Volume 6, Number 28 10 July 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 Appeal to the IC re: the arbitrary impostion of p4 ....... 2 D'Bridge 1.21 - A Quick Review .......................... 7 Fido/FidoNet Routing, Topology, History, and Recent Cha .. 9 Keep The Issue Clear! .................................... 17 Notes on Net Numbering ................................... 19 3. WANTED ................................................... 24 Ham Radio Articles Needed! ............................... 24 4. LATEST VERSIONS .......................................... 25 Latest Software Versions ................................. 25 And more! FidoNews 6-28 Page 1 10 Jul 1989 ================================================================= EDITORIAL ================================================================= Let's start this week's Editorial with a couple of questions: 1) To those of you promoting Democracy in Fidonet: didn't you notice we've tried this before with IFNA? 2) To those of you thinking right now, "He's GOT to be kidding": what did YOU do to help make the IFNA idea work? What proof can you offer that YOUR idea of Democracy in Fidonet is better than the original concept of IFNA? That more people will flock to your banner? Frankly, what seems to be going on in this network is an epidemic of "screw whoever's in charge". This seems to date back to about the time that IFNA was founded. In fact, it might be IFNA's fault. Nobody seemed to care whether they had a voice in the net before Messrs. Kaplan, Baker, Henderson and Jennings got on that stage in Colorado and told them they could HAVE one. Since that time, we've had nothing but mikey wars played over and over and over again. Sometimes the participants changed but the basic issues seemed about the same. This Net 154 thing sounds a lot like the Net 103 thing of a few years ago, the only difference being WHAT the NC refused to go along with. The result then was the same as the current one. An entire net was excommunicated (of course the ratio of private to public nodes in 103 was a lot different, most of the nodes there had real people running them). About two years into the mikey wars, the *C's decided to extricate themselves from the IFNA situation. In my opinion, they drew the conclusion that the only thing you'd get from enfranchising the entire Net (as IFNA wanted to do) was utter chaos (which is all that IFNA had accomplished), so they proceeded to play the "benevolent dictatorship" game that persists to this day. If this is indeed what happened (nobody has told me one way or the other) I can certainly sympathize. What's happening these days? The "benevolent dictators" have made a few unpopular decisions. Now there's more screaming for democracy. Yeah, right. Let's try the IFNA thing again? I can't see any reason why. IFNA is still here, it is a 501(c)(3) organization, and all it needs is some guidance from its membership. That is, when it can get some people interested in democracy in Fidonet to become members. Re-connecting IFNA to Fidonet is a minor thing once IFNA can be shown to have some coherence. Put up or shut up. Join IFNA and fix it. Or just bag the noise. I for one am fed up with the mikey wars. Aren't you? ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 6-28 Page 2 10 Jul 1989 ================================================================= ARTICLES ================================================================= TO: David Dodell FROM: Doug Thompson SUBJECT: Talk to me David! cc: fidonews Hi David, Reading Fidonews and the nodelist is pretty disturbing these days. I spent half the day writing a program (so I'm a lousy programmer) to put Milwaukee back in the nodelist. I think, "hmmm, isn't this the job of the RCs, to make sure the nodelist is complete and accurate?". Seems the job of RC has changed to make sure that the nodelist is politically correct instead of technically correct. What's going on here? The crime was the refusal to swear an oath of allegiance to the so-called policy 4. The crime was having a node listed that was outside somebody's idea of geographical limitations. I submit to you that the disease interfered much less with the smooth working of the net than the cure. There are all kinds of reasons why nodes will be listed outside their immediate geographic area and if you look at the nodelist you'll see it's pretty common. I submit to you that policy 3 places no limits on *where* a node can be located. As for policy 4, so-called, if that was somebody's idea of a bad joke it has gone too far. By precedent policy must be ratified by fidonet before it can be enforced, or before any reasonable person can be expected to abide by it. Policy 4 has not been ratified by fidonet, and I shall prove that the process of ratification by the NCs was fraudulent and invalid in execution as well as in design. Have I not informed you that it is not acceptable in net 221? Has not all of zone 2 informed you of the same thing? Why are we not excommunicated, since "consistency", we are told by Steve Bonine, is so important? And who is Steve Bonine and who gave him authority to start shrinking the nodelist according to his own political proclivities? Why is Milwaukee gone from the nodelist? Was the software incompatible? Were calls going undialable? Was mail hour not being observed? No. Policy 3 was adopted by fidonet, and by IFNA. Policy 4 was FidoNews 6-28 Page 3 10 Jul 1989 ratified by neither. Thus policy 4 remains a hypothetical document, not an enforcable policy. Doesn't it? Or has some coup d'etat suddenly transformed fidonet? So here are several offical policy complaints: I) I deem it excessively annoying that my vote on policy 4 ratification was changed by my RC because he didn't approve of it. Documentation and proof available on request. It consists of the message from Tom stating that he had altered my vote. I know, it's hard to believe, but it's true. I request that the ratification be declared null and void on that grounds, and that the RC in question be reprimanded for violation of basic, fundamental, democratic principles. I further request that an ivestigation be launched to inquire into the integrity of the policy 4 vote in general, and that all RCs who violated basic democratic principles, i.e. secret ballot, harassment of voters, attempts to get people to change their vote, falisfication of returns, etc., be exposed and that appropriate disciplinary action be taken against any RCs guilty of these crimes against common decency. It is recognized as policy violation to send a message under someone else's name and network address. Surely sending a falsified vote is just as serious. Indeed, it strikes me as vastly more serious! II) I deem it excessively annoying that the ballot on policy 4 was not secret and that some NCs were subjected to verbal abuse and intense pressure to vote in accord with the RC's wishes. The results of the ballot are clearly a sham as a result of that. I.E. it is certain that many votes were influenced by pressure from RCs. Mine wasn't influenced. When he failed to convince me to vote as he wanted he just changed my vote. I request that the ratification be declared null and void on that grounds. III) I deem it excessivley annoying that no vehicle for debate and discussion of the proposed policy 4 preceded the ratification vote. Yes, I was sent copies and asked to comment. When I did comment to Tom all I got back was a