Volume 6, Number 23 5 June 1989 +---------------------------------------------------------------+ | _ | | / \ | | /|oo \ | | - FidoNews - (_| /_) | | _`@/_ \ _ | | International | | \ \\ | | FidoNet Association | (*) | \ )) | | Newsletter ______ |__U__| / \// | | / FIDO \ _//|| _\ / | | (________) (_/(_|(____/ | | (jm) | +---------------------------------------------------------------+ Editor in Chief: Vince Perriello Editors Emeritii: Dale Lovell Thom Henderson Chief Procrastinator Emeritus: Tom Jennings FidoNews is published weekly by the International FidoNet Association as its official newsletter. You are encouraged to submit articles for publication in FidoNews. Article submission standards are contained in the file ARTSPEC.DOC, available from node 1:1/1. 1:1/1 is a Continuous Mail system, available for network mail 24 hours a day. Copyright 1989 by the International FidoNet Association. All rights reserved. Duplication and/or distribution permitted for noncommercial purposes only. For use in other circumstances, please contact IFNA at (314) 576-4067. IFNA may also be contacted at PO Box 41143, St. Louis, MO 63141. Fido and FidoNet are registered trademarks of Tom Jennings of Fido Software, 164 Shipley Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94107 and are used with permission. We don't necessarily agree with the contents of every article published here. Most of these materials are unsolicited. No article will be rejected which is properly attributed and legally acceptable. We will publish every responsible submission received. Table of Contents 1. ARTICLES ................................................. 1 The European Situation ................................... 1 Response to Pete White's article ......................... 3 The Fake Users Manual .................................... 10 The Lost FidoNet Archives - Volume 2 ..................... 15 Here We Go Again! ........................................ 21 Something Exotic - Polish traffic in Net/Echo Mail ....... 29 2. COLUMNS .................................................. 31 The Veterinarian's Corner: Elimination Problem Behavior .. 31 3. LATEST VERSIONS .......................................... 33 Latest Software Versions ................................. 33 And more! FidoNews 6-23 Page 1 5 Jun 1989 ================================================================= ARTICLES ================================================================= The European Situation by Daniel Tobias 1:380/7 This article is my reaction to the Zone 2 Policy situation as announced in FidoNews 622. The European nodes' statement to the effect that they have repealed POLICY3 for their zone, replaced it with a European-specific policy, and rejected the proposed POLICY4, amounts to a "Declaration of Independence" of sorts for the European nodes, who now claim not to be subject to the overall, American-dominated FidoNet policy. As a Libertarian politically, I have no moral objection to the European nodes declaring independence from the Americans, which sort of turns the tables on the Americans who did a similar thing to Europe over 200 years ago. However, I'm not entirely thrilled with the manner in which they did it. They are claiming to be fully autonomous and self-governing, not subject to overall FidoNet policy, but yet, they still consider themselves part of the FidoNet, and are in the nodelist distributed in zones 1, 3, and 4 as well as their zone. It seems to me, if they want their full independence, they should have to leave FidoNet altogether, and become a different network like AlterNet and EggNet. Under those circumstances, they would no longer be in the FidoNet nodelist, or have the rights to the name FidoNet under Tom Jennings' license, unless they engaged in separate negotiations to secure such privileges. After all, why should the American coordinator structure pay long distance charges to distribute a nodelist including a lengthy list of European nodes, if those nodes refuse to accept the authority of the FidoNet Policy which is supposed to cover ALL zones? I think the Europeans should either break free of FidoNet altogether if they want that level of autonomy, or else work within the system to get a POLICY4 passed that allows for wide latitude for zone policies taking into account the varied circumstances of different world regions. But they shouldn't repudiate POLICY3 but still act like they're part of the net governed by this policy. As for the specific elements of European policy, the most controversial one is their mandatory fee for nodes. That's the element most in conflict with existing policy, and some might argue it contravenes the general spirit of FidoNet. That more than anything else might compel European nodes to leave FidoNet, since I don't know if the rest of the network would be willing to FidoNews 6-23 Page 2 5 Jun 1989 adopt a policy permitting zones (and perhaps regions or nets) to impose mandatory charges. That would open up a real can of worms; even if it is permitted, some controls would likely be placed to prevent the possibility of profiteering NCs, RCs, or ZCs imposing excessive charges for their personal profit. In conclusion, I'd like to see FidoNet preserved as an international network, held together by one consistent policy statement (with some latitude allowed for local policies within the constraints of the global one). If other systems, wherever in the world they may be located, wish to carry on networking under different rules, they've got every right to do so, but they're not then part of FidoNet. ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 6-23 Page 3 5 Jun 1989 Jack Decker Fidonet 1:154/8 LCRnet 77:1011/8 RESPONSE TO PETE WHITE'S ARTICLE In Fidonews 622, Pete White published an article containing certain "ramblings". I'd like to touch on a few of the points he made. As Pete noted, among many other positions, he is the Regional Coordinator of Region 16. He's also held positions in the IFNA. Pete then goes on to admit confusion on certain things. He states, "I see attacks on those who are spending their time and money trying to feed the `echo-holics'. I see attacks on the *C structure for much of what they do, or don't do. I see a lot of commentary by folks who are obviously so biased and upset they ought to be collecting stamps or seeking an inner light.... What I don't see are answers to some of the basic questions I've asked since day one, that first day I unknowingly got a mailer to work! When I see all the messages about 'power plays' and 'the coordinators have all the power' I really get confused. Will someone out there tell me POWER over what? Is there a monetary benefit here that I'm missing that makes POWER profitable? If I have the POWER can I make my echo feeds send me the echos instead of me paying to go after them? I somewhat doubt that! Actually, it looks very much like those who are blamed for wanting POWER are those who are doing all the work." I'll bet a lot of common sysops read the above and shook their head sadly. The problem is that Pete's an RC. If anybody should be making an effort to find out the reasons behind these complaints, an RC and IFNA member should. Instead, what I see is a "why is everybody always picking on me" type of reaction. When I think of the Coordinator structure in Fidonet, it reminds me of the cartoon about the overzealous boy scout, who, determined to do his "good deed for the day", helps the old lady across the street. Whereupon, he just can't understand why, instead of thanking him, she bashes him over the head with her umbrella. The problem, of course, was that the old lady didn't want to cross the street, she was just standing on the corner waiting for a bus! Why do the coordinators want POWER? Doggone if I know. You would think that as many complaints as they receive, at least some of them would wise up to the fact that they're doing things that just aren't popular with the common sysops... they're trying to take us in a direction we don't want to go... or they'd quit. The POWER is in forcing others to do things YOUR way, even though perhaps the majority doesn't think YOUR way is the BEST way. I'm sorry, but I don't know why some people thrive on that sort of power. They will endure flames, FidoNews 6-23 Page 4 5 Jun 1989 insults, and even sometimes a financial loss just to retain that sort of power over others. Maybe a sociologist can explain it, but I can't. What do I mean by "they're trying to take us in a direction we don't want to go?" I think it can be summed up in two ways. First, they are trying to impose a tight, rigid, unbending structure over a group of hobbyists, who really want a loose, informal, friendly structure. We want equals working together, not dictators imposing rules. Second, they want to impose a top-down form of government, whereas most sysops want a bottom-up (representative) form of government. Pete then goes on to say: "How about those who are screaming for democracy? Have any of them every watched 'democracy at work' within FidoNet? You really ought to try it. Watching democracy at work when there was an ECHOPOL conference was enough to sell me on anything but. All I saw there was a few who were interested in only themselves and spent most of their time practicing in the age old FidoNet tradition of 'the beating of dead horses' while a few others tried to get some intelligence from the proceedings. Those who scream loudly for 'democracy' have absolutely NO idea what they are asking for." It's interesting that Pete should use the ECHOPOL conference as an example. I can tell you exactly what happened in ECHOPOL, because I was there. Basically, a number of us were opposed to the geographic (regional) restrictions on echomail. We wanted to be able to continue sending echomail between systems irregardless of regional boundaries, as we had always done in the past. Now, to hear Pete talk, you'd think that a vote was taken, that the regional echomail restrictions were approved by the majority, and that a few "crybabies" just wouldn't let it go, and yield to the will of the majority. But, that's simply not what happened. What DID happen was that at the very start, the folks running the ECHOPOL