Volume 6, Number 29 17 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 Update to Policy 4 Appeal ................................ 2 A letter from a FidoNet Sysop ............................ 8 Microcomputer Communications ............................. 11 File Compression - an Update ............................. 15 Number nine, number nine, number nine, .................. 17 View From The Trenches on Fidonet, *C's, etc ............. 19 3. LATEST VERSIONS .......................................... 22 Latest Software Versions ................................. 22 4. NOTICES .................................................. 24 And more! FidoNews 6-29 Page 1 17 Jul 1989 ================================================================= EDITORIAL ================================================================= Hello again, as always. In this issue, I have decided to add Mac and Amiga to the Software Versions section. I don't have much for Amiga right now except for a full-function BBS that does netmail, and I think that I have too much for Mac, as the list sent me seems to include stuff that has nothing to do with FidoNet, but it's a start. Amiga owners, could you send me info on nodelist processors/mail editors/archive programs/etc? Mac owners, could you help me pare that list? StuffIt doesn't really get used for FidoNet operations, does it? Is there anything else on that list that can be taken off? One more thing. Please don't send text of articles, etc in messages, I might not remember to extract them. Additionally, in the near future I'll devise a naming convention for archived articles and add it to ARTSPEC. I'll let you know when I put a new one up. Hey, this is all supposed to be fun. So let's have some FUN! ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 6-29 Page 2 17 Jul 1989 ================================================================= ARTICLES ================================================================= Update to Policy 4 Appeal from Doug Thompson 1:221/0 - 221/162 drdrdrdrdrdrrrrring . . . . drdrdrdrdrdrrrrring . . . . "Oh boy, the phone's ringing again . . . I'm never gonna finish reading my netmail today . . . " drdrdrdrdrdrrrrring . . . . "Hello", says Doug rather gruffly. "Hi Doug, it's David Dodell. My WATS line isn't working to Canada today, are you in a position to call me back?" "Hmmm. For this one, yeah, sure, what's your number?" Thus began a very interesting discussion about fidonet and policy that lasted for about 3 hours which leads me to want to add a lot to the policy appeal I sent in to fidonet earlier this week. Some of my most serious concerns were alleviated. The most important things to my mind (David's quite capable of speaking for himself) in that conversation: 1) David assured me that no one would be removed from the nodelist for any opinion or statement about policy 4, including an expressed refusal to comply with it. The only grounds for excommunication remain technical and *repeated* violations of policy must occur before an excommunication would occur. That is to say a violation will get you a warning, repeat violations can get you excommunicated. Refusing the acknowledge the legitimacy of policy 4 can't get you either. In fidonet it continues to be "legal" to speak your mind and say darned near anything you want without fear of direct punishment. Our coordinators will not be taking a cue from the Ayatollah and issuing death-warrants for calling Mohammed a devil, cursing Tom Jennings' mother or even, presumably, cursing their coordinator. 2) David expressed surprise at the result of the p4 vote. He had expected it to be defeated. So had I. Understandably this intensifies my concern that the room allowed for electoral abuses actually might well have been used more than once or twice. 3) As for "real democracy", the major stumbling block appears to be two-fold. First, the logistical problem of how do we hold a ballot among all sysops. The second is more complex. Coordinators are administrators first, but we are also political representatives. FidoNews 6-29 Page 3 17 Jul 1989 In the P 4 deliberations coordinators were called upon to act as legislators and political representatives of their nets. Most of the time coordinators merely administer policy. These are very different jobs and in most organizations are quite separate. Normally the political reps are the masters of the administrators. In fidonet we have both functions and roles wrapped into one job. While the political rep should obviously be elected in order to assure that s/he is representative, electing administrators is somewhat questionable. While it is basically not suitable for an elected rep to be subject to removal from above (imagine the President removing congressmen he didn't approve of) it is necessary that a postmaster be able to discipline, or even remove an incompetent letter-carrier, even if the letter-carrier was "elected" and is very popular. This duality of role has something to do with the lack of agreement we've seen concerning who should be elected by whom, and who should be appointed by whom. A comment .... Some years ago the idea emerged of creating a non-profit organization with an elected