stream of abusive insults and an insistence that I hadn't read the document. In other words rather than debate or discussion, the only role I was allowed was FidoNews 6-28 Page 4 10 Jul 1989 that of making comments to a person who simply denounced them and obviously didn't carry them further. Discussion requires that all points of view be heard (not necessarily accepted, but at least heard) by all parties to the process. I request that the ratification be declared null and void on that grounds. IV) I deem it excessively annoying that precedent in the adoption of policy was completely disregarded. Fidonet consists of sysops, not coordinators. Coordinators are the administrative servants of, not the masters of the net. Precedent demands that any ratification process be open to all sysops. I request that the ratification be declared null and void on that grounds. V) I deem it excessively annoying that 96% of sysops were disenfranchised from the ratification of policy without any constitutional, moral or legal grounds, or precedent, and in complete violation of any recognizable notion of democratic priopriety in Western Civiliation, I request that the ratification be declared null and void on that grounds. VI) I deem it excessively annoying that I am forced to spend a lot of time and effort correcting the errors in the current nodelist (i.e. the removal of all of Milwaukee). I request that the nodelist be corrected and that the person(s) responsible for the errors and ommissions be suitably reprimanded. VII) Whereas precedent in fidonet demonstrates that policy is adopted by consensus, and whereas no device for consensus of the net has been employed, and whereas *C sysops alone have arrogated the right to adopt policy, and whereas this represents a fundamental and basic violation of every principle of due process recognized in western civilization, and whereas severe abuses of the electoral process can be demonstrated, and whereas it has already been used to eliminate substantial numbers of fidonet-capable, mail-hour honouring nodes from the nodelist, for political reasons alone, I deem policy 4 to be excessively annoying and request that it be FidoNews 6-28 Page 5 10 Jul 1989 officially junked, and that the process of consideration, review and ratification be re-started in a recognizably democratic fashion. VIII) Whereas the so-called "ratification process" of policy 4 was a total sham and travesty of common decency, and whereas fidonet is going to break asunder as sysops in general puke in disgust at this, I urge you to inhale a sweet breath of sanity and institute a democratic, reasonable and proper means to establish new policy for the net. I doubt that the flagrant abuse in Region 12 was typical of what happened in other regions. But no precautions whatsoever were in place to prevent it and the result therefore cannot possibly have a shred of credibility. We were effectively told how to vote and reservations were dismissed out of hand. Not just mine either, this happened to other NCs. I have copies of the correspondence which show that. In the vernacular this means that policy 4 is viewed as having about as much moral and legal authority as the tanks in Tianenmen square. Very many are afraid to speak out right now. We have entered a reign of terror and strong-arm tactics. No one wants to be excommunicated, but it is clear that the results of exercising the right to freedom of speech entail this penalty. It is a brutal quashing of the democratic aspirations of thousands of fidonet sysops and has already proven itself to be wholly negative and counter-productive. The nodelist has shrunk . . . the balloting was falsified, even Tom Jennings is staunchly opposed. Is any further argument really required? There are many more arguments which can be mustered, but I think the facts presented here speak for themselves. Policy 4 contains several highly objectionable provisions, mostly those which give RCs policy-making responsibilities to the exclusion of sysops. The most objectionable thing, however, is the arbitrary psuedo-democratic way it was imposed on fidonet. It is simply unimaginable that this could possibly ever be acceptable within democratic societies. It is quite unthinkable. IX) Whereas the healthy democratic functioning, growth and prospering of fidonet is of great concern to both myself and my net, anything constructive you might have to suggest by which we can help bring that about would be most sincerely appreciated. Working withing fidonet to change and improve policy is now virtually impossible. The RCs have erected a system which not only fails to encourage participation from sysops, it positively excludes it. While nearly all the sysops I talk to find the current situation intolerable, few have any ideas as to what can be done about it. The RCs have effectively insulated themselves FidoNews 6-28 Page 6 10 Jul 1989 from fidonet The fact that policy 3 is valid and enforcable, while policy 4 is neither, and the hopeless disarray of IFNA at the moment leaves all sysops with but one hope, and that hope is that the International Coordinator will recognize the voice of reason and the need of the net and act to rectify the problem. Please do something. As always, your loyal servant, Doug Thompson coordinator 1:221 ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 6-28 Page 7 10 Jul 1989 Chuck Allen, Network 8:7200/2 AlterNet 7:522/1 ISA:2108 FidoNet 1:129/41 Standard disclaimer - I have no affiliation with the author of the software. Recently D'Bridge 1.21, by Chris Irwin, came across the Software Distribution System. By nature, I am always looking for new toys, and the docs for D'Bridge promised something different. I set up D'Bridge and asked for my "trial key", a process one has to see to believe. When I ran "install", the program checked the files and copied them into a working directory. Running DB and answering questions led to a outbound call to the support system of my choice for the trial key. Rather than go into a detailed list of features and comparisons, I'm going to describe my experience setting D'Bridge up and operating it. D'Bridge, in a nutshell, is an integrated mailer, echo handler, area fix station, terminal program, and message editor with many unique features seamlessly integrated into one package. Setup was as easy as I have seen it, rivaling or surpassing FrontDoor's renowned ease of setup. I seldom referred to the documentation (more than 250 pages), there is a brief "help line" displayed at the bottom of the screen, usually describing what is expected. In less than an hour, I had the mailer and echo handler set up and running. D'Bridge can use any of three storage types; Fido, QuickBBS, and TBBS. The editor allows you to define the area as local or echomail, and you can pick the storage type for each area. Thus you can have "normal" echoes imported into a QuickBBS message base and have "sysop" echoes stored in Fido (single message per file) format. For echo areas, you define the distribution and how you want mail for each node handled (crash, normal, hold, etc.). You can select autoaliasing (for echoes destined for a different zone or network) and specify an origin line. You chose a tag and security level along with an area number. There are sort options for some fields. You can choose number of messages or number of days for maintenance purposes, along with a feature to ignore the first nnnn messages in an area. Using