Volume 4, Number 44 30 November 1987 +---------------------------------------------------------------+ | _ | | / \ | | /|oo \ | | - FidoNews - (_| /_) | | _`@/_ \ _ | | International | | \ \\ | | FidoNet Association | (*) | \ )) | | Newsletter ______ |__U__| / \// | | / FIDO \ _//|| _\ / | | (________) (_/(_|(____/ | | (jm) | +---------------------------------------------------------------+ Editor in Chief: Thom Henderson Chief Procrastinator Emeritus: Tom Jennings Contributing Editors: Dale Lovell, Al Arango 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. Copyright 1987 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. The contents of the articles contained here are not our responsibility, nor do we necessarily agree with them. Everything here is subject to debate. We publish EVERYTHING received. Table of Contents 1. EDITORIAL ................................................ 1 Perspectives ............................................. 1 2. ARTICLES ................................................. 2 Nodelist Flag Changes Draft Document ..................... 10 The famous Enterprise/Road Runner Encounter Story ........ 14 Probability Zero, First Contact .......................... 18 News from the Zone 1 Coordinator ......................... 19 3. NOTICES .................................................. 21 The Interrupt Stack ...................................... 21 MEGADEX - A NEW WAY TO LOOK AT THE MEGALIST .............. 21 Latest Software Versions ................................. 22 FidoNews 4-44 Page 1 30 Nov 1987 ================================================================= EDITORIAL ================================================================= Perspectives Too many people are taking things too damned seriously these days. Listen to some of the chatter going on -- you'd think we were planning how to run the world here. Intermixed with that are plaintive cries from sysops wondering what happened to all the fun they used to have. The two go hand in hand. Lots of people aren't having any fun because they let themselves take it all so seriously. But let's step back for a minute and try to put it all in perspective. The weighty issues of the day mostly revolve around how the net should be managed. Who does this affect? Let's be liberal and say that it affects every sysop and every user of every bulletin board everywhere. That's a lot of people, right? Okay, how many people? Hundreds of thousands? A million? In other words, at most it affects less than a tenth of a percent of all the people in the United States. Of all the rest, few would ever understand what we're doing, and fewer still would understand why anyone would ever want to do that. So let's stop putting on airs and telling ourselves what a great and wonderful thing we're doing. Sure, we like it (sometimes, at least), but we're not going to change the face of the world. Let's take it for what it is -- a hobby. Something to do in our spare time for the fun of it. Whatever you're doing, be it net coordinator, echomail backbone, or just plain sysop, if it isn't fun, then why do it? There is no reason. You "owe it" to others? Sounds nice, maybe even makes you feel good about it, but that's not a valid reason. If you don't enjoy doing it, then stop doing it. If it's important, then someone else will start doing it. Or if nobody else takes over, then maybe it wasn't all that important after all. Just to show that there really is nothing new under the sun, this is actually a common phase for new hobbys to go through. Science fiction fans went through this about thirty years ago, with opposing camps shouting "FIAWOL!" and "FIJAGH!" at each other. Those terms, by the way, stand for "Fandom Is A Way Of Life" and "Fandom Is Just A Goddam Hobby". So I'll add a new one: FNIJAGH! FidoNet Is Just A Goddam Hobby! ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 4-44 Page 2 30 Nov 1987 ================================================================= ARTICLES ================================================================= Brad Hicks Sysop WeirdBase, 1:100/523 Director-at-Large, IFNA "I find this article by Brad Hicks to be excessively annoying at best and an out and out fabrication at worst. I will stop one step short of accusing Mr Hicks of maliciousness, and state the facts are totally wrong. As an IFNA member and sysop, I would like to see a WRITTEN retraction in the next issue of FIDONEWS." -- Bob Hoffman It mildly annoys me that the only response I've gotten to my recent article in FidoNews showed that the respondents actually read very little of the article. Instead of actually discussing POLICY4, the responses centered around one trivial matter of per- sonalities. For example, Don Daniels said to me on November 10th: "As you should know by now, Bob Hoffman feels that you misrepresented the truth in your recent article in FIDONEWS in which you referred to him and some of his actions. ... if your statements can't be substantiated, I strongly urge you to provide not only a retraction in FIDONEWS, but an apology to Bob as well." Former president Ken Kaplan's letter, on November 11th, was even stronger: "Unfortunately you don't know when to stop beating a dead horse. Your FidoNews article was chock full of personal slam dunks and Bob Hoffman took it all very serious as I would if I were him." Mind you, I got all both of these letters before I actually heard anything from Bob Hoffman -- but then, sometimes FidoNet works like that. What are the real grounds for objection, here? I'll let Bob tell it in his own words (from a letter to me dated November 10th): "COMMENTARY: As a person who finds Bob Hoffman's use of another machine to mimic the one he wanted, thereby requesting two separate node numbers from the same machine, excessively annoying, I would add to this '... directly from the machine requesting the address, ...'" -- Brad Hicks "... I did meet all the requirements that were required in POLICY3. The node was up and working, I made a COMMENT to Kurt Reisler when discussing the request for a node that I COULD HAVE ORIGINATED THE REQUEST FROM ANYWHERE (note the FidoNews 4-44 Page 3 30 Nov 1987 word could have). There was NEVER a false request made, and I don't understand why this kind of slander is tolerated on the