Volume 6, Number 26 26 June 1989 +---------------------------------------------------------------+ | _ | | / \ | | /|oo \ | | - FidoNews - (_| /_) | | _`@/_ \ _ | | International | | \ \\ | | FidoNet Association | (*) | \ )) | | Newsletter ______ |__U__| / \// | | / FIDO \ _//|| _\ / | | (________) (_/(_|(____/ | | (jm) | +---------------------------------------------------------------+ Editor in Chief: Vince Perriello Editors Emeritii: Dale Lovell Thom Henderson Chief Procrastinator Emeritus: Tom Jennings FidoNews is published weekly by the International FidoNet Association as its official newsletter. You are encouraged to submit articles for publication in FidoNews. Article submission standards are contained in the file ARTSPEC.DOC, available from node 1:1/1. 1:1/1 is a Continuous Mail system, available for network mail 24 hours a day. Copyright 1989 by the International FidoNet Association. All rights reserved. Duplication and/or distribution permitted for noncommercial purposes only. For use in other circumstances, please contact IFNA at (314) 576-4067. IFNA may also be contacted at PO Box 41143, St. Louis, MO 63141. Fido and FidoNet are registered trademarks of Tom Jennings of Fido Software, 164 Shipley Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94107 and are used with permission. We don't necessarily agree with the contents of every article published here. Most of these materials are unsolicited. No article will be rejected which is properly attributed and legally acceptable. We will publish every responsible submission received. Table of Contents 1. EDITORIAL ................................................ 1 2. ARTICLES ................................................. 2 Policy 4: FidoNet now a Nazi Dictatorship? ............... 2 The Old Frog's Almanac - TopicX on the job! .............. 7 National Teachers Training Competition ................... 12 Official report on Eurocon III ........................... 14 FidoNet Policy -- Why Bother? ............................ 24 A View From Outside? ..................................... 26 Universal Mayhem Gains Strength .......................... 28 Stepping Lightly through the Hornet's Nest ............... 31 Proposal for a Public Nodelist ........................... 37 And more! FidoNews 6-26 Page 1 26 Jun 1989 ================================================================= EDITORIAL ================================================================= I wanted to write an editorial this week. I sat down and wrote about half of one. Then I decided that it wouldn't make a damned bit of difference and deleted the text. You people going around calling others jerks should consider that it's all a matter of perspective who the heroes and villains are in this network. How about giving FidoNet some thought for a change? Nahhhhh. Phooey! ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 6-26 Page 2 26 Jun 1989 ================================================================= ARTICLES ================================================================= FidoNet hits ANOTHER New Low! by Phil Buonomo, 1:107/583 (at least until the RC's read this) (By the way, this may be some sort of record! TWO "New Lows" in a month!) Well, I do believe the world may be coming to an end. I actually AGREE with Jim Grubs on something! ;-) This past week, many of you received a number of messages protesting the institution of Policy 4 by the RC's. These messages were HOST ROUTED by Jim Grubs. This is commonly called a 'bombing run', and for those unfamiliar with it, is considered 'impolite', the theory being that if you're going to send out several hundred messages, you shouldn't make the routing points pay for distribution of your note, it should go on YOUR dime. This has happened in the past, particularly in Net 107, where there are over 200 nodes. What usually happens is the offending party (usually ignorant of this rule) gets a couple of nastygrams from NC's and RC's, and promises not to do it again. Sometimes a Policy Complaint is filed, and the node promises not to do it again. End of discussion. Unfortunately, Jim Grubs was unaware of this 'gentlemens agreement' and routed his messages, which contained serious questions regarding Policy 4 and the RC's alleged grab for power. Hal DuPrie rightfully filed a policy complaint, though I expect he too, thought JG would be told not to do it again, that JG would apologize, and that would be the end of it. This sparked a discussion between Jim Grubs and Steve Bonine, the RC of Jim's region. Jim admitted that he was unfamiliar with said 'bombing run' rules. Unfortunately, in that discussion, Grubs questioned the legitimacy of Policy 4, and implied that it was illegal in nature, and would not be followed. Steve Bonine then removed him from this week's nodelist. That action is patently ridiculous, and for those who know him in his region, patently Bonine. (I invite others in his region to corroborate this. Perhaps the Net who's NC was almost removed for not bowing down to his demands concerning nodelist entries BEFORE the deadline will step forward.) Mere statements made in the heat of the moment should not be actionable. It is the ACTION that should be considered illegal, and for Bonine to remove Jim Grubs because he disagrees with FidoNews 6-26 Page 3 26 Jun 1989 Policy 4 is ABSURD in the EXTREME. What's next? Randy Bush is to be excommunicated because he published anti-Policy 4 articles? Watch out, Randy! From FNEWS622: Date: 15 May 89 10:04:16 From: Randy Bush of 105/6 To: David Dodell 1/0 Subj: Formal Objection to Proposed Method of Policy-4 Ratification David, I hereby file a formal objection to and complaint about the method by which you, the IC/ZC and the RCs, are attempting to put a new FidoNet policy, Policy-4, in place. You have unilaterally declared that it will be ratified by a procedure described for the first time within the document itself, and not by the procedure(s) in place now, before the document is accepted. Policies 1 through 3 were adopted by a consensus of the net as a whole, and P3 was subsequently (though irrevelantly, IMHO) ratified by IFNA. At the time Policy-3 was adopted, it was assumed that time would require new policy, and the the new policy would be adopted by means similar to that of Policies 1-3. If and only if Policy-4 is accepted, then the procedure outlined in Policy-4 is appropriate for adopting a Policy-5 or whatever. But, there is absolutely no grounds under current FidoNet policy and procedures for Policy-4 to be adopted by just the *Cs. I formally object, and deny your right to use such procedures, and deny the validity of any policy purportedly adopted by such a means. randy (with apologies for being a stickler as usual) Well, speaking from 1:107/583 (for now, anyway), this is Phil Buonomo (who has also called Jim Grubs a "no good bastard" in the past, but hates to see ANYBODY get the shaft from the establishment) forwarding this discussion to you, directly from Jim Grubs: * Forwarded from 1:234/1, Private Node - No Trespassing, Sylvania OH * Originally to Steve Bonine, 1:115/777 * Forwarded by Jim Grubs, 1011/1, 13:44 6/22 > cc: Pete White > David Dodell > Jim Dunmyer FidoNews 6-26 Page 4 26 Jun 1989 > >>cc: Pete White , David Dodell, Steve Bonine, Jim Dunmyer >> Jim, >> I have all the information regarding the Policy Complaint >> filed by Hal DuPrie at 101/0. I feel the complaint is >> fully justified as the `bombing run' has always been >> considered `exceedingly annoying'. >JG> I already conceded in my messages to Mr. Dunmyer that I was >JG> in error about my interpretation of the meaning of the >JG> rules on bombing runs. As to the comment about Mr. >JG> Duprie's attitude on demcocracy, that is my interpretation >JG> of his words and actions. I'm entitled to my opinion, which >JG> remains unchanged. >JG> The question which remains unanswered is the legitimacy of >JG> Policy 4. You can neither excommunicate nor canonize >JG> under a policy document that was not legally adopted. >JG> The rules under which it was adopted were made up >JG> unilaterally as the process went along. Furthermore, I was >JG> not a part of the process. The *C's can enter into all >JG> the agreements among themselves they want to. They can't >JG> force people who were not a party to that agreement to >JG> comply with it. I could organize a bunch of sysops and >JG> 'pass' Policy 7-requiring the *C's to wear mirrored >JG> eyeshades and carry nerf bats, too. So, what? Do as you >JG> wish. You will anyway. >JG> 73 de Jim Grubs, W8GRT > I am accepting the above message as an affirmation of your > desire to terminate your relationship with FidoNet, since you > do not wish to observe FidoNet policy. I will remove your > nodelist entry, effective immediately. Thank you for your > past contributions to FidoNet, many of which have been > positive. Should you have a change of heart, and decide that > you are willing to be bound by FidoNet policy, please re-apply > for a node number. I am willing to observe and comply with Fidonet policy. What I deny is that Policy 4 IS Fidonet policy. It was not adopted legally. You are attempting to make it "legal" by bludgeoning all dissenters. It is THAT attempt that I repudiate. If you have Policy 4 ratified by a referendum of ALL Fidonet sysops, you'll have my full suport. Until then, forget it. 73 de Jim Grubs, W8GRT ---------- * Forwarded from 1:234/100, EchoMaster, Temperance MI * Originally from Jim Dunmeyer, 1:234/0 * Originally to Jim Grubs, 1:234/1 * Forwarded by Jim Grubs, 1011/1, 13:47 6/22 Jim, I have just spoken with Steve Bonine on the phone, and he verified that he has in fact removed your node number from this FidoNews 6-26 Page 5 26 Jun 1989 week's NODELIST. This was not due in any way to your views on democracy or anything else, only your statement that you do not feel bound in any way by POLICY. There is no choice for me but to follow through on this. As of tomorrow AM, you will not be in the nodelist; in the meantime all other signs of your existance here are being removed (distribution list, AREAFIX password, AREAS.BBS, etc.) It saddens me greatly to have to do this, as I feel as Steve does: you have made contributions to the Net, but as a member, you must agree to abide by policy. There are mechanisms in place to change Policy, but negativity won't do the job, and in the meantime, what you see is what we have to work with. If you change your mind on agreeing with Policy, please FREQ NODEREQ3.ARC from here and follow the Doc's. Thanks, and sorry... <> * ---------- * Forwarded from 1:234/1, Private Node - No Trespassing, Sylvania OH * Originally to Jim Dunmyer, 1:234/100 * Forwarded by Jim Grubs, 1011/1, 13:48 6/22 I regard Policy 4 as having been illegally adopted. It therefore is NOT Fidonet policy. If it was, I would abide by it. Steve is trying to browbeat people into swearing allegience to it as a means for getting around the fact it was illegally adopted. Does that sound right to you? 73 de Jim Grubs, W8GRT ---------- * Forwarded from 1:234/1, Private Node - No Trespassing, Sylvania OH * Originally to David Dodell, 1:114/15 * Forwarded by Jim Grubs, 1011/1, 13:45 6/22 From one point of view I would be willing to be "purged" because I know the resulting anger would contribute to bringing Steve Bonine down. He's been like a rampaging Cossack trampling the peasants under his horse's hooves from the very beginning of his appointment. It's not just me. He can't get along with anyone. He likes to exercise power for its own sake. Instead I choose to fight back. I appeal his arbitrary and capricious decision to you. He cannot hold me or anyone to account for violations against a Fidonet Policy that that does not exist. Because it was illegally adopted, Policy 4 is NOT Fidonet policy. If it was I would abide by it. I said it before and I say it again: before the summer is over, David, Bonine will have blundered you into another Freenet rebellion. You can disagree all you want to about the logic of Policy 4, etc. If it is not what people want, it will never FidoNews 6-26 Page 6 26 Jun 1989 succeed. Fidonet consists of BBS'es and their sysops. What THEY want is the only thing that counts - even if they don't want what you or Steve think they SHOULD want. Anything else is classic tail wagging the dog. (Pun intended.) I am personally willing to accept as a compromise an announcement that within two or three weeks there will be a sysop referendum to ratify Policy 4. I will never accept being bullied into pretending to agree with an illegal document that makes no meaningful provisions for democratic control by sysops over THEIR network. 73 de Jim Grubs, W8GRT -------------- Well, that about says it all. If you're as outraged as I am, please put your feelings to keyboard and let David Dodell, Steve Bonine, and the other RC's know that you're not going to let them push you around. If you like, you can use my following message: To: David Dodell, 1/0 From: Phil Buonomo, 1:107/583 Subject: Objection! cc: Steve Bonine Sir, I most strenuously object to the removal of Jim Grubs from the FidoNet nodelist. There are many legitimate concerns among FidoNet sysops regarding the adoption of Policy 4, and the flat out elimination of those voicing such concerns teters on the brink of Brown Shirt tactics of early Nazi Germany. While Jim Grubs has always been vocal in nature, and annoying at times, it is patently WRONG to remove someone from the nodelist for voicing opinion in a non-excessively annoying manner. It is actions such as these that have spurred the creation of alternate Networks, such as AlterNet, in the past. The sysops of FidoNet will NOT condone these heavy handed tactics, and if you allow them to continue, it will be the downfall of yourselves, and FidoNet as a viable entity. With FidoNet's best interests at heart, Philip J. Buonomo ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 6-26 Page 7 26 Jun 1989 TopicX Topical Extraction System The last time I ran a series on my extraction process for The Old Frog's Almanac, I described how Sirius, EGREP, and my packer all worked together to produce an enormous variety of topical files. These files (there are now over 1300 of them) required a lot of system time, enormous amounts of drive space, and untold hours of work to maintain.... The series of articles I entered here resulted in a wave of file requests from all over North America, and just about every country in Zone 2. ALMANAC.LZH, which contained all the sample batch files, Sirius scripts, and a few related files, was soon distributed world-wide as more sysops decided to begin their own extraction systems. One sysop who found himself "hooked" by the extraction system became more and more frustrated at both the complexity of the process and the time required to complete it. Scott Dudley, an Ontario (Canada) programmer, decided to write a single utility which would do the entire job in a single pass, and TopicX was born. I heard from Scott soon after he began working on TopicX - he sent me a note (which amounted to the sum total of what passed as TopicX "documentation") explaining what he was working on, and asked me if I would help him test it. I wrote back and said "sure," but didn't hear from Scott again until late January, when he sent me the first beta copy, along with an extensively documented configuration file, and wished me luck. By the time I began testing TopicX, I had expanded the Almanac's extraction system to the point where it was taking 90 minutes a day to complete, so I was ready for anything that promised (as TopicX did) to speed things up. I was (might as well be honest - it WAS a raw beta system) unwilling (hell, I was downright scared) to let TopicX run unattended, as the Sirius/EGREP system did, so I began by assigning a single message area to the new program, and running it manually whenever I had the time. When problems crept up, I'd send Scott a note, he'd fix them, send me another copy, and the cycle would begin again. On the 12th. of June, TopicX V1.0, the end result of four and a half months of testing, was released. By then, Sirius and EGREP had been retired, and TopicX was doing the entire job..... .....in 15 minutes instead of 90! Got your attention? Good....now I'll explain the GOOD stuff :-) One problem with the Sirius/EGREP system, as nice as it was, is that I could never figure out a way to put the "working" archives into the directories where they would eventually end up. Instead, they collected in a work area for an entire month, and were then moved manually (using Fido-Fam) to wherever they belonged. Since there were usually about 300 of them by the end of the month, I could kiss the better part of one day a month goodbye while I sat FidoNews 6-26 Page 8 26 Jun 1989 here moving those damned files around. TopicX puts them wherever I want them, so I don't have to move diddly-squat... I also had to edit the EGREP batch file every month, in order to change the month designator, and, although it only took a few seconds, I often forgot, and ended up collecting January's mail into December's topical archives. TopicX permits me to use variables in the