .... The routing for those is difficult enough at present, and it will probably get worse. The NETMAIL, for those who use it, might get all messed up. Then maybe some of us are doomsayers and the net will continue to function perfectly--with sometimes self-appointed czars in charge. Perestroika is succeeding in Eastern Europe, but failing in FIDONET Zone 1. FidoNews 7-03 Page 17 15 Jan 1990 A sysop replied: > The second is a reply from a user (remember them) ... We sysops (myself included, sometimes) tend to forget that it's really the USERS, and not us who make a BBS what it is. Carry this one level upward, and ... Let's face it, without users, we are nothing. If someone isn't operating his/her system to the benefit of the users,he/she might as well just pull the plug. Everybody knows what happens when a sysop behaves like a jerk -- word gets out and he soon ends up counting his callers on one hand with fingers left over. > many, perhaps most, of the *Cs are good people, trying hard > to do their (volunteer, unpaid) jobs and please ... Yes! I know a lot of damn good people who are *C's in Fidonet. Names such as George Peace, Fred Armantrout, Merrilyn Vaughan, and Ted Polczynski (sp?) come to mind immediately and there are others.These are people who will do almost anything to help another sysop,in his/her net or out of it, to keep things running smoothly. I've had people such as these send me test messages (at their own expense)across the country to help get two modems talking, and send countless dumps and logs to help debug a quirky dupe-loop. This is what a coordinator is supposed to be. A lot of Fidonet sysops speak very highly of their coordinators, and they have good reasons for doing so. What seems like interminable *C bashing is not without cause, how-ever. From what I have seen it's almost always aimed at those who abused their positions. I would think that the *C's would want to apply a bit of peer pressure to those who do not operate toward the best interest of their networks. CONCLUSION Well folks, there you have it. My thesis is that the *C structure, for what I am sure were, to them, good reasons, has become nonsupportive of the network they serve. They have forced managerial changes on the network, to the point where an overwhelm- ing majority said "the hell with it" in the IFNA vote. Sysops who really care are joining alternative networks. In response, the *C structure is floating more ideas to consolidate their power over whoever is left. I sincerely hope I've got it all wrong, but . . . . I would appreciate knowing comments from those of you who have been around longer than I, who perhaps can put everything in a better perspec- tive. Until then, Quo Vadis, Fido Net ? FidoNews 7-03 Page 18 15 Jan 1990 [quo vadis: Latin, "where are you going?"] ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 7-03 Page 19 15 Jan 1990 ================================================================= LATEST VERSIONS ================================================================= Latest Software Versions MS-DOS Systems -------------- Bulletin Board Software Name Version Name Version Name Version Fido 12q+ Phoenix 1.3 TBBS 2.1 Lynx 1.30 QuickBBS 2.61* TComm/TCommNet 3.4 Kitten 2.16 RBBS 17.2B TPBoard 6.0 Opus 1.03b+ RBBSmail 17.2 Wildcat! 