conference decided that the issue of echomail crossing regional boundaries was NON-NEGOTIABLE. The fact of the matter is that we NEVER GOT TO VOTE on probably the single most important issue affecting echomail handling. Not that we didn't try. I personally asked on numerous occasions that they just take a vote to determine the will of the majority on this matter, and if we were defeated, I promised to shut up about the issue. But we were told it was "too much trouble" to take a vote, and that everybody was in favor of the restrictions except a few "troublemakers." Oh, we did get to vote on some things... real important stuff(?), like the format and length of tear lines and origin lines. But on major points, it seemed that the decisions had already been made for us. The low point occurred in a message from Mike Ratledge, the ECHOPOL conference moderator, to Vince Perriello (slightly FidoNews 6-23 Page 5 5 Jun 1989 reformatted to fit the FIDONEWS column width): -----(message begins)----- Message #34, Area "Echopol " From: Mike Ratledge To: Vince Perriello 16 Nov 88 10:28:00 Subject: Slight change in timing NH>> There is a clear concensus that PATH lines are required. NH>> The messages in this conference have been overwelming in NH>> favor of them. We did not feel it was necessary to NH>> re-hash topics that alreay had a majority. -> PATH lines are NOT necessary. If you guys are going to -> design software this way, ignoring the FTSC working group, -> then you can damned well WRITE it too. They aren't necessary *if* we have the topology "locked down" and *if* we can control every one of the fools out there that thinks they're better off ignoring the requirements like not going out-of-region, etc, etc. We *could* totally eliminate SEEN-BY: lines, too - *if* the above two things were true - but I don't look for it to happen any time in the near future. I agree that there are a lot of things that we're talking about here that do overlap the FTSC. I think that the FTSC should be responsible for the basic format of the messages, the structure of the packets, etc - but the actual message content should be more in "our ballpark" here. I realize it's a fine line - especially when we're talking about the kludge lines - but we've got to start somewhere - or we'll never get there! If the FTSC makes a decision which changes what is written in ECHOPOL, then I think that we should ammend the policy - that's all. --- via XRS 0.30 * Origin: That Mean ol' RatMan's "Point-Less" Point (TComm 1:372/666.1) -----(message ends)----- The FOOLS comment by the moderator was the straw that broke the camel's back for many of us. It was clear to us then that only those whose opinions were in sync with the preconceived notions of the ECHOPOL committee were welcome to express an opinion in the conference. So, the participants in the ECHOPOL conference were subjected not only to being asked to vote only on insignificant matters, while being denied the right to vote on important ones (I guess this was so they could later claim that ECHOPOL had been arrived at by a vote of the sysops of Fidonet), but at the end were subjected to a fair amount of character assassination as well. By the way, I asked Mike FidoNews 6-23 Page 6 5 Jun 1989 Ratledge for an apology for the FOOLS comment, and he declined to offer one. Oh, and Pete White? He was in the conference, and hanging solidly with the clique that was running the conference. In fact, he was one of the most vocal supporters of the regional echomail restrictions. So when Pete tells you that we were beating a dead horse, it was only dead as far as the conference moderator and a few others (including Pete White) were concerned. To some of the rest of us, it appeared that the horse hadn't even been born yet, and that the ruling clique was trying to do a premature abortion on it! Getting back to Pete's Fidonews article, he then goes on to say, "The ones who make me worry are those who want 'democracy'. Some of those very same people want to be able to run their own nets with their own policy! Imagine it, hundreds of nets all over the place - each with it's very own policy. Why, with any work at all we could probably confuse everyone as well as the federal, state and municipal laws have!" Now perhaps that sounds bad until you consider the alternatives. Someone once said that "Democracy is the very worst form of government, except for every other type." Right now the Chinese people have a government that operates a lot like Fidonet. There, despite the fact that the government could shoot to kill protestors, many people have gathered with one basic demand - they want DEMOCRACY! Here in the United States, we can protest with virtually no fear of anything much worse than perhaps a night in jail, and yet how many people do you see demonstrating against the government in favor of a dictatorship? Think about it! Pete continues, "The strange thing is we have many nets out there doing just that, and everyone is happy! They never demanded the 'right' to do it, they all agreed within themselves it was the right way to go and they went with it. Makes me wonder about those who are screaming for the same 'rights' that others have had for years. Sure must be something wrong somewhere." Yes, something is wrong - the fact that those nets that are now using a democratic method of selecting their Net Coordinator are basically operating outside of Policy. They can get away with it, but ONLY if the Regional Coordinator allows them to do so. However, if the Regional Coordinator doesn't like the net's choice of an NC, that NC can be replaced at the whim of the RC. So what you have is a form of democracy at the net level, and (if you're lucky) a "benevolent dictatorship" at the Regional level. But if your elected NC manages to offend a not-so-benevolent RC, out he goes! Pete goes on, "...Whatever it is, there's a LOT of people out there who are doing a LOT of work - and the pay is pretty slim. Sure, there's a few who are difficult to get along with and a few who shouldn't be involved as they do more damage than good. FidoNews 6-23 Page 7 5 Jun 1989 Guess that's because they are people. But if you have a problem with a 'people', try to use the system to rectify the problem before you decide that the system is wrong." Ah, yes, using the system to rectify the problem. The problem is that it rarely works. How often do you ever see the ZC reverse the decision of an RC? Rarely to never, except when much public pressure (the vocal kind that Pete White really hates) is brought to bear. There's a reason for that. If you have appointed someone to a position, that should indicate you have confidence in their ability to do the job. So, if you then reverse a decision they have made, doesn't that sort of indicate a lack of confidence in them? It becomes a matter of honor... if you trusted the guy enough to appoint him to the position, why aren't you backing up his decisions. Unfortunately, this sort of thinking often clouds the facts of a case. Then, too, coordinators tend to appoint other coordinators that think like themselves. Right now we have a coordinator structure who, because they were not elected by the common sysops, in many ways don't think about things from the perspective of a common sysop. And, when they appoint other coordinators, they appoint clones of themselves (or as near as they can get). I know most coordinators don't see it that way, but it sure appears that way to those sysops who are not part of the *C structure. I would like for you to think for a moment about some public figure that epitomizes corruption for you. Perhaps it would be a leader of China or Panama, or perhaps a corrupt leader of a cult (such as Jim Jones of the Jonestown massacre). Now here were people who, in many cases, started out with the best of intentions in their own minds (not necessarily in everyone else's, but few people view themselves as evil). But as they got more and more corrupt, you wonder how on earth they managed to go through life without anyone challenging them on their actions. For example, how come nobody told Jim Jones that he was crazy? Well, the answer is that some folks probably did, but these leaders surrounded themselves with folks who agreed with them (some only for personal gain, I'm sure, but they still voiced agreement with the corrupt leaders). And they either got rid of or avoided those who did NOT agree with them. Now, if folks tell you you're on the right track often enough, you just might start to believe them, even if they're lying. And if you hear what a wonderful person you are often enough, it gets pretty easy to ignore those few "fools" out there that don't agree with you, and that don't appreciate your "wisdom and intelligence." I'm sure Jim Bakker had plenty of people telling him that his amusement park complex was a wonderful idea, and that he really needed a lavish home. If all of his associates had said, "Jim, the money you're spending on this amusement park could be put to much better use feeding the needy", chances are he wouldn't have built it. FidoNews 6-23 Page 8 5 Jun 1989 What has that got to do with Fidonet? No, I'm not putting the Fidonet Coordinators in the same classification as the dictator of a country or a corrupted evangelist, but I am saying that they have formed their own little clique, where THEY decide what's best for Fidonet, and where the voice of the "common sysop" is never heard. It's called the REGCON conference, and it's open only to those at the Regional Coordinator position and higher. So, all the Regional Coordinators get into REGCON and support each other on their decisions, and probably decide who the "troublemakers" in Fidonet are, and who's not worth listening to. Unfortunately, unlike our Congress and Senate, we don't have the Fidonet equivalent of C-SPAN to keep us informed of what's happening in Fidonet government (for those outside the U.S., C-SPAN is a pair of cable television feeds that transmit live the proceedings of the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives). The mental picture is one of a council of dukes gathered in the king's chamber to decide which peasants are "troublemakers" that need to be