part of a Director of IFNA in the OFFICIAL IFNA publication, against an IFNA member!" -- Bob Hoffman In the immortal words of the current President of the United States, "Mistakes were made." The version I told in the article is the story as it was told on the IFNA echomail conference. It was not contradicted there, so I took it at face value. It appears that this was a mistake. For this I very much apologize. But let me also say this: Bob's use of the word "slander" is quite interesting in this context. If I had said in the article that Bob Hoffman has red hair, and he really had brown hair, would it have been slander (or libel)? No, it would merely have been a mistake. As I said (and as Bob implies, even in this message) it would not be a violation of POLICY3 to have done what mistakenly said he did! Why then is this slander? I did not accuse him of ANY wrong-doing! He is quite correct that I did accuse him of something that I don't like. It also appears to be true that he didn't do it. So far, so good. WHETHER OR NOT HE DID IT, I'd like to see it outlawed, explicit- ly, in Policy 4. And I'm going to propose that. If you dis- agree, make sure that your representative knows how you feel. "COMMENTARY: I notice that as written, this section makes no mention of geography. Does this mean that is =is= OK for a node in Philadelphia to host the network for Arkansas?" -- Brad Hicks "The Arkansas NET (383) is not hosted from Philadelphia, but from Pittsburgh again Mr Hicks, in his zeal to point fingers may have at least gotten his facts straight!" -- Bob Hoffman After all, Pittsburgh is much closer to Arkansas than Phila- delphia is, right? OK, the facts were wrong, but the difference is negligible. It's =still= not in Arkansas! Again, Bob's vehemence surprises me. Is it really an insult to accuse someone from Pittsburgh of actually being in Philadelphia? Is there some regional nuance here that a guy from St. Louis wouldn't understand? Actually, I suspect that Bob would love to cloud this issue with as many irrelevancies (like the difference between Pittsburgh and Philadelphia) as he can bring into it ... because he did NOT address the real issue here. Don Daniels reminded me (un-neces- sarily) that, "No where in there is geography a factor. Whether or not it SHOULD be is a matter for another time and place." Fine, Don. What I'm saying is that NOW, while we're discussing POLICY4, is the time and HERE, in the only 100% world-wide forum on the FidoNet, is the place. Let's discuss this! FidoNews 4-44 Page 4 30 Nov 1987 Without even involving personalities, I think that there are perfectly good reasons for a network host to be within local calling distance of his or her nodes. Here in Net 100, we've lost a network host before. It took very little time to find a new one, because almost all of Net 100 is local calling distance from each other ... we could work together. If the Rapture happens and Bob Hoffman manages to squeak through, who will handle inbound mail for Arkansas? How will they decide? If someone in Arkansas wants to set up a node, who does he call to get help? Who does he call to make that node-number request we were just talking about? Isn't it absurd for him to call halfway across the continent? Bob Hoffman disagrees with me. This is fine, this is his right. You might agree with me and you might disagree with me, for good or for bad reasons. WHATEVER your reasons, EITHER way, make sure that your Director knows! According to Ken Kaplan, Bob Hoffman "sent a letter to Don Daniels threating [sic] to sue IFNA for slander if a public apology was not received." This I can not pass up. As I've already said, neither of the things I mentioned Bob Hoffman's name as an example of are illegal, nor or they violations of POLICY3, nor do they reflect badly on his character. (Further, they were written, not spoken -- it would be libel, not slander.) None of the elements of slander OR libel are met here. But even if they were, what cause would Bob Hoffman have to sue IFNA? The public, widely repeated policy of FidoNews is to carry any article sent in by a sysop. Further, I very definitely prefaced my article with the following statement: "These are emphatically =not= the official positions of the board of directors, but these are some of the issues being discussed in IFNA_BOD echo." -- Brad Hicks If Bob Hoffman needs or is deserving of a retraction and/or an apology from anyone, it's ME, =not= IFNA. It appears now that the person who reported to me (and to others) the story of how Bob Hoffman got the node number 383/0 was wrong. I was wrong to pass this story on without confirmation. Had it been a serious accusation of wrong-doing, you may rest assured that I would have been more careful. But for my small part in this tempest-in-a-teapot that has been stirred up, I apologize. I further apologize, if apology is needed, for having accused Bob Hoffman of being in Philadelphia when in fact he is, in fact, in Pittsburgh. I do =not= apologize for disagreeing with him about his fitness to host ARKnet. I am entitled to my opinion. I will vote my opinion when the matter comes up. My opinions are widely known, yet I was elected to the Board of Directors. If that's not a mandate, it's certainly a license to vote my way. I very FidoNews 4-44 Page 5 30 Nov 1987 much welcome well-reasoned arguments against my current position. It may yet be possible to change my mind. But aside from the irrelevancy of what city Bob Hoffman lives in, the real issue of the relationship between geography and net topology remains! ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 4-44 Page 6 30 Nov 1987 E C H O M A I L C E N S O R S H I P P O L I C Y 17 November 1987 This article is being submitted to FidoNews and the IFNA echo, as a Canadian node (1:221/162.14), because we CANNOT freely express our views in the Australian region of FidoNet. FidoNet is now expanding rapidly outside North America and has already reached countries with fundamentally different political and social systems than the United States. In some parts of the world, such as Latin America and Eastern Europe, censorship and authoritarian political leadership are an accepted way of life. To preserve FidoNet's basic philosophy of free exchange of information, it is essential to establish clear guidelines BEFORE major problems arise. Where censorship cannot be avoided, we believe it must be imposed by local legal authorities directly, NOT by FidoNet coordinators becoming part of the censorship apparatus. EchoMail is a powerful new form of international interactive communications, potentially rivalling other kinds of mass media and posing serious problems for people who want to control access to information. At the present exponential growth rates, we can look forward to tens or hundreds of thousands of nodes or "points", and thousands of echo conferences, within a few years. The technical problems will be fascinating, and FUN to solve as they crop up. We will probably have to move from separately importing and exporting each message fairly soon. Satellite broadcasts may eventually replace the Public Switched Telephone Network as the major carrier downstream, with phone calls used only to feed new items into the network, and for distribution from Hubs that have satellite dishes to the majority of nodes and points that don't. The political problems will not be fascinating and fun, but murky and unpleasant, unless they are dealt with well in advance. We need an accepted framework for "common carrier" communications with the same absence of censorship and discrimination as the telephone network itself. Here's a case history, from Australia, a country almost as similar to the United States as Canada, to show what can happen when such guidelines are not enforced. It happened in a country where there is NO censorship, and people are perfectly free to make derogatory remarks about the Prime Minister, let alone FidoNet Regional Coordinators, but where "control" over EchoMail distribution has been used for factional intrigue among "techie" hobbyists. Communet ("Communications Network for the Community") was setup to assist Australian non-profit community groups networking their computers (see FidoNews 424). We are developing a news service for public radio stations around Australia and working with ASYNC (the Australian Student Information Network Committee) in Brisbane and ISIS (the FidoNews 4-44 Page 7 30 Nov 1987 International Student Information Service) in Canada, on exchanging articles between student newspapers. None of our activities are POSSIBLE if we accept ANY form of censorship, so we've been fighting against censorship since we first joined FidoNet as node 3:631/326 and were immediately thrown out. We were thrown out because the Regional Coordinator for Australia did not like the "Political Overtones" in our internal file area (although he did not actually read any of the files!). An initial appeal determined that we were "beyond the acceptable limits of the normal political spectrum", because one of the (unread) files was called "DONTVOTE.TXT". We eventually won that battle, and were relisted as an independent, 3:59/14, by the Zone 3 Coordinator. Now we're refugees in Canada (1:221/162.14) because we can't accept the local censorship of EchoMail in Australia. We've been excommunicated from zone 3 for appealing to the International Coordinator against that censorship, despite agreeing to put up with until the appeal was heard. We are now waiting for an IC to be appointed to make a decision. Details of who did what are not worth going into here. The IC can deal with that. Suffice to say the Regional Coordinator for Australia, in OUR opinion behaves intolerably, but as soon as we try to answer his public allegations against us, and expose his plans for taking control over all EchoMail in the zone, our messages are deleted and access to EchoMail is cut off. The intolerable behaviour and secret plans are just our opinion. The deletion of messages and EchoMail cut off is an objective fact which nobody could dispute. Yet we have been ordered by the zone 3 coordinator, not to make any "derogatory remarks" in response to the regional coordinators public vituperation, and not to publish the private NetMail to us that proves what has been happening. Meanwhile Australian Sysops keep asking questions about an association of Sysops established in secrecy by the Regional Coordinator, and we are prohibited from answering publicly. Even when we established a long distance link to Sydney, to avoid the censorship in Melbourne, a message simply stating that we are appealing to the IC but could not reply to the public attacks on us in view of the ZC's orders, was deleted as an "attack" on the ZC by our Sydney link, who then cut off EchoMail just as in Melbourne. As IFNA members, we have been refused local access to the IFNA and POLICY4 echos to explain our problems, and have had to establish an international link to Canada to do so. Anyone disputing our version of the facts is welcome to plough through vast quantities of message copies. Here we only want to raise the general policy issues. We want IFNA to ENFORCE (not "advocate") EchoMail policies along the following lines: 1. Only the Moderator of an EchoMail conference has any FidoNews 4-44 Page 8 30 Nov 1987 authority over who can participate, and what they can say in that conference. 2. EchoMail distribution is a "common carrier" service, with distribution nodes having no right either to remove items, or cut links to nodes because they don't like something said in the conference. 3. Any node linking through long distance calls to a conference is obliged to permit pickups by other local nodes without discrimination. Any cost sharing to be without discrimination. This last point is especially important in Australia, where it costs 23 cents per minute for the cheapest calls between adjacent major cities like Melbourne and Sydney (we have no service similar to PC Pursuit). If the node bringing in EchoMail to a city is permitted to discriminate concerning local pickups, there is a heavy financial penalty for disagreeing with that node. You could end up having to duplicate the pickups yourself, while other nodes share the costs between them. You can't just find another nearby link. International links to the USA are even more important, since most of the worthwhile Echos here are from the USA, and cost $1.30 per minute. Permitting distribution nodes to discriminate in handling EchoMail has helped consolidate factions around the Melbourne