the message editor is very straight forward and controlled for the most part by function keys. All the features one has come to expect in a modern message editor are there, and more. You can search the text or headers of messages for selected text (very nice!). Again, the features are too numerous to mention. The mailer portion is easily set up and quite intuitive. Scheduling is done by a unique visual interface. Routing is as simple or complex as one chooses, there is no mucking around with external files. I tested D'Bridge with Opus 1.10, Opus 1.03, FrontDoor 1.99, Seadog 4.1 & 4.51, and Binkley 2.20. FidoNews 6-28 Page 8 10 Jul 1989 There was no problem negotiating a session with any of them. The built-in echohandler allows choosing several compression methods, specific to individual nodes, and will handle nearly any type of mail to come in. Further, it has a built-in AREAFIX handler, and an option for automatically creating new areas for previously unreceived echoes (terrific for echohubs). The permutations of possible options is incredible, there is something in the echohandler for everyone. It is quick and works flawlessly in my setup, a tough test considering my 3 network membership. The program uses overlays, which is nice for those running under DesqView or DoubleDos. I've run D'Bridge under both, with no problem. The docs warn that reducing available memory may slow things down, this was never apparent on a 8 mhz turbo XT clone. In one case, I had not allocated enough memory to load the editor. At this point, many packages would give up the ghost and fold up. D'Bridge printed the message "swapping to disk" on the screen and carried on as though the stupid sysop had done nothing wrong. The terminal portion of the program is as good, if not better, than those I've seen in other mailers. The protocols we've all come to expect are all present, as is a dialing directory, etc. It depends on the nodelist, which is unique to D'Bridge and is handled by D'Bridge itself. Whenever D'Bridge is started, it goes through a series of tests, one of which is to make sure the nodelist is current. If it detects a difference file, it automatically updates the "St. Louis" nodelist as well as it's own nodelist. Simply amazing. As with all but the simplest package, at some point support becomes necessary. I am not a registered user, yet two questions to my chosen support board (Optical Illusion) were answered swiftly and correctly by Mark Moran (thanks Mark!). Quite honestly, I was surprised by the support, given that I was on a trial key, not a registered user. All in all, this is one impressive package. The seamless integration of so many functions is rivaled by the ease of use. It is tough for me to imagine a situation from echostar on down that D'Bridge couldn't easily handle. It is not shareware, it is a commercial product (with a 20% reduction until mid-July), well worth what Chris is asking (I'd still be running it and buy it if I weren't unemployed!). ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 6-28 Page 9 10 Jul 1989 Fido/FidoNet Routing, Topology, History, and Recent Changes Tom Jennings, 1:125/111 15 June 89 Fido/FidoNet, like all other FidoNet mailers and BBSs, generates messages, and puts them into packets that are later delivered to some appropriate destination by the mailer itself. All of the different mailers use different approaches as to just how you the sysop control where, how and when packets (and the messages they contain) get delivered. In light of all the mailer systems out there today, I don't think many are aware of just how Fido/FidoNet does it's routing. With a few recent changes you might find the design has become interesting once again. (And starting July 89, Fido/FidoNet is once again shareware. File Request "ABOUT" and "FILES" from 1:125/111 for complete details.) FIDO Fido was originally just a bulletin board; the first FidoNet was a separate program that was run from a batch file with a few small hooks into the BBS. (The origin of the Fido version 9 - 11 MAIL.SYS file.) Fido (the BBS) only let users generate messages; FidoNet (the mailer) put messages into packets and delivered them. At this point, four years later, Fido and FidoNet are pretty well integrated, and this latest revision completes the weld. Logically, to the user and sysop, the two remain quite separate, and many (non-FidoNet) Fido systems are BBS only. (Most of my commercial customers are BBS only.) It is just as easy to run FidoNet without Fido. Fido's packeting/mailing system works in four discrete phases. First, the destination node addresses for all the existing messages is determined. This is done by the "router", more on which follows. Second, the messages are put into packets by the "packeter" (I never was very good at names). Third, the phase that is most obvious to sysops watching the screen, is when the packets are delivered; Fido makes outgoing phone calls and sends the packets. Packets can also be received in between outgoing calls. The last phase deletes un-sent packets, and marks the original messages that went into the packets as "(SENT)" as appropriate. This ends the FidoNet session. Note that different from Opus and other similar mailers, Fido only puts a copy of the message into a packet; during the fourth phase Fido again processes each message, and marks it or deletes it as determined by the success of that packet delivery. This is a fairly large amount of processing to do when looked at on a per-message basis, and is why Fido's FidoNet has always been slower to packet than other systems. In return there are many advantages, that will become more obvious later. FidoNews 6-28 Page 10 10 Jul 1989 FIDO AND FIDONET Originally, as was stated before, Fido and FidoNet were two separate programs. Even when integrated into one package, starting with Fido version 9 or 10, FidoNet was only usable when a FidoNet scheduled event was actually running; "continuous mail" is (relative to Fido) a new concept. Version 12 (Aug. 1987) could accept incoming continuous mail, but not send mail unless a FidoNet event was running; starting with 12M Wazoo and .REQ file requests are supported. Starting with version 12N, the FidoNet portion of Fido can be accessed at any time; packet creation and routing is under complete control, and can be altered, automatically using the routing language on a event by event basis throughout the day, or manually as the sysop sees fit, up to the point when the specific message has been delivered. Events themselves can be turned on and off from within Fido, allowing very high-level control over packet routing. You can have Fido create packets available for pickup, with any arbitrary routing, at any time of day. For example, you can have HOLD packets of long-distance systems waiting for pickup from 9:00AM til 6:00PM, while enabling outgoing calls on local-dial systems, in between human callers, or any other construct allowed by the routing language, without restriction. There is a "penalty" of 30 - 60 seconds to prepare for a new schedule; once started, access is in the under 100 mS range. On my 8MHz "turbo" junk-pclone, 80mS 20 meg drive, Fido takes 30 seconds to load, create outgoing packets and be ready for an incoming call (human or otherwise). On this crappy hardware, incoming echomail is received, unpacketed, tossed, the echo areas then scanned and outgoing packets made and delivered in 30 - 60 seconds, in between