eliminated, or to plot other mischief. But the worst thing about REGCON is that is allows Regional Coordinators who are about to take some action that is questionable in the light of POLICY to muster support for their position BEFORE the action is taken, or immediately thereafter. In other words, before the victim even knows about an action that about to be taken against him, the RC has already discussed it with the other RC's and the ZC in the REGCON conference. The problem is that there is no one present to speak for the affected person(s)... in effect, it's like holding a trial "in absentia", without allowing the defendant to have any representation. Of course, after the affected sysop finds out about the action, he can still file a policy complaint... but now he has the burden of convincing this council of people who are NOT his peers to backtrack on an action that they have already pre-approved! Pete closes his commentary with: "Enough, already! All I can recommend is that when reading ANY commentary, including this, it's best to remember that the ones doing all the complaining are representative of less than 5% of the members of FidoNet. The *C structure is responsible to 100% of the net. Look at what FidoNet is. Simply amazing that it works at all! And what makes it work? The very same people who are doing everything wrong. And you wonder why I'm confused?" There are a couple of very valid points above. First, probably even LESS than 5% of the sysops ever bother to express their point of view. If EVERY sysop who wanted a more democratic form of government in Fidonet would write to their NC and RC and SAY SO, I'm sure it would have an impact. The problem is that, for example, I hear from lots of folks who agree with me on various issues, but they don't want to make waves. I say, "Why don't you write an article for Fidonews" and they say, "You write so much better than I do, and you say everything I'd want to say!" That's not the point! It's not how well you write, the whole idea is to convince the powers-that-be that you and most other Fidonet sysops want a more representative form of government, FidoNews 6-23 Page 9 5 Jun 1989 and that you're tired of the dictatorship in Fidonet. I could write like Shakespeare but if they think it's only a few lone nuts that want democracy, we aren't going to get it. The other thing is that Pete implies that everything is "working". Well, if you call having Regional Coordinators going around throwing nodes out of Fidonet for no real good reason a net that's "working", then I guess Fidonet is "working". At least some folks are working. Trouble is, sometimes they're working to make life difficult for the rest of us (whether they realize it or not). Please, folks, if you want to see some changes in Fidonet, take time to write to your RC and ZC today, or write an article for Fidonews expressing your sentiments. Let the *C. structure hear from some folks outside their "inner circle" for a change ... from some folks that they haven't already branded as "troublemakers." ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 6-23 Page 10 5 Jun 1989 The Fake Users Manual ===================== Written By Jamie MacDonald ========================== Sysop of The Romulan Sector QuickBBS - 222/20 ============================================= (705)566-5628 - Sudbury, Ontario ================================ May 22, 1989 ============ I have just arrived home from my long weekend. I hadn't looked at the user edit program in about a week and a half and I thought I'd check to see my new users. To my surprise, and dismay, I have found that I have 60 new users in just over a week. Did some local store have a modem sale? Is there someone standing in downtown Sudbury handing out free modems? Nope. The fakes are back, and they are worse than ever. INTRODUCTION ============ When I first introduced the Romulan Sector to the public on January 6th, 1989, I had visions of a wonderful board with seriously oriented users enjoying themselves. NEVER had I thought it would come to this. In the months that I have been running this board, I have had certain games running on this board, which is the target of the fakes. In this file, I will be discussing a topic that many sysops have the PLEASURE of discussing, the good old fake users. CHAPTER 1 - CLASSIFICATION OF FAKES =================================== There are many different types of fakes, and the first step to stopping them is to know who you are dealing with...so here they are: #1) The Common Download/Gaming Idiot: This is the most common type of fake. They gain small access (but small is enough for them!) to the BBS and then take advantage of it, the games, the files for downloading, etc. Many of these users are the users who make regular calls to 'handle' boards and who only call the serious boards because of games, downloads, etc. The most popular game for fakes is the infamous Trade Wars. It is a great game, a very interesting simulation and an excellent idea for a BBS. Too bad these users take a good thing and warp it. They tend to take it SO SERIOUSLY, that they would do almost anything to get more fighters/credits or even access to it. It is almost addictive. The only good thing about these users is that they are easy to catch, and they are rather FidoNews 6-23 Page 11 5 Jun 1989 chicken when it comes to catching them. Example: When you see a user who you don't know on your board (new user or old user) and you dial his/her number and get either a recording or a ring indicating that this user is either not calling from home, or is a fake! You break in.... BBS: Hello John Doe, this is Jamie MacDonald. User: ya hi what Sysop: Hi, I just dialed your number and there is no busy signal, could you please explain this? User: (Hangs up quickly) #2) The Gutsy Fake This is a fake similar to #1, but is a lot more gutsy and will even risk his/her own account's deletation for this fake. To explain this, I will use an example of a fake I had on my board a little while back called David Harrison. I still haven't found the owner of that fake, but I have an idea of who it might be. For now, the owner will be called Joe Blow. A new user logs on to your board, David Harrison. After a few days of putting his deletation off, you call another area BBS, and find that David Harrison hasn't called there. You voice validate David and find out he is a nonexistant person. I delete David. 2 days later, I get a message from David (logged on as a new user) saying: "I AM NOT A FAKE...WHY CAN'T YOU GET THAT INTO YOUR THICK SKULLS?!" Without hesitation, I deleted him. Never called back since. These fakes are the worst kind, because they are stubborn. Once they know they are caught, they don't give up. #3) Mr. Congeniality These fakes are rather fun because they believe that by sucking up and kissing the sysops feet they will be able to remain a validated user. For example, a fake (you know he's a fake but you will be deleting him later) pages you and says: Hi there, Jamie. Would it be okay if you tell me why the board was down earlier today, if you aren't to busy? I would reply: I was working on a new door. He says: FidoNews 6-23 Page 12 5 Jun 1989 Oh wonderful, that is just terrific if there was a new door, not that this BBS isn't great as it is, did I mention what a good BBS this is? As I throw up in the garbage can next to me, I terminate chat mode. I recieve a message an hour later from the fake saying: Thank you very much for letting me know why it was down. Thanks again! The goody two shoes approach used to work with many sysops, but doesn't anymore. #4) The Forgetful Fake This type usually occurs with a user with more than 1 fake. He either forgets entirely about the fake and lets the program delete the account after no call for a while, or he forgets the password of the fake. It is kind of fun to watch a person forgetting his password. #5) The generally stupid fake Most users with fakes have an IQ of 10-20, but there are some that have slightly lower. These users fall into this catagory. In my new user screens, I make mention that you MUST contribute something to the BBS, either in posts, uploads, ideas, etc. Some of the fakes who fall under catagory #5 like seem to think that by writing 4 word posts, they are contributing to the board. You sysops know what I'm talking about: Message #2456 From: John Doe To: All Subject: hi hi everyone hows life send me mail bye john Or of course, the famous insult-the-message-area post: Message #2457 From: John Doe To: All Subject: ---- man this area is lame get some posts going bye john I have a message area on my board called "The Romulan Resthome" for users whos access was lowered because of lack of contribution to the board, and most of the posts in this area look like these. #6) The Non-Consistent Fakes FidoNews 6-23 Page 13 5 Jun 1989 These fakes are the DUMBEST fakes around, yes, even more idiotic than type #5. This type needs barely any explaination, on your board they are Sean, on another they are Shawn. On your board they are John, on another they are Jon. On your board they are.....well you get the idea. #7) The Friends of Modem Users These are fakes that claim they are over at a friends house when they call your board, but never seem to be at home. Some even admit to not having a modem, but they soon learn their lesson when the sysop says "NO MODEM - NO ACCESS". Or even those who claim to have a busted modem are always a royal pain in the ass. These are, in my opinion, the worst type of users, because you can rarely tell whether they are fakes or not. You may have noticed that this file is beginning to look like "The Loser User's Manual". I am not surprised because the users with fakes are very similar to those in that manual. Other famous types of fakes: ---------------------------- The Page-The-Sysop-For-Access Fakes. The Try-To-Hack-Someone-Elses-Pass-And-If-Impossible-Make-A-Fake Fakes And many other types (See the end of this file for more details) What to Do ========== Well, my advice is to voice validate all new users. If it gets too much out of hand (too many over and over again), just go to the centre of the problem: a) If your problem is download fakes, go through your user