governing "council" which would protect the nodelist and be responsible for writing policy, holding elections, organizing the defence of sysops brought before the courts, and that sort of thing. Such an organization would enable the "political" and "administrative" functions to be separated. That idea resulted in the creation of IFNA which did not, regrettably, come together as hoped. It has not achieved true representative status because you still have to pay a $25 fee to get a vote, it's not open to all in the nodelist. If we have to have the administrator and the political rep in one job and one person, then it is important that there be ways in which the individual can be removed both from above and below as well as ways of selecting a suitable individual. David brought this up, I entirely agree. 4) There are two very different aspects to fidonet. One is technical, and one is social. On the technical side the major concern is simply the efficient movement of mail between the sender and the addressee. On the social side is that whole realm of concerns which arise because we are a volunteer organization and have a lot of tasks to be apportioned to various people. We know how to move the bytes, now, how do we get the necessary people to do the appropriate things such that the know-how is implemented? Motivating people to do things, encouraging their creativity, and getting people to comply with rules, etc., are not technical problems, they are wholly political and cultural problems. They may have to do with solving technical problems, but there are no technical solutions to people problems. FidoNews 6-29 Page 4 17 Jul 1989 On the social side too is the whole area of social impact of new technology. To some extent fidonet is a community of people, and it has relations with other groups in society such as other networks, regulatory agencies in many jurisdictions, companies wishing to market to us or market our nodelist, etc. While most of these issues have technical attributes, they are not primarily technical problems. Then there is conflict resolution. A lot of stupid conflicts arise. Coordinators are assigned the task of resolution. This "judicial" aspect of the job is another of the non-technical parts of the role. Some countries do elect judges, and it seems to work. But clearly while a higher court can over-turn a decision of a lower one, a judge must be "independent" and should not have to worry about public opinion, or anything else but achieving a just resolution of a conflict. S/he should not be subject to removal if s/he makes decisions which don't happen to be popular. A good judge nevertheless takes the public mood into consideration when sentencing. Finally, real judicial systems have juries and juries often enough kill old laws and make new ones by refusing to convict people for things of which they are clearly guilty. This is one way that law is "democratized". Regardless of what the law says, if you can't find a jury that will bring in a guilty verdict, you don't have a conviction. And after that, you don't have a law. David Dodell put it quite eloquently, stating that primarily "we are moving data. The movement of that data can accomplish great social things". I see things just a little differently. The end, or goal, is not the movement of data, that's only the means. The end is the "great social things". To get the great social things, we need to move data effectively. After all, if our messages all consisted of random bytes we could move them just as efficiently but there'd be no point would there? The successful movement of a message from Europe to Oceania in minutes for less than the cost of a postage stamp is impressive technically, but it's also a very great "social thing". And if it were not a great social thing few of us would bother doing it. I'd add one further proviso. Unlike AT&T mail, or Envoy 100, fidonet depends on voluntary labour from many people to move data. Unless the perception is there that the "great social things" are happening, or about to happen, the supply of volunteer labour is liable to dry up and then the movement of data ceases. Excessively authoritarian management, while possibly effective in the short term, ultimately alienated volunteer creative input and thus ends up defeating its own purpose. Remember fidonet should be "fun". By that I *do not* mean, a joke or merely a recreational activity. I believe work should be "fun" in the same way, and I'm willing to "work" very hard at having meaningful "fun". I mean that fidonet should encourage creative expression, innovation and invention. If it is not highly enjoyable it can't attract new people so easily and it will FidoNews 6-29 Page 5 17 Jul 1989 alienate current participants. Autocratic *Cs can do more to dry up the fun than *anything* else. It's no fun having a bully ordering you around, threatening to excommunicate you for "insubordination". This is not AT&T mail. This is not the army. There is no oath of allegiance to any monarch or any flag required. This is a part of the first wave of the information revolution in which *people* and the information they possess are the ultimate value. Of much greater value than money. That information is usually enhanced in value if it can be moved. Excommunicating a node if it is at all possible not to is directly equivalent to a bank burning hundred dollar bills because they cause some annoyance. It is an attack on the very fundamental basics of the whole operation. 