human callers, using DCM and barefoot Fido/FidoNet 12N. The largest network Fido/FidoNet can (mathematically!) handle is (32767 * 32767 * 32767) or 3.5 x 10(e13) nodes; version 12's implementation 65,535. A recompile (change a table index from 16 to 32 bits) will make Fido handle about 4 billion nodes with some performance loss and increased (disk) overhead, about 2 bytes/node. Performance with 65,000 nodes would still be better than Fido 12M's. Current nodelist overhead (NODELIST.132) is: NODELIST.BBS 304,532 (physical data); NODELIST.NMP 53,920 (nodemap; see below); NODELIST.IDX 53920 (main index); NODELIST.NDX 2900 (host index). NODELIST.SYS is no longer used. FIDONET TOPOLOGY The router design mimics exactly the FidoNet network topology. The network went through four (so far...) stages: a "flat" system, ie. point to point; addresses were a simple number 1 - 32767. The second formalized the concept of "nets", FidoNews 6-28 Page 11 10 Jul 1989 incorporating the routing optimization formerly done with Fido's primitive router. The third includes zones, which are similar mathematically to nets, but in real life act quite differently, with "zone gates" concentrating mail between zones (generally continents) because of real-life issues of telephone connect costs and equipment compatibility. The fourth adds "points", allowing for the next (or current, I am a bit slow sometimes) wave of BBS technology. OOPS BACKTRACK A LITTLE: A small aside on nets and regions: "regions" originally were only a way for nodes not in a net (ie. not inside a local calling area) to be syntactically compatible with the "net/node" addressing scheme; since most nodes were in the most heavily populated areas, cities, where nets naturally form, "regions" would be where nodes not in cities would be found. Nodes in regions (marked REGION in the nodelist) act as any other node, but the mailers do not do the automatic routing to the "host" for the region -- mail is sent direct, or point to point. The function of region hosts as another layer of organizational hierarchy is a recent addition, and not part of the topology itself. Still further, there is nothing magic about the numbers themselves -- regions being numbered 1 - 99, nets 100 - 999 etc is a totally arbitrary decision on the part of the keepers of the lists. The only magic numbers are 0's -- these indicate the host for the entity, ie. zone, net or region. ROUTER DESIGN Back to the router design. While the hierarchical model of net/node is extremely useful (if not indispensable) there are still thousands of exceptions, usually on a system by system basis; you forward mail for one system that is local but is a toll call for other net members. Your net has a sugar daddy that can make long distance outgoing calls. One system calls in to pickup their mail. Commonly called systems are more efficiently handled in some special way. You need to remember that the mathematical model used frequently has nothing to do with the "real" world. This is as it should be. However, you need a good solid theoretical base for the network otherwise the world falls apart. The router bridges the two otherwise-incompatible worlds. Fido's router design can handle any topology based on our address syntax: zone:net/node, plus any arbitrary number of exceptions. To do this, the router is very simple -- not complex. Logically, the router is an N x N crossbar switch, where N is the number of nodes in the nodelist. You can imagine a crossbar switch by drawing on paper a grid: IN --> 1 ----O---O---O---O---O FidoNews 6-28 Page 12 10 Jul 1989 | | | | | 2 ----O---O---O---O---O | | | | | 3 ----O---X---O---O---O | | | | | 4 ----O---O---O---O---O | | | | | 5 ----O---O---O---O---O | | | | | 1 2 3 4 5 OUT Shown is a 5 x 5 crossbar switch. The O's represent an OFF (but potential) connection; X's represent a ON connection. The connection (3,2) is ON, all others closed. If a signal were applied to Input 3, it would appear also on Output 2. (ASCII graphics are terrible, sorry!) You will notice that by placing X's and O's appropriately, any input can be connected to any output. A "real" crossbar switch can route one signal to many destinations; just place X's along the same horizontal row in the example above. Any node can route to any node; times (N) nodes is (N * N) possible states. Not pleasant to think about in real terms -- a 5000 node nodelist would mean 25,000,000 states to represent on your disk! This is not a very useful side effect for us; our messages have a single destination address. Fido's router places one limitation upon the crossbar design: there can be only one possible destination per node. It can still be any possible node, but only one at a time. This means the router can consist of (2 * N) entries -- the originating node and the destination node. You can imagine Fido's router as the crossbar switch above, or as I do, a simple two column table: ----+---- 1 | _ 2 | _ 3 | 2 4 | _ 5 | _ The _'s represent potential, but OFF connections. #3 has been routed to #2 by merely filling in that table entry. This table is called the NodeMap. (Fido's nodemap also contains a third column, where attributes like HOLD, SEND-TO, PICKUP and other things are stored. These attributes are built into the nodemap for programming convenience only, they are not really part of the router per se.) HOW THE ROUTER WORKS At FidoNet mail time, Fido prepares the router files before FidoNews 6-28 Page 13 10 Jul 1989 making packets and outgoing phone calls. The basic net host routing is performed, then any routing specified by the sysop in route language files. Before any routing, the table looks like this: ADDRESS ROUTE-TO ATTRIBUTES 1:1/1 1:1/1 (none) 1:1/2 1:1/2 ... ... ... ... 1:125/0 1:125/0 1:125/20 1:125/20 1:125/111 1:125/111 ... ... 2:500/0 2:500/0 2:500/2 2:500/2 ... ... ... Basic default routing is applied, which does the FidoNet-as-we- know-it net and zonegate routing (see the Appendix A: DEFAULT ROUTING section): ADDRESS ROUTE-TO ATTRIBUTES 1:1/1 1:1/1 ... 1:1/2 1:1/2 ... ... 1:125/0 1:125/0 1:125/20 1:125/0 1:125/111 1:125/0 ... ... 2:500/0 1:1/2 2:500/2 1:1/2 ... ... At this point Fido performs any additional routing you may have specified, such as overriding the routing, HOLD packets, enabling only certain nodes or groups of nodes per schedule, etc. Things like HOLD, PICKUP, SEND-TO and other basic concepts are as attributes within the nodemap. The nodemap is built on disk, and can be saved between schedules so that it an be used over and over; this is called a "QUICK" FidoNet event. It takes my Fido system mentioned above approximately 90 seconds to completely build the nodemap (about 100 route language statements); subsequent "QUICK" events take a fraction of a second. PACKET CREATION Fido creates packets when a FidoNet schedule starts (which is controlled by Fido's scheduler and is outside this discussion). For every message in the netmail message area, Fido consults the nodemap, in two steps: First, the actual destination (for example: 1:125/111) is looked up in the ADDRESS column of the nodemap. The ROUTE-TO column FidoNews 6-28 Page 14 10 Jul 1989 determines where this message goes, ie. into which packet. If the destination node is not found, the message is marked (ORPHAN). Secondly, Fido looks up the packet (ROUTE-TO) address (1:125/0) itself, in the ADDRESS column. This is done to locate the ATTRIBUTE bits for the destination node. If the bits indicate it is OK