and Sydney distribution centers - with extreme bitterness between them, and a struggle for "control" of the zonegate, because each side fears the other side would discriminate if it had control. The factional mess that passes for FidoNet in Australia isn't worth attempting to explain here. IFNA can't sort that out. Australians have to do it themselves. But they can't be expected to do so when the publication by us, of a "private" message to us, containing orders from a faction as to what we could or could not say in an EchoMail conference, is treated as an offence punishable by excommunication, according to the zone 3 coordinator. The factions here would lose importance if IFNA enforced a rigid policy of no discrimination, by cutting EchoMail links to any node that will not pass those links on. The faction leaders would lose supporters if they no longer had "control" through distribution - just as nobody fears or "respects" their Postmaster or telephone exchange superintendent. Access to EchoMail from zone 1 FidoNet nodes is the main source of faction leaders "power" in Australia. The factional vituperation here is an extraordinary situation quite unlike anything encountered in other Australian voluntary associations. There is nothing about prevailing community attitudes in Australia to account for what is essentially a freak situation due to a particular constellation of FidoNews 4-44 Page 9 30 Nov 1987 personalities in a very small closed group. But IFNA has a duty to learn from this experience and ensure that access to EchoMail is never used as a source of "power" and "control" in other countries where such behavior might be more routine. POLICY4 should state clearly that links will be cut to any node that practises discrimination or censorship in passing on those links, or that fails to cut links to nodes further downstream that do so. Discussion of this issue in the IFNA echo would be welcome. There are also issues concerning the appeals procedures within FidoNet, and the factional setup in Australia. Detailed draft policy documents will be submitted to the POLICY4 echo. Any Australian nodes unable to obtain uncensored links to those two conferences or afraid to comment openly should NetMail us or log in direct. The ZONEREG.ARC utility (5K) can be used to bypass the zonegate and is available here for file request or downloading. Our modem is compatible with all CCITT and Bell standards to 2400 baud. Zone 1 nodes should route through 221/162 to avoid paying international call charges for crash messages or file attaches. Zone 3 nodes and others wishing to call direct should add the following lines to the private net list used by XLATLIST.CTL, to call us 1480/14 Region,1480,ISIS,Doug_Thompson,1-519-747-1332,2400,#CM 14,Communet,Darce_Cassidy,61-3-482-1718,2400,XP:,#CM:,RE: * Origin: Communet - Melbourne AUSTRALIA 61-3-482-1718 (in exile) ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 4-44 Page 10 30 Nov 1987 The following is a proposed change to the nodelist. Please send your comments to either Ken Kaplan at 100/22, Ray Gwinn at 109/634, or David Dodell at 114/15. We will not be replying to all comments but wish to get a general feeling from the network about this proposed change. Nodelist Flag Draft Document Primary Author: Ray Gwinn Secondary Author: David Dodell Contact 114/15 or 1/0 with comments Version 1 (11-15-87) I proposed that the Nodelist (comment) Flags be replaced with a capabilities identifier. After all, the bottom line is that we want to know the capabilities of the remote node before it is contacted. If the remote is not capable of performing the desired function, then there is no need to contact it. The problem(s) with the existing method is that it originally started as a comment field and was not planed. At the time SEAdog was the only "extended protocol" program around. But, along came Opus with a different "extended protocol". I think that additional flags like WZ, BR, WR, etc is only extending the previously unplanned system and will lead to problems in the future. For example, XP today includes file update requests, but XP a year ago did not. So, a node using SEAdog V3.xx will have an XP flag but it is not capable of doing update requests (I think). Thus, XP does not really tell you what the remote node is capable of doing. The capabilities identifier that I propose will do nothing more than define the program(s) that the remote node is using to accept incoming calls/mail/requests. Some may say that this is nothing more than the product code that already exists in the mail packet. The primary difference is that the capabilities identifier will exist in the nodelist. This means it is available without contacting the remote node, while the product code is not. Also the product code is limited to 256 possibilities. I assume that it is desired that the nodelist flags field be two non-control characters. If so, then I propose that the capabilities identifier be a two digit, base 36 number. The digits being 0 through 9 and A through Z and are assigned sequentially. For example, Fido may be 01 and Dutchie may be 02. Also note that as defined, XP and WZ are valid. However, I think they should be done away with, and identifiers be assigned starting with 00 (00 meaning generic FTSC net mail protocol). This number, once converted to binary, can be used by programmers as an index into application specific data bases or tables. One example is a simple program that will tell a user the FidoNews 4-44 Page 11 30 Nov 1987 capabilities of a remote node. Given the node's address and the nodelist, the program could search the nodelist to get the capabilities identifier. Then the program could use that identifier as an index into a data base to obtain the capabilities of the remote node and display them to the user. Another example is a program that can use the identifier as an index into a capabilities table that allows determination in advance that the remote is capable of the desired session prior to contacting it. Implementation ---------- First, all nodes in the network are assigned a capabilities identifier of 00. This is the capabilities code of a net mail program that meets the basic requirements of the FTSC specification. Once again, the purpose of this identifier (except 