list and give access to the download areas ONLY to users who have proved themselves by posting and uploading. b) If your problem is games, you can take out the game entirely (I may take out Trade Wars eventually due to the surprisingly large number of fakes). You may also want to put in hours for the games or doors (using an event file) or maybe restrict them to only those who have proved themselves. The one piece of advice to you is NOT to run a program like VERIFY. If you are unfermiliar with verify, it is a program that gives a new user 2 minutes to prepare his/her modem for auto answer while it calls them back to verify them. This may seem like a good idea, but many new users don't know how to put their modem on auto answer, therefore deleting just about all fakes. Perhaps you get a user who either is, or claims to be, from Hong Kong. You certainly don't want your modem calling there! Beware of such programs and don't be fooled by the description beside FidoNews 6-23 Page 14 5 Jun 1989 the file name! One more piece of advice, to find out if a long distance user is a fake or not, call long distance directory assistance and ask if the number that you have belongs to the person who claims it does. And there you have it, The Fake Users Manual. Always be on the look out for fakes, hey, who knows? Maybe the person reading this right now is a fake? You never know.............. Jamie MacDonald. ================================================================= To Sysops: If you have any other types of fakes that you would like to warn the public about, or any tips on catching fakes, please leave netmail to Jamie MacDonald at The Romulan Sector QBBS, 1:222/20 or call The Romulan Sector QBBS at 300 (hopefully not) 1200 or 2400 baud at (705)566-5628. Next edition will be sent In the Fall of 1989. ================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 6-23 Page 15 5 Jun 1989 THE LOST FIDONET ARCHIVES VOLUME TWO Compiled by various members of FidoNet Edited by Vince Perriello This is the second article in a series which reprints documents of historical significance to FidoNet. This week we feature some of the responses from early Fido sysops to Tom Jennings' FidoNet proposal. There are some really interesting items buried in these comments that even today hold real significance to the net. Please note that most if not all of the FidoNet addresses, data line phone numbers, and company names and/or addresses mentioned in this or any of the other articles in this series are not to be considered reliable for current use in locating something or someone mentioned here. Refer to the current nodelist if you want to try to find any of the above. From John Madill, in file FIDONET.JNM (May 26, 1984): Considerations for FidoNet As mentioned, one of the major drawbacks in the FidoNet project is the way by which it would be paid for. One of the possiblities is the 'Pay Ahead' method. The amount to be paid should most likely be a predetermined quantity of TJ Cubits. The application of the payment should be an entry, by the SysOp of the local Fido, into the USER.BBS file. This places the necessary information into a location that can be verified as a user utilizes their allocation of cubits. Each time an entry to the mail system is made, the available cubit quantity can be updated on a real time basis. Another major problem is the verification of recieved mail. This applies not only to the FidoNet concept, but also to the message system as it exists in FidoBBS. A possible way of handling the transfer/receipt of remote mail, is to calculate the return message (received your message ### at FidoNet Location ###, time/date...) as part of the initial outgoing message. The local FidoMail system should in theory, check the senders USER.BBS record to determine the message area last used, and enter a message with the acknowledgement. As this pertains to local messages, when a message is entered, Fido could verify the name of the "To:" party, and the message area last used. Another thing to be considered is the possiblity of automating SQ and LU modules in conjunction within a destination processor. This could squeeze all messages, and pack them into a library for each destination, cutting costs even further. If not to difficult, the receiving Fido could utilize a squeezed file interpreter to speed up the acknowledgement of receipt, as opposed to unsqueezing/de-lbr while on line. The only FidoNews 6-23 Page 16 5 Jun 1989 alternative would be for the remote Fido to call back an acknowledgement, shifting the cost to a location not receiving the payment. The prospect of transferring, or as in another communication which shall remain un-named, "attachment" of program or data files would definately increase the potential value of FidoNet. This is especially true for club or commercial ventures. The problem becomes one of cost accounting. Would subscribers be willing to pay for a portion, pro-rated amount, of the transfer? Obviously a stickey point, but should be considered. I certainly hope that this input is helpful. The possiblity of using this type of relay system is exciting! Hopefully it will be rewarding. From Jim Ryan, in file FIDONET.NOT (May 26, 1984): Jim Ryan 02 May 84 Notes on the FidoNet System Tom Jennings has outlined, in his article dated 30 Apr 84, a proposal for FidoNet-- a communications network for Fido and other message systems. I have some comments and suggestions for improvement of the FidoNet system. ----- If FidoNet were to use a structure similar to DecNet, the networking system for Digital computers, a person could send a message using the syntax : To : -F01 Tom Jennings meaning "Send this message to FidoNet Node 1, addressed to Tom Jennings". A message to all could be coded as : To : -F01 All and a message going to all systems could be coded as : To : -F All The originating Fido system could keep a log of all messages in all areas that are flagged to other FidoNet nodes, and send them with a record indicating there originating node, and area description : Message : 25 From : -F01 Tom Jennings FidoNews 6-23 Page 17 5 Jun 1989 To : All Subject : FidoNet List (Area : General ) ----- In my opinion, the major drawback to the FidoNet system is the reliance on the SysOp to foot the bill for the long distance charges to all the FidoNet nodes he needs to send mail to. This may make the system prohibitive to smaller users. An alternate idea would be to send the FidoNet mail through an alternate system such as MCI Mail or Compuserve. In this manner each sysop would only be paying the charges of the various host systems instead of the long distance charges to each FidoNet node. For example : If Tom (or some other willing volunteer) would write a FidoNet mail system on Compuserve, a sample session might run like this (with the FidoNet computer handling the input/output) : host : Welcome to Compuserve User Id : XXXXX,XXX Password : ____________ Compuserve Information Service XX-XXX-XX at XX:XX:XX FidoNet Host System Login : FIDO-01 Pass : XXXXXXX Welcome FIDO-01 Checking for mail Ready to send mail (CIS sends mail to FidoNet node) Ready to recieve mail (FidoNet node sends mail to CIS) Thank you for using FidoNet (logoff) The disadvantages of this system (especially on CIS or the Source) would be transmission speed. Unless you want to spend the extra $12.00 per hour for 1200 baud service, your stuck with 300 baud. But the advantages would be a central point for all FidoNet messages, and probably much greater efficiency. FidoNews 6-23 Page 18 5 Jun 1989 ----- Well, those are my comments. I think the idea of a national BBS network is fabulous, but it's up to us to figure out the nit- picking details!!!!! Jim Ryan From Richard P. Wilkes, in file FIDONET.RPW (May 26, 1984): FIDONET: Response 5/24/84 Richard P. Wilkes WILKES SOFTWARE SYSTEMS With all due respect to Tom Jennings, I feel the FidoNet implementation as described in the FIDONET.DOC file is not practical. Let me explain, hopefully without becoming too verbose. I have been working on networking systems for seven years now. One thing that truly amazes me is the effort by every implementor to reinvent the wheel. Now, sometime when the wheel doesn't exist, you have to create it. But in this case, there are already MANY different ways to network computers together that WORK; if a network is to be designed, let's chose one that won't leave us isolated from the "rest of the world." People in the micro BBS environ often are totally unaware that there is a working, FREE, network of mini and microcomputers exchanging gigabytes of mail around the country (by phone). Some are part of the Arpanet, but the one we should examine is UUCP, a network of machines running Unix. The UUCP mailer is not small, but could be modified (with great effort) to run on a PC. I know that vortex!lauren@RAND-UNIX is working on an MSDOS version. Note that the address format shown here is a standard. Messages addressed in this manner can be gatewayed through many networks to finally reach its destination. "vortex" is the UUCP machine; "lauren" is the username (for Lauren Weinstein); RAND-UNIX is the Arpanet gateway. Now, all of this may not seem like it has much to do with FidoNet. But, the viability of such a network depends on several vital points: 1) Virtually no cost or minimal cost that could be easily absorbed by local administrations (as they do now). 2) Connectivity with other systems. 3) Personal mailboxes, a feature unsupported by Fido to date. These also gobble disk space. 