output file names, so I don't have to worry about editing in new date specs at the beginning of the month. TopicX uses a single configuration file for the entire job - it's a standard ASCII file, so it's simple to set up and easy to edit. It lets you designate whether or not you want blank lines stripped out, use a custom dividing line between messages (if you want one), designate your favorite packer, assign macros, use UNIX-style pattern-matching tricks, archive or not archive the text files, and so many other features that I am not going to attempt to list them all. The program runs pretty well under DESQview, although it hangs sometimes in my 340k window - (Scott doesn't know that yet, but I suspect he'll have it fixed a day or two after he reads this :- )), and early versions couldn't handle large configuration files. Scott fixed that problem by adding a memory management feature which lets you designate how much RAM to reserve for message processing, and I can now run my 36K TopicX.Cfg file without any problems. He also added a pre-compile to speed things up, which further reduced processing time.... I could go on all night about TopicX - I LOVE it - but I won't. It's a dandy piece of software engineering, the docs are more precise and easier to understand than most, and the sample configuration file which comes with the release version is so well done that many of you will be able to set up an extraction system without ever reading the docs. So, rather than carry on for another two pages, I'll just tell you to use the magic word TOPICX and get started. It's available from 1:153/20 (HST), 1:153/194 (2400), 1:250/814 (2400) (AKA 7:483/202), and 1:250/810. My HST now uses European guard tones, so come and get it, no matter where you are - you'll love it too! TopicX is shareware, and the unregistered version won't run from a batch file, but it's a full-featured version that'll maintain both NetMail and EchoMail areas flawlessly, and it's only US$15 to register in any case - a helluva deal for anyone with message management problems! Ken McVay, SysOp TOPX_100.LZH The Old Frog's Almanac (153/20, 153/194) 62223 Bytes Nanaimo, British Columbia, CANADA ("TOPICX") ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 6-26 Page 9 26 Jun 1989 Chuck Allen, 1:129/41 In his FidoNews 6-25 editorial, Vince Perriello commented: Quote: Vince Perriello Isn't there anyone else in Zone 1 who has something to say? These guys are so prolific they're putting you all to shame ... End Quote You're right Vince. Quite a few people have something to say, many hold their peace in fear. I know my hand has been stayed by the desire of the RC structure to meddle in the affairs of FidoNews. They aren't content to wreck havoc only within FidoNet. My net (129) knows I have taken a dim view of Policy 4, a document written by small minded and mean spirited men who are morally and ethically bankrupt. I am proud that net 129 was one of the nets voting "NO". I am ashamed the "NO" vote was decided by a tiny minority of sysops in 129 who expressed an opinion. The vast majority kept silent (didn't care?). I'll take this opportunity to comment on Tom Jenning's brief article in FidoNews 6-25 Quote: Tom Jennings Since I see my name is getting dragged into this, I thought I'd respond on the subject of Zone 2's autonomy, which is really an issue of control. First of all, no one need worry about trademark abuse; I am in contact with all parties involved, and there is nothing to worry about. Things will be settled to everyones benefit and satisfaction. No further discussion is needed on this matter. End Quote Sounds good to me. Maybe we can get on to more important things like discussing the alleged skid marks in the IC's undershorts. Quote: Tom Jennings It is none of our business how Zone 2 (or any other zone) runs their network(s), other than how they interface to us, just as it is no business to net 125 how net XYZ runs theirs, unless it somehow physically affects our operation. If they have different criteria for joining a network, what business is it of ours? To meddle ahead of time "in case they do something awful", is silly; they are no more (or less) likely to do something stupid than we in Zone 1 are. Europe is not just the U.S.-only- different; it is a totally different environment, socially, technically, legally and politically. Europe is none of our damn FidoNews 6-26 Page 10 26 Jun 1989 business. End Quote Tom, I agree wholeheartedly. How do you suggest we rid ourselves of leadership hell bent on exercising control? You've pointed out the problem, how about proposing a solution? Quote: Tom Jennings Zone 1 is not the police force of the world. Have we not learned our lessons from other arenas? We do not "have" a unified world- wide network, nor is such a thing even desirable. What we do have is a number of cooperative networks, that can cooperate in a world-wide networking effort. This is a critical difference. End Quote Geez Tom, you don't pull any punches, do you? You're going to be lucky if on of the myriad *Cs doesn't file a formal policy complaint against you for embracing that sort of concept. Rumor has it the *C structure is advising China on how to suppress the movement toward democracy, their having great experience squashing dissent in FIdoNet. Quote: Tom Jennings Unfortunately, meddlers and control freaks will not give up until everything not exactly like themselves is squashed or controlled. Or they are in turn removed. We have a growing bureaucracy in our Zone 1 that wants to reorganize us from being a bottom-up network, where sysops choose their net hosts and other /0's, and determine how to run their own BBS, nets and lives, to one (according to POLICY4) where the existing bureaucracy picks their own region and net hosts. Bureaucrats always tell us, if they can control this one more thing, then all the problems will be solved. End Quote Now you've gone and done it. By fingering the problem, it looks like you are a malcontent and should be dealt with under policy 4 before you can do any substantial damage to the control freaks, er, the ZC and his mindless minions, the RCs. Don't you know the hundreds and thousands of hours they've spent seeking ways to force us into the mold? Don't you appreciate the massive effort they've exerted to control us for our own good? What are you, an ingrate or what? Quote: Tom Jennings Our network has never run smoothly, and I propose that it will *never* run smoothly; this is good, not bad. It means we're alive, only dead rigid bureaucracies are pure order. (Or pretend they are.) Excessive order is not good for any organism. It FidoNews 6-26 Page 11 26 Jun 1989 stifles creativity and free expression. Let's take a hint from history, OK? End Quote Ok, sounds good to me. Now, how do we reach the average sysop who doesn't care and isn't interested in "net politics"? How do we reach the sysop who has no concern beyond when the next echomail archive arrives? How can we open the eyes and minds of people who have no desire to exercise freedom and creativity? Damn, Tom, you talk a good fight. But you have to know the control freaks are going to blow you off and the average sysop has no idea of what you're talking about. Why not simply make a statement like "Policy 4 sucks and the ZC and his appointed automatons should be removed and replaced with people more interested in administrating than in ruling."? Why not say Steve Bonine is an ass for causing Jack Decker grief by rigidly imposing the "geography rule" for the sake of the rule as versus the application of reason and common sense in administering Policy guidelines? What am I saying? Get some guts Tom, set aside the rhetoric and lead the revolution. ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 6-26 Page 12 26 Jun 1989 Claude F. Witherspoon Fido 1:288/525 Home of KidsNews National Teachers Training Competition Its that time of year again. Computer Learning Month will be upon us before we know it. With that in mind, we at KidsNews would like to share the following information in hopes to make this year even better than last year: CLF TAKES LEAD IN SUPPORT OF COMPUTER CLASSROOM TRAINING; SPONSORS NATIONAL TEACHER TRAINING COMPETITION Palo Alto, Calif., (April 4, 1989) -- The Computer Learning Foundation (CLF), a non-profit organization dedicated to advancing computer literacy, today announced sponsorship of a national teacher training competition as part of its new television series entitled School Vision, which focuses on the integration of technology into elementary and secondary classroom curricula. School Vision airs weekly on public broadcast stations around the country and in Canada. "CLF is dedicated to acting as a central clearinghouse for teacher training ideas and providing teachers with support and ideas on how computers can be used more effectively in the classroom," said Sally Bowman, CLF director. "As part of our new School Vision broadcast, the Foundation will be able to showcase exemplary training programs, which in turn will help seed additional ideas and increased enthusiasm for teaching with computers." According to the U.S. Department of Education, there are nearly 3 million elementary and secondary school educators and administrators in the United States. A 1988 study commissioned by the House Committee on Education and Labor of the U.S. Congress entitled "Power On" was conducted by the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA) and indicated that "only one-third of all K-12 teachers have had as much as 10 hours of computer training." Additionally, the study noted that much of that training time has been dedicated to instructing teachers about how computers work, not how to teach and integrate them into the classroom curricula. As the number of computers in schools increases annually -- the installed base is expected to increase 100 percent from 3 million in 1987 to nearly 6 million by 1990 -- the need for teachers to have more computer training and support on how to integrate technology into their classrooms becomes evem more critical. To facilitate these efforts, CLF is taking the lead by sponsoring a national teacher training competition. Many of the program and computer learning ideas submitted to the foundation as part of its 1989 competition will be made available to educators throughout North America through CLF's School Vision broadcasts and through lesson plan publications. Recognition will be given to top teacher training programs FidoNews 6-26 Page 13 26 Jun 1989 developed for early childhood education, special education, curriculum integration (combining social studies, foreign laguages, writing, art/music, math, science), and the "at risk" population. The grand prize winning entry in CLF's competition, which is open to individuals and organizations in the U.S. and Canada, will receive three computer systems. One system will be awarded to the individual who developes the winning training module/program; one system to the school or organization that acts as host of the training program; and one system to the individual or organization that videotapes the presentation. In addition, second prize winning entries will receive software programs for the teacher training program developer and host school. Top entries will be aired on CLF's School Vision program. To request official entry forms and rules, individuals should write to: Teacher Training Competition, Computer Learning Foundation, P.O. Box 60400, Palo Alto, Calif., 94306-0400. All entries must be postmarked by September 1, 1989. School Vision is broadcast via local PBS stations, with dates and times varying depending on location. Parents and educators are encouraged to contact their local public broadcast station program managers and ask that the School Vision broadcasts be picked up, via satellite, from the Central Education Network for local viewing. Spearheading the development and production of the weekly School Vision programs is a coalition of industry and educational organizations, including the Central Education Network (CEN), Software Communications Services (SCS) and the CLF. The School Vision video briefings will be presented through WCET, Cincinnati and the Ohio Network Broadcasting Network Commission. The Computer Learning Foundation sponsors Computer Learning Month programs each October. The non-profit organization, based in Palo Alto, Calif., is supported by leading software publishers and computer manufacturers, including IBM, as well as 52 U.S. State Departments of Education and Canadian Ministries of Education, and more than 20 national non-profit organizations. Published with permission of the Computer Learning Foundation (CLF), Palo Alto, Calif. I have initiated a National Computer Learning Month echo available on Fido 1:288/525 by request. If you are interested in carrying the echo which uses the name NCLM, please send a request to Butch Witherspoon, Fido 1:288/525 (Continuous Mail (CM)), and I will be happy to tie you into the echo and send it to your system. You must be able to accept continuous Mail for this request. This offer is good for the U.S. only until someone offeres to gateway the echo to other regions. I would like to see the echo carried on the Backbone if folks are interested enough. ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 6-26 Page 14 26 Jun 1989 Peter Janssens Fidonet 2:512/1 Official Report on Eurocon III. ------------------------------ The following items have been addressed at Eurocon III: A) Resignation of ZC2, Henk Wevers (2:500/1). B) Appointment / election of new ZC2. C) Cost and quality of echomail. D) Opinion on IFNA, by Randy Bush (1:105/6). E) Proposed Fidonet Policy 4.06. F) Foundation of European Fidonet Organisation; EFO. A) Resignation of ZC2, Henk Wevers (2:500/1). -------------------------------------------- In 1988, at Eurocon II, Henk Wevers already announced that he would resign as ZC2. This announcement was repeated in ENET.SYSOP (Zone 2 sysop conference) a few months ago. Before Henk addressed the nomination procedure for his replacement he explained some developments in the past year. Henk Wevers visited Fidocon in August 1988 whwre he agreed with the Zone 1 sysops, including the ZC1, that Fidonet would need major Policies for each Zone with an overall Policy for the Fidonet world. At that time Zone 1 was ruled by Policy 3 whereas Zone 2 already had adopted Policy 4E, being an adjusted Policy 4 draft from Ben Baker, dated Feb 7, 1988. To his disapppointment the Zone 1 *C's did not hold the agreement upright when Fidocon was finished and came with a proposal for an elaborate new world Policy without consideration for the different needs that each Zone would have for such a Policy. As an example Henk explained that in Zone 1 geographically overlapping nets do not exist and are disallowed by the proposed Policy whereas nearly every Region in Zone 2 _does_ have overlapping nets. Henk tried several times to find support against the proposal at the Zone 2 RC's. However, he got no feedback and finally decided to finish the ongoing discussion with the Zone 1 *C's about the proposal. This discussion has been very demanding for him and the outcome strengthened him in his decision to resign as ZC2. B) Appointment / election of new ZC2. ------------------------------------ As mentioned above Henk Wevers has asked for candidates for the position of ZC2 in ENET.SYSOP. Three sysops responded to his appeal and presented themselves as candidates. FidoNews 6-26 Page 15 26 Jun 1989 They were: Werner Cappel (2:515/30), Ron Dwight (2:515/1) and Nik Middleton (2:252/114). Two weeks before the start of Eurocon III Henk wrote a crash netmail to each candidate with a request to explain their qualifications for being a ZC2 as well as the programme they had. He received only one reply from Ron Dwight. Henk also noted that Ron was the only candidate who was present at Eurocon III. This formed a strong feeling amongst everyone present that Ron was to be considered the only serious candidate for the job. Henk ended his speech here and Louis van Geel stood up and expressed the gratitude towards Henk Wevers on behalf of all Zone 2 participants for having done an outstanding job as co-founder of European Fidonet and ZC2. Ron Dwight was then asked to present his goals and targets if he would be nominated the new ZC2. He explained that his "mission" and prime goal as a ZC2 would be to establish democracy in Zone 2 and as a part of this he would work towards official elections of NC's, RC's and the post of ZC before Eurocon IV. This would include a new Zone 2 Policy which should be approved / voted upon by all of the Zone 2 sysops. The chairman of the meeting (me ;-) then explained that Ron and David Dodell (1:1/0, the IC) have had several netmail discussions in the recent past and that he considered it highly unlikely that David would appoint Ron Dwight as ZC2. (Note: Under current Policy the ZC is appointed by the IC, normally upon advice of the resigning ZC) It was noted that that an election for a new ZC2 would be contrary to Policy. It might even lead to the conclusion that Zone 2 would be segregating from Fidonet. The