5) So we agree we have lots of problems with policy 4, and we agree that the best bet is to forge ahead with a policy 5 process that will aim at learning from our mistakes. What are the challenges for policy 5? There is nearly universal recognition of the need for the net to be ultimately bottom-up, which means that any administrative hierarchy must be controlled by the bottom through democratic avenues of some sort. Maybe we should think about getting rid of the hierarchy entirely? There is nearly as universal a recognition that the strictly technical organization of the net is not, primarily, a political or social issue, but wholly a technical one. Politicising it could be inefficient. I've not heard anyone challenge the usefulness of the technical role of the coordinators to assign node numbers, edit the nodelist, and make sure it is accurate and quickly dispatched throughout the net. I really don't think it would help anyone to get into political debates about who should get which node number, for instance. On the other hand, coordinators end up making a lot of political decisions about who is or isn't in the net, and there are those questions which have both technical and social attributes, such as geographic boundaries for local networks. Those get very political without losing a technical aspect. They cause a lot of unrest because while they are both social and technical issues, they are only being addressed by policy as technical issues. Trouble is wholly predictable when that mistake is made. Technical rules cannot solve political problems, and the attempt to do so inevitably exacerbates the situation. Policy 4 bans the use of encryption which I find slightly bewildering since it is being so rapidly embraced by the rest of the world, and enhances the value of e-mail so much. That is the sort of decision which is wholly political since the "technology" would be mostly unaffected. FidoNews 6-29 Page 6 17 Jul 1989 That's just mentioned as an example of something which should be decided in a political process by the bottom. What we need therefore is a device to enable meaningful participation from the bottom, from any sysop who wants to participate. If we don't create that kind of a device the "bottom-up" aspect of fidonet will cease to exist and it will be run much like a feudal fiefdom by its coordinators forever. We are extremely fortunate at the moment in having a wise, intelligent, fair-minded International Coordinator who is concerned to see these problems untangled. I've had occasion to exchange quite a lot of mail with David since he was appointed IC by IFNA in December of 87 and while we've certainly had our disagreements, I have seen the man persuaded by solid arguments many times and generally do the right thing. We are *very* lucky. Given all the givens, we might not be so lucky next time. C'mon Fidonet, let's seize the opportunity *now* and do some creative organizational work which results in both an efficient administrative system and representative, open, and democratic social policy-making system! Really, the basics are pretty simple. Technically we need to ensure software compatibility and mail-hour integrity and accuracy of the nodelist. Socially and politically we need to assure that no political, ideological, racial or other discriminatory practices are used anywhere in fidonet to exclude people or systems from being listed. That one paragraph addresses the necessities to have a net that works and a net that is basically open to the whole human race, regardless of religion, race, nationality, political affiliation, gender, or opinion about policy 4! All that's left is the implementation and the process of making decisions about things. By and large I think we in fidonet agree on the basics. In a couple of weeks I'll have more thoughts to send fidonews on the details. We may discover that these objectives are impossible. We may discover that people will use and abuse the technology with complete abandon no matter what we do. We may discover that we are not "organizable". It's certainly not a simple and straightforward issue. BUT - we'll never know unless we make a determined effort. =Doug FidoNews 6-29 Page 7 17 Jul 1989 ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 6-29 Page 8 17 Jul 1989 A letter from a FidoNet Sysop Pablo Kleinman (4:1200/101) FidoNet Coordinator for Zone 4 Dear colleague, To start, I give you my apologies for choosing such an "ordinary" topic for this letter. We have all seen and sometimes participated (and still see and sometimes still participate) on a big discussion that involved (and still involves) a big (if not all) of FidoNet during the last months. POLICY4 was (is) the controversial matter, the very center of that discussion. I, myself, had some problems with the International Coordinator regarding the new POLICY: I don't agree with a lot of things, especially with the distribution