4) net.news: This is the equivalent of country-wide SIGs. FidoNews 6-23 Page 19 5 Jun 1989 Messages are gatewayed through several hosts and utimately reach all systems where they are posted in message areas. Note that messages may range from 5 to 500 *lines*. Now, I could go on for many pages on the capabilities of systems like these. Right now, you can mail a message and have it delivered free to almost any university or major technology corporation in the country via this network. Other networks also allow file transfer (FTP). I don't want to throw so much cold water on this that it never gets done. However, I have been around long enough to know that this ain't no one man task. Please, consider how naive the notion is of a "simple" routing scheme for 40,000 pc's! [UUCP gets around this by chaining host names. For example, brl-bmd!jhu!aplvax!joe is a message address. To deliver it, the holder contacts brl-bmd (Ballistic Research Lab). It need not know where it is headed after that. brl transfers the message to jhu (Johns Hopkins) which passes it on the the Applied Physics Lab (aplvax). "joe" is a user on aplvax; the message is put in his mailbox. This scheme may sound clumsy, but it works with small, fairly static routing tables.] The idea of a network is terrific. As a matter of fact, I was working on interfacing with a UUCP host myself for a BBS that I use to publish, CompuCenter. I came to these conclusions: 1) you need at least a 33M hard drive at the major nodes, perhaps more. This is expensive. 2) You need nodes that are multi-caller. I mean, most of these systems are busy for HOURS. You don't want mail delayed like that. And, major nodes would have to spend so much time transferring that they would not be usable for anything else. If you had one line dedicated to MAIL with another for file transfer and another for messages, maybe it would work. But hey, an IBM PC at 4.77MHz just ain't the baby for that kind of load. All in all, I'd say... wait. The technology is coming. With a good multiprocessing environment with 5-6 serial lines, a high speed processor (80286?), and 86M drives on the major nodes, we can start to really work at making it a reality. For the time being, I strongly urge that those that are strongly interested in this type of system start doing some research. When you can hold a reasonable discussion on file transfer protocols (real ones, of course--NOT XMODEM), message headers and formats, routing algorithms, connectivity analysis, delivery systems and scheduling, plus some of the more intricate cost analyses, we can join the work that is already advancing in the "other world" so we are not left out once again. I welcome any reasonable comments. I frequent Fido CLP -- Baltimore, only. [Other addresses mentioned by author removed from this paragraph -- ed.] Please, let's keep up the talk. But more importantly, we must approach this formidable task with a little humility and a lot of FidoNews 6-23 Page 20 5 Jun 1989 good, solid knowledge. Sincerely, Richard P. Wilkes ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 6-23 Page 21 5 Jun 1989 Jack Decker Fidonet 1:154/8 LCRnet 77:1011/8 HERE WE GO AGAIN! One of the major problems we have in Fidonet is that of *C's and *EC's trying to impose new policies before they have even been formally adopted. Last year about this time, they came out with ECHOPOL. Now, Echopol was an extremely overly-restrictive document that hardly anyone cared for, except the folks that helped write it (and I think some of them weren't too sure about parts of it). It has NEVER been formally adopted as policy in Fidonet, but that hasn't stopped some *EC's from trying to enforce it as though it has been voted on and formally adopted by the sysops of Fidonet. Many sysops lost feeds of one or more echo conferences as a direct result of premature enforcement of a policy that was still in the draft stage (and that even now, a year later, has not gained acceptance among the sysops of Fidonet). Well, here we go again. Now they've come out with POLICY4, another overly-restrictive document that hardly anyone seems to like. And guess what... although it's still in the draft stage, and although the very first sentence states that "This policy document has been released for vote by the coordinator structure ..., AND IS NOT YET IN FORCE" (emphasis added), we have at least one Regional Coordinator that is trying to enforce the draft policy as though it had been signed, sealed, and approved. Someone in our net asked me recently why it always seems like Spring is when things crawl out from under rocks. The message bearing the bad news was as follows: From: Steve Bonine Subject: Misplaced systems in net 154 * Original to Affected systems and coordinators @ 1:115/777.0 cc: Ted Polczynski 154/0 Mike Bader 120/0 Bruce Casner 139/0 Mario D'Ulisse 222/0 Tom Kashuba 12/0 David Dodell 1/0 Jack Decker 154/8 Robert Kubichek 154/11 Mike Musolf 154/969 Examination of net 154 indicates that the following systems should be in other nets: FidoNews 6-23 Page 22 5 Jun 1989 154/8 in Sault Ste Marie should be in net 222, the Sault Ste Marie net. 154/11 in Manitowoc should be in net 139. 154/969 in Gwinn, MI should probably be in net 120, although I can't seem to find Gwinn on my map (there is a misprint in the index). Ted, please contact the appropriate NC's and get these systems moved. I have no problem with duplicate listings for three weeks, but I would expect these systems to be in their correct nets and removed from 154 no later than the end of June. Thank you. Now, there are a few interesting you should know about the above: First, the affected nodes are not really in the area of another net. Two of the mentioned nodes are in the 906 area code, which is the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. The U.P. is "no man's land" as far as Fidonet is concerned, as there is no active net operating in this area. Historically, Michigan's Upper Peninsula has always had economic ties with Wisconsin (most of our supermarkets are supplied from Wisconsin, for example) and even telephone calls between Michigan's Upper and Lower Peninsulas are routed through Wisconsin and around Lake Michigan. So one could easily justify placing nodes in Michigan's Upper Peninsula in a Wisconsin net (particularly since intrastate calls within Michigan are billed at a MUCH higher rate than interstate calls). Also, for the Gwinn node, Net 154 IS geographically closer than any Michigan net. Second, there is no way that node 154/8 should be in net 222, according to strict interpretation of Fidonet Policy. The reason is simple. Node 154/8 is located in Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, which is in Region 11. Net 222 is located in Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, Canada, which is in Region 12 and which is NOT a local call from the Michigan Sault. Now, admittedly, if it weren't for all this geographic nonsense that the *C's are pushing, it might make a lot of sense for a node in Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan to be in the Sault, Ontario net. But here we have an RC that's trying to break a node out of a net because he feels that node is not geographically entitled to be there, and put it into another net in another region, where it is definitely not supposed to be, according to the "standards" he's trying to use! Third, Node 154/8 is a private node, with the phone number not even listed in the nodelist. I could put ANY city down for a location, and no one would know the difference. Actually, it is a "sister system" to 154/7, which IS located in Milwaukee (actually in the suburb of Cudahy). The whole reason for the existence of 154/8 is to allow easy remote control of 154/7, FidoNews 6-23 Page 23 5 Jun 1989 since the actual sysop of 154/7 is out of town most of the time. The two systems run the same software, and even have (in effect) common netmail areas. It's a pretty unique setup, but one that pretty much dictates that both nodes be in the same net. Someone is bound to ask why 154/8 isn't a point. Glad you asked. For one thing, I do receive some echo conferences directly from a different BBS in Net 154, that are not carried on 154/7. For another thing, I have a point user (that uses a Commodore Amiga, no less) that operates off of 154/8, and receives echoes from here. So I do need to have full node status, albeit private because my system is not up 24 hours a day. Anyway, our RC didn't make much of an attempt to discover any of these facts. Apparently, he was just sitting around one day and on his own initiative, decided to see who he could make trouble for. I say that because no one had complained about the placement of these nodes. He just decided he didn't like the situation and wanted to force a change. Now, the truth of the matter is that I don't think he had to think too long or hard about who he wanted to bother. Make no mistake, there are other nets in Region 11 that are much more geographically diverse than ours. One other net in particular has nodes in FOUR different area codes (and one of those area codes is NOT technically in Region 11, although it is logical for those nodes to be in that net), and covers a radius of approximately 450 miles. But the RC has been looking to pick a fight with Net 154 for quite some time. Why? I'm not sure. But last year, he tried (unsuccessfully) to forcefully replace Ted Polczynski, the Net 154 NC. He failed in this because no one in Net 154 wanted to take Ted's job away from him! Now, Ted has been in Fidonet longer than most NC's, and is an At-Large member of the IFNA Board of Directors... he is not some greenhorn kid who just got the NC post, and as far as I can tell, Ted is well liked and highly respected by everyone in Net 154. But, he is not the sort to take dictates from an RC who bends Policy to suit his own convenience. So, Ted and Steve have had some disagreements in the past. Not only that, but Steve and I have also had a few differences of opinion. So, there's no doubt in my mind why Net 154 was singled out for "selective enforcement." But the purpose of this article is not to air our Regional "dirty linen" nationally. Rather, it's a living example of the type of abuse and heavy-handed regulation that we can probably expect on a regular basis if POLICY4 is approved. You see, Policy4 contains the following language: 1.3.2 Geography Each level of FidoNet is geographically contained by FidoNews 6-23 Page 24 5 Jun 1989 the level immediately above it. A given geographic location is covered by one zone and one region within that zone, and is either in one network or not in a network. There are never two zones, two regions, or two networks which cover the same geographic area. If a node is in the area of a network, it should be listed in that network, not as an independent in the region. (The primary exception to this is a node