participants then expressed the feeling that they _do_ want to cooperate and coexist with the other Zones in Fidonet. However, it was unanimously voted that the new ZC2 should be elected at Eurocon III. Consequently an election was held. The question was: Do we want Ron Dwight as new ZC2? The results of the election was: 90% voted "Yes", 7% voted "No" and 3% votes were invalid. After this election Ron Dwight was installed as new ZC2. The meeting asked him to contact David Dodell to explain that the Zone 2 sysops desire to cooperate with the other Zones in Fidonet and that desintegration of Fidonet is not the case. FidoNews 6-26 Page 16 26 Jun 1989 David Dodell should also be asked to confirm the results of the election and officially appoint Ron Dwight as new ZC2. (Note: This has now been confirmed and Ron is installed officially as ZC2) C) Cost and quality of echomail. ------------------------------- Dieter Soltau (ZEC2) explained how echomail is financed in Germany. Every node pays a mandatory fee of ECU 4 per month to cover the cost of the backbone including a fully operational backup node. The backup node takes over from the backbone as soon as the system goes down (i.e. when Dieter leaves home for more than one day ;-). Joaquim Homrighausen (1:135/20) then talked about how TAP (Trans Atlantic Project) started in summer 1987 with only one or two Swedish conferences and through the time grew to a full echomail Zonegate currently exchanging over 45 conferences between Zone 1 and Zone 2. The cost of TAP amounts to some ECU 15.000 against total (voluntary) contributions of some ECU 1.300. Both speakers agreed that the main problems of echomail distribution are caused by the political power implied and the lack of organisation. Especially the latter increases cost and decreases the willingness of sysops to participate in the financing of echomail distribution. Dieter was asked to make a start on issues like cost-control, mapping of conferences and exchange of information. However, Dieter noted that several REC's never replied to his requests but that he will continue to stimulate the cooperation of REC's and NEC's. The session was concluded with Dieter's announcement that he will try to develop an echolist system suitable for Zone 2. D) Opinion on IFNA, by Randy Bush (1:105/6). ------------------------------------------- Title: Why IFNA failed, why "Othernets" failed, why Fidonet is succeeding. The original goal to establish IFNA was to save Ben Baker from Tax impact on donations received to support the Fidonet administration. Randy expressed that the goal has not been achieved as IFNA does not pay any of the cost of Fidonet administration, e.g. cost of IC, Nodelist and Fidonews distribution, Zonegates, etcetera. Apart from this, IFNA has not even met any of the secondary goals like helping to administer or promote Fidonet. They haven't even been able to publish financial reports or Board minutes. FidoNews 6-26 Page 17 26 Jun 1989 He concluded that IFNA has done nothing else for Fidonet but taken our time and money. Reasons for failure are numerous, like having too much attention for bylaws and procedures and not enough for the needs and services of the sysops, having too much attention for only 2% flamers, general secrecy on their work, no public appreciation for workers, etc. Though this caused a lot of sysops to ask for a nodenumber in "Othernets" only 5% of them actually left Fidonet (the percentage is based on listed phonenumbers). The flaming in "Othernets" is just as bad as in Fidonet and no new developments of ideas, technology or services have been established. Randy concluded that Fidonet is succeeding, maybe in spite of itself. This conclusion is based on the following observations in Fidonet: - Continuing growth of population, - Technical growth, - Establishment of reliable links to other networks like UUCP, ARPAnet and Internet, - Wider social coverage in echomail. He finalized his speech with a warning that there still are problems, such as the centralisation of powers, the growth of rules and regulations and the increasing cost to be a sysop. E) Proposed Fidonet Policy 4.06. ------------------------------- There were a lot of comments against the proposal. I will try to summarize some of the main issues here: - No provisions are made for contradictions with local legislation. - NC's are appointed by the RC's. RC's are appointed by the ZC's. ZC's are then "selected" by the RC's. The IC is "selected" amongst and by the ZC's. There is no consistency in this appointment / "selection" system. Fidonet has always been a community carried by all sysops in the net. There is no need to change this to a top down structure. As a matter of fact, sysops are very well capable of electing or appointing the *C system. Voluntary cooperation and communication is what keeps the (amateur-) Fidonet going. It is preferred that the IC is not one of the ZC's. The first objective of a ZC should be to cover the interests of his own Zone whereas the IC's first objective is to safeguard Fidonet as a whole. - (par. 1.3.6) As already noted by Don Daniels at Eurocon II the situation in Zone 2 is very different from the situation in Zone 1. FidoNews 6-26 Page 18 26 Jun 1989 The commercial sector often supports Fidonet in Europe and it is perhaps inappropriate to be so harsh with them. - (par. 2.1.7) How long is it required to keep mail / echomail packets? How large may they become before the sysop has the right to delete them? - (par. 2.1.8) Using today's high speed modem technology the transfer of echomail during ZMH needn't be a problem. However, instead of prohibition it should be discouraged. - (par. 3.4) This is in direct contradiction with the previously stated "selection" of IC amongst ZC's. - (par. 3.7) This is not considered a right but a duty! - (chapter 4) The chapter enforces that the NC should also have node 0 in the net and that he should be the sysop of the (mail-) distributing system. However, coordinating a net is in itself not a technical function. The chapter should therefor be restated that the NC 'need' not perform the duties but he should ensure that the duties are performed. i.e. The NC does not have to be the Host and the Host does not have to be the NC. This is working very smoothly in many Zone 2 nets at the present time. - The proposal disallows geographical overlapping networks mainly based on the cost structure enforced by telephone companies in Zone 1. Network boundaries are to be defined by "area's of convenient telephone calling". The cost structure in other Zones is very different from the situation in Zone 1. This would cause a total reorganisation of Zone 2 resulting in a huge increase of the number of networks. (Like in France; currently three networks with only four different phonenumbers in the total Region. Imagina what would happen in Region 28 with over 250 nodes and 50 phone area's) - The Policy will be voted upon by the *C structure. The is neither a precedent for this procedure nor is it defined by current Policy. As stated before, Fidonet has always been rules by a consensus of all sysops and this should not be changed. In our democratic society, everyone gets to vote. F) Foundation of European Fidonet Organisation; EFO. --------------------------------------------------- At Eurocon II the desire to form a European Fidonet Organisation was already expressed. An advisory committee was formed to investigate the possibilities for such an organisation and FidoNews 6-26 Page 19 26 Jun 1989 eventually to propose a concept. However, due to the distances and the amount of people invloved this attempt failed. The Eurocon III Organisation Committee asked Henk Wevers for advice on this matter and together we invited Bob Gonsalves, Chairman of the IFNA International Affairs Committee and a professional lawyer, to take over the job of investigation and to setup some discussion points for Eurocon III. He presided the EFO discussions held at Eurocon III. Conclusions of the first discusiion rounds were: - We want an independent, non commercial, non profit European Fidonet Organisation. - The goals of the organisation are: 1) Ownership of the copyright on the Zone 2 Nodelist. The nodelist has previously been commercially abused. To protect sysops from future misuse there has to be a legal entity which holds the copyright on the Zone 2 nodelist, similar to the IFNA copyright on the world Fidonet nodelist. 2) Coverage of cost involved for the ZC2 operations. Zone 2 wants a democratically elected ZC. Without financial support this may lead to prevent less wealthy but otherwise qualified sysop to candidate for the job. 3) Representation of Zone 2 at other legal entities. If a sysop would repsent himself at e.g. the European Committee they would require legal statutes of the organisation he would represent. The representation includes especially the promotion of the (Zone 2) Fidonet network with national and European governments, such as the European Committee, organisations like the CCITT, as well as the mass media and European (local) telephone companies. The board of the organisation should be internationally oriented while it should be formed bottom up by means of democratic election(s). The original thought was to set up a mandatory fee to be paid by each node but after some discussion the general feeling was that this may be considered too negative. It would seem as if a node should pay a fee to obtain (or keep!) it's nodenumber which is not the intention of the fee. It was therefor decided that the fee (being ECU 4 per node) should be paid by the net and the NC's should be free to organize the collection of the funds in an appropriate manner. The RC's would act as collecting points for their independent nodes. Administrative nodenumbers, such as RC, NC and HUB should not be included in the calculations. Final decision was to take the phonenumbers in the nodelist as the basis for the calculations. FidoNews 6-26 Page 20 26 Jun 1989 With the above requirements as a basis four people, being John Caulfeild, Louis van Geel, Bob Gonsalves and Esa Laitinen, sat together on Saturday evening to formulate the starting points for EFO. The next day they presented their "draft paper" and after some (however emotional ;-) discussions the paper was adjusted and all participants agreed upon the following document: Draft Paper on the European Fidonet Organisation There will be founded an international, independent, non- commercial, non-profit organisation in Europe of electronic mail system operators networking by electronic means to the public switched telephone system. The name of this organisation shall be decided upon later, but will, depending on the legal structure to be chosen, either be European Fidonet Association (EFA), or European Fidonet Organisation (EFO). The Board of Directors of this organisation will be elected or appointed in a democratic manner in that way, that the participants in Zone 2 of the worldwide Fidonet will elect a Board of Representatives, consisting of a representative chosen following the well established rules of democracy, per Region. The Board of Directors will consist of three members as a minimum and five members as a maximum. The officers will be elected or appointed for a period of two years, which means that every year the half less one or the half plus one of the officers will change. The members of the Board of Directors will elect between themselves a President, a Secretary and a Treasurer. Every year the financial records will be checked by an external auditor. His report on the verification of the records will be published. The secretary of the Board of Directors will keep minutes of the minutes of the meetings of the Board of Directors which minutes will also be published. The Articles of Association or Foundation will be drafted under the law of the Kingdom of the Netherlands untill such time that an appropriate Code of European Law will be in existence. The main goal of the organisation will be the support of Zone 2 of the worldwide Fidonet. The sub-goals of the organisation will be the ownership of the copyright on the Zone 2 nodelist, the representation of the sysops in negotiations, the public relations functions especially with regard to the promotion of the Fidonet network with national and FidoNews 6-26 Page 21 26 Jun 1989 European governments as well as with the mass media and European PTT's, the financing of the expenses of the organisation and as far as possible financing the expenses of the Zone Coordinator of Zone 2 of Fidonet. The sysops attending the Eurocon III conference will appoint a Steering Committee of five members with a mandate to proceed with the drafting of the Articles of Association or Foundation and with the setting up of the elections for the Board of Representatives for the year 1990. The members of the Steering Committee will pay their personal expenses and the Dutch computer organisations PCC and HCC will be requested to assist in prefinancing the organisational expenses for the first year. There has to be paid by the nets in Zone 2 a mandatory fee of ECU 4, on the basis of the number of nodes in the net, for each true entry in the nodelist. The following people have been appointed to the Steering Committee: John Caulfeild (2:256/27), Bob Gonsalves (*), Ulf Jungjohann (2:246/1), Esa Laitinen (2:515/801) and Sacha Vogt (2:310/5). (*) can be contacted via 2:500/10. The progress of their work will be continually published and discussed in ENET.SYSOP. Ron Dwight agreed to cooperate with the Steering Committee. The goal of the Steering Committee is to draft Articles of Association (or Foundation) with full consent of the sysops of Zone 2 which will be presented before Eurocon IV. At Eurocon IV these drafts will be finally approved. Ron Dwight adds the following: Some of the proposals for the formation and operation of EFA/EFO are somewhat contraversial. Before any organisation is created which will force the Fidonet Zone 2 sysop to pay a fee which may be repugent to them, a referendum will be initiated to decide if we should proceed or not. In other words, no fee will be charged to any sysop in Zone 2 before a European organisation has a mandate to do so from a clear majority of the sysops of Zone 2. == Epilogue == -------------- This is the end of the official report. However, I will now abuse the circumstances to write a few personal notes. If you mind this: STOP READING! First of all I wish to state that it was a very rewarding job to be a member of the Eurocon III Organisation Committee. Our prime goal was to organise a Zone 2 Fidonet Conference in which all interested Zone 2 sysops would participate. FidoNews 6-26 Page 22 26 Jun 1989 No more "Mainzcon" as opposition to "Eurocon". We have succeeded and I believe YOU, the Zone 2 sysops, are the true winners. YOU were the ones that proved we can be one united Zone 2 and that we all can live together in Zone 2, being members of a worldwide amateur network. Secondly, I wish to repeat the gratitude towards Henk Wevers. Not only on behalf of the participants present at Eurocon III but on behalf of the whole Zone 2. As a ZC you have been like a father to the community and led us through our adolescence. You have helped us to become a grown up Zone in Fidonet, now fully able to participate in and contribute to Fidonet. Last but least I wish a lot of strength and patience to Ron Dwight who has volunteered for the most unrewarding job in Zone 2 and who has stuck his neck out with his ambitious mission. I have already seen the first flames fired at him, but remember: The flamers are only 2% and there are 98% silent supporters out there. I hope you succeed on your quest to make Zone 2 fully democratic. Credit where credit is due. -------------------------- - Motel Eindhoven for making lunches and dinners a chaos. - Hans Ligthelm for the enormous work he performed with great enthousiasm in the organisation of Eurocon III. - Henk Wevers for the advice he gave to the organisation committee. - Randy Bush for being a true Zonegate in interfacing the needs and desires of all Zones at Eurocon III and for being a very involved participant at Eurocon III. - John Bone for the notes he made at Eurocon III, and especially - Vincent Veeger for the piles of notes he supplied me with and the great support he gave me in writing this report. Eurocon IV. ---------- Ron Dwight has asked the Organisation Committee to assist in the decision where we should have Eurocon IV. If there are people willing and able to organise Eurocon IV then please send netmail to 2:512/1 before September 30, 1989. Include arrangements you can make for the conference, travel, room accomodation, etc. FidoNews 6-26 Page 23 26 Jun 1989 Peter Janssens, 2:512/1, Secretary of the Eurocon III Organisation Committee. ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 6-26 Page 24 26 Jun 1989 Steve Bonine 115/777 FidoNet Policy -- Why Bother? I have recently had two distressing experiences. One of them involves the removal of a single system from the nodelist, and the other involves the self-destruction of an entire local net. Both of these cases are symptoms of a malady which seems to be invading FidoNet -- a disease which has the potential to destroy everything we have built over the years. This sickness is a "take it or leave it" attitude regarding FidoNet Policy. When you accept, or continue to accept, a listing in the FidoNet nodelist, you bind yourself to FidoNet's policy. A listing in the nodelist is not a privilege. It is a right that you earn by meeting the minimum requirements of policy: ZMH and not being excessively annoying. I observed a message in the national sysop echo from Jim Grubs, in which he stated that he was not bound by Policy4 because he did not vote for it. This is a classic non sequitur. I am sympathetic with Jim's desire for more democracy in FidoNet, but refusing to abide by FidoNet's policy is not acceptable. I sent netmail to Jim, asking him to reconsider. He refused, so I had no choice but to remove his listing from the nodelist. The other situation, which has been described at length in Fido- News, involves net 154 in Milwaukee. When I sent netmail to Ted Polczynski, the NC of net 154, asking that he place three systems in the correct geographic net, the response I received was much the same as that from Mr. Grubs. Ted insists that he has the right to list any systems in net 154, without regard to the systems' geographic location. Ted feels that this is in the best interests of FidoNet. Unfortunately, this is contrary to current policy, which specifically states that an NC cannot assign a node to a system in an area which is covered by another net. Just like Jim, Ted has repeatedly refused to make the simple statement that he will be bound by current policy. However, in Ted's case, an entire net suffers. It would be much easier for me, in both of these cases, to simply turn my back and ignore the situation. After all, this is a hobby. Let's all just chill out and go with the flow. Does my failure to enforce policy help FidoNet? No. If we are going to have a policy, it must be enforced. It must be enforced consistently. It is my responsibility to enforce the policy. My choices are to enforce policy or to not be a part of the enforce- ment structure; selective enforcement is not an option. Without policy, what is left? I do not relish the idea of FidoNet being reduced to nothing more than a list of bulletin board systems, which is what the nodelist becomes if policy is abandoned. FidoNews 6-26 Page 25 26 Jun 1989 ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 6-26 Page 26 26 Jun 1989 Stephen Maley 1:261/1014 A View From The Outside? I would like to give all of you my view on what I see when I look at all of the networks. To give you a little background on myself, I have been working in computerized communications for 10 years. The technology that I work with on a daily basis varies from 75 baud(scary isn't it) to 90 Megabit fiber links in many different configurations. So, as you can see, I bring to this subject a background in a wide variety of communications technologies. When I first joined my local network almost two years ago, I was impressed with the possibilities of the technology that makes the networks possible. The economy and efficiency of the network as viewed from a technology standpoint were some of the things that impressed me. The cooperation and assistance from my Net Coordinator and a fellow Sysop gave me the insight needed to join the network smoothly and without causing too many problems for others in the net which made my introduction painless. My first active move was to read Policy 3. It gave the glowing impression of a large number of sysops working together to promote communications between themselves and between the users of their systems. That the rules of the road were cooperation and curtesy to all. I felt that these rules were awfully lax for such a large organization but, they apparently worked or the network would have suffered severe disruptions of service that would have prevented it from growing as it has. Well, over the last two years, after reading the echos of the controlling organizations for the network and thousands of messages in various echo forums, many of which should have gone into the bit bucket. After seeing splits and fights and name calling and unrestricted changes in software. I do not feel that the networks will survive too much longer at this pace. I guess that the strongest emotion that I feel is disappointment. The majority do not seem to understand the necessity of standards and controls to keep networks as large as these functioning. A hobby, yes, it is. But, it is based on technology that requires the successful interaction of thousands of computers operated by thousands of sysops scattered all over the world. The need for controls, standards, managing bodies and technical standards committees can not be ignored. In order to promote the survival of this form of network communication and to reduce many of the difficulties that all of the networks are operating under, everyone needs to spend less FidoNews 6-26 Page 27 26 Jun 1989 time trying to tear down the controls that are in place and spend more time in trying to help those in positions of authority to make knowledgeable decisions for the continued successful operation of all of the networks. From a technology standpoint, it would be relatively easy to remove 90% of the problems, but, from a political stand point, it may be impossible to correct any of them. The political situation is of your own making, so you are the only ones who can correct it. If you feel that you have the knowledge and experience to improve the operation of a network, use it for the betterment of all of the networks. If you are opposed to a technological standard or network management policy, prepare a document that details the problem as you see it. What the impact on the operation of the network is. Then provide a detailed description of what you think a viable solution to the problem is. Send the document to your Net Coordinator and discuss it with him or her. After discussing and refining it with your net coordinator, send it to your Regional Coordinator and work with him or her. Use the structure that is in place. It may not be exactly to your liking and you may not like all of the persons in it, but you will be able to do more to improve the network by working with the structure that is in place than by trying to destroy it. There are many talented people in all of the networks. Many of them are constantly working to improve the technology that makes these networks function. To those of you who have developed new techniques, do not forget that your simple improvement, introduced without proper checks and balances, could render the network un-usable and that trying to force change without proper controls not only reduces the effectiveness of the advancement that you have made, but greatly reduces the overall operational effectiveness of the network. One day, I hope to be able to log-on to my net coordinators system and read national sysop or one of the other echos that is supposed to be a forum for effective communications between all of us that make up the networks, and not have to stop reading after the third message because of the frustration and disappointment that I feel. Look at how everyone is acting and think about how it looks from the outside. What is the impression given when viewed by an interested public or corporate organization. In my opinion, from a network management and engineering standpoint, all of the networks combined are primed for a massive disruption of services if the individuals involved down to the Sysop level do not start pulling together. ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 6-26 Page 28 26 Jun 1989 Fredric L. Rice Astro Net 1:103/503.3 There are some FidoNet SysOps on Earth who acquire a warm glowing feeling by blowing friends and users into highly radioactive gas and then gloating about it to any survivors there may be. To be fair, many users have treated their SysOps in kind but such actions on the part of the user has never, to my knowledge, led to the removal of the user in real life. I speak, of course, of Universal Mayhem in FidoNet. There are a little over seventy Universal Mayhem nodes around the world running Mayhem as an Outside or Doors program; many in Australia, Europe, Canada, and the States, as well as some in India, China, and God knows where. Several FidoNews articles have been posted about its progress and bug removals and most of them have been "published", (some were simply too long so they were E-Mailed out to all known Mayhem nodes). If you haven' t seen any of these, I offer a short description: Universal Mayhem is a space shoot-em-up game that allows up to 250 users on your system to build and command a ship and base. By performing interstellar commerce, you acquire capital with which to take over the universe. There are obstacles, of course, such as the other players, but you can always be assured that with some well placed alliance, you have a chance to be the universes' Adolf. If you find things are not going well and you have fought for and acquired all parts of the Slaver Death Weapon, you can always trigger it and win the whole puppy, (think before you pull the trigger). The project was started over two years ago when FidoNet was just starting to come apart. The political atmosphere was just starting and the Alternate people were thinking about making the break. I had been with FidoNet in the background as a humble and invisible user for a few years and thought I would try to make a program which would offer an avenue of escape for SysOps and provide an arena in which they might let off steam. After a year of development, it went to Alpha testing here in California for six months and was greeted with thirty or forty regulars. After that time, general distribution took place in the form of Version 1.00 and I am now at Version 1.3, (which will be mailed around the 17'th of June to all known Mayhem sites; there is mail coming in all the time from nodes that I don't have on my distribution list but have been running for a few months). Has the project worked? Is the objective of providing a method of symbolic SysOp extermination realized? No, it FidoNews 6-26 Page 29 26 Jun 1989 hasn't. The reason is mainly because of the bugs in the original software which cause SysOps to remove it, the other was due to the early versions disk space usage. Both of these problems have been solved, with disk space usage dropped to some 40 percent of what it was initially. Though the number of active Mayhem nodes have increased over the last year, it still isn't as widely dispersed as I would like. Mayhem has always been distributed freely and supported totally. It's a good thing I use the company phone lines or I would have had my phone pulled by the central office long ago. When new versions of Mayhem are released, they are mailed directly from my California node to all known Mayhem nodes. The non-backbone echo AREA:MAYHEM is also distributed by my node in a mode where all known nodes are polled every other night. It's the Mayhem echo that was to provide the method of inter- node communication between Mayhem sites. When you send a subspace message in Mayhem, it builds a FidoNet message file in your echo mail area. I usually see insults and promises of revenge and other nicely evil comments. These get sent to all other nodes in the echo conference automatically. There are some things I am looking for and need: o If you would like to get Universal Mayhem and be on my distribution list, please contact me through Astro Net 103/503 in California at (714) 662-2294. I will mail MAYHEM13.EXE which is a self-extracting archive containing everything needed including a massive mind-boggling +200K document file. If you just want the document to look it over before deciding you want me to mail the whole thing, let me know. o If you would like to get in the MAYHEM echo, let me know so I can add you to my list. I will poll every other day. If you have questions or problems with Mayhem, I can call your system and acquire access through my author back door to fix it. o I need a product review to be written by a Mayhem Node SysOp or one of its users for submission in FidoNews. I realize that normally product reviews are of a more serious network-related product. Since we need only one, if you want the assignment, please let me know so I can get back to you to see if you know of the amount of work involved! o It seems as though I will be working the month of August so I will not be able to make it to the convention in the San Jose area. If there are any exiting Mayhem Nodes going and would like to hand out a couple hundred copies of Universal Mayhem for me, let me know and I will mail you a box of a hundred or so. Let me know what days you plan to be attending so I can mail more than one box to several SysOps to cover all days. Just hand them out to any SysOp you might see FidoNews 6-26 Page 30 26 Jun 1989 stumbling down the sidewalk with a taco in hand. Fredric Rice 1:103/503.3 (714) 662-2294 ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 6-26 Page 31 26 Jun 1989 Stepping Lightly through the Hornet's Nest or: Comments and Replies to FidoNews 6-25 by Daniel Tobias 1:380/7 My FidoNews article on the European situation has brought rise to a storm of controversy in FidoNews 6-25. Some of those who I have managed to offend actually appear to be philosophically on much the same wavelength as myself, so I am attempting to make replies in a conciliatory tone rather than escalating a battle of words. If some of my opinions still disagree with your own, please consider this to be a friendly disagreement rather than an acrimonious dispute; I honestly have no big axe to grind or power-trip to ride, and I don't attribute malice to the actions of anyone else, even those with whom I may disagree from time to time. Let's keep this hobby FUN, more than anything else! Also, please note that the opinions I express are solely my own, and are not by any means intended to be regarded as anything else. In particular, European sysops should not jump to any conclusion to the effect that I am speaking for North America in general, just because I happen to live here. It could be that 98% of American sysops disagree with me; I didn't take a vote before I expressed my opinion. With all that stated, let me proceed to comment on everything in FidoNews 6-25 that I feel needs commenting on (including those pieces addressed specifically to me, as well as other items in this issue). TO Vince Perriello RE Editorial: It isn't necessary to expand the Current Versions page to cover EVERY utility that any FidoNet sysop is using, but I'm not sure, on the other hand, that you're justified in excluding ALL non-SEA archivers. That might be construed as favortism, regardless of whatever the true motive may be. I think several other archivers (PKZIP and ZOO, for example) are in sufficiently-wide use to justify inclusion. The criterion should be the wideness of use within the network as a whole; perhaps you should do a survey. TO John Burden RE A European Response: I apologize for depressing you. Actually, I agree fully with your concerns. However, you're laboring under some misconceptions: for instance, you use "IFNA" constantly in a context that implies that it is the governing body of FidoNet, while it is my impression from viewing recent pronouncements of the BoD, as well as the thoroughly IFNAless means that POLICY4 was enacted, that IFNA has decided to divorce itself completely from a policymaking or administrative role in FidoNet at any level. IFNA is now FidoNews 6-26 Page 32 26 Jun 1989 regarding itself solely as a service organization aiding the "greater FidoNet" consisting of all Fido-compatible nodes regardless of net affiliation. They support FTSC, FidoCons, and projects regarding use of BBSs by the handicapped, among other things. IFNA's copyright notice still appears on the nodelist and FidoNews, but they apparently have no intention on actually regulating the network; this copyright situation exists because FidoNet itself is not a legal entity capable of registering a copyright. Your statement that only 152 out of the thousands of nodes voted for POLICY4 is misleading as a measure of apathy, given that only *C's were allowed to vote at all. I don't view Zone 2 as a "colony" of Zone 1, or vice versa; rather, they are both sub-parts of the global FidoNet which should be viewed as equally important (and the same is true of zones 3 and 4). All of these zones must bear some expense to carry the other portions of the nodelist; admittedly, this is not very equal given the larger size of the Zone 1 portion, but that doesn't mean that the cost to Zone 1 of carrying the other zones is nonexistent. My point is that the zones are all part of a whole, and hence are not thoroughly autonomous, however much all (including myself) might want local autonomy at the various levels. To give one example, no net, region, or zone can unilaterally change the format of its nodelist segment to something that is incompatible with that of the others, without