to packet this message (SEND-TO set, etc) then the packeter creates the packet. This is done for all messages in the netmail area; once all the packets are built then FidoNet can dial out, allow incoming pickups, etc. Messages put into packets are not modified in any way; packets contain a copy of the original message. The post-FidoNet process takes care of messages that have been sent. FIDONET SESSION COMPLETION When a FidoNet schedule is over, Fido processes packets that were received from other mailers and cleans up any packets it had created earlier. Packets that are un-sent are merely killed; the messages that these packet(s) were created from still exist in the netmail area; when a FidoNet session start again, Fido may put the messages into a packet to the same destination node or possibly another; since packeting is done only before actual mailing the routing can be altered at any point up to actual successful transmission. Packets that are sent, or picked up, are handled slightly differently. The packets themselves are deleted, but Fido once again refers to the router to mark the messages that comprised the packet as (SENT), or kills them if they were indicated (KILL/SENT) by the originator. Appendix A: DEFAULT ROUTING Fido/FidoNet's routing is not "built-in" nor hard-coded; if it were not told otherwise, Fido would send messages to the destinations in the message itself. The routing needed to make a practical mailer are added as layers upon this base; the tradeoff is speed vs. flexibility and accuracy. (Speed is, um, somewhat improved over older implementations...) What the real-life Fido does at FidoNet mail time is make a pass through the table, and fill in the "default" routing that defines the FidoNet topology, which is our zone:net/node with routing to HOSTs for nets, which goes like this: -For nodes in our own net, send direct (point to point) -For nodes in a net in our zone, outside our net, FidoNews 6-28 Page 15 10 Jul 1989 send to it's host (net/0) -For nodes in a region in our zone, sent direct -For nodes in another zone, send to it's zone host (zone:0/0) The first three make sense in the network as we know it; the fourth requires some background. FidoNet's topology is based upon a gimmick: the address of the logical host for any net or zone is composed of the number of the net or zone, with the magic zero added as the least significant address field. A net or region host is net/0 or region/0; a zone host is zone:0/0. FidoNet sysops use net/0 routinely; no one uses zone:0/0 routinely, if at all. The difference is that the addressing scheme, the topology, is a mathematical construct, and has nothing to do with the real world, ie. overseas phone calls, governmental regulations, manufacturer incompatibilities, etc. The addressing scheme needs to be rigorous and provide a solid design base for all implementations. If we didn't have real-life complications like the above, never mind how overloaded the poor zone host computer would be, the mathematical model might fit the real world. Obviously it doesn't, and never did. The solution in Fido's scheme is to merely modify the default routing. There exists a keyword in Fido's routing language (called, not surprisingly, "ZoneGate") that does exactly what it sounds like: it routes all mail destined for another zone to any arbitrary node designated "zone gate". Zone Gates were thunk up at the now notorious "New Hampshire meeting" in '86 or so. The idea was to make it so that net/node mailers, ie. not zone-aware, could route messages destined for other zones. The thing was called the "IFNA Kludge", and consists of two parts: (1) an addressing kludge to trick the mailer to route the interzone message to a node in it's own zone, and (2) to have the full zone:net/node origination and destination addresses buried in the message body itself, hidden behind a line that began with Control-A, so that message editors could learn to ignore it. (For your curiosity: full address consists of the very first line in the message, that looks like: "^AINTL z:n/f z:n/f", where the first address is the destination node address, the second the originator.) The addressing trick is: "Address the message for zone (N) to node 1/(N) in my zone". Node 1/(N) is designated the zone gate; for example, the zonegate for Europe, Zone 2, node 1/2, in the North American zone 1. And so on. Fido is a registered trademark of Tom Jennings FidoNet is a registered trademark of Tom Jennings FidoNews 6-28 Page 16 10 Jul 1989 (Sorry, I gotta say this!) NEW SOFTWARE POLICY This is the new (June 1989) software policy for the Fido/FidoNet package. Please read it carefully. First, some important definitions: Hobbyists run BBSs for their own personal reasons. Their BBS is not associated with their employer or any business. How they run their BBS is none of my business, ie. private, public, subscription, collective or chattel slavery. Commercial users are companies, corporations, proprietorships or any other business entities that run a BBS, either publicly or privately, associated with their business. "Non-profit" and "not for profit" organizations are included in this category. And here's the deal: HOBBYISTS AND INDIVIDUALS: Fido/FidoNet is shareware; you can download the software itself, minus documentation, from the Fido Software BBS. There is no machine-readable documentation. (If you thought the version 11 docs were unwieldy ... besides I pay royalties to the author). I will provide no direct support. Hobbyists can receive the latest version on diskette plus printed and bound documentation for $50. If you later desire updates via diskette instead of download, updates (including printed errata sheet) cost $20 plus the original Fido Software diskette. $5 discount on either for US ca$h payment. COMMERCIAL USERS: Fido/FidoNet is a usual licensable product; the license fee is $175, as it has been for two years. You will receive the latest software version, complete documentation, and support via the Fido Software BBS and voice telephone. (This has proved to be more than adequate for over two years.) Deals, exceptions and special arrangements can be made on a case by case basis. In all cases, bugs are fixed promptly, as they have been for five years. This is basically the policy that was in force through 1987. It worked pretty well, there were very few problems, and most of those were caused by my ambiguity. SHAREWARE DISTRIBUTORS: I do not wish Fido/FidoNet to be distributed by "shareware distributors", "libraries" or other similar organization. The problems are too numerous to count: shipping ancient, incomplete versions; missing critical files; giving out incorrect information regarding support; giving bad operating advice, etc. Never mind the fact that they are using the software for profit, regardless of claims to the otherwise and suggesting that their customers pay instead. ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 6-28 Page 17 10 Jul 1989 Bernard Levine, Box 2404, Eugene OR 97402 Not copyrighted -- please circulate Most of the arguments for and against gun bans address such marginal issues as the protection of hunting and target shooting versus the prevention of crime. They avoid the central issue, which is the protection of liberty against the inroads of tyranny. In fact the Constitution is equally silent on sport shooting and on crime prevention. The Constitution's Second Amendment guarantees our right to keep and bear arms strictly as the means of last resort by which a free people can and ought to resist tyranny, whether the threat of tyranny be foreign or domestic, military conquest or political subversion. Certainly guns are dangerous. So are cars. Certainly guns, like cars, should be kept from the hands of the irresponsible and the deranged. Nonetheless guns, like cars, are an essential ingredient of our freedom. When the Bill of Rights states, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed", it does not mention "sporting" arms or any chimerical "right" to hunt. If you are "pro-gun" but think that hunting and target shooting are the real issues, then you, like President Bush, have naively surrendered the moral high ground to the foes of liberty in a pusillanimous and futile attempt to appease them. Whatever high-sounding or devious excuses they might offer, gun ban advocates really want to support tyranny. This is true of the press and broadcast moguls, who profit most from a frightened, passive, helpless audience. It is true of the radical legislators, who rightly view an armed public as the ultimate deterrent to their revolutionary agenda of redistributive "social justice". It is most especially true of police chiefs and senior police officials, the very men who always assume absolute power in the police-states that spring up whenever radical revolutions succeed. The news publishers, the radical legislators, and the police bureaucrats are natural allies in promoting gun bans. The advance of the states monopoly on power (which is what tyranny means) enhances their individual influence, strengthens the power of their organizations, and advances their shared dogma, that an "enlightened" police-state (namely one with them in charge) is more "just" to the "poor and downtrodden" than is a government based on individual liberty. By themselves the publishers, the legislators, and the police chiefs could not subvert the Constitution and enact gun bans. Therefore they drum up the support of the most readily swayed part of the public, all the tremulous dewy-eyed naifs who are ignorant of history and mystified by our political and economic system. These frightened followers are unable to grasp the nature of cause and effect, so the media have taught them that guns cause crime. They are unable to tell right from wrong, so they have been led to believe that self-defense is an "injustice to the poor". They cannot distinguish statesmanship from psychosis, so they glorify violent criminals as "free spirits" and the FidoNews 6-28 Page 18 10 Jul 1989 "shock troops of the movement". These innocents form a powerful team with the would-be tyrants and their journalistic apologists, for without an ignorant, foolish and self-destructive public that is intoxicated by wishful thinking and seduced by government programs (remember Weimar Germany?) there can be no tyranny -- and no tyrannical gun bans. ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 6-28 Page 19 10 Jul 1989 Notes on Net Numbering by Daniel Tobias 1:380/7 I'll keep it short this week, since I've said about all I care to about the present policy debates and squabbles, and the editor has decreed that such talk is not desirable for FidoNews anyway. (I disagree; the future of FidoNet will be decided by what happens regarding its policy documents and internal politics, and as the official journal of the net, FidoNews is the best place to discuss such things. And, even local squabbles could be relevant to the global discussion if basic principles of policy get adjudicated therein. I do, however, agree with the editor that such discussion can get tiresome if it continues on one subject long after all viewpoints have been aired repeatedly.[ I didn't decree anything, I just asked for people to try to observe some kind of self-limits, specifically to keep interesting topics from being over-aired past the limits of boredom -- ed.] ) Just one thing I'd like to comment on: Jack Decker's (otherwise good) article makes some strong attacks on FidoNet for failing to respect AlterNet's assignments of zone and net numbers, and criticizes zones, points, and the proposed domain addresses as "kludges" which shouldn't be necessary. I disagree. FidoNet was the entity which created the concept of zone, region, net, and node numbers in the first place, and they were created to represent geographical areas rather than political groupings; they're not some "public resource" that must be parceled out to all network entities which wish to use similar addressing systems. FidoNet has the right to use its own numbering system in whatever way it wishes, in accordance with its POLICY document, and without reference to whatever numbering scheme non-FidoNet systems may use. Other networks (AlterNet, EggNet, LCRNet, FamilyNet, et al) have similar sovereignty with regard to their own numbering; they may use zones, regions, nets, and nodes in whatever manner THEY choose. In the absence of some agreement between the networks in question, no network has the right to compel any other to circumscribe its numbering in order to prevent conflicts between nodes of the two networks. After all, most of the alternative nets broke off from FidoNet because they wished autonomy regarding network policies, so it is presumptuous of them to expect any of the separate network entities to automatically bring their policy regarding number utilization into harmony with any other in the absence of diplomatic negotiations of some sort. I could declare myself to be the leader of "FishNet", and claim to encompass Zones 11 through 32 inclusive (for instance, Zone 17 will cover all FishNet nodes in the western half of the Andromeda Galaxy), but I wouldn't expect FidoNet, AlterNet, or AnyOtherNet to instantly relinquish all plans to use any of these numbers in deference to my wishes. FidoNews 6-28 Page 20 10 Jul 1989 Sure, I'd like to see harmony between the different networks, and a well-established gatewaying system. For this to come about, somebody needs to get representatives of the nets together to negotiate something. I hear such a thing was tried at last year's FidoCon, which resulted in a FidoNet/AlterNet gateway officially in place; however, it was later removed for some political reason of which I have no knowledge. That's too bad, and I hope talks can be established towards reinstating a gateway of some sort. If such gateway is determined by all parties to be best done through zone numbering, then numbers can be reserved for all participating networks by common consent. However, it may be best in the long run to go to a domain system, despite Decker's distaste for it; this best preserves the full autonomy of different networks, as well as (if domain addressing is implemented in a sufficiently flexible manner) enabling the possibility of future links to non-FidoNet-compatible networks. (UUCP gateways already exist, but they're very kludgey; I hope future FidoNet software allows smoother addressing of inter-network mail using domains.) With each independent network represented by its domain name, there would be no need to parcel out numbers to each network in a non-conflicting manner; assignment of zones, regions, and nets could be done by each network on whatever internal basis it wishes. It would then be clear that Zones 1 through 4 (and any other FidoNet zones that may be added later) are part of the single network (domain), FidoNet; AlterNet would have