of power along the *C structure, to which I belong both as Regional and Zone coordinator, and with the methods adopted for elections. If I would be power-hungry, I could just sit down and say nothing: I'm probably the most power-secure individual in the net, as it is impossible to anyone (following the procedures specified in POLICY4) to remove me. But I'm obviously not (I'm writing this, right now). And I expressed that from the beginning to David Dodell and others. Before voting for POLICY4, we [Z4 sysops] protested because we were not invited to participate on its writing, and informed the IC that we wanted a chance to propose some changes before it was finally approved. But David Dodell didn't give us any answer at all, he simply ignored the text. POLICY4 was unanimously rejected by the whole *C structure of Zone 4, especially by myself. The reason: while I'm not sure if "democracy" would be the best way to handle the net, I'm positively against any kind of "aristocracy". POLICY4 is definitely aristocratic, and that aristocracy is made up by the RCs and ZCs. That does not mean that the RCs and ZCs are the bad guys on this story, or that they have bad intentions. I have treated the ZCs for a while already, and sincerely trust on the ZCs good intentions. I'm a Regional and Zone coordinator myself, and trust on my good intentions :-). FidoNews 6-29 Page 9 17 Jul 1989 But the legitimacy of the power structure at FidoNet is questionable for many. But with more discussions and x-large FidoNews we won't change anything, or at least, we won't get any positive results. In Zone 4, POLICY4 was approved only last week (by Z4's *C structure), and if it was, it was done on a "preliminary basis", which means that the decision could be reverted if the same people vote against it anytime. We [the representatives of Zone 4] voted for POLICY4 just to avoid more trouble with the IC. But I won't wait a second this time: something has to be done, as soon as possible. I personally don't trust in revolutions: they always bring more problems than the ones they eradicate. My proposal is to "go slowly but steadily": let's propose some essential changes in POLICY4. For example, I'd like the NCs to participate in the elections; and think this could be a good start for bringing a democratic form of administration for FidoNet. I took the initiative and added a node named "Change Policy4!" in the nodelist, with the number 4:4/5 (the Policy5 Project). The Policy5 Project will write a Policy5 proposal, that when finished, will be presented to the whole *C structure to be voted. But if we want a Policy representing the views of the majority of FidoNet, we definitely need participation. Consider yourself from now, invited to participate in the Policy5 Project. We do need YOU! FidoNet needs YOU! We will soon start an echomail conference to talk about each matter, and to let everyone express his/her views and make proposals for each topic. And we need desperately YOUR help, to distribute the P5PROJECT echo in zones 1, 2 and 3. Please, contact us right now: this is your best chance to get involved. I hope you got the basic idea. If you have further questions, please don't hesitate to ask. FidoNews 6-29 Page 10 17 Jul 1989 Thank you in advance for all your help in writing a better policy for a better FidoNet, and for taking the time to read this text. My best regards, Pablo Kleinman (4:1200/101) FidoNet Coordinator for Zone 4 Buenos Aires, Argentina ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 6-29 Page 11 17 Jul 1989 Claude F. Witherspoon Fido 1:288/525 Home of KidsNews & NCLM (tm) Echo Microcomputer Communications In following the KIDS echo conference, KidsNews learned that the area in which more information is needed is microcomputer communications. Therefore, we offer the following information to assist you in understanding some of the terms you see mentioned as you communicate with the various BBSes, Mainframes, etc. around the nation. MODEM is an abbreviation for MOdulator/DEModulator. A modem is necessary when communicating between computers using a phone line. The phone system is analog (using tones of different frequencies) and computer output is digital (0 or 1, ON or OFF). The modem's job is to convert (modulate), the computer's digital signal to analog and demodulate the analog to digital at the receiving end. Consequently, two modems are needed for data exchange over a phone line between computers. The Hayes Smart Modem 300 was first introduced in May of 1981 and quickly became the industry standard, with a data transfer rate of 300 bits per second (bps). Larger numbered modems indicate a higher transfer speed; e.g., the Hayes Smart Modem 2400 tranfers data at 2400 bps. A modem's speed is measured in bits per second, although this is commonly inaccurately referred to as "baud." Modems can be either internal (on a card inside your computer) or external (a seperate box with visible lights to indicate when it is on and operating). Data can be sent either SERIAL or PARALLEL. Serial means one bit at a time. Parallel sends one character (8 bits) at a time. Modems are serial devices. Amplifiers are used to boost the signal when transmitting