global agreement. Since you mention dissent within Europe over the proposed "node tax," that confirms my statement that such a thing is controversial, and should probably be given a vigorous debate before it is imposed anywhere. I must note that I DID NOT come out against this idea; I only stated, then and now, that it is controversial and needs careful examination, NOT that it should definitely be squelched. Right now, POLICY4 states that zone and local policies may not impose requirements on sysops other than additional mail hours, so amendment would be required to permit mandatory fees at any level. (This is a statement of fact with regard to current policy, NOT a statement that I feel FidoNet SHOULD proscribe [or prescribe] mandatory fees worldwide; I haven't made up my mind on the latter position.) TO Ron Dwight RE The European Situation, an informed perspective: See my comments to John Burden above. Please note that my name is spelled with an "e", not an "a". You got it right the first time, but somehow messed up in later references. I must also note that my comments were based on a FidoNews FidoNews 6-26 Page 33 26 Jun 1989 article regarding European policy, not on the policy itself. I have not seen the European policy, either POLICY-4E or any new proposal, since I do not know where these documents may be obtained in Zone 1. If you wish, you may send me these documents so that I too may give "an informed perspective" on them. I apologize if any of my comments were based on an improper reading of the situation based on incomplete information. The tone of the earlier FidoNews article implied that Zone 2 had made POLICY-4E supercede both POLICY3 and POLICY4, had unilaterally rejected POLICY4 for their territory, and were in the process of imposing a "head tax" on their nodes despite a prohibition of such a thing in POLICY4; if I'm mistaken, I sincerely apologize. As you state, POLICY4 was placed up for the acceptance or rejection by the entire *C structure. It passed, despite the negative votes of many Zone 2 coordinators. Hence, it is now in effect throughout FidoNet. (This is a statement of fact, not meant to imply agreement on my part with the content of this policy document; as my other FidoNews articles have shown, I have many disagreements which I wish to address in a POLICY5 proposal.) Later in your piece, you make the puzzling juxtaposition of stating first that a mandatory fee has never been in effect in Europe, and will not be placed into effect by your new proposed policy; but at the same time you state that the assembled sysops at EuroCon decided that such a fee should be imposed, and you feel that such a thing is an important positive step. So which is it? Is a European node fee in the offing, or isn't it? (Please note, as I stated in my comments to John Burden, that I am NOT at this time supporting or opposing the idea of a mandatory fee, only pointing out its controversial nature and its contravention of current policy.) I did not "spread rumors" regarding this node fee; I simply responded to an earlier article on this subject (in FidoNews 6-22). Thanks for "basically agree"ing with my conclusion; if what you want is a minimal POLICYx document giving major autonomy to the component parts, go ahead and draft such a document; I might even support it. My point is ONLY that all zones of FidoNet must, by definition, operate in accordance with the POLICYx document presently in effect; that's all that distinguishes a FidoNet subportion from one of AlterNet, EggNet, or AnyOtherNet. This doesn't imply any specific view regarding what POLICYx OUGHT TO say. One closing comment regarding local autonomy vs. central control: While on the whole, I feel that preservation of individual liberty is best served by decentralization, this is not inevitably true in all situations. Local authorities FidoNews 6-26 Page 34 26 Jun 1989 can sometimes be as authoritarian as any central authority, with the major difference being that it's usually easier to escape the domain of a local tyrant than a global one. However, with the geographical exclusivicity enforced rather strictly by POLICY4 (e.g., a node can't join a network outside his geographical region without permission of both RCs involved), the possibility exists for some local subsections of FidoNet to become tyrannies if granted absolute autonomy. Perhaps the solution to this would be to couple complete local autonomy with the complete abolition of geographical exclusivicity; e.g., allow any NC, RC, or ZC to admit any node he chooses, regardless of place of residence. This would allow nodes to link into the network in alternative manners to get around local leaders whom they find disagreeable (or local fees and other requirements they find burdensome), without requiring global action to be taken against the offending coordinators. This would allow for maximal individual liberty, at the cost of a bit of anarchy which is likely to displease those who wish rigid order for the entire network. (Note that some of the proposals I've been kicking around in this and other articles could appear to contradict one another; this is because I AM in fact just "kicking around" these ideas in the hope of hashing out an ideal structure for the future of FidoNet. I have not solidified my opinion; I'm open to all ideas.) TO Les Kooyman RE FidoCon '89 Update: Dateline Silicon Valley: I tried sending in my reservation for FidoCon a few weeks ago, and it was returned by the Post Office stamped "Attempted: Not Known." I checked the address; I got the PO Box and Zip Code correct, so I don't know why it was undeliverable. Maybe the P.O. didn't recognize "FidoCon '89" in the address instead of the full title "Silicon Valley FidoCon '89". I'll try to send it again using the full name, and cross my fingers it gets delivered. I have sent a message to node 1/89 about this, and have yet to receive a reply as of this writing (6/20/89). TO Daniel Tobias RE Some More Comments: Oops... that's me. I'm getting so carried away doing this reply thing that I was just about to start picking an argument with myself. TO Jack Decker RE Thoughts on the Nodelist: Interesting idea. However, how will you deal with duplicate net numbers? Also, the use of your nodelist for echomail FidoNews 6-26 Page 35 26 Jun 1989 could result in confusing SEEN-BY lines when the messages are exported to systems on the VariousNets which are not participants in your Public Nodelist. TO Randy Bush RE An April Fool joke that wasn't: Well, I guess FidoNet isn't the only network having internal political conflicts. TO Stuart Henderson RE UK-Modem.Art: That UK bill has some very scary features, such as the confiscation of anything construed by the government to be related to computer crime (much like some of the "Zero Tolerance" and RICO measures being taken in this country with regard to drug offenders and sometimes pornographers). However, I don't see any outright ban on BBSs in that law, unless I read it incorrectly (my grasp of the British legal system isn't very great). The intent is to ban "unauthorized access" to computer systems, not to ban the setting up of computer systems for legal purpose. Which clause do you see as banning BBSs which do not engage in illegal "hacking" or "phreaking"? TO Tom Jennings RE European Autonomy and Domestic Meddlers: Though I'm not explicitly named, I presume your article is intended as a response to mine. I sincerely apologize if I have in any way offended you; since you're the founder of FidoNet, I value your opinion highly. I never said that Zone 1 should be the "police force of the world"; I simply stated what was (to me) a self-evident fact that FidoNet (ALL zones) was a network defined by its adherence to whatever POLICYx document is currently in effect. This is true regardless of whether POLICYx attempts to impose all-encompassing control of every aspect of every node's operations, or says nothing at all except that each zone is completely autonomous. I expressed no opinion there in favor of one or the other state of affairs, or anything in between (though I have since made a number of more specific statements as regards these areas). Despite your (and my) wish that this be a "bottom-up network where sysops choose their net hosts and other /O's", you apparently failed to make this sufficiently clear at the outset, or else POLICYx-making authority was somehow wrenched out of your hands and taken over by people of different philosophy. At any rate, to the best of my knowledge (going back to when I first became interested in FidoNet in 1985), the POLICYx document has always prescribed FidoNews 6-26 Page 36 26 Jun 1989 a top-down structure completely lacking in democracy. Hence, my advocacy of policy change, far from being an unsavory move from a bottom-up status quo towards a centralist, top-down structure, is in actuality a call for a change from a top-down status quo to a bottom-up structure which probably agrees with what you want. Hence, we most likely have no reason to disagree at all, and I would be most pleased to see your proposal regarding what wording POLICY5 ought to have to bring about the structure you would have liked to see FidoNet have from the start. (I note that your 1985-era statement of FidoNet policy is in the following FidoNews article; it is, as your views imply, a non-authoritarian document with local nets being formed spontaneously without top-down approval required, and no such thing as "regions" to add entangling geographical rules. However, by the time the rules became codified in POLICY1, there was a fundamental change in the ordering principle, probably not your doing; this created the precedent for top-down control that has been followed ever since. Perhaps you can shed some historical light on this.) I see you'll be a speaker at the FidoCon; I'm planning on attending, so I hope we can meet and discuss FidoNet history and policy in a friendly manner. * Whew * This article turned out to be much longer than I expected. I hope I haven't bored anyone to death, and I further hope that I have cleared up any misunderstandings my earlier article may have caused, and haven't made any enemies within what really ought to be a FRIENDLY network. ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 6-26 Page 37 26 Jun 1989 Jack Decker Fidonet 1:154/8 (but maybe not for long, if our RC has his way) LCRnet 77:1011/8 PROPOSAL FOR A PUBLIC NODELIST Last week, in my Fidonews article entitled "Thoughts on the Nodelist", I proposed that there be a "public" nodelist in which all Fidonet-compatible nodes could be listed. As I explained, the Fidonet nodelist is not a public nodelist, but rather a private nodelist of Fidonet members. In a situation that is somewhat analogous to the chicken and the egg, I'm not sure whether being in the nodelist makes you a member of Fidonet, or being in Fidonet gives you the right to be in the nodelist, but one way or the other, your nodelist listing and your membership in Fidonet are inextricably linked. Should you fall from the graces of Fidonet (and more and more Sysops are finding themselves in this situation), you will lose your nodelist listing. This week I would like to present a somewhat more concrete proposal for a "public" nodelist. I will call this nodelist "The Official Public Computer Network Nodelist" for now (although, as with anything here, I'm open to suggestions for a better way of doing things), and offer some thoughts on what this nodelist should be, and how it should be implemented: 1) The "prime directive" would be that this list is NOT to be used for disciplinary or political purposes. A node is presumed to have the right to be listed in the list (with the approval of their Net Coordinator), unless proven otherwise. 2) There will be NO CHARGE for being listed in this nodelist, nor for receiving nodelist updates (except for any telephone toll charges you may incur in polling for this nodelist). This might be considered "prime directive #2". 3) A "Nodelist Distribution Network" will be used to distribute these nodelists. These will simply be people who agree to poll once a week to get the nodediffs, and then make them available for file request on their systems, or at their option, deliver them to other Nets or nodes. The NDN members may also assist with the collection and/or processing of nodelist segments from individual nets. 4) The minimum standard for being listed in this nodelist is that a node be able to complete a minimum Fidonet Standards Committee FSC-0001 mail session with other nodes during the appropriate mail handling period (which initially will be the same as the Fidonet Zone Mail Hour). If it is discovered that a particular type of software is incapable of completing such a mail session, we reserve the right to place nodes utilizing that software on "hold", or to drop them from the nodelist, until the problem is resolved. This is a purely technical standard, and may not be "selectively enforced" as a roundabout way of using this nodelist for political purposes. In the FidoNews 6-26 Page 38 26 Jun 1989 future, we may permit the use of nodelist flags to indicate a variance from the minimum standard, or we may modify the standard (these items are open for discussion). Private, unlisted nodes are specifically exempted from this requirement, since it is assumed that their Net Coordinator will know when and how to pass mail to them (making it in effect a private matter, HOWEVER, a Net Coordinator MAY enforce this requirement against unlisted nodes in his network if there is good reason to do so). 5) The purpose of the list would be to provide a common "directory" for NETS, and for the nodes in those nets. This statement has several implications: a) One does not get dropped from a directory for bad behaviour. There are other ways of dealing with "rogue" nodes, such as using a password to prevent them from connecting with your system. b) The only people who may request that a node be removed from the list are the operator of the node itself, and the Net Coordinator for the net. If the Net Coordinator makes the request, the node is perfectly free to be listed under another Net, if the Coordinator of that Net will agree to take on that node (one NC's "rotten apple" may be another NC's "star Sysop"). c) Because the purpose of the list is to list NETS, no REGION listings will be permitted (yes, that could be construed as a political statement, but it's about as political as we intend to get). ZONE listings (now used in current nodelists) and POINT listings (now NOT used in current nodelists) are open to discussion (if we do allow points to be listed, we may still make available nodelists with points omitted, for those using software that can't process the point listings and/or those who have limited disk space). d) Our intent is that no independent regional nodes be listed, however, if we can be shown a persuasive reason to allow independent nodes, we may consider allowing them in a specific portion of the nodelist (except that if we use ZONES, they would be listed under the proper ZONE). e) A "Net" is defined as a group of three or more nodes, NOT including private, unlisted nodes. Nodes with the same telephone number count as only one node. A net that drops below the three node figure will have 60 days to make arrangements to become part of another net (or to increase their node count). We reserve the right to make exceptions to the minimum node count rule where unusual conditions exist. Note that we are deliberately not using any geographical considerations in our definition of a "Net". 6) There will be NO GEOGRAPHIC RESTRICTIONS on nets. A net may accept and list nodes located anywhere! While in most cases it will make sense for nets to be formed based on FidoNews 6-26 Page 39 26 Jun 1989 geographic, calling area, or cost considerations, this is NOT required. Our intent is to accept nodelist fragments from Net Coordinators and process them as received, without getting involved in passing judgement on whether listed nodes should or should not be in that net. 7) If two (or more) different people claim to be Net Coordinator for a given net, and both send us nodelist fragments for that net, we will continue to use the fragments provided by the previous NC (that is, the person who has previously been sending us the nodelist fragments for that net) unless and until it can be proven to our satisfaction that the NC position has been transferred in a valid manner. However, we cannot and will not be held liable for an incorrect decision in this regard. If all else fails, we reserve the right to conduct an independent poll of the members of that net, to determine the majority choice of NC, but we are not REQUIRED to take this action, and generally will not do so except in the most extreme circumstances. 8) We will generally try to allow the use of all nodelist flags currently used in other nets' nodelists, except where a usage conflict exists between two nets, and then we will make a determination as to which flags are allowed. We may also add some additional approved flags from time to time. Generally we will try not to restrict the use of nodelist flags unnecessarily, unless the proliferation of nodelist flags becomes a serious problem (even the phone company will sometimes restrict the length and specificity of address that you can put in the phone book!). 