its own domain rather than being confusingly referred to as "Zone 7" as if it were simply another geographical zone of FidoNet; and the profusion of other networks existing or likely to sprout up in the future (a healthy trend, in my opinion, since it promotes experimentation in both technical and policy areas, and gives new sysops a wide choice of possible affiliations) will be able to join the "greater FidoNet" gatewaying complex by picking an unused domain identifier, without cutting the address space of any pre-existing network, since each network needs only one domain. "Domain-aware" mailers could be written which allow multiple nodelists to be present on one system, each keyed to a particular domain. If a message is addressed to a domain that you have the nodelist for, it would be sent directly; otherwise, it would go through a pre-arranged gateway. Admittedly, domains, zones, and points ARE kludgey, and not fully supported by present software. I hope, however, that future software will be more understanding of these concepts. In a rapidly-changing field like computers, it is not possible to preserve standards forever; they must change with the times. The old NET/NODE addressing is insufficient for the present conglomeration of intercommunicating systems, and must be supplemented even if it produces some confusion in the changeover, just as the original change from single node numbers to NET/NODE combinations was both necessary and temporarily confusing. I'll be interested to see what develops. (It would be boring if it always stayed the same, wouldn't it?) FidoNews 6-28 Page 21 10 Jul 1989 ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 6-28 Page 22 10 Jul 1989 To : All From: Count 0 (listed as Doc Taylor), 1:363/28 Re : Proposed POLICY 5 POLICY 5 ================================================================= 1: Complete dissolution of current Fido-Net doctrine. Everything goes. 2: Installation of new officers. I, _your_name_goes_here_, am the Chief. Big Cheese. Top Dog. Head honcho. UC (Universal Coordinator). GOD. Buddha. Mohammed. Rambo. 3: Appeals process. If you don't do what I say, quit or I'll kick you out. 4: Topology. From midnight until noon, you can only call someone who's geographically south and east of you. From noon 'til midnight the reverse is true. Anyone south and west or north and east of you is off limits. Except during ZMH... no-one calls ANYBODY for ANY REASON. You may not exchange mail with anyone farther than thiry miles from you; if you are thirty miles away from the nearest node you must remove yourself from the nodelist; if you have friends more than thirty miles from you... tough. See 3:. On groundhog day, though, anyone can call anyone, anywhere. But only if the sun is out. Or was out the previous Tuesday. Any questions? See 3:. 5: New Policy. There will never again be a new policy. 6: Ratification. By unarcing this FidoNews you accept this policy as ratified. 7: The Future. Nobody likes a dictator. In time you will be killed or will be responsible for killing somebody else. Do the right and honourable thing: abdicate immediately and name as a successor somebody without a modem. 8: Afterwards. You have a responsibility to any BBS networks forming after this dissolution. That responsibility is to make entirely FidoNews 6-28 Page 23 10 Jul 1989 certain that it never becomes civilized or organized past the point of (roughly) Policy 2. And that it never has policies. Never ever. 9: Miscellaneous. See 3:. ================================================================= >> In 'Oh, Jesus! Not again!' we say, >> Ammnen. > Amen. Whichever. ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 6-28 Page 24 10 Jul 1989 ================================================================= WANTED ================================================================= Ham Radio Articles Needed! By Brian Murrey of 1:231/30 Over the last two months I have compiled an Amateur Radio newsletter called the Fidonet HAM/PACKET digest. It has been widely acclaimed from Zone 1 to Zone 3 and I appreciate all of the comments that I have received. I would also like to thank Tom Jennings for allowing me to use the Fidonet moniker in the main file header. These files are mainly a compilation of radio related bulletins, messages, and stories found in the HAM, PACKET, and SHORTWAVE echo areas. If you are interested in seeing them they can be file requested at 9600HST from 231/30 and they are named as follows. HAM0101.ARC, HAM0102.ARC, and HAM0103.ARC will get you the first three issues and at this time issues 4 and 5 are due out but I have run into a snag of sorts, that being little or no information coming to me to put in the issues. If this newsletter is to continue, I must have input, there is a lot going on right now in the amateur community, the FCC is giving our bandwidth away, the No-Code controversy continues here in the United States, and field day is upon us. I know from talking to other amateurs in Australia, Europe, and the US that we do not have a problem with finding something to talk about (hi hi). So, if you have anything that you would like to contribute, and I will print anything as long as it is radio related, send it to me. I know a lot of you have articles printed in the various magazines, well I don't want to infringe on your income, so send me those articles that no one else wants, I know that my stack of reject letters will end up in the Smithsonian Institute in the "Most Frustrated Author of All Time" display. I'll leave the future of this newsletter up to you, the worldwide amateur community. BTW, if you are a PEP system...these issues can still be had via FREQ from 231/161, our local PEP node. Thank you. Brian Murrey - 1:231/30 HST ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 6-28 Page 25 10 Jul 1989 ================================================================= LATEST VERSIONS ================================================================= Latest Software Versions Bulletin Board Software Name Version Name Version Name Version Fido 12n+* 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 1.21* 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 QM 1.0* 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 6-28 Page 26 10 Jul 1989 ================================================================= NOTICES ================================================================= The Interrupt Stack 14 Jul 1989 200th anniversary of the storming of the Bastille 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. 20 Jul 1989 Twentieth anniversary of Neil Armstrong's first moonwalk. 