long distances on analog lines, but this results in increased noise levels. If the signal were digital, regenerators would be used instead of amplifiers, and less noise and higher accuracy would result. These benifits, plus greater speed and capacity, are what make fiber optic lines so attractive. The phone industry is headed towards digital transmission, so modems may someday be a thing of the past. When a signal is sent, it is either synchronous or asynchonous. Asynchronous is the most common. It always has a start bit (0) and one or more stop bits (1). Synchronous sends a 128k packet of information and is used in communicating with mainframes. Modems are asynchronous devices. A typical signal would look like the following: FidoNews 6-29 Page 12 17 Jul 1989 start / data / parity / stop 0 / ####### / 1 / 1 PARITY refers to error checking. There are three choices for error checking: ODD, EVEN, or NONE. NONE means no error checking will be done. This results in a faster transfer rate, but low reliability. EVEN means a 1 will be placed in position 9, if needed, to keep the total number of occurrences of (1s) even. ODD will use the same position to make the sum of ones an odd number. (If you are running a BBS, set your machine to NONE. This will accept a caller using ODD, EVEN, or NONE. Otherwise, they will have to use the same parity that the BBS modem is using.) PROTOCOL is the term used for "method of communication". We as humans in America have a protocol of English: one person talks then the next talks, etc. The most popular, standard protocol is XMODEM, which involves the following: SOH BLK#1 BLK#1 DATA CKSUM The SOH character (start of heading), followed by teo block numbers, signals the start of one 128 byte block transfer. The block number and its complement assure accuracy and proper sequencing. Data can be any size up to 128 bytes (or characters). The CKSUM, known as check-sum, uses the modulo sum of the ASCII values of each character in the data field. If the checksum received equals the checksum transmitted, an acknowledgement (ACK) is sent back from the recieving computer. If a NAK is sent, (negative acknowledgement), then an error was detected and the same block of information is re-sent. After all blocks are sent, an EOT character signals transmission finished. XMODEM CRC works the same way as XMODEM, except the CRC (Cyclic redundancy check) algorithm, is a more sophisticated error checking scheme. KERMIT is fast and uses full duplex (half duplex transmits one direction at a time, full duplex transmits both directions at the same time). It sends a whole stream of data before stopping to see if there was an error. A more recent protocol, YMODEM, uses XMODEM, CRC checking, and variable packet sizes. We hope this will bring some light to some of the questions we have seen in the KIDS echo conference as well as give a better understanding of some of the terms used in telecommunications. If you have something you would like to share with the KIDS, please send articles in the FidoNews standard format to Fido 1:288/525 for insertion in the KidsNews newsletter. Our kids will be greatly appreciative. Thanks... FidoNews 6-29 Page 13 17 Jul 1989 ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 6-29 Page 14 17 Jul 1989 jim nutt 'the computer handyman' 1:114/30.0@fidonet (and proud of it!) Some Questions Just some food for thought.... Is it just me or has anybody else noticed that all the policy wars are beginning to sound more and more like a bad soap opera? Have any of these people who are complaining actually taken a look at the work it takes to be an *C? What power does a *C REALLY have? I mean, there isn't really anything there to get on a power trip over, now, is there? Does Fidonet work for the vast majority of sysops? Do the vast majority of sysops even care about the petty bickering that is going on over Policy4? Are alternative networks the solution? (I say no, if anything, they are in worse shape than Fidonet) Is the main reason for all the complaining about policy simply a case of too much free time and too little real work? Why in the world would anybody WANT to be a *C?!?!? I have been in and out of Fidonet for years, I write software for the net and enjoy participating in the echos. I also firmly believe that Fidonet will survive in spite of itself. After all, what is Fidonet but a loose collection of people who let their computers run up huge phone bills? Fidonet sysops are an incredibly diverse group, with interests ranging from the ridiculous to the sublime... yet we all manage to work together. Abiding by policy is a terribly simple thing to do for the privilege (yes, it is a PRIVILEGE to have a node number, NOT A RIGHT!) of being able to communicate with thousands of people worldwide. SO QUIT BELLYACHING AND START ENJOYING YOURSELVES AGAIN! ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 6-29 Page 15 17 Jul 1989 John Herro 1:363/6 FILE COMPRESSION - AN UPDATE In my article "Will ZIP Replace ARC?" in FidoNews 611, I predict- ed that ZIP will replace ARC as the compression standard for bul- letin boards, because of the superior performance of ZIP. However, in a Letter to the Editor in FidoNews 614, Robert Heller mentioned that program performance isn't the only criterion. Compatibility with non-DOS systems is important in some situa- tions, and ARC 5.12 and ZOO 2.01 are the only compression pro- grams at present that have been ported to a variety of systems. Mr. Heller has a point. The rest of this article will discuss only selection of a file compression program where compatibility with non-DOS systems isn't a factor. Since I wrote "Will ZIP Replace ARC?" I came across two other file compression programs: DWC and LHARC. Despite its name, LHARC isn't compatible with ARC. It came here from Japan and seems to offer even greater file compression than ZIP, at some cost in speed. It produces .LZH files, named for Lempel-Ziv com- pression with adaptive Huffman coding. DWC was named for the initials of its author, and it seems to be very rarely used. Also, I was mistaken in the way I interpreted SEA's announcement of ARC version 6 in FidoNews 607. Fortunately, this _IS_ still a Shareware program, available on bulletin boards. I benchmarked all seven programs on the computer I use at work, identified only as a Printer Mate 12.5 MHz AT-compatible. (I didn't test PKPAK, because it's the same as PKARC except for the file extension.) Using each of the seven programs, I compressed version 1.22 of my ADA-TUTR (Ada Tutor) program, which contains 34 files totaling more than 700K. The files are of a variety of types and sizes. In all cases where several compression choices were available, I selected maximum compression. Here are the re- sults, sorted according to the amount of compression achieved: COMPRESSED SECONDS SECONDS PROGRAM BYTES TO PACK TO UNPACK ARC 6.01 w/ ARCE 340,592 48 40 ZOO 2.01 323,320 49 52 PKARC 3.5 321,004 28 33 DWC A5.01 303,161 31 34 NoGate PAK 1.6 288,460 57 66 PKZIP 0.92 257,867 76 32 LHARC 1.13 234,470 130 73 FidoNews 6-29 Page 16 17 Jul 1989 The results show that, although PKZIP is significantly faster than LHARC, the winner is clearly LHARC if maximum compression is desired. For most bulletin boards, telephone charges are the biggest expense, and therefore maximum compression is the most important consideration. Also, LHARC is free, while PKZIP is Shareware. Again I emphasize that I'm considering only cases where compatibility with non-DOS systems isn't a factor. We'll have to wait to see what version 1.0 of PKZIP will offer. It is well worth paying for Shareware registration if the program is superior, especially since file compression programs are used so frequently. There are now a number of boards using PKZIP and a number using LHARC. Mr. Heller is right: it's too early for one system to be selected as the standard. Let's hope that one compression method will prevail soon, so that there will again be one standard. In the meantime, if you'll pardon the pun, it's a Zoo out there! ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 6-29 Page 17 17 Jul 1989 Number nine, number nine, number nine, ... Decentralizing the FidoNet Nodelist Decentralizing FidoNet Power Randy Bush, FidoNet 1:105/6 Think of FidoNet as a confederation of local nets. Forget regions. Forget zones except as a way of saving telco charges by concentrating messages and as a way to segment the total nodelist. FidoNet returns to being a collection of local nets, as it was before the region and zone hierarchies were added just a few years ago. In each zone there is an echo, call it ZnnnLIST, to which every NC in that zone subscribes. In the North American zone, it is Z001LIST. For the moment, do not worry about the security or reliability of this echo, but things like sequence numbers, checksums, and RSA public key signatures can be used to address such problems (you are aware that RSA can be used to send a validatable signature, yes?). When an NC's net (or hub) segment undergoes significant change (significant is that which would be likely to affect callers from outside one's own net), then the NC posts a processed version of that segment to the ZnnnLIST echo. The processing could be to create a difference file, compress the file, maybe RSA signature encode it, or whatever else is deemed necessary. A simplistic scheme to start is a collection of lines of the form add z:n/n del z:n/n chg z:n/n similar to the prerevolutionary nodediff file. By placing the processed segment in the ZnnnLIST echo, each net's nodelist segment(s) will be automatically distributed to all other nets within that zone. This is the essence of the scheme. Each NC automatically accumulates the changes to the zone nodelist as they pass by in the ZnnnLIST echo for their zone. Once a week (or two), they create a difference file against last week's accumulated zone nodelist, and distribute this new difference file within their local net. The nodes within the net are thus insulated from all change, and do not have to change their prerevolutionary batch files or programs. The zonegates exchange periodic diffference files for their zones, and make the lists (or difference files) of the other zones available within their own, likely via the local ZnnnLIST echo. Since the advent of zonegates, one need not know much about a node in another zone, only the sysop's name and the node number. So we could choose to reduce the size of lists we keep of other zones, if the thought is not too scary. FidoNews 6-29 Page 18 17 Jul 1989 Note that a first prototype of this methodology could be constructed from existing software plus a few days of coding. -------- Credits: o FidoNet is a trademark of Fido Software and Tom Jennings. o UucpNet/Internet distribute the maps via their equivalents of echomail. o This idea in this general form was first spoken of by Tom Jennings in the FIDOBETA echo in May '89. o Ken Ganshirt refocussed my attention on it when I whined about the current FidoNet hierarchic power structure. ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 6-29 Page 19 17 Jul 1989 View From The Trenches on Fidonet, *C's, etc. Mark Earle, 1:160/50 (512)-850-9102 [HST] (NEC) First, let me point out that the (NEC) doesn't mean much, except that I've agreed to pay a somewhat outlandish fee to Ma Bell for the privilege of sharing my echomail habit with my net. "Being" *The* Net Echomail Coordinator is NOT a *C type of position, at all. NC is the lowest recognized 'power' position. Having said that... I've followed the Jim Grubs/Net 154 situation, and note that, in nodediff.188, Net 154 is back in the picture. Mostly, it seems like a squabble, with lots of mis-quotes, doubts, and private messages distributed publicly. I'm not sure, at this point, that *anyone* can finger out what the 'facts' are. Surely the original parties know. But the rest of us 'know' only through conflicting accounts on various echoes. So I am not going to comment on "the facts", whatever they may be. I don't view Steve Bonine as "anything" yet, beyond the elected ZC. Let's give him a chance. It appears Jim Grubs will be back in the Nodelist, as is Net 154. That shows that the parties are willing to back down, a bit, and decide to Press On. Hey-just what *is* FidoNet? Bob Hartman says it's different to almost EVERY sysop. He's RIGHT. To me, it was a NEAT and CHEAP way (compared to Compuserve) to get my daily Information Fix, as a user, who started with a Model 100 at 300 baud (!). It has become a way for me to share my echomail habit with others in my local area. It was not, at first, a way to send private messages. That was a side benefit. Now though, Netmail is an important part of my FidoNet activities. Chicken and Egg, though; my Netmail habit grew as a result of meeting interesting folks on the Echoes. This view of mine may (should) differ from yours. What keeps us all together is NOT IFNA. It IS technically compatible mail software, and The NodeList, AND adherence to Policy. The IFNA does *NOT* make The NodeList. That is done by each Net Coordinator. This is a significant change from the 'early days' when Fido 51 did all number assignments (and no, I wasn't around then, this was gleaned from reading the FidoNews). Now this assigning of numbers is done at many different locations. IFNA only owns the copyright to the whole nodelist as a compiled entity, not the individual sections submitted by the NC's. My *own* opinion is, that NETS and Individuals SHOULD NOT be summarily deleted from the NODELIST. BUT, as a sysop, you are agreeing to agree to current policy as a condition to joining FidoNet. FidoNews 6-29 Page 20 17 Jul 1989 Membership in FidoNet is based on agreeing with policy, meeting ZMH, and running technically compatible mailer software. If you don't like the current policy when you join, then don't join. If a new policy pains you so much, simply request your NC to drop you from FidoNet. Then, if you feel you still want to participate in changing things, simply log in as a user to the echoes being used as a media of change and offer your input. But saying you won't abide by a policy, doing "annoying" things, *AND* expecting to stay in FidoNet are pretty unreal expectations. Also, there are *always* the "other" nets. Jim Decker: while a simple non-political nodelist is an interesting idea, that in and of itself still won't make a network. What makes FidoNet 'go' is that, I can find out the rules, join, and have access to NetMail and EchoMail, using pretty well defined, standard, procedures. Simply having a list of 5000 bbb's running mailers, means I can mash the button an send anyone direct a message; but removes the routing, echomail, and other capabilities of FidoNet. To get those, you'll have to mimic much of FidoNet. And I, in the trenches of Texas, see no need for *me* to participate in multiple nets. Not enough time to fully support the one as it is! Now, maybe if I'd been excommunicated, I'd feel more passion. Or maybe if in FidoNet longer, would be ready for a change. My NC, Tom Harper, *DID* send me policy4, ask for my comments, and my vote, as he did with each sysop. His vote was what the Majority of Sysops voted. I feel that I *DID* have a voice. The NC also has, on *many* occasions, helped me, particularly when trying to get OPUS and Binkley running. It's nice to find a person willing to donate time, energy, tips, *.bat files, etc. to help another sysop, for free. I try and pass a little of that spirit on. And from what other nets tell me, it's pretty much the same, except for a few sour grapes nets, who