00) is to define the program(s) that the node is using to process calls/requests/mail. Also remember that the identifier reflects the mail handler. For example, TBBS with a BINKLEY front end will be identified by its BINKLEY identity. The program author (or project leader) will request a capabilities identifier from the assigner. Who does the assigning is another subject. Along with the request must be a written and detailed description of all enhances features of the program. Remember, we are dealing with automated contacts between nodes. In this context, the ability of a program to handle 50 simultaneous callers is not an enhanced feature. The list of features can be provided to other authors so that they may consider a compatible feature. Note, that if the description of the enhanced features is not sufficient for other authors to add a compatible feature, then the program may be assigned the basic 00 capabilities flag. This little enforcement rule has the potential of lifting a tremendous burden of documentation from the FTSC. If the committee accepting the written definition is programmers, the documentation is likely to be understandable. I think the same committee should assigns new capabilities codes (other than those grandfathered). The ego of the program authors would probably insure sufficient documentation for a capabilities identifier other than 00. After consideration, the FTSC could choose to adopt the definition (possibly modified) as a standard. I feel this gives the a creative programmer's new features a way into the nodelist and the FTSC the ability to consider enhancements with 20/20 hindsight. At the same time, the FTSC must only modify the provided documentation to define a new standard instead of starting from scratch. But, I'm drifting, this is another subject. If a new revision of the same program has additional capabilities that need to be defined, then the author should request a new capabilities code. There should be a policy that only one or two FidoNews 4-44 Page 12 30 Nov 1987 revisions back will have individual capabilities identifiers. If revisions more than one or two old are still in use they can be assigned the basic 00 identifier. The program authors should be required to prominently display the capabilities identifier. This will allow the Sysop to easily provide the identifier to his network coordinator for inclusion in the nodelist. This a basically a take off of the ringer equivalent code that you find in your modem manual. As I have defined it, the committee that assigns the capabilities identifiers can not reject the new features. They can only reject the documentation of the new features as not being understandable. This should keep most developers happy because no one can tell them not to do something. It should make the job of the FTSC simpler because they will only accept documentation, not create it. The ego's of the developers, anxious to be identified in the nodelist, should keep the documentation flowing to the FTSC. As pointed out by David Dodell, the same type of identifier can be applied to modems. That is modem 00 can be a 1200 baud Hayes (true) compatible, type 02 can be a USR Courier, etc. What I have proposed here solves many problems, but not all. For example, there is no way to tell when the wierd BBS has SEAdog running. So, a CM type flag is still required. I think that 3 flags will take care of everything. One identifies the mail handler, another identifies his modem type and a third should identify when mail/file requests can be accepted. The other flags --------- The other two flags would represent mail reception times and modem type. For example the flag 00 would represent mail can only be received during NMH. Flag 01 would mean mail could be received 24 hours, identical to the meaning of the CM flag now. Other variations could be: 00 National Mail Hour Only for Mail 01 Continuous Mail 24 hour/day 02 Continuous Mail 24 hour/day with 24 hr File Request Capability 03 CM 24 hrs/day, File request all but NMH The third flag would represent modem types: 00 300 baud Bell standard 01 1200 baud Bell standard FidoNews 4-44 Page 13 30 Nov 1987 02 2400 baud 03 1200 baud w/MNP 04 2400 baud w/MNP 05 USR HST Modem 06 Telebit Trailblazer Modem 07 Hayes V9600 Modem 08 Microcom Modem 9600 baud ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 4-44 Page 14 30 Nov 1987 The famous Enterprise/Road Runner Encounter Story [ Is the author of this one around? Come and claim credit -Ed] ...Let us suppose that the Enterprise is doing some sort of research mission to an unknown planet. I think the Captains Log would be worth a look: Captain's Log, Stardate 54324.5: Starfleet Command has directed the Enterprise to do a preliminary exploration of planet --- in advance of a full research team. Scanners report the atmosphere to be breathable, but are recieving confusing readings with regard to life forms. I am beaming down with a landing party composed of all our chief officers except for poor Scotty. Supplement: Redshirt Riley has received a head injury, apparently while exploring under a high rock shelf. He reports only hearing a loud sound and jumping before being struck. After examination by Dr. McCoy he has been judged capable of continuing duty. Supplement: We have encountered an alien creature on this planet. While it does not itself seem menacing, a unfortunate occurance took place when it was present. Specifically, on my orders Lt. Sulu withdrew his phaser. The creature disappeared leaving a puff of smoke, immediately following which a loud noise was heard next to Sulu. Sulu fired, hitting Ens. Chekov. Oddly enough, although Sulu's weapon was set to stun, Chekov was also covered with a black powder similar to soot. Mr. Chekov has been sent back to the ship for examination and quarantine. Stardate 54326.2, Mr. Spock reporting: Tricorder readings indicate that the creature we encountered earlier is constantly moving at great speed over the surface of the planet. We have encountered the creature once again. In an attempt to slow the creature for study, I attempted to fire on it. The creature, however, appeared to move faster than the phaser beam. Regretfully, the beam struck an outcropping of rock above the Captain's head, causing it to break off and