9) By sending a network's nodelist fragment to us, the Network Coordinator or person sending the fragment certifies that a) the nodelist fragment is in the Public Domain, OR b) any copyright claimed on the nodelist fragment is held by the Net sending the nodelist fragment, and that we are granted permission to use this nodelist fragment. 10) For a limited time (through 9/30/89) we will reserve current Fidonet Net numbers so that any current Fidonet net can be listed under the same net number that they use in Fidonet. After that date, net numbers will be assigned on a first come, first served basis. Please note that current Fidonet nets do NOT have to be listed under the same net number that they use in Fidonet, nor does their configuration or Net Coordinator need to be the same as is used in Fidonet (for example, they may wish to add additional nodes that would not be acceptable for geographic or other reasons under Fidonet policy). But, prior to 9/30/89, we will only accept applications for Net numbers currently in use in Fidonet from the Net Coordinators of those Fidonet networks. If, prior to the 9/30/89 cutoff date, a Fidonet Net Coordinator indicates in some way that he does NOT wish to be listed in this nodelist, but a number of nodes within his net DO wish to be included, we will consider listing those nodes and allowing FidoNews 6-26 Page 40 26 Jun 1989 one of those nodes to be placed in the nnn/0 position for the purposes of this nodelist. Any node so placed in the nnn/0 position must be willing to forward any inbound routed netmail to others in his net that are also listed in this nodelist (not necessarily at his expense, however). Please note that this reserving of Fidonet node numbers is offered only as a courtesy to existing Fidonet networks, so that they can be included in both nodelists with a minimum of confusion among their nodes (that is, without the need for nodes to have "dual identities"). However, Fidonet and the Official Public Computer Network Nodelist are not to be thought of as being in any way connected. If a net chooses to be listed in both the Fidonet nodelist and the Official Public Computer Network Nodelist, this should be thought of in a manner somewhat analogous to two separate organizations that just happen to have the same individuals in the same positions on the board of directors. Legally, the organizations are still separate and totally unrelated. Where possible, we will also try to list Nets that are part of other (non-Fidonet) networks under their existing Net numbers, except where such net numbers are already used by existing Fidonet Nets. However, since we do not know the net numbers currently in use by non-Fidonet nets, we would encourage those who think that they may wish to be included in this nodelist to at least let us know what their existing net number is, so that we will not prematurely assign it to another network. Where conflicts occur among existing non-Fidonet net numbers, we will assign them on a first-come, first-served basis. With the exception of Net numbers that are already in use by other nets, we do not intend to assign Net numbers under 100 except in special situations. 11) At this point in time, we feel that IF Zones are utilized, they should be used only for the original purpose of sending mail between widely separated and distinct geographic areas (e.g. continents). Therefore, if Zones are used, we will usually place Nets as follows: all North American Nets will be listed under Zone 1, all European Nets under Zone 2, all Asian, Australian, and Pacific Rim Nets under Zone 3, and all South American Nets under Zone 4. These territories may be modified from time to time as conditions warrant. If a Net Coordinator wishes to be listed under a different Zone, and can make the necessary arrangements to receive any netmail from that Zone's Zonegate(s) (if one exists, and at no cost to the Zonegate operator), we will permit it (although we don't encourage it!). Also, individual nodes within a net may be located ANYWHERE, so long as the Net Coordinator will take them, since it is assumed that any netmail destined for those nodes can be host routed. Sysops that do not wish to place international calls should be careful to make sure that their systems are programmed to disallow such calls based on telephone number (e.g. something other than "1" as the first digit in North America) and/or cost of the call, rather than relying on the fact that all nodes in FidoNews 6-26 Page 41 26 Jun 1989 a given Zone will be located in a particular geographic area (we feel that most systems are configured in this manner already). Again, we don't encourage Nets to be listed in a different Zone than the one in which they normally should be in. The only reason we propose to allow it is so that Nets located in border areas (e.g. Central America) could choose the Zone that is most economical for them to affiliate with, OR so that Nets that can be best serviced from another Zone via private circuits, telephone tie-lines, etc. can be listed in the Zone from which they receive their NetMail and Echomail. Because your Net will not be deleted from the nodelist for political or disciplinary reasons, you should not need to be listed in another Zone for these reasons. Please try to exercise good judgement before requesting to be placed in another zone, or consider having the Net Coordinator (only) dual-listed in both Zones. 12) IF Zones are utilized, and IF someone wishes to be listed as a Zonegate in this nodelist, they must agree to forward mail to all systems listed in this nodelist that are geographically located within their Zone. They are not required to forward mail to Nets that are geographically located in another Zone (see #11), unless that Net has a telephone number that is geographically located within the zone (e.g. a "Foreign Exchange" type line), or has notified the Zonegate to forward netmail through another Net or Node that has a telephone number within the Zone, or has agreed to poll the Zonegate periodically to receive Zonegated netmail. A Zonegate may not refuse to forward netmail to a system for disciplinary or punitive reasons. A Zonegate may require a Net Coordinator to poll the Zonegate if unusually large amounts of Netmail are being received by a particular Net. 13) It should be kept in mind that this nodelist is simply a directory listing compatible Nets, and the nodes in those Nets. The primary responsibility for determining whether or not a given node does or does not belong in this nodelist rests with the Net Coordinator. In cases where we may be asked to remove a Net or a Node, we will consider doing so ONLY for technical reasons (e.g. the node's inability to communicate with other Official Public Computer Network compatible systems), and then only after consultation with the Network Coordinator. 14) We will initially try to resolve all disputes in a fair and friendly manner. However, should there be a dispute that is otherwise unresolvable, we reserve the right to put the matter to a vote of Network Coordinators. A notification of the dispute, and the time limits for voting, will be placed in the nodelist comments for at least two consecutive weeks, with the last notification at least two weeks before the votes are due in. This procedure should only rarely be used, and only to resolve disputes over technical matters. An example of a matter that might be put to such a vote is whether a particular mailer program is compatible enough to interface properly with other nodes listed in this nodelist. WE WILL NOT ENTERTAIN FidoNews 6-26 Page 42 26 Jun 1989 DISPUTES REGARDING DISCIPLINARY OR POLITICAL MATTERS. 15) If at some point the need is felt for a more formal method of resolving disputes, or to otherwise amend this document, a committee will be appointed to make recommendations for amendment to this document. These recommendations will be voted on by all Net Coordinators. Where possible, such recommendations shall be considered on a "line item" basis, so that votes are not taken for an entire package of changes on a "take it or leave it" basis (although related items MAY be grouped together). During this process, ALL suggestions from Sysops and Net Coordinators shall be given serious consideration, and no person's suggestions shall be dismissed out of hand due to personality conflicts with members of the committee. In no case may the "prime directive" stated in item #1 be altered, nor may any cost or charge be instituted for being listed in the nodelist. Any amendments to this document must be made primarily for the purpose of resolving technical problems and disputes, and NOT for the reason of giving any one group of Sysops a dominant position over another group. Also, it should be recognized that technology changes as time passes, and nothing is gained by insisting on adherence to outdated standards. Therefore, if there are good reasons to modify the minimum standard for being listed in the nodelist, and if such a change will not adversely affect the vast majority of those listed, such modifications should not be dismissed out of hand. At the same time, it should be the goal that any changes in the minimum standards should not force any existing nodes out of the nodelist, unless it's simply a matter of those nodes stubbornly refusing to upgrade their software to the latest versions. However, in NO case should any action be taken that would force any Sysop to abandon a Public Domain (or other zero-cost) software program in favor of a commercial program (or a "shareware" type program that demands a registration fee from all users). [Editorial Note: I feel that I should make some statement regarding the fact that I feel that the Fidonet Technical Standards Committee is often far too unwilling to consider proposals for new and innovative ideas that would save money for all Sysops. If, heaven help us, we ever feel the need to have a "Technical Standards Committee" to resolve issues pertaining to the OPCN nodelist, it should be composed of people who generally look at new ideas and proposals and ask "why not?", instead of people who are so resistant to any change that it takes them two years to act on a simple request to allow some additional nodelist flags. It should also be composed of people who realize that not all Sysops have money to burn, and who believe that any ideas that would help save money for Sysops should be given speedy and thorough consideration. And above all, these must be people who would not stoop to using "technical standards" as a smokescreen for kicking people out of the nodelist for other reasons that have nothing to do with the technical ability to send and receive mail.] FidoNews 6-26 Page 43 26 Jun 1989 16) Finally, it must again be emphasized that although this nodelist is a directory of nodes that utilize software that is also commonly used in Fidonet, this nodelist is not in any way connected with Fidonet, or International FidoNet Association, or their nodelist. We do not take nodelist fragments from the Fidonet nodelist. All Net updates must be sent directly to us, or to one of the Nodelist Distribution Nodes. Final comments: In order to make this work, we have need for people that are able to perform one or more of three different jobs: a) A person or persons that will actually compile the nodelist each week, from nodelist fragments received from Net Coordinators. This must be someone who is capable of doing this job every week (or, perhaps, every two weeks) faithfully. It must also be someone who is willing to try and learn how to generate nodediffs, rather than simply issuing a complete full nodelist each week. It would also be great if the completed nodelist could be made available on a PC Pursuitable node, to minimize expenses for those who have to poll for it. The person currently maintaining the nodelist for one of the "alternative" networks might be an ideal choice for this position, provided that person has figured out how to generate nodediffs. b) People who are willing to be in the Nodelist Distribution Network. This basically involves polling for the nodediffs on a weekly basis, then making them available for file request on your system. You may also be asked to help collect nodelist fragments from individual Nets and pass them upwards. In no case should this require more than one or two calls per week (one to pass collected fragments upstream, and one to receive the completed nodelist). c) Net Coordinators who are willing to send their nodelist fragments up for inclusion in the nodelist. If anyone would like to volunteer for any of these positions, please send netmail to me at 154/8, or to LCRnet node 1011/8. I will hold this information for forwarding to whoever winds up doing the job described under a) above. Please note that due to the current situation between Net 154 and the Region 11 RC, we may be out of the Fidonet nodelist shortly, so I would again advise those who may wish to communicate with Net 154 nodes to use a text editor to clip the listing for Net 154 from a current Fidonet nodelist, so that you can place it in your private nodelist if necessary, at least until we can get the OPCN nodelist up and running. APPENDIX The following nodelist flags would initially be approved for use in the OPCN nodelist. Note that there are a few minor differences from the Fidonet nodelist, e.g. Continuous Mail is considered the default condition rather than the exception, FidoNews 6-26 Page 44 26 Jun 1989 although use of the CM flag is still permitted; the file request flags should only be used by nodes that support file requests 23 hours a day, not including mail hour (don't you hate calling for a file request only to find that you've called during a period when file requests aren't allowed?), and some additional flags are allowed (in particular, flags that let you indicate what types of compressed mail packets your board can receive and process). The following codes are used to define operating hours: Code Meaning DA Daily WD Week days WE Week ends SU Sundays SA Saturday The following codes define special operating conditions: Code Meaning CM Accepts mail 24 hours per day (optional - the default) NC Does NOT accept continuous mail (required where true) MO Node does not accept human callers The following codes define modem protocols supported: Code Meaning V21 CCITT V21 300 bps full duplex V22 CCITT V22 1200 bps full duplex V23 CCITT V23 1200/75 split baud rate view data mode V29 CCITT V29 9600 bps half duplex V32 CCITT V32 9600 bps full duplex V33 CCITT V33 V34 CCITT V34 H96 Hayes V9600 HST USR Courier HST MAX Microcom AX/96xx series PEP Packet Ensemble Protocol (Telebit Trailblazer) NOTE: Many V22 modems also support Bell 212 The following codes define type of error correction available. A separate error correction code should not be used when the error correction type can be determined by the modem flag. For instance, a modem code of HST implies MNP. Code Meaning MNP Microcom Networking Protocol error correction V42 LAP-M error correction w/fallback to MNP FidoNews 6-26 Page 45 26 Jun 1989 The following codes define the type(s) of compression that may be used on mail packets sent TO a node. Code Meaning MN No compression supported MC:x[...x] Method of Compression. The letters following the colon (which may be in any order) indicate one or more of the following: C = unCrushing supported (PAK) - implies unSquashing & unCrunching also supported S = unSquashing supported (PKUNPAK, PKXARC, newer versions of ARCE) - implies unCrunching also supported N = unCrunching NOT supported (not valid with C or S) D = extraction of DWC packets supported L = extraction of LHARC packets supported R = extraction of PKZIP ("Reduced") packets supported Z = extraction of ZOO packets supported Limitations: C implies unSquashing and unCrunching, so C and S should NOT be used together N implies unCrunching NOT supported, therefore it's not valid in combination with either C or S. MN and MC:N are equivalent. If NONE of these flags are used, it implies that only unCrunching is supported (this is the default). The following codes define the dedicated mail periods supported. They have the form "#nn" or !nn where nn is the UTC hour the mail period begins, # indicates Bell 212 compatibility, and ! indicates incompatibility with Bell 212: #02 European mail hour (02:30 - 03:30 UTC) #09 North American mail hour (09:00 - 10:00 UTC) #18 Western Pacific mail hour (18:00 - 19:00 UTC) NOTE: When applicable, the mail period flags may be strung together with no intervening commas, e.g. "#02#09". Only mail hours other than that standard within a node's zone should be given. The following codes are used to facilitate netmail and echomail routing: Code Meaning AKA:net[/node][|net[/node]|net[/node]...] Also Known As AI:net[/node][|net[/node]|net[/node]...] Alternate Inbound PC:city code[extra access digits] PC Pursuitable SL:[reserved - to be defined] StarLinkable FidoNews 6-26 Page 46 26 Jun 1989 A sample PC flag usage would be as follows: PC:WIMIL Node accessible via PC Pursuit in Milwaukee PC:ILCHI1815 Chicago area node in 815 area code that requires "1-815" to be dialed in front of number. Hyphens are ALWAYS omitted. The following codes indicate the types of file/update requests supported 23 hours per day (Mail Hour excepted). Code Meaning XA Bark and WaZOO file/update requests XB Bark file/update requests, WaZOO file requests XC Bark file requests, WaZOO file/update requests XP Bark file/update requests XR Bark and WaZOO file requests XW WaZOO file requests The following code defines user-specific values. If present, this code MUST be the last code present in a nodelist entry. Code Meaning Ux..x A user-specified string, which may contain any alphanumeric character except blanks. This string may contain one to thirty-two characters of information that may be used to add user-defined data to a specific nodelist entry. ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 6-26 Page 47 26 Jun 1989 Claude F. Witherspoon Fido 1:288/525 (Home of KidsNews) PUBLIC BROADCAST DELIVERS CLASSROOM COMPUTING IDEAS Its that time of year again. Computer Learning Month will be upon us before we know it. With that in mind, we at KidsNews would like to share the following information in hopes to make this year even better than last year: PALO ALTO, Calif., (March 7, 1989) -- The Computer Learning Foundation (CLF), a non-profit organization dedicated to advancing computer literacy, announced today its sponsorship of a weekly public broadcast television series entitled School Vision focusing on the integration of technology into elementary and secondary classroom curricula. "School Vision addresses the critical need of preparing our teachers to more effectively integrate technology into every child's learning experience," said Sally Bowman, CLF director. "From special education to high school science and math teachers, our educators face the challenge - and opportunity - of making computers as critical as textbooks are to classroom learning. The School Vision broadcasts will share ideas and provide ppractical information for educators." According to U.S. Department of Education, there are more than 45 million elementary and secondary students in schools in the United States. For every 32 students, there is currently one microcomputer available. As the number of computers in schools increases - it is expected to nearly double by 1990 - educators anticipate that computers will become as fundamental to learning as text books and traditional visual aids. To prepare the country's more than three million educators, the weekly School Vision segments will show exiting examples of how technology has been brought into the classroom learning environment. The School Vision show will be broadcasts via local PBS stations, with dates and times varying depending on location. Parents and educators are encouraged to contact their local public broadcast station program managers and ask that the School Vision broadcasts be picked up, via satelitte, from the Central Education Network for local viewing. All educators are invited to send videotapes highlighting how computers are being used at their schools. Schools submitting videos selected to air on School Vision will receive free software programs courtesy of the Computer Learning Foundation sponsors. All video submissions and inquiries should be addressed to the Foundation at P.O. Box 60400, Palo Alto, Calif., 94306-0400. CLF is also sponsoring a national teacher training competition and plans to award developers of computer/teaching programs with computer systems donated by CLF industry sponsors. Recognition will be given to top teacher programs developed for the early childhood education area, special education, curriculum integration (combining social studies, foreign languages, FidoNews 6-26 Page 48 26 Jun 1989 writing, art/music, math, science), and the "at risk" population. Educators interested in receiving more information about the teacher training competition should write to the Foundation at P.O. Box 60007, Palo Alto, Calif., 94306-0007. Spearheading the development and production of the weekly School Vision programs is a coalition of industry and educational organizations, including the Central Education Network (CEN), Software Communications Services (SCS) and the CLF. The School Vision video briefings will be presented through WCET, Cincinnati and the Ohio Network Broadcasting Network Commission. The Computer Learning Foundation sponsors Computer Learning Month programs each October. The non-profit organization, based in Palo Alto, Calif., is supported by leading software publishers and computer manufacturers including, Apple, Commodore, IBM and Tandy, as well as 52 U.S. State Departments of Education and Canadian Ministries of Education, and more than 20 national non-profit organizations. Published with permission of the Computer Learning Foundation (CLF), Palo Alto, Calif. I have initiated a National Computer Learning Month echo available on Fido 1:288/525 by request. If you are interested in carrying the echo which uses the name NCLM, please send a request to Butch Witherspoon, Fido 1:288/525 (Continuous Mail (CM)), and I will be happy to tie you into the echo and send it to your system. You must be able to accept continuous Mail for this request. This offer is good for the U.S. only until someone offeres to gateway the echo to other regions. I would like to see the echo carried on the Backbone if folks are interested enough. ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 6-26 Page 49 26 Jun 1989 --------------------------------------------------------------- SAPMFC&LP --------------------------------------------------------------- Come one, come all, to the SECOND ANNUAL POOR MAN'S FIDOCON & LAKE PARTY !!! Join us for the fun of it, July 14-16 1989, West Towakani, Texas. Nets 124 and 130 are pleased to announce the sequel to last year's PMFC&LP, which was a smashing success! We hope to again see our good friends from around Region 19 and all of FidoNet. Admission is FREE TO ALL, with camping, fishing, and a Texas-Style PARTY all included in the price! Bring the family! WARNING! Any person found in possession of a computer (or any device even remotely resembling a computer) at this event will be summarily thrown into the lake, per PMFC&LP tradition. Those in possession of floppy disks and/or DOS or programming manuals may be subject to similar disciplinary action. Map/Instructions/Info follows -- not meant for monitor display, please print! ---------------------------Tear Here--------------------------- 1989 Second Annual Poor Man's FidoCon & Lake Party July 15-16, 1989 West Towakani, Texas Hosted by Nets 124 and 130 =============================================================== NAVIGATIONAL HELP =============================================================== From DALLAS: Take I-30 EAST approximately 25 miles from downtown Dallas to the junction with State Highway 205 (Exit 68, Milepost 69). There is a large "76" Truck Stop at this exit. Take Exit 68, and follow State Highway 205 SOUTH for 1/10 mile. Make the FIRST LEFT (happens quickly) onto State Highway 276. Follow State Highway 276 EAST for 19.5 miles until it dead ends at the junction with State Highway 34 in the town of Quinlan, Tx. (There will be a Dairy Queen right in front of you) Turn RIGHT (South) onto State Highway 34 and proceed 1/2 mile to the junction with State Highway 35 (traffic light). Turn LEFT (East) onto State Highway 35 and proceed 7.1 miles to the large "Anchor Inn" sign on the left. Directly across the road on the RIGHT is the entrance to the campground. (Note for FidoNews 6-26 Page 50 26 Jun 1989 late arrivals: Sign is well lighted) Turn RIGHT just past the "Catfish Inn" Restaurant and follow the gravel road (blacktop in places) back into the campground. IMPORTANT!!! Please check in at the office upon arrival, as all vehicles will require a pass/permit. Tell them you're with the DFW Sysops Group. Anchor Inn phone: (214) 447-2256 --------------------------------------------------------------- From POINTS EAST using I-30: Take I-30 WEST to the junction with State Highway 34 at Canton, Tx. Take the State Highway 34 Exit and turn SOUTH onto State Highway 34. Follow State Highway 34 for approximately 19 miles into the town of Quinlan, Tx. As you are coming into Quinlan, you will pass a large Dairy Queen on the left. From the Dairy Queen, continue straight ahead for 1/2 mile to the junction with State Highway 35 (traffic light). Turn LEFT (East) onto State Highway 35 and follow the "From Dallas" instructions listed above. --------------------------------------------------------------- From POINTS EAST USING I-20: Follow I-20 WEST to the junction of State Highway 34 at Terrell, Tx. Turn NORTH onto State Highway 34 and proceed approximately 17 miles to the junction of State Highway 35 (traffic light) in the town of Quinlan, Tx. Turn RIGHT (East) onto State Highway 35 and follow the "From Dallas" instructions listed above. --------------------------------------------------------------- From POINTS SOUTH: Because I-20 and I-30 "merge" just east of Dallas, if you are coming in via I-35, I-45, or U.S. 67 (or a similar route), your best route is to get on I-20 and follow it EAST to the junction with I-30, then take I-30 EAST and follow the "From Dallas" instructions listed above. --------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 6-26 Page 51 26 Jun 1989 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The campground has a marina, store, tent sites, RV/trailer sites, electric and water hookups, picnic tables, showers, and sanitary facilities. It is located in the small town of West Towakani, TX, with restauarants, stores, shops, gas, and medical facilities within a 5 mile radius. Beer/Wine/Liquor are available locally. Full RV Hookups (water/electric/sewer/parking) will be available to members of our group for $6.00 per night, which is half the going rate. The RV spaces are about 200 yards from the area we have reserved. RV parking (no hookups) is free to members of our group. We have reserved a large area right on the water, including a real nice area for those who choose to pitch tents. There are several picnic tables at the site we've reserved, including several which are under a nice ramada near the water. This ramada will likely become the "center" of activity. There is no electricity available at the site, so bring lots of batteries for your boom box. Restrooms are less than 100 yards away. There is no fresh water at the site, but it is available within 150 yards. We've had a rainy year in North Texas -- bring plenty of insect repellant! The owners of the campground say that prior campers have destroyed their BBQ grills -- they have new ones on order, but they may not arrive by our party date. Anyone with a LARGE grill, please let us hear from you, otherwise, a Hibachi/Weber might be a good thing to bring... The site we're using will allow the landing of most any boat... For anyone unfamiliar with Texas' archaic "Blue Laws" -- hard liquor cannot be purchased legally on Sunday, though beer is available 7 days a week... (?!?!?) Also, liquor stores close by law at 9:00 p.m. daily, Mon-Sat. Beer can be purchased legally in many food/convenience stores 7 days per week until 2:00 a.m. daily. For those who wish to help, the following items will be surely be needed: Friendly folks Good will Fellowship Fresh water FidoNews 6-26 Page 52 26 Jun 1989 Lawn/Beach Chairs Ice Charcoal/Propane Coleman lanterns Firewood Paper supplies (Paper plates, Napkins, Paper towels, T.P.) Condiments (Mustard, Catsup, Relish, Salt, Pepper) Side dishes (Potato salad, Cole slaw, desserts) Beer (Should this have been *first*?) :-) First Aid Supplies Dishwashing/Laundry soap Duct Tape - It's hamster season in TX... Pa-Pa-Ooh-Maow-Maow! PLEASE DRIVE CAREFULLY! REMEMBER -- DEAD SYSOPS DON'T READ ECHOMAIL! ---------------------------Tear Here--------------------------- Last year's "First Annual Poor Man's FidoCon & Lake Party" was a real blast, with folks from all over Region 19 in attendance -- we're hoping this year's blowout will be even bigger and better. Families are encouraged to attend, so bring the spouse and kids! Hope to see you there! ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 6-26 Page 53 26 Jun 1989 ================================================================= COLUMNS ================================================================= THE LOST FIDONET ARCHIVES VOLUME FOUR Compiled by various members of FidoNet Edited by Vince Perriello This is the fourth article in a series which reprints documents of historical significance to FidoNet. This week we feature Tom Jennings' second FidoNet History document, which added more history and amended the "original policy", from August 1985. Please note that most if not all of the FidoNet addresses, data line phone numbers, and company names and/or addresses mentioned in this or any of the other articles in this series are not to be considered reliable for current use in locating something or someone mentioned here. Refer to the current nodelist if you want to try to find any of the above. Following is the contents of FIDONET.DC2: This is Part Two in the history of FidoNet. It turned out that the original FIDOHIST.DOC (now called FIDOHIST.DC1, or just "Part One") was useful, and many people read it. Unfortunately, by the time everyone read it, it became totally obsolete. Oh well. Here is Part Two. FIDOHIST.DOC covered the early history of FidoNet, why it was done, how it was done, and the reasons for the organization and obscure rituals surrounding node numbers. If you havent read it yet, I suggest you do now, because I'll probably refer to things that won't make any sense otherwise. The original FidoNet was organized very simply; each FidoNet system (each node) had a number that served like a phone number, uniquely identifying it. The NODELIST, generated by the folks in St. Louis that had all FidoNet nodes in it, contains information on all known FidoNet systems. Every system in FidoNet had a current copy of the NODELIST, which served as the directory of systems. (In the interests of brevity I'm leaving out huge amounts of information; I hope you have read FIODHIST.DOC by now ...) FidoNet has been growing steadily since it started by accident in May 84 or so. The node list continued to get out of hand; the original FIDOHIST.DOC was written to try and help smooth things out. It is impossible to overemphasize the amount of work involved in keeping the node list accurate. Basically, the guys in St. Louis were keeping track of hundreds of FidoNet systems FidoNews 6-26 Page 54 26 Jun 1989 in Boston, Los Angeles, London, Stockholm and Sweden, and publishing the results weekly. There has never been such a comprehensive and accurate list of bulletin board systems generated. We talked for many months as to how we could possibly find a solution to the many problems; it was at the point where if a solution was not found in a few months (by Aug. 85 or so) that FidoNet would collapse due to the sheer weight of it's node list. The newsletter, FidoNews, was, and still is, an integral part of the process of FidoNet. FidoNews is the only thing that unites all FidoNet sysops consistently; please keep up to date on it, and stock it for your users if you have the disk space. And contribute if you can! [Thanks, Tom. Never hurts to make that point again -- ed.] There were many constraints on the kind of things we could do; we had no money, so it had to be done for zero cost. Centralization was out, so obviously localization was in; just how to do it was a total unknown. We thought of going back to having people in different areas handle new node requests in their area, but that always generated confusion as to who a person should go to, how to avoide having someone requesting a node number from different people simultaneously, etc etc. The old method of routing was very different than the current method, and much more complex; instead of Fido automatically routing to hosts, each sysop had to specify (via the ROUTE.BBS file) how all routing was done in the system. The was done originally by hand, later by John Warren's (102/31) NODELIST program. Then of course there was the problem that no matter what we did, it would not be done overnight. (ha ha.) It would take many weeks at the least, possibly months, so that whatever we did had to be compatible with the old method as well. We went through probably hundreds of ideas in the next few months, some possibly useful, some insane. Eventually the insanity boiled down to a pretty workable system. We chatted by FidoNet and by voice telephone. Eventually, we settled on the two part number scheme, like the phone company does with area codes and exchanges. It accomodated backwards compatibility (you can keep your present node number) and the new "area code" (net number) could be added into an existing field that had been set to zero. (This is why everyone was originally part of net #1). When a