don't want new members, change, software, or anything that "rocks the boat". Along the way, a new sysop may 'make a boo-boo' that'll cost me 25 cents in a wasted LD call, or something; but If *I* had to *pay* $ for each mistake I've made at the keyboard.... well, it's nice that others in my net understand, and forgive, and we go on and have fun. When I first joined, my activities were "rocking the boat" quite a bit. But Tom gave me advice, shared history, and mostly, pointed me in directions where, as it turns out, I drew my own conclusions, and agreed that the existing net structure was pretty hard to beat. It may not be *exactly* what it should be, but surely, at least *here* it's pretty close. FidoNews 6-29 Page 21 17 Jul 1989 While saying 'nice things' let me point out that, when the NC was not available, the RC answered my queries quickly, on his nickel, and to my satisfaction. Now, maybe it ain't that way in your neck of the woods, but, overall, it seems to work hereabouts. Maybe y'all need to step back, WAY BACK, and instead of yelling, kickin', and screaming, simply QUIT, and go find something FUN to do with your computers. I understand EggHead still has copies of Flight Simulator, and Adventure... :-) ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 6-29 Page 22 17 Jul 1989 ================================================================= LATEST VERSIONS ================================================================= Latest Software Versions MS-DOS Systems -------------- 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 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 4.51A* XlaxDiff 2.32 LHARC 1.13* XlaxNode 2.32 MSG 3.3 MSGED 1.99 PK[UN]ZIP 0.92* QM 1.0* TCOMMail 2.2 TMail 1.11 TPBNetEd 3.2 UFGATE 1.03 XRS 2.3* ZmailQ 1.09* Apple Macintosh --------------- Bulletin Board Software Network Mailers Other Utilities Name Version Name Version Name Version Red Ryder Host v2.1b3 Tabby 2.0* MacArc 0.03 Mansion 7.0 ArcMac 1.3 StuffIt 1.51 TImport 1.0 TExport 1.0 Timestamp 1.6 Tset 1.0.2 FidoNews 6-29 Page 23 17 Jul 1989 Timestart 1.1 Tally 1.1 Mehitabel 1.2 Archie 1.60 Numberizer 1.5c MessageEdit 1.0 Commodore Amiga --------------- Bulletin Board Software Network Mailers Other Utilities Name Version Name Version Name Version Paragon 1.00+* + Netmail capable (does not require additional mailer software) * Recently changed Utility authors: Please help keep this list up to date by reporting new versions to 1:1/1. It is not our intent to list all utilities here, only those which verge on necessity. ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 6-29 Page 24 17 Jul 1989 ================================================================= NOTICES ================================================================= The Interrupt Stack 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. ----------------------------------------------------------------- KESHERnet Announcement by Roger Froikin 1:108/185 KESHERnet Growing KESHERnet(tm), a new international Jewish Affairs communications network is now operating, currently linking BBS's in several American communities with BBS's in London and Israel. Plans include expansion to every American city where there is a Jewish community, affiliation of BBS's in major European, Latin American, and Austrailian cities, and expansion of services to Jewish computer enthusiasts and their communities. FidoNews 6-29 Page 25 17 Jul 1989 If you'd like information about KESHERnet, net-mail your request to Roger Froikin, 1:108/185. ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 6-29 Page 26 17 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 6-29 Page 27 17 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? ______ FidoNews 6-29 Page 28 17 Jul 1989 Additional Guests: __________ (not attending conferences) Do you have any special requirements? (Sign Language translation, handicapped, etc.) ______________________________________________________ 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. FidoNews 6-29 Page 29 17 Jul 1989 Master Card _______ Visa ________ Credit Card Number _____________________________________________ Expiration Date ________________________________________________ Signature ______________________________________________________ No credit card registrations will be accepted without a valid signature. Rooms at the Holiday Inn may be reserved by calling the Hotel at 408-998-0400, and mentioning that you are with FidoCon. Rooms are $60.00 per night double occupancy. Additional rollaways are available for $10.00 per night. To obtain these rates you must register before July 15. The official FidoCon '89 airline is American Airlines. You can receive either a 5% reduction in supersaver fares or a 40% reduction in the regular day coach fare. San Jose is an American Airlines hub with direct flights to most major cities. When making reservations, you must call American's reservation number, 800-433-1790, and reference Star number S0289VM. 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 6-29 Page 30 17 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. FidoNews 6-29 Page 31 17 Jul 1989 -----------------------------------------------------------------