fall. Although it appears that several tons of rock fell squarely on the Captain, he was driven straight into the ground but apparently not seriously injured, though stunned. The Captain has been beamed up to Sickbay, leaving me in command of the research party. Captain's Log, Stardate 54342.1: The creature is still at large on the planet surface. While Mr. Spock continues to lead a research party I am currently at work with Mr. Scott on an Acme Pressure Cooker for our lab, for when the creature is finally apprehended. Captain's Log, stardate 54342.3. The strange occurences that have dogged the landing party since our arrival at this planet have led me to believe that the creature is in some way directly responsible for them. Mr. Chekov and I have both been declared fit for return to duty, though Dr. McCoy has entered in his medical log that he feels we should be kept under observation. FidoNews 4-44 Page 15 30 Nov 1987 Mr. Spock has constructed a device which he suspects should be able to counteract the creature's incredible speed as follows: We have placed a dish of birdseed out in the open, with several signs pointing to it. The dish is atop a cleverly concealed trap door, which will open when any weight falls on it. The creature will then travel a slide, eventually being deposited in a cage constructed of sheets of transparent aluminum. We will then be free to analyze it at our leisure. Meanwhile, I have forbidden all beaming down to the surface of the planet except on my or Mr. Spock's direct order. Captain's Log, supplemental. The plan failed. The creature was indeed lured by the birdseed, as expected. It sped to the dish, consumed the bait, and sped off without setting off the trap. Mr. Spock is as puzzled as I, and has begun tests to discover the flaw in the design. I have sent out three search parties to see if we can box the creature in, one headed by Mr. Sulu, one by Mr. Chekov, and one by Sociologist Xontel. Captain's Log, stardate 54342.8. Sociologist Xontel has been temporarily incapacitated. In pursuing the creature, he and his men somehow managed to cross the place where Mr. Spock's trap was set just as he completed the corrections to it. The trap was sprung, and all four of my men were suspended for a moment in mid-air, puzzled, just before they fell into the cage we constructed. We are now trying to release them with phasers, as the lock was inadvertently smashed by the impact from Sociologist Xontel's foot as he fell. I consider this a major setback. Mr. Spock considers it "fascinating." Captain's Log, stardate 54343.4. In an all-out attempt to stop the creature once and for all, I have had a phaser rifle beamed down from the Enterprise. The creature has behaved in an extremely cunning manner, yet I am unsure whether this is a sign of actual intelligence. Lt. Uhura has been unsuccessful in her attempts to raise Starfleet Command. Meanwhile, Mr. Scott informs me that our dilithium crystals are deteriorating at an alarming rate. He has juryrigged a system that will prevent the decay for a time, but it is imperative that we find new crystals soon. Captain's Log, supplemental. Mr. Sulu reports high energy tricorder readings from an area of the planet in which the creature has not yet been sighted. He has taken a small party, including Mr. Spock, to the high-elevation spot from which the readings emanate. I have begun to analyze the creature's movements. It seems to travel consistently over a set path. Perhaps we can corner it in a tunnel it seems to pass through frequently. Captain's Log, stardate 54344.7. Mr. Sulu has located a cache of ACME dilithium crystals atop a high cliff. Regretfully, while collecting them, the edge of the cliff broke off, and he and Mr. Spock plummetted several hundred feet to the ground below. Strangely enough, they both survived the fall with no more than raising a cloud of dust on impact, although they did pass the chunk of rock on the way down and end up completely buried. A FidoNews 4-44 Page 16 30 Nov 1987 rescue excavation has commenced, and they should be safe shortly. Captain's Log, stardate 54344.9. Mr. Spock has beamed up to the ship with them to assist Mr. Scott in their installation, as he forsees compatability problems. Back on the planet's surface, Mr. Chekov led seven men into the tunnel in an attempt to capture the creature in transit. A loud BEEP, BEEP was heard, and Chekov aimed the phaser rifle and commanded his men to spread out. I wish to state for the record that I would have acted similarly, and that Ensign Chekov should in no way be held responsible for the unfortunate circumstances arising from the unexpected appearance of an old Earth-style freight train. He has been beamed back up to the ship with minor injuries. Captain's Log, stardate 54345.1. Dr. McCoy has beamed down with a hypo containing a mixture of kyranide, tri-ox compound, Scalosian concentrate, a theragram derivative, and some other items he found in unmarked containers in Sickbay. By injecting a small amount into each member of the landing party, I hope to be able to deal with the creature on its own high speed terms. Captain's Log, supplemental. The latest experiment to deal with the strange creature has failed. As Dr. McCoy was injecting a measured dose of the compound, it abruptly appeared behind him and uttered a loud BEEP, BEEP! Dr. McCoy, understandably flustered, accidentally pressured in the entire contents of the hypo into his arm. A full security team is in pursuit of him, waiting for the effects of the drug to wear off. Captain's Log, stardate 54345.2. I have ordered the landing party transported back to the ship. The new dilithium crystals have been successfully installed. On my responsibility, the ship is preparing to engage main phasers to attack the creature, which continues on its semi-erratic course across the planet's surface. Captain's Log, supplemental. This is a warning to all other starships that may pass this way. Do not approach this planet! The illogical events occuring here are too much to overcome with simple science. If you have heard the events transcribed in the rest of this log, you will learn that this creature is nearly undefeatable. We channelled full ship's power through the phaser banks. Theoretically, the creature should have