Volume 7, Number 2 8 January 1990 +---------------------------------------------------------------+ | _ | | / \ | | /|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 submitted by a FidoNet SysOp will be rejected if it is properly attributed and legally acceptable. We will publish every responsible submission received. Table of Contents 1. ARTICLES ................................................. 1 Urgent News about Ben Baker .............................. 1 Help Others Have a Happy Holiday Season! ................. 2 CIMN DISKzine ............................................ 3 SIGnet and Other Networks ................................ 12 2. LATEST VERSIONS .......................................... 14 Latest Software Versions ................................. 14 3. NOTICES .................................................. 17 The Interrupt Stack ...................................... 17 Special Meeting of the IFNA Board ........................ 17 FidoNews 7-02 Page 1 8 Jan 1990 ================================================================= ARTICLES ================================================================= Forwarded from the Alliance DUKES Conference by Phil Buonomo, 1:107/583@FidoNet 520/583@AlterNet 9:807/1@PNet Originally by Karl Schinke, Archduke of the ISA Well, We have bad news and We have good news. First, the bad news. While on a windjammer cruise of the West Indies, The Grand Wizard, Sir Ben Baker, was stricken with a heart attack. Fortunately, the vessel was in harbor at St. Barts, and Sir Ben was whisked to the small hospital there, and in short order to the Island of Guadalupe to a larger hospital. Now the good news. Sir Ben was discharged from the hospital this morning, and is resting comfortably in a hotel on Guadalupe. We tracked him down, brushing the rust off Our French language. Many thanks to the staff at the hospital for putting up with Our "fractured French". We spoke with him, and he sounds well and in good spirit. Lady Nora is with him, and they are remaining on the island for a while until he's gained enough strength to return. Our best wishes for speedy recovery go out to him, as We are sure do yours. We will speak with him again in a few days, keep you posted. ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 7-02 Page 2 8 Jan 1990 Thinking about Others During the Holidays Phil Buonomo, 1:107/583@FidoNet 520/583@AlterNet 9:807/1@PNet During this holiday season, many of us would like to be in a position to help others, but are just too busy, or can't make enough time to do the things we'd like. Here is a very simple way that YOU can help someone NOW, and all it'll cost you is a postage stamp. Don't throw away your used Christmas/Chanuka cards. They mean a lot to the children of St. Jude's Ranch for Children in Boulder City, NV. They have a card-recycling program and would love to have your cards. Please take advantage of this simple way of helping others. Most people throw their used cards in the trash. To the children of St. Jude's, thats the same as throwing money away. Please take a moment to take those cards off the wall, put them in an envelope, and send them in. You'll feel better! So do some good, please, and help others have a happy holiday! Send your used cards to: St. Jude's Ranch for Children PO Box 1426-AL Boulder City, Nev. 89005-1426 ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 7-02 Page 3 8 Jan 1990 It has been brought to my attention I failed to provide a Net/Node Number for the Article about the Computer Information Monthly News Magazine, which will be here after refered to as a DISKzine. So I would like to let all of you know the Node # is 301/1. The program is now FReq in both ARC and ZIP under the title of CIMN.ARC or CIMN.ZIP each month. This will preclude requestors from having to remember which month they would like to have. It will also be available in the previous mentioned versions of CIMN-V##.ARC OR CIMN-V##.ZIP for those who will be interested in back issues. Jake Hargrove 301/1 High Mesa Ranger's BBS Los Lunas, NM 87031 ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 7-02 Page 4 8 Jan 1990 *What the Hell is THIS!!!!! Jerry Hindle 1:123/7 (just a user there) I believe that those of you who wrote this document need a little education in the finer art of politics. The main reason I say this is enumerated below on a paragraph by paragraph basis. I have cut the first part of the original article off as in it there was nothing that really matters since it was mostly definitions and such. What is left is what I am making comments on. ***************************************************************** GATEWAY POLICY DOCUMENT Duplicate Message ----------------- Because of the technology employed by some FidoNet Conference Mail distribution systems, improper routing information or topology can cause multiple copies of the same message text to be delivered to FidoNet systems. A duplicate message is defined as any message arriving at a FidoNet node whose message body (the text entered by the human originator of the message) is identical to the message body of a previously received message. Messages manually forwarded to another recipient are not considered duplicates for the purposes of this document. END OF QUOTED SECTION ***************************************************************** While I agree that duplicates are a major headache in echomail, I do not see why you seem to think that FidoNet is free of dupes. A look at the backbone systems logs will show that this is far from true. While you say here that it is up to the other network to keep duplicate messages from entering Fidonet, what is Fidonet going to do to keep dupes from entering the other network (which is a more realistic threat in my view)?????? ***************************************************************** GATEWAY POLICY DOCUMENT Section 3 - Administrative Guidelines ===================================== This section is intended to outline the administrative framework under which Other Networks may connect to FidoNet. FidoNet reserves the right to reject any Other Network Gateway application for any reason. FidoNews 7-02 Page 5 8 Jan 1990 END OF QUOTED SECTION ***************************************************************** And just who died and appointed you the ruler of the universe??? Hummm