receiving inordinate amounts of host-routed mail; see section 4.2). Network boundaries are based on calling areas as defined by the local telephone company... What does the phrase "Network boundaries are based on calling areas as defined by the local telephone company" mean? There are at least two possible definitions I can think of offhand: 1) It means that if you're a local call from a net host, you should be in his net, and if you're not in his local calling area, you should not be. 2) It means that if you're in the same LATA (or maybe area code?) as a net host, you should be in his net, otherwise you should not be. Now, under either definition, the two of the three Net 154 nodes that our RC is complaining would not qualify to belong to ANY net. The third node, the one in Manitowoc, would not qualify to belong to any net under definition 1, and WOULD qualify to belong to Net 154, but NOT to Net 139 under definition 2 (Manitowoc is in the Southeast Wisconsin LATA, as is Milwaukee, while the Net 139 NC is in Neenah, which is in the Northeast Wisconsin LATA). Now of course, any *C could come along at any time and interpret the above policy section in yet another way, but then that would just be his opinion. Another *C could interpret the same phrase in a completely different manner. "Calling areas as defined by the local telephone company" could be interpreted in a lot of different ways, I guess. But, as I pointed out earlier, there are LOTS of nets around that contain nodes that are not within the local calling area, or even the same area code, as the net host. YOUR net may have a few such nodes. I know for a fact that other nets in Region 11 have such nodes. But, our RC has been looking for a reason to "get" Net 154, so I'm sure he'd notice things here that he'd overlook in other nets... FOR NOW. But if Net 154 falls, YOUR NET COULD BE NEXT! There is a saying that "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." If the RC has the right to dictate which nodes may or may not be in nets, there are several nets in Region 11, and in all the other regions, that may have nodes added or taken away without their consent. FidoNews 6-23 Page 25 5 Jun 1989 Please stop for a moment and think about those nodes in your net that are NOT a local telephone call from your Net Coordinator. If POLICY4 passes, just about any of these nodes could be subject to being pruned from your net, depending on how the RC decides to interpret POLICY4 on a given day (and whether or not he's holding a grudge against you, or someone in your net). You may not agree with me about Echopol, or any of other numerous matters on which I've expressed an opinion. I can live with that. But do you really want the RC to be able to come in and prune and graft on your net, with you or your NC having no say at all in the matter? Some folks thought I was tilting at windmills when I sounded the alarm about all this geographic nonsense while Echopol was under consideration. Now that you see where it's leading, are you still in favor of it? Do you really want the day to come when the *C structure tells you exactly how you're going to run your system, and all you get to do is pay the phone bills? I feel that the potential for heavy-handed regulation by the *C structure (particularly at the RC level and above) is sufficient reason to: 1) Vote down POLICY4, if and when we ever get to vote on it (and IGNORE IT if we DON'T get to vote on it... by the way, the same applies to ECHOPOL). 2) Let other sysops (particularly those in other regions) know the dangers in POLICY4 (that's a hint to any of you who still have access to echoes such as IFNA or SYSOP... I don't!) 3) Push ever harder for a truly democratic and representative structure in Fidonet, so that we can get rid of the petty dictators. (This isn't Communist China, and we shouldn't have to sit still for this type of dictatorship!). 4) Teach our *C's the difference between geography and network topology, or get some new *C's who have the mental capacity to understand the difference! 5) Get rid of Regions in Fidonet altogether (okay, I know a lot of folks don't want to go that far... but please consider the benefits vs. the disadvantages of the "Region" level of Fidonet government. It seems that this is the level where most of the real problems in Fidonet originate!). I would also ask those of you who communicate regularly with Net 154 to use a text editor and clip the Net 154 segment of the nodelist some time in the next week or two, so that if our RC decides to slash our whole net from the nodelist, you'll still be able to talk to us by placing our nodelist segment in a private nodelist. Speaking of the nodelist... the only real "club" that the *C FidoNews 6-23 Page 26 5 Jun 1989 structure has over any net or node is the ability to remove them from the nodelist. I feel it is high time we had a nodelist that is NOT used for disciplinary purposes. In other words, you have a node that's Fidonet compatible, you get to be in the nodelist, no matter what the *C structure thinks of you. Obviously, this will never happen with the "official" Fidonet nodelist. But, suppose that one fine day all of the NC's, instead of sending their nodelist updates to their RC's, sent them to a new organization whose sole purpose for existence was to compile a Fidonet-compatible nodelist without regard to politics, and who were pledged to NOT use the nodelist listing for disciplinary purposes? I've seen similar cooperative efforts spring up in Fidonet. We now have a Software Distribution System and a Software Distribution Network. Perhaps we also need a Nodelist Distribution Network, that would simply distribute a St. Louis format nodelist, not aligned with any particular group, but simply dedicated to giving people the ability to communicate. The only problem is that few people have access to the software that creates the nodelists and nodediffs, and fewer still know how to use it (I'd be tempted to write something myself if I could figure out how to calculate that doggone checksum, preferably using compiled BASIC). ADDENDUM I was going to write an article for Fidonews regarding a message I had seen that was apparently received by David Dodell, and then forwarded out to the *C structure. David was apparently worried enough about this message to forward it out. It read: After giving the matter serious thought, I'm unable to resolve (in my mind) why there is such a negative feeling among the FidoNet higher ups against democratic process. We are an amatuer organization. To my knowledge, FidoNet is the only international organization of its type WITHOUT ANY ELECTED OFFICERS. At this point I would want to ask all SysOps if there is any interest in becoming part of a CLASS ACTION against the ZONE and REGION structure of FidoNet? I personally feel that I'm being DENIED my RIGHT to select our officers. Even the corporate structure in American business has to answer to the stockholders What I'm asking for is support in SUEing the operators of all '/0' addresses above the network level. The amount can be $1.00 but the issue is the drafting of rational documents and election procedures. I'm tired of 'good old boy' appointments and 'pork barrel politics.' FidoNews 6-23 Page 27 5 Jun 1989 Think about it..... Let the campaign slogan be: Litigation '89 After what I've read in 2 years, there is no other way! Now, I have to admit that the thought of sysops bringing lawsuits against other sysops scares me plenty, and I had planned to write something along those lines. But after this most recent unprovoked attack by our RC, I now have a new appreciation of the frustration that the author of the above message must have felt. We have an unpopular hierarchy that simply refuses to yield to the call for reform and democracy in Fidonet. These people weren't elected... in fact, most of us aren't quite sure just how these people managed to achieve their status in Fidonet. In more than one instance, one of the most unpopular people in a region has managed to get himself appointed RC or REC. And under present policy, there is no way for the average sysop to have any input into this appointment process! I'm not printing the name of the author of the message, because I'm still afraid that such a lawsuit might destroy Fidonet entirely (sort of like cutting off your head to cure a headache). But if the *C structure doesn't soon begin to understand that most sysops do NOT approve of the dictatorial, top-down government of Fidonet, I fear that an action such as the one mentioned above is bound to occur sooner or later. I'll tell you one thing, though. After this most recent occurrence of getting the shaft from our RC, I have to admit that the temptation to send this guy a a few bucks toward his legal expenses is much stronger now! ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 6-23 Page 28 5 Jun 1989 1:115/982 CURTIS SAHAKIAN THE FIDONET DEMOCRACY ECHO THE FIDONET DEMOCRACY ECHO.....The purpose of this Echo is to discuss the best way to implement a fully representative democracy within FidoNet. This is not a *C bashing area. This is not a place to keep saying 'You can't do this.", "Democracy in FidoNet is impossible.", or "You are preaching treason and will be excommunciated." This area is for rational discussion and debate on HOW we will make FidoNet democratic not IF we will. When you enter this Echo and participate, you accept the premise that making FidoNet fully representative is a foregone conclusion and your purpose here is to discover HOW it will be done and WHEN it will be done. Personal attacks of any kind are not tolerated. Name calling, libelous or slanderous pronouncements, deliberate distortion of facts or insertion of misinformation are not tolerated. No shouting matchs or ego contests. Everyone is welcome and encouraged to make constructive comments and to offer solutions. We all know what the problems are. Everyone is encouraged to use their common sense and to offer well thought out plans of action. At present, you may link into DEMOCRACY in the Midwest (Chicago) at 1:115/982, and in Southeast (Florida) at 1:135/14, 1:135/10, or 1:133/302. We are looking for Denver, Texas, California and New England Hubs. The Echo is open to anyone with a REAL interest in the goals stated above and the intent to observe the simple conference guidelines. If you are interested in picking it up and distributing it call any of the above hubs. It is intentionally being kept off the backbone. We need more hubs to spread the word! The echo is has only just recently started and is already is filling up with a great deal of constructive comment and discussion. Lets hear your thoughts! ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 6-23 Page 29 5 Jun 1989 Jacek Szelozynski Quick Cat BBS, 2:286/201.10 xx48-58-523319 Gdansk, Poland Something Exotic - Polish traffic in Net/Echo Mail ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Poland is a country in Europe placed between USSR, East Germany, Czechoslovakia and Baltic Sea. And I am one of three Polish BBSes SYSOP. Just few weeks ago we joined the Net/Echo Mail as a point of AINEX-RBBS in Holland. Now we exchange netmail and joined COMMS, CLONE, C_ECHO, PENPAL, INTERNAT, TELIX and ZMODEM echoes. Soon it turned out that messages from Poland in worldwide echoes are quite a sensation so I decided to drop you all a line an enlighten you a bit on "BBSes in communist country". First some history. Our adventure with BBS has started in March 1988 from WILDCAT! 1.03 brought from USA by Stach Roth, my fellow sysop and programmer in our company. There has been one BBS in Poland at that time but it worked very irregularly and we did want to create something better and more reliable. Soon Polish adaptation of WILDCAT! was ready (the knowledge of English is not too popular in Poland). We started our run on the 12th of August 1988. Browsing various BBSes in Europe I have met Arjen Lentz and very soon it was clear that our software can not do everything we would like our BBS to do. There was urgent need to implement Z- Modem (a must on poor Polish lines) and the version of WILDCAT! we used could not work with Net and Echo Mail. So what could we do? One day we got Quick BBS version 2.03 and from 10th of March 1989 we continue our activity as Quick Cat BBS connected to The Box mailer. The most often asked question in the messages is "Do commies allow for such an activity as using modems?". I am sorry if my reply does not agree with certain prejudices, but we are not at all restricted in anything we do. At least nowadays. We only had to register our modem in the Main Post Office and check if it meets Polish homologation. Anyway... The condition of Polish telephone lines is in some places so poor that commies do not have to be afraid one day their monopoly will be threatened by thousands of modem transmissions. We have some 500.000 PC's in Poland (even buying true-blue COCOM registered IBM PS2/80 or Honeywell or HP is not a problem at all) but the idea of modem communication is not very popular as yet. Most of the computers are used in working places and they rather do book-keeping or accounting jobs than send/exchange messages. The latter are rather transmitted by faxes. However there ARE few fanatics in my country for whom connecting Poland into European modem net is not just a mere hobby. Why do I say "European", not "worldwide"? The reason is simple. Poland (as by now) only has direct telephone links with Europe... If I want to call to USA or Australia I have to wait about 2 - 3 days for the operator-made call. There's probably another good FidoNews 6-23 Page 30 5 Jun 1989 reason why Polish government doesn't have to be afraid of modems. All in all THEY (not modems!) control the telephone network and switching it all off is very easy. Well, back to the subject. As I mentioned there are two other BBSes in Poland too, one in Warsaw and one in Krakow. All use Quick BBS. Being an echo pioneer in Poland is quite difficult and very expensive. If say (proportionally to your wages) you pay one dollar per minute of Holland - Poland call, then I my costs are at least twice as high. I am alone so I have to download all the support I need from abroad on my sponsor expenses. Necessity however is the mother of invention, so we create the utils we need too. E.g. Stach (writes in C) created extended log-viewer utility and now he writes dBase format data base utility to browse and search any records you wish ON-LINE! In fact I have two sponsors. The other one in Holland sends my netmail all over the world if I have a bug report for someone. I do not have a phone at home, so the BBS is in my working place. There are some 8 (yes, eight, not a mistake) phones per 100 people in Poland and one have to wait about 15 years to get one connected. Crazy, eh? But I am not guilty of that situation so I do not have to be ashamed. All the troubles and difficulties do not make me feel like giving it up either, I am really a fanatic of all the mailing beasts and the ROYAL troubles they can cause. Installing the new BBS I used to work on it day by day from 5 pm till midnight for over a month and even longer. It is not a problem for a night killer like me. The users of our BBS (we have 72 participants) are mainly programmers. As I said modeming idea in Poland is not very popular as yet and we do work hard to convince people that it is faster and cheaper to use modem sometimes. I am sure connecting Gdansk to worldwide FidoNet is a step in right direction. If you have any questions you are welcome! I'll try to reply all messages (if there will be any :)). You can leave messages to us in the Echoes mentioned above or call directly, and of course by Netmail to 2:286/201.10 (or 2:2/102.10). We run our Quick Cat everyday from 22:00 till 09:00 GMT+1, number is: xx48-58-523319. Happy modeming! Jacek Szelozynski, Quick Cat BBS, Point of AINEX RBBS. ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 6-23 Page 31 5 Jun 1989 ================================================================= COLUMNS ================================================================= The Veterinarian's Corner Excerpts from the ANIMED GroupMail Conference by Don Thomson, 1:102/1005 > The problem .... was that it was CONSTANTLY using the couch for > a toilet. He was always spraying it, and it smelled horrible... You bring up a good, albeit difficult, topic on cats and elimination problem behavior. The first step towards arriving at a solution is to make a distinction between spraying (which is delivering a forceful urine stream to a vertical surface - the tail is held erect, quivering, while the behavior occurs) and innapropriate elimination - the basic squatting and leaving the results on a horizontal surface. Generally the approach to spraying behavior is different than the approach to innapropriate elimination behavior, although with some cats the two may occur in the same area. Let me first address the 'easier' of the two behaviors- inappropriate elimination - or truely 'using the couch as the sandbox.' Here I will address generalities on the subject, some of which may not be germain to your parents plight, but need to be considered in other similar instances. Urinary tract infections which create a sensation of urgency to eliminate is a cause that must first be ruled out. Not all bladder infections (cystitis) are accompanied by blood, so a urinalysis and/or urine culture may be warrented in certain instances to make sure this is a behavioral rather than medical problem. There are also age-related 'senile' or 'weakness' related causes in geriatric cats that may contribute to elimination problems in some cats. Behaviorally, though, we have two general categories, each of which have an approach. There are 'Aversions' to the litterbox, or 'Attractions' to the innapropriate area. Lastly, there are the 'Emotional' disturbances that may effect an elimation problem. Aversions: This may in some cases be as simple as not cleaning out the litterbox frequently enough. Other times it may be that one particular cat will not use the catbox that another cat has eliminated in. For some reason a cat may find the smell of certain litters offensive - this may be the case in those who use certain chlorophyll containing kitty litters or the use of strong deodorizors or perfumes. Some cats find kitty litter itself aversive and require actual sand. Fortunatly, sand is cheeper than kitty litter anyway. Interrupting the cat while using the litterbox to administer medications etc may create an 'aversion by association' to using the litterbox. Sometimes, too, the owners preferred location of the litterbox may be the cause of FidoNews 6-23 Page 32 5 Jun 1989 the adversion and a change in location may be in order. Attractions: One of the biggest problem with urinating in the wrong spot is that it quickly becomes self perpetuating by virtue of the scent left behind. Cats and dogs have a tremendous interaction between smell and certain behaviors, such that even the scent of urine triggers a behavioral elimination response. It is of absolute importance that the area be completely cleansed of the urine smell. There are improved commercial products on the market, and some people find that carbonated soda water works well. Feeding a cat in the previously soiled area may also reduce the likelyhood of using the spot again. Emotional Disturbances: This may be the result of early trauma and individual 'personality' of the cat. We have reasonably good luck in treating this type of behavior with mood altering medications, actually synthetic progesterone derivatives. (Megace or Ovaban, or injectable Depo-Provera). This medical approach is not without a degree of risk of certain side effects, and for this reason, the previously mentioned factors should be addressed first. After the causative factors have been addressed, then the cat needs to 're-learn' to use the litterbox. Initially this may mean confinement in a relatively small area of the house with the litterbox placed where there is the highest likelyhood that it will use it. Usually the bathroom is the most convenient place because of tile or linoleum floor. As the cat learns to use the box regularly, it can gradually be re-introduced into other parts of the house. It should be watched fairly closely to make sure it doesn't break training. Slowly through 'successive approximation' it may be