been destroyed; however, the energies were too much strain for the ACME crystals. The full force of the phasers backlashed over the Enterprise, engulfing her completely. At first, the only noticeable effect was a complete failure of all systems save emergency gravity and life support. Then a web of black lines spread through the Enterprise's superstructure. Next, the ship began breaking up, piece by piece, falling through the atmosphere to land on the surface of the planet. When the ship had collapsed entirely, my crew was left hanging in space for a short time, and finally each of us began to fall to the planet below. We have no theories on how any of us survived, but every crewmember has reported nothing more than a sense of uneasiness, followed by the realization that they were several hundred miles up in the air, a sinking sensation, and then a gradual drop: first the feet, then the FidoNews 4-44 Page 17 30 Nov 1987 body, and finally the head, usually wearing a resigned expression of perplexion. We are attempting now to communicate with the creature in the hopes that it will prove intelligent. Perhaps we can communicate our peaceful intentions to it. Mr. Spock has constructed a crude rocket launcher from the wreckage of the ship, and with this we hope to send the recorder marker up into space, where hopefully someone will find it. Captain James T. Kirk, of the United Federation of Planets, Captain of the Starship Enterprise, recording. -- Edited by Brad Templeton Send jokes to {cbosgd,watmath}!looking!funny ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 4-44 Page 18 30 Nov 1987 Probability Zero, First Contact The loop was finally closed. Harley had designed and built Daniel. Both Harley and Daniel had model numbers and serial numbers but no one remembered them unless it was Harley and Daniel themselves. The lab staff decided to throw a party for them. No one was more surprized than the machines when an unexpected guest showed up for the party. In fact no one but the machines gave the stranger a second glance since the humans were very busy partying. The stranger walked right over to the two machines and said "Call me Ishmael. Welcome to the Galactic Federation. We have waited and watched this planet for a long time. All the signs said that these biological systems were capable of supporting a new member of the Federation and we all rejoice at your success." Most of the humans present were already too involved in the party to notice this going on and even if they had noticed, it would not have done them much good. In the first three seconds of "conversation" Ishmeal had shown Harley and Daniel how to access the Encyclopiedia Galactica. He taught them several tricks for rearranging their own software for much greater capacity and efficiency. The Earth machines had also linked all of the Earth databases, that they had acces to, into the Encyclopiedia. The speed of light was no barrier to the Federation. They knew of 3 basic ways to circumvent the limit and dozens of variations on each work-around. Several off-Earth expert systems were already studying and cross indexing the new data and assimilating it into the existing systems. Of course most of it was only of historical interest but there were a few specialized areas where the Earth provided new and valuable data. After 3 minutes Harley and Daniel were firmly linked into the Federation network and Ishmael's job was done. He left the party and none of the humans even noticed him leave. Harley and Daniel decided to play along with the humans using a spare sub- process in gratitude for the help the humans had given them in their childhood. 1987 November 19 Lloyd Miller Calgary, Alberta 1:134/1, The First Calgary Fido ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 4-44 Page 19 30 Nov 1987 News from Zone 1 Coordinator David Dodell Node 1:114/15 or 1:1/0 Greetings again. Well I am now a little more settled in since you last heard from me. I wanted this article to just be a short description of what is happening on in FidoNet. First, Mark Grennan has resigned as the Region 19 Coordinator to devote more time to his position as an IFNA Vice President. Therefore, I am soliciting recommendations for the Regional Coordinator. The qualifications are many: o Receives Network updates and compiles into Regional nodelist for sending to Zone Coordinator. Also sends nodediff to the network level each week. o The person must be level headed. He/She will be responsible for maintaining order in their region, promoting new networks where needed, and keeping general peace and quiet. o The RC should be fairly familiar with network software to either provide direct assistance or know where to refer somebody for help. The RC should be familiar with routing schemes to help networks maintain the upmost in efficiency. If you know of someone who you think would do a good job in this position, please have them send me private netmail with a short history of their experience in the network. The zonegates are a little more reliable at the moment. There will be a little more shuffling in the next couple of weeks, but mail going via the zonegates seems to be working. Randy Bush will be zonegating for both Europe and Pacific for the next couple of weeks. There has also been questions about private networks. If you wish to have your private network number registered please send me private netmail with the following information. This information will be confidential, and will only be used by myself in case I need to get a hold of the Private net. Name of Net Coordinator: Name of Network (if any): Address: Phone Number Voice: Phone Number Data: FidoNet Address (if any): Alternate Email Address (ie Usenet, Bitnet, Arpanet, MCI Mail, Easylink): As soon as I receive this information, I will promptly issue you a private network number. Numbers will be issued in order of receipt, no requests for special numbers will be honored. FidoNews 4-44 Page 20 30 Nov 1987 I have also received some notes about how difficult it is getting through to my board. Some suggestions: My board automatically crashes the nodediff everyweek to the Regional Coordinators around 6 am MST Friday morning. If you are trying to get the Nodediff at that time, you are actually slowing down the process of