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 6-28 Page 27 10 Jul 1989 ================================================================= REPORTS ================================================================= Nominations and Elections Committee 1:107/210 or 1:107/233 IFNA ANNUAL ELECTION BALLOT RULES FOR THE ELECTION Only members of IFNA in good standing may vote. This ballot is being mailed (via Air Mail outside North America) to all such members as of the cut-off date of July 4, 1989. Those who were not members in good-standing as of that date but whose membership status changes between then and the ballot due date are also entitled to vote. Ballots may be printed from the FidoNews article and utilized for this purpose or in the event that the official mailed ballot becomes lost. Ballots may be submitted in one of two methods: They may be mailed to the address given below or they may be submitted by hand at FidoCon '89 in San Jose, California. The due date for mailed ballots is Noon, Thursday, August 24, 1989. Ballots to be handed in at FidoCon are to be done so prior to Noon, Friday August 25, 1989. Any ballot received after the above cut-off dates is subject to invalidation. Mailed ballots are to be sent to: IFNA BALLOT c/o Robert C. Halvorsen, CPA Regency Center Suite 309 100 Smith Ranch Road San Rafael, CA 94904 USA The ballot is divided into two sections, one for Directors of IFNA and one for Bylaws Amendments. In the Directors of IFNA section, you may vote for six at-large directors. In addition, if you reside in one of the Divisions listed, you may cast one vote for Divisional Director for that Division only. Do not cast a vote for any Divisional Director position if you are not a resident of that Division. As no one has been officially nominated in accordance with the Bylaws, all votes will have to be in the form of write-ins of the names of the individuals you choose. In determining whether an individual has been elected, the total votes casts for the individual in both At-large and Divisional categories will be combined and analyzed, with the individual with the largest number of valid votes being declared the Divisional Director. Divisional votes cast for an individual not elected as Divisional Director will still count towards the FidoNews 6-28 Page 28 10 Jul 1989 position of at-large director. Therefore, DO NOT VOTE FOR THE SAME INDIVIDUAL IN BOTH DIVISIONAL AND AT-LARGE CATEGORIES, as this may nullify your ballot. Note that, if they were two individuals you felt qualified to be your Divisional Divisional Director, it would make no difference if you placed one in the Divisional category and one in the at-large category, or vice-versa. For the Bylaws Amendments Section, simply vote either YAY or NAY to accept or reject the amendment, respectively. Voting results will remain confidential, but you must enter your name and address for verification purposes. It is not necessary to answer every question. DIRECTORS OF IFNA Divisional Directors VOTE ONLY FOR YOUR DIVISION! Division 11 _______________________________ IL, IN, KY, MI, OH, WI, Ont, Que, PEI, NovaS, NBrun, Newf. Division 13 _______________________________ NY, NJ, DE, MD, VA, PA, WV Division 15 _______________________________ AZ, CO, NM, UT, WY Division 17 _Kathi Crockett (Elected)______ AK, ID, MT, OR, WA, Alb, BC, Sask, Man, Yuk, NWT Division 19 _______________________________ AR, LA, OK, TX, Latin Amer. Division 3 _______________________________ Australia, New Zealand At-Large Directors [Vote for no more than six (6)]: (1) ______________________________ (2) ______________________________ (3) ______________________________ FidoNews 6-28 Page 29 10 Jul 1989 (4) ______________________________ (5) ______________________________ (6) ______________________________ BYLAWS AMENDMENTS BALLOT As no proposed amendments were submitted by the membership in the manner as stipulated in the Bylaws, the only bylaws amendments to be voted are three that were implmented by the Board of Directors in St. Louis in February of this year. According to Bylaw 41-f, the "By-Laws may be changed by a two-thirds majority vote of the Board of Directors. Such changes implemented by the Board of Directors must appear on the next Ballot for confirmation by the membership, but shall be in effect during the interim period." As indicated above, these three bylaws have been in effect since February; you are to vote for or against ratification. 46. Official communications of the Board of Directors or Executive Commitee may be presented, in lieu of written form as called for within these bylaws, through electronic means, providing such means are secure and their authenticity verifiable. YEA _________ NAY _________ 47. Any elected or appointed official may be removed for failure to adequately perform the assigned duties as defined by the Board of Directors. (a) The Chairman of the Board of Directors may recommend the removal of an appointed official to the Board of Directors. The removal will be effective upon a majority vote of those voting at a properly convened meeting of the Board or by electronic mail or by postal mail. (b) The Executive Committee may recommend the removal of a Director or elected official to the Board of Directors. The removal will be effective upon a majority vote of those voting at a properly convened meeting of the Board or by electronic mail or by postal mail. YEA _________ NAY _________ 48. An Alternate replacing a Director temporarily or permanently assumes the seat on the Board of Directors but no other elected or appointed position. YEA _________ NAY _________ FidoNews 6-28 Page 30 10 Jul 1989 IMPORTANT! The following section must be completed for verification purposes! Name: __________________________ Division of Residence ______ City: __________________________ Zone/Net/Node ______________ State/Country ________________________ ================================================================= From: Nominations and Elections Committee To: All IFNA Members Date: July 8, 1989 Subj: Additional Info on 1989 Annual Election As you will notice by reading the 1989 Annual Ballot material, with one exception, there have been no candidates officially nominated by the membership. The one exception is Kathi Crockett who, being the only official nominee for Division 17, has been declared elected in accordance with provisions in the bylaws. In order to assist you in the election process, the Nominations and Elections Committee solicited volunteers via FidoNews and other mediums. Those listed below have expressed interest in serving FidoNet as a Director of IFNA. The Committee has, in some cases, listed known qualifications. However, it should be noted that those without qualifications listed should not be considered as lesser candidates; we suggest that you investigate through various forums to determine those who may best represent your interests. To this end, the committee will solicit a short statement from each volunteer which we expect to publish in an upcoming issue of FidoNews. The Committee has not verified the qualifications of all of the following and it is understood that the memberships of some are "in process". Only those individuals marked with an asterisk appear in the current IFNA membership list. Name Zone/Net/Node Division Comments Jerry Ablan 1:115/876 11 *Steven Barnes 1:138/49 17 Incumbent Tom Hendricks 1:261/66 13 Present Alternate Bor-Long Lin, MD 3:56/1 12 R56 EC Carl Linden 1:10/1 10 John Rafuse 1:12/700 11 R12 EC *John Roberts 1:147/14 19 *Kris Veitch 1:147/30 19 Treasurer, Incumbent FidoNews 6-28 Page 31 10 Jul 1989 Our apologies to anyone who may have been inadvertantly left out of this list. Please contact the Committee immediately at 1:107/210 if you are an IFNA member who wishes to be a candidate. ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 6-28 Page 32 10 Jul 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 6-28 Page 33 10 Jul 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 6-28 Page 34 10 Jul 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 6-28 Page 35 10 Jul 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 6-28 Page 36 10 Jul 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. -----------------------------------------------------------------