fortunate set of circumstances was to bring Ezra Shapiro and me to St. Louis to speak to the McDonnell Douglas Recreational Computer Club on XXXX 11th, we planned ahead for a national FidoNet sysops meeting that weekend. [Note -- this was the first FidoCon -- ed.] Ken and Sally Kaplan were kind enough to tolerate having all of us in their living room. FidoNews 6-26 Page 55 26 Jun 1989 The people who showed up were (need that list) The meeting lasted ten continuous hours; it was the most productive meeting I (and most others) had attended. When we were done, we had basically the whole thing layed out in every detail. We stuck with the area code business (now known as net and region numbers) and worked out how to break things up into regions and nets. It was just one of those rare but fortunate events; during the morning things went "normally", but in the afternoon solutions fell into place one by one, so that by late afternoon we had the entire picture laid out in black and white. Two or three months of brainstorming just flowed smoothly into place in one afternoon ... What we had done was exactly what we have now, though we changed the name of "Admin" to "Region", and added the "alternate" node and net numbers. (We still seem to be stuck with that terrible and inaccurate word, "manager". Any ideas?) I previously had a buggy test hack running using area codes, and the week after the meeting it was made to conform to what we had talked about that Saturday. When version 10C was done, it accomplished more or less everything we wanted, but it sure did take a long time. 10C was probably the single largest change ever made to Fido/FidoNet, and the most thoroughly tested version. At 10M, there are STILL bugs left from that early version, in spite of the testing. Once the testing got serious, and it looked like we had a shippable version, St. Louis froze the node list, and started slicing it into pieces, to give to the soon-to-be net and region managers. (That word again.) This caused a tremendous amount of trouble for would-be sysops; not only was it difficult enough to figure out how on earth to get a node number, once they did they were told node numbers weren't being given out just yet. Explaining why was even harder, since FIDOHIST.DC2 (ahem) wasn't written yet. (I have to agree, this thing is a little bit late) It was a typical case of those who already knew were informaed constantly of updates, but thse in the dark had a hard time. Things were published fairly regularly (am I remembering "conveniently" or "accurately" on this part?) Eventually, 10C was released, and seemed to work fairly well, ignoring all the small scale disasters due to bugs, etc. We couldn't just swap over to the new area code business until very close to 100% of all Fidos were using the new version. This was (for me) an excruciating period, basically a "hurry up and wait" situation. There had not been a node list release for a month or two, and for all practical purposes it looked like FidoNet had halted ... Finally, on June 12th, we all swapped over to the new system; that afternoon, sysops were to set their net number (it had been "1" for backwards compatibility), copy in the new node list issued just for this occasion, and go. I assumed the result was FidoNews 6-26 Page 56 26 Jun 1989 going to be perpetual chaos, bringing about the collapse of FidoNet. Almost the exact opposite was true; things went very smoothly (yes, there were problems, but when you consider that FidoNet consists of microcomputers owned by almost 300 people who had never even talked to each other ...) Within a month or so, just about every Fido had swapped over to the area code, or net/node architecture. With a few exceptions, things went very smoothly. No one was more suprised than pessimistic I. At this time, August, I don't think there is a single system still using the old node number method. This is all well and fine as far as the software goes, but it made a mess for new sysops. For us sysops who have been around for a while, there was no great problem, as we saw the changes happen one by one. However, new sysops frequently came out of the blue; armed with a diskette full of code, they attempted to set up a FidoNet node. Actually, I don't understand how anyone does it. The information needed is not recorded in any place that a non sysop could find. On top of that, most of it is now totally wrong! If you follow the original instructions, it said "call Fido #1 ..." if you found a real antique, or "calling Fido #51 ..." if it is more current. Of course now it tells you to find your region manager. "Region manager???" Well, a list of region managers was published in FidoNews, but unless you read FidoNews, how does anyone ever find out? I'll probably never know. ANYWAYS ... the original reason for all the changes was to DECENTRALIZE FidoNet. It just wasn't possible for Ken Kaplan to keep accurate, up to date information on every Fido in the US and Europe. The decentralization has been more or less a total success. The number of problems introduced were negligable compared to the problems solved, and even most new problems are by this time solved. It is interesting to note that with the hundreds of systems there are today, the national FidoNet hour is less crowded than it was when there were only 50 nodes. Please, keep in mind that no one has done anything like this before, we are all winging it, and learning (hopefully) as we go. Please be patient with problems, none of us is paid to do this, and it is more and more work as time goes on. Somehow it seems to all get done ... HOW TO GET A NODE NUMBER AND ALL THAT 20 August 1985 This is by necessity a very general idea of how it's done, and you were warned earlier that this may be obsolete this very minute; with that, here's the "current" process for starting up a new FidoNet node. FidoNews 6-26 Page 57 26 Jun 1989 You can of course skip all or part of this if you've done this before; if you haven't, well, be prepared for a lot of searching and asking questions. Of course, you need to have your Fido BBS system running first. It's probably best that you play with it for a while, and get some experience with how it all works, and whether you have the patience to run a BBS. It can get exasperating, and you will never find time to use the computer ever again. Obtain the most recent copy of the nodelist possible; thi may take some searching. If you get totally lost, you can always contact Fido 125/1 or Fido 100/51; though these are very busy systems, they both usually have the very latest of anything, and can direct you to the right place. The big problem here is to find out if oyu are in a net or not, and if not, then who your region manager is. If you are in a lrge city (Los Angeles, Cincinnati, etc) then there is probably a net in your area. Look through the node list (use the N)odebook command in Fido, or a text editor) for the right area code or city. If there is no net in your area, then you are part of a region. This is a little harder, because regions are large, and sometomes cover many states. Look at all the regions in the node list, you should find a region that fits you. Once you find this, you have to contact the net or region manager to get your node number. Exactly how this is done depends on who the manager is, and how sticky they are fir details. A near universal requirement is that you send your request via FidoNet, not by manully; this isn't done to make you life difficult, but to ensure that your system is really working right. IF you manage to get a FidoNet message to the manager, its usually safe to assume that you're system is working OK. If you get a reply in return, then you know both directions work. It is usually each sysops' responsibility to go get the latest nodelist and newsletters; they are not distributed to all systems because of the expense. (Though, I'm trying to get them distributed to more places than they are now, it's sometimes very difficult to get a copy of the nodelist!) Again, read the FidoNew newsletter regularly; it is about the only way to stay in contact with the rest of the net. Programs, problems, services, bugs and interesting announcements can always be found there. FidoNews articles don't come out of thin air; send in anythnig you think might be of interest. They don't have to be lifetime masterpieces, or even well written. Please remember the entire network is made of the sysops; there is no central location from which good things come, the net consists entirely of the sysops and their contributions. If you don't do it, chances are no one else will! FidoNews 6-26 Page 58 26 Jun 1989 Tom Jennings 20 Aug 85 Ken Kaplan Fido 100/51 314/432-4129 Tom Jennings Fido 125/1 415/864-1418 Ben Baker Fido 100/10 314/234-1462 ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 6-26 Page 59 26 Jun 1989 ================================================================= LATEST VERSIONS ================================================================= Latest Software Versions Bulletin Board Software Name Version Name Version Name Version Fido 12m+* Phoenix 1.3 TBBS 2.1 Lynx 1.30 QuickBBS 2.03 TComm/TCommNet 3.4 Opus 1.03b+ RBBS 17.2A* TPBoard 5.2* + Netmail capable (does not require additional mailer software) Network Node List Other Mailers Version Utilities Version Utilities Version BinkleyTerm 2.20 EditNL 4.00 ARC 6.02* D'Bridge 1.18 MakeNL 2.12 ARCmail 2.0 Dutchie 2.90C ParseList 1.30 ConfMail 4.00 FrontDoor 2.0 Prune 1.40 EMM 2.02* PRENM 1.47* XlatList 2.90 GROUP 2.10* SEAdog 4.51* XlaxDiff 2.32 MSG 3.3* XlaxNode 2.32 MSGED 1.99 TCOMMail 2.2* TMail 1.11* TPBNetEd 3.2* UFGATE 1.03 XRS 2.2 * Recently changed Utility authors: Please help keep this list up to date by reporting new versions to 1:1/1. It is not our intent to list all utilities here, only those which verge on necessity. ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 6-26 Page 60 26 Jun 1989 ================================================================= NOTICES ================================================================= The Interrupt Stack 9 Jul 1989 FidoNet's Zone 4 (Latin America) adopts 0800 GMT as new Zone Mail Hour, replacing the North American 0900 GMT schedule. 15 Jul 1989 Start of the SAPMFC&LP (Second Annual Poor Man's FidoCon and Lake Party) to be held at Silver Lake Park on Grapevine Lake in Arlington, Texas. This started as an R19-only thing last year, but we had so much fun, we decided to invite everybody! We'll have beer, food, beer, waterskiing, beer, horseshoes, beer, volleyball, and of course beer. It's an overnighter, so bring your sleeping bag and plan to camp out. Contact one of the Furriers (Ron Bemis at 1:124/1113 or Dewey Thiessen at 1:130/24) for details and a fantastic ASCII map. 2 Aug 1989 Start of Galactic Hacker Party in Amsterdam, Holland. Contact Rop Gonggrijp at 2:280/1 for details. 24 Aug 1989 Voyager 2 passes Neptune. 24 Aug 1989 FidoCon '89 starts at the Holiday Inn in San Jose, California. Trade show, seminars, etc. Contact 1:1/89 for info. 5 Oct 1989 20th Anniversary of "Monty Python's Flying Circus" 11 Oct 1989 First International Modula-2 Conference at Bled, Yugoslavia hosting Niklaus Wirth and the British Standards Institution. Contact 1:106/8422 for more information. 11 Nov 1989 A new area code forms in northern Illinois at 12:01 am. Chicago proper will remain area code 312; suburban areas formerly served with that code will become area code 708. ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 6-26 Page 61 26 Jun 1989 OFFICERS OF THE INTERNATIONAL FIDONET ASSOCIATION Mort Sternheim 1:321/109 Chairman of the Board Bob Rudolph 1:261/628 President Matt Whelan 3:3/1 Vice President Bill Bolton 3:711/403 Vice President-Technical Coordinator Linda Grennan 1:147/1 Secretary Kris Veitch 1:147/30 Treasurer IFNA COMMITTEE AND BOARD CHAIRS Administration and Finance Mark Grennan 1:147/1 Board of Directors Mort Sternheim 1:321/109 Bylaws Don Daniels 1:107/210 Ethics Vic Hill 1:147/4 Executive Committee Bob Rudolph 1:261/628 International Affairs Rob Gonsalves 2:500/1 Membership Services David Drexler 1:147/47 Nominations & Elections David Melnick 1:107/233 Public Affairs David Drexler 1:147/47 Publications Rick Siegel 1:107/27 Security & Individual Rights Jim Cannell 1:143/21 Technical Standards Rick Moore 1:115/333 IFNA BOARD OF DIRECTORS DIVISION AT-LARGE 10 Courtney Harris 1:102/732 Don Daniels 1:107/210 11 Bill Allbritten 1:11/301 Mort Sternheim 1:321/109 12 Bill Bolton 3:711/403 Mark Grennan 1:147/1 13 Irene Henderson 1:107/9 (vacant) 14 Ken Kaplan 1:100/22 Ted Polczyinski 1:154/5 15 Scott Miller 1:128/12 Matt Whelan 3:3/1 16 Ivan Schaffel 1:141/390 Robert Rudolph 1:261/628 17 Neal Curtin 1:343/1 Steve Jordan 1:206/2871 18 Andrew Adler 1:135/47 Kris Veitch 1:147/30 19 David Drexler 1:147/47 (vacant) 2 Henk Wevers 2:500/1 David Melnik 1:107/233 ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 6-26 Page 62 26 Jun 1989 __ The World's First / \ BBS Network /|oo \ * FidoNet * (_| /_) FidoCon '89 in San Jose, California _`@/_ \ _ at The Holiday Inn Park Plaza | | \ \\ August 24-27, 1989 | (*) | \ )) ______ |__U__| / \// / Fido \ _//|| _\ / (________) (_/(_|(____/ (tm) R E G I S T R A T I O N F O R M Name: _______________________________________________________ Address: ____________________________________________________ City: _______________________ State: ____ Zip: ______________ Country: ____________________________________________________ Phone Numbers: Day: ________________________________________________________ Evening: ____________________________________________________ Data: _______________________________________________________ Zone:Net/ Node.Point: ___________________________________________________ Your BBS Name: ________________________________________________ BBS Software: _____________________ Mailer: ___________________ Modem Brand: _____________________ Speed: ____________________ At what hotel will you be staying: ____________________________ Do you want an in room point? (Holiday Inn only) ______________ Are you a Sysop? _____________ Are you an IFNA Member? ______ Additional Guests: __________ (not attending conferences) Do you have any special requirements? (Sign Language translation, handicapped, etc.) FidoNews 6-26 Page 63 26 Jun 1989 ______________________________________________________ Comments: ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ Costs How Many? Cost --------------------------- -------- ------- Conference fee $60 .................... ________ _______ ($75.00 after July 15) Friday Banquet $30.00 ................ ________ _______ ======== ======= Totals ................................ ________ _______ You may pay by Check, Money Order, or Credit Card. Please send no cash. All monies must be in U.S. Funds. Checks should be made out to: "FidoCon '89" This form should be completed and mailed to: Silicon Valley FidoCon '89 PO Box 390770 Mountain View, CA 94039 You may register by Netmailing this completed form to 1:1/89 for processing. Rename it to ZNNNXXXX.REG where Z is your Zone number, N is your Net number, and X is your Node number. US Mail confirmation is required within 72 hours to confirm your registration. If you are paying by credit card, please include the following information. For your own security, do not route any message with your credit card number on it. Crash it directly to 1:1/89. Master Card _______ Visa ________ Credit Card Number _____________________________________________ Expiration Date ________________________________________________ Signature ______________________________________________________ No credit card registrations will be accepted without a valid FidoNews 6-26 Page 64 26 Jun 1989 signature. Rooms at the Holiday Inn may be reserved by calling the Hotel at 408-998-0400, and mentioning that you are with FidoCon. Rooms are $60.00 per night double occupancy. Additional rollaways are available for $10.00 per night. To obtain these rates you must register before July 15. The official FidoCon '89 airline is American Airlines. You can receive either a 5% reduction in supersaver fares or a 40% reduction in the regular day coach fare. San Jose is an American Airlines hub with direct flights to most major cities. When making reservations, you must call American's reservation number, 800-433-1790, and reference Star number S0289VM. The official FidoCon '89 automobile rental agency is Alamo Rent a Car. Rates are as described below. All rates include automatic transmission, air conditioning, radio, and unlimited mileage. Economy car (example: Geo Metro) $32 day/$109 week. Compact car (example: Chevy Cavalier) $34 day/$120 week. Midsize car (example: Pontiac Grand Am) $36 day/$135 week. Standard car (example: Buick Regal) $38 day/$165 week. Luxury car (example: Buick LeSabre) $40 day/$239 week. To take advantage of this rate, call Alamo at 1-800-327-9633 and request the convention rate. Mention FidoCon '89, the location and dates. ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 6-26 Page 65 26 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. -----------------------------------------------------------------