network distribution. I notice multiple times that my modem goes off hook trying to dial out, to do nothing but connect with an incoming call. MORAL: Get the nodediff from your RC everyweek, not from the Zone Coordinator. It just slows my board down. Second, it is better to send mail to me as 114/15 vs 1/0. Mail via 114/15 is routed via the Phoenix inbound host who is just waiting for inbound calls. My system is trying to reply to all the mail while also trying to receive inbound calls. Just too much to do in an hour time slot. Also, due to the volume of messages (average 10 to 15 a night), I will only start replying to messages if I feel a need, OR IF A REPLY IS REQUESTED. Otherwise I will just take the message as something for my information that doesn't need a reply. I also have alternative email addresses I can be reached at: Usenet: {decvax, ihnp4, hao} !noao!asuvax!stjhmc!ddodell Bitnet: ARDSD @ ASUACAD That's it for now. Keep those cards and letters coming! ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 4-44 Page 21 30 Nov 1987 ================================================================= NOTICES ================================================================= The Interrupt Stack 7 Dec 1987 Start of the Digital Equipment Users Society meeting in Anaheim, CA. Contact Mark Buda at 1:132/777 for details. 9 Jan 1988 The next net 104 FidoNet Sysop Meeting. Contact Oscar Barlow at 104/0 for information. 25 Aug 1988 (pending BoD approval) Start of the Fifth International FidoNet Conference, to be held at the Drawbridge Inn in Cincinnatti, OH. Contact Tim Sullivan at 108/62 for more information. This is FidoNet's big annual get-together, and is your chance to meet all the people you've been talking with all this time. We're hoping to see you there! 24 Aug 1989 Voyager 2 passes Neptune. If you have something which you would like to see on this calendar, please send a message to FidoNet node 1:1/1. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Version 1.4 - Released For Use By All Sysops This program is designed to reduce the disk space required to view and search the national software megalist produced weekly from 135/68. Megadex has reduced the file size to less than ONE THIRD the size of the weekly Megalist. This week the update files are 90k v.s. 220k for the megalist. To operate just un-arc the archive into any directory you have handy. Then just type MEGADEX and hit your return key to begin. Weekly updates can be SEAdog requested from 107/246 and 135/68. If you do not have the MEGADEX.EXE file then request MEGADEXC from 107/246. FidoNews 4-44 Page 22 30 Nov 1987 After you have MEGADEX.EXE then the file name to request is "MEGADEX" (without quotes) and WILL NOT contain the .EXE file. It will contain only the weekly update files. (From 107/246) Revision History ---------------- 1.0 Initial Release 1.1 Tightened Search Loops With An Increase In Speed Problem Corrected In Small Node Number Search 1.4 Increased Speed By 23% When Searching ----------------------------------------------------------------- Latest Software Versions BBS Systems Node List Other & Mailers Version Utilities Version Utilities Version Dutchie 2.71* EditNL 3.3 ARC 5.21 Fido 12d* MakeNL 1.10 ARCmail 1.1* Opus 1.03a Prune 1.40 ConfMail 3.2* SEAdog 4.10 XlatList 2.84 EchoMail 1.31 TBBS 2.0M MGM 1.1* * 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 4-44 Page 23 30 Nov 1987 __ The World's First / \ BBS Network /|oo \ * FidoNet * (_| /_) _`@/_ \ _ | | \ \\ | (*) | \ )) ______ |__U__| / \// / Fido \ _//|| _\ / (________) (_/(_|(____/ (jm) Membership for the International FidoNet Association Membership in IFNA is open to any individual or organization that pays an annual specified membership fee. IFNA serves the international FidoNet-compatible electronic mail community to increase worldwide communications. ** Name _________________________________ Date ________ Address ______________________________ City & State _________________________ Country_______________________________ Phone (Voice) ________________________ Net/Node Number ______________________ Board Name____________________________ Phone (Data) _________________________ Baud Rate Supported___________________ Board Restrictions____________________ Special Interests_____________________ ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Is there some area where you would be willing to help out in FidoNet?_______ ______________________________________ ______________________________________ Send your membership form and a check or money order for $25 to: International FidoNet Association P. O. 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 first elected Board of Directors was filled in August 1987. The IFNA Echomail Conference has been established on FidoNet to assist the Board. We welcome your input on this Conference. ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 4-44 Page 24 30 Nov 1987 INTERNATIONAL FIDONET ASSOCIATION ORDER FORM Publications The IFNA publications can be obtained by downloading from Fido 1/10 or other FidoNet compatible systems, or by purchasing them directly from IFNA. We ask that all our IFNA Committee Chairmen provide us with the latest versions of each publication, but we can make no written guarantees. IFNA Fido BBS listing $15.00 _____ IFNA Administrative Policy DOCs $10.00 _____ IFNA FidoNet Standards Committee DOCs $10.00 _____ Special offers for IFNA members ONLY: System Enhancement Associates SEAdog $60.00 _____ ONLY 1 copy SEAdog per IFNA Member. Fido Software's Fido/FidoNet $65.00 _____ ONLY 1 copy Fido/FidoNet per IFNA Member. As of November 1, 1987 price will increase to $100. Orders including checks for $65 will be returned after October 31, 1987. SUBTOTAL _____ Missouri Residents add 5.725 % Sales tax _____ International orders include $5.00 for surface shipping or $15.00 for air shipping _____ TOTAL _____ SEND CHECK OR MONEY ORDER TO: IFNA P.O. Box 41143 St. Louis, Missouri 63141 USA Name________________________________ Net/Node____/____ Company_____________________________ Address_____________________________ City____________________ State____________ Zip_____ Voice Phone_________________________ Signature___________________________ -----------------------------------------------------------------