I for one have no desire to connect to FidoNet for echomail (in fact I do not carry a FidoNet address simply because FidoNet "decided" that independent nodes had no reason for existence and my node number was "abolished". You want me to agree to this crap simply so you can talk to me, ha, I can already send mail to any node within fidonet and I don't even need a fidonet address for that. If you wanna reply I suggest you figure out a way to connect to us without all this legalize mumbo-jumbo. Remember we are a HOBBY network and if it takes this to run a hobby then I want no part of it. ***************************************************************** GATEWAY POLICY DOCUMENT 3.1 - Other Network Connectivity to FidoNet Through "MultiNets" --------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNet may elect to seek and obtain connectivity to various multinet host facilities for the purposes of communicating with a wide range of Other Networks. Any Other Network that desires to communicate with FidoNet may elect to facilitate such communication via the multinet. However, FidoNet reserves the right to refuse to deliver incoming message traffic arriving via such an arrangement based upon the guidelines set forth in this document. END OF QUOTED SECTION ***************************************************************** Does this mean what I think it means......ie you want more then one gateway to any particular network. Well then the reverse is true, the other network should have the right to "turn down" this request if they feel it is not necessary. ***************************************************************** GATEWAY POLICY DOCUMENT An Example: FidoNet is now gated into Internet via UUCP. It has agreed to the terms and conditions necessary for membership in and connectivity to the Internet multi-network "umbrella". One obvious method for achieving connectivity to FidoNet (and a whole host of other wide area networks) is for the Other Network to apply to Internet for a gateway. Under this scenario, the Other Network is bound by the terms and conditions of Internet just as FidoNet is. In this peer relationship, the terms and conditions stated in this document are used by FidoNet to determine if Other Network message traffic arriving at a FidoNet/Internet gateway FidoNews 7-02 Page 6 8 Jan 1990 will be accepted into FidoNet. END OF QUOTED SECTION ***************************************************************** I don't see where FidoNet made UUCP sign an agreement to these rules....and I bet UUCP would tell FidoNet where to leap if you tried it too. In fact UUCP told FidoNet that if they wanted to tie in that FidoNet had to abide by "their" rules. I do not see FidoNet mandating the seenby,origin,addressing stuff to UUCP.... why not????? Also if the message meets UUCP standards and FidoNet has agreed to accept those standards, then what gives Fidonet the right to refuse the message(s)? ***************************************************************** GATEWAY POLICY DOCUMENT 3.2 - Connectivity Only Through Mutually Recognized Gateways ------------------------------------------------------------ While FidoNet has no desire to inhibit experimentation or connectivity between consenting systems it must maintain the technical and administrative integrity of its network. Henceforth, FidoNet will not permit non-FidoNet addresses to appear in any addressing or routing control fields (Some current examples include: the "From" or "To" address fields, the "* Origin" lines, the "seen-by" fields, and the "^APath" fields.) of any netmail or echomail messages traveling on any portion of FidoNet's wide area network. This restriction applies to all present and future FidoNet nodes. FidoNet nodes who wish to participate in Other Networks may do so but must insure that all message traffic transmitted to other FidoNet systems contain only valid FidoNet addresses in the addressing and routing control fields. The FidoNet coordinators will enforce this requirement and are authorized by the International Coordinator to take whatever action may be necessary to prevent non-FidoNet addresses from entering Fidonet, including without limitation, referring the offending nodes to this document and to the InterNetwork Coordinator for information on how to establish proper Gateways. The sole exception to this requirement is set forth in the following paragraph: The exchange of message traffic, on an experimental or private and closely controlled basis, between an Other Network and a system or systems that happen to be members of FidoNet is permitted and encouraged if such message traffic is confined to the consenting FidoNet systems and is not allowed to travel on or to any portion of FidoNet's wide area network that has not previously consented to carry such traffic and if such connectivity does not prohibit the FidoNet system(s) from fulfilling the technical and policy requirements necessary for membership in FidoNet. FidoNet requests that the INC be informed of such arrangements so that any unintentional "leakage" of Other Network message traffic into FidoNet's wide area network may be FidoNews 7-02 Page 7 8 Jan 1990 rapidly isolated and corrected. The exchange of message traffic between any Other Network and FidoNet on any basis other than the one mentioned in the paragraph above shall only be done through mutually recognized and proper Gateways meeting the requirements set forth in this document. END OF QUOTED SECTION ***************************************************************** AHA! Here's the real "meat" of the whole thing. Echomail control fields. I can understand the TO:/FROM: fields needing changing. In fact they are routinely changed by the echomail processors from one node to the next. I might also be convinced that the ^APATH line might need to be pruned back to just the gateway system. I DO NOT HOWEVER SEE ANY NEED TO STRIP THE SEENBYS DOWN since they are not used by anyone other then humans. They are not used in any form of addressing. They are used to control dupes by some of the echo- mail processors however and should be left alone so they can do what they were intended to do....specifically control dupes. I "might" also see where an Origin Line might need changing, BUT ONLY the Net Node number in the () needs changing nothing else. From the looks and