given more and more area, and the cat box slowly moved to a place that is more convenient for the owner. Both changes (increased area, and movement of the catbox should be gradual. > Was there anything they could have done to keep this cat > from ruining their furniture? Maybe, Phil. But as you know, the process is difficult at times, and there are, sadly, failures.... As your folks' cat sounds as though it had a combination of factors acting, possibly a combination of medical and behavoral modifaction would be needed. Spraying behavior is another story...... DB Thomson, DVM 1:102/1005 9:871/16 ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 6-23 Page 33 5 Jun 1989 ================================================================= LATEST VERSIONS ================================================================= Latest Software Versions Bulletin Board Software Name Version Name Version Name Version Fido 12m+* Phoenix 1.3 TBBS 2.1 Lynx 1.30 QuickBBS 2.03 TComm/TCommNet 3.4 Opus 1.03b+ RBBS 17.1D TPBoard 5.2* + Netmail capable (does not require additional mailer software) Network Node List Other Mailers Version Utilities Version Utilities Version BinkleyTerm 2.20 EditNL 4.00 ARC 6.02* D'Bridge 1.18 MakeNL 2.12 ARCmail 2.0 Dutchie 2.90C ParseList 1.30 ConfMail 4.00 FrontDoor 2.0 Prune 1.40 EMM 2.02* PRENM 1.47* XlatList 2.90 GROUP 2.10* SEAdog 4.51* XlaxDiff 2.32 MSG 3.3* XlaxNode 2.32 MSGED 1.99 TCOMMail 2.2* TMail 1.11* TPBNetEd 3.2* UFGATE 1.03 XRS 2.2 * Recently changed Utility authors: Please help keep this list up to date by reporting new versions to 1:1/1. It is not our intent to list all utilities here, only those which verge on necessity. ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 6-23 Page 34 5 Jun 1989 ================================================================= NOTICES ================================================================= The Interrupt Stack 15 Jul 1989 Start of the SAPMFC&LP (Second Annual Poor Man's FidoCon and Lake Party) to be held at Silver Lake Park on Grapevine Lake in Arlington, Texas. This started as an R19-only thing last year, but we had so much fun, we decided to invite everybody! We'll have beer, food, beer, waterskiing, beer, horseshoes, beer, volleyball, and of course beer. It's an overnighter, so bring your sleeping bag and plan to camp out. Contact one of the Furriers (Ron Bemis at 1:124/1113 or Dewey Thiessen at 1:130/24) for details and a fantastic ASCII map. 2 Aug 1989 Start of Galactic Hacker Party in Amsterdam, Holland. Contact Rop Gonggrijp at 2:280/1 for details. 24 Aug 1989 Voyager 2 passes Neptune. 24 Aug 1989 FidoCon '89 starts at the Holiday Inn in San Jose, California. Trade show, seminars, etc. Contact 1:1/89 for info. 5 Oct 1989 20th Anniversary of "Monty Python's Flying Circus" 11 Oct 1989 First International Modula-2 Conference at Bled, Yugoslavia hosting Niklaus Wirth and the British Standards Institution. Contact 1:106/8422 for more information. 11 Nov 1989 A new area code forms in northern Illinois at 12:01 am. Chicago proper will remain area code 312; suburban areas formerly served with that code will become area code 708. ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 6-23 Page 35 5 Jun 1989 OFFICERS OF THE INTERNATIONAL FIDONET ASSOCIATION Mort Sternheim 1:321/109 Chairman of the Board Bob Rudolph 1:261/628 President Matt Whelan 3:3/1 Vice President Bill Bolton 3:711/403 Vice President-Technical Coordinator Linda Grennan 1:147/1 Secretary Kris Veitch 1:147/30 Treasurer IFNA COMMITTEE AND BOARD CHAIRS Administration and Finance Mark Grennan 1:147/1 Board of Directors Mort Sternheim 1:321/109 Bylaws Don Daniels 1:107/210 Ethics Vic Hill 1:147/4 Executive Committee Bob Rudolph 1:261/628 International Affairs Rob Gonsalves 2:500/1 Membership Services David Drexler 1:147/1 Nominations & Elections David Melnick 1:107/233 Public Affairs David Drexler 1:147/1 Publications Rick Siegel 1:107/27 Security & Individual Rights Jim Cannell 1:143/21 Technical Standards Rick Moore 1:115/333 IFNA BOARD OF DIRECTORS DIVISION AT-LARGE 10 Courtney Harris 1:102/732 Don Daniels 1:107/210 11 Bill Allbritten 1:11/301 Mort Sternheim 1:321/109 12 Bill Bolton 3:711/403 Mark Grennan 1:147/1 13 Irene Henderson 1:107/9 (vacant) 14 Ken Kaplan 1:100/22 Ted Polczyinski 1:154/5 15 Scott Miller 1:128/12 Matt Whelan 3:3/1 16 Ivan Schaffel 1:141/390 Robert Rudolph 1:261/628 17 Neal Curtin 1:343/1 Steve Jordan 1:206/2871 18 Andrew Adler 1:135/47 Kris Veitch 1:147/30 19 David Drexler 1:147/1 (vacant) 2 Henk Wevers 2:500/1 David Melnik 1:107/233 ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 6-23 Page 36 5 Jun 1989 __ The World's First / \ BBS Network /|oo \ * FidoNet * (_| /_) FidoCon '89 in San Jose, California _`@/_ \ _ at The Holiday Inn Park Plaza | | \ \\ August 24-27, 1989 | (*) | \ )) ______ |__U__| / \// / Fido \ _//|| _\ / (________) (_/(_|(____/ (tm) R E G I S T R A T I O N F O R M Name: _______________________________________________________ Address: ____________________________________________________ City: _______________________ State: ____ Zip: ______________ Country: ____________________________________________________ Phone Numbers: Day: ________________________________________________________ Evening: ____________________________________________________ Data: _______________________________________________________ Zone:Net/ Node.Point: ___________________________________________________ Your BBS Name: ________________________________________________ BBS Software: _____________________ Mailer: ___________________ Modem Brand: _____________________ Speed: ____________________ What Hotel will you be Staying at: ____________________________ Do you want an in room point? (Holiday Inn only) ______________ Are you a Sysop? _____________ Are you an IFNA Member? ______ Additional Guests: __________ (not attending conferences) Do you have any special requirements? (Sign Language translation, handicapped, etc.) FidoNews 6-23 Page 37 5 Jun 1989 ______________________________________________________ Comments: ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ Costs How Many? Cost --------------------------- -------- ------- Conference fee $60 .................... ________ _______ ($75.00 after July 15) Friday Banquet $30.00 ................ ________ _______ ======== ======= Totals ................................ ________ _______ You may pay by Check, Money Order, or Credit Card. Please send no cash. All monies must be in U.S. Funds. Checks should be made out to: "FidoCon '89" This form should be completed and mailed to: Silicon Valley FidoCon '89 PO Box 390770 Mountain View, CA 94039 You may register by Netmailing this completed form to 1:1/89 for processing. Rename it to ZNNNXXXX.REG where Z is your Zone number, N is your Net number, and X is your Node number. US Mail confirmation is required within 72 hours to confirm your registration. If you are paying by credit card, please include the following information. For your own security, do not route any message with your credit card number on it. Crash it directly to 1:1/89. Master Card _______ Visa ________ Credit Card Number _____________________________________________ Expiration Date ________________________________________________ Signature ______________________________________________________ FidoNews 6-23 Page 38 5 Jun 1989 No credit card registrations will be accepted without a valid signature. Rooms at the Holiday Inn may be reserved by calling the Hotel at 408-998-0400, and mentioning that you are with FidoCon. Rooms are $60.00 per night double occupancy. Additional rollaways are available for $10.00 per night. To obtain these rates you must register before July 15. The official FidoCon '89 airline is American Airlines. You can receive either a 5% reduction in supersaver fares or a 40% reduction in the regular day coach fare. San Jose is an American Airlines hub with direct flights to most major cities. When making reservations, you must call American's reservation number, 800-433-1790, and reference Star number S0289VM. ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 6-23 Page 39 5 Jun 1989 __ The World's First / \ BBS Network /|oo \ * FidoNet * (_| /_) _`@/_ \ _ | | \ \\ | (*) | \ )) ______ |__U__| / \// / Fido \ _//|| _\ / (________) (_/(_|(____/ (tm) Membership for the International FidoNet Association Membership in IFNA is open to any individual or organization that pays a specified annual membership fee. IFNA serves the international FidoNet-compatible electronic mail community to increase worldwide communications. Member Name _______________________________ Date _______________ Address _________________________________________________________ City ____________________________________________________________ State ________________________________ Zip _____________________ Country _________________________________________________________ Home Phone (Voice) ______________________________________________ Work Phone (Voice) ______________________________________________ Zone:Net/Node Number ____________________________________________ BBS Name ________________________________________________________ BBS Phone Number ________________________________________________ Baud Rates Supported ____________________________________________ Board Restrictions ______________________________________________ Your Special Interests __________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ In what areas would you be willing to help in FidoNet? __________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ Send this membership form and a check or money order for $25 in US Funds to: International FidoNet Association PO Box 41143 St Louis, Missouri 63141 USA Thank you for your membership! Your participation will help to insure the future of FidoNet. Please NOTE that IFNA is a general not-for-profit organization and Articles of Association and By-Laws were adopted by the membership in January 1987. The second elected Board of Directors was filled in August 1988. The IFNA Echomail Conference has been established on FidoNet to assist the Board. We welcome your input to this Conference. -----------------------------------------------------------------