2.10* Network Node List Other Mailers Version Utilities Version Utilities Version BinkleyTerm 2.30 EditNL 4.00 ARC 6.02 D'Bridge 1.30* MakeNL 2.20 ARCA06 2.20* Dutchie 2.90C ParseList 1.30 ARCmail 2.0 FrontDoor 1.99b* Prune 1.40 ConfMail 4.00 PRENM 1.47 SysNL 3.01* EMM 2.02 SEAdog 4.51b XlatList 2.90 Gmail 2.01 XlaxDiff 2.32 GROUP 2.16 XlaxNode 2.32 GUS 1.30* LHARC 1.13 MSG 4.0 MSGED 1.99 PK[UN]ZIP 1.02* QM 1.0 QSORT 4.03 StarLink 1.01 TCOMMail 2.2 TMail 1.12 TPBNetEd 3.2 UFGATE 1.03 XRS 3.10 ZmailQ 1.10* Macintosh --------- Bulletin Board Software Network Mailers Other Utilities Name Version Name Version Name Version Red Ryder Host v2.1b3 Macpoint 0.91* MacArc 0.04 Mansion 7.12 Tabby 2.1 ArcMac 1.3 WWIV (Mac) 3.0 StuffIt 1.51 FidoNews 7-03 Page 20 15 Jan 1990 TImport 1.331 TExport 1.32 Timestamp 1.6 Tset 1.3 Timestart 1.1 Tally 1.1 Mehitabel 1.2 Archie 1.60 Jennifer 0.25b2g Numberizer 1.5c MessageEdit 1.0 Mantissa 1.0 PreStamp 2.01 R.PreStamp 2.01 Saphire 2.1t Epistle II 1.01 Import 2.52 Export 2.54 Sundial 2.1 AreaFix 1.1 Probe 0.052 Terminator 1.1 TMM 4.0b UNZIP 1.01* Amiga ----- Bulletin Board Software Network Mailers Other Utilities Name Version Name Version Name Version Paragon 2.00+* BinkleyTerm 1.00 AmigArc 0.23 TrapDoor 1.11 booz 1.01 WelMat 0.35* ConfMail 1.10 ChameleonEdit 0.10 Lharc 1.00* ParseLst 1.30 PkAX 1.00 RMB 1.30 UNzip 0.86 Zoo 2.00 Atari ST -------- Bulletin Board Software Network Mailer Other Utilities Name Version Name Version Name Version FIDOdoor/ST 1.5c* BinkleyTerm 1.03g3 ConfMail 1.00 Pandora BBS 2.41c The BOX 1.20 ParseList 1.30 QuickBBS/ST 0.40 ARC 6.02* GS Point 0.61 LHARC 0.51 FidoNews 7-03 Page 21 15 Jan 1990 PKUNZIP 1.10 MSGED 1.96S SRENUM 6.2 Trenum 0.10 OMMM 1.40 + Netmail capable (does not require additional mailer software) * 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 7-03 Page 22 15 Jan 1990 ================================================================= NOTICES ================================================================= The Interrupt Stack 1 Feb 1990 Deadline for IFNA Policy and Bylaws election 5 Jun 1990 David Dodell's 33rd Birthday 5 Oct 1990 21st Anniversary of "Monty Python's Flying Circus" If you have something which you would like to see on this calendar, please send a message to FidoNet node 1:1/1. ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 7-03 Page 23 15 Jan 1990 OFFICERS OF THE INTERNATIONAL FIDONET ASSOCIATION Thom Henderson 1:107/528 Chairman of the Board Les Kooyman 1:204/501 President Fabian Gordon 1:107/323 Vice President Bill Bolton 3:3/0 Vice President-Technical Coordinator Kris Veitch 1:147/30 Secretary Kris Veitch 1:147/30 Treasurer IFNA COMMITTEE AND BOARD CHAIRS Administration and Finance * By-laws and Rules John Roberts 1:385/49 Executive Committee (Pres) Les Kooyman 1:204/501 International Affairs * Membership Services Jim Vaughan 1:226/300 Nominations and Elections Steve Bonine 1:1/0 Public Affairs David Drexler 1:147/30.20 Publications Irene Henderson 1:107/9 Technical Standards Rick Moore 1:115/333 Ethics * Security and Privacy * Grievances * * Position in abeyance pending reorganization IFNA BOARD OF DIRECTORS DIVISION AT-LARGE 10 Courtney Harris 1:102/732 Don Daniels 1:107/210 11 John Rafuse 1:12/900 Phil Buonomo 1:107/583 12 Bill Bolton 3:711/403 Mark Hawthorne 1:107/238 13 Fabian Gordon 1:107/323 Tom Jennings 1:125/111 14 Ken Kaplan 1:100/22 Irene Henderson 1:107/509 15 Kevin McNeil 1:128/45 Steve Jordan 1:206/2871 16 Ivan Schaffel 1:141/390 Robert Rudolph 1:261/628 17 Kathi Crockett 1:134/30 Dave Melnik 1:107/233 18 Andrew Adler 1:135/47 Jim Hruby 1:107/536 19 Kris Veitch 1:147/30 Burt Juda 1:107/528 2 Henk Wevers 2:500/1 Karl Schinke 1:107/516 3 Matt Whelan 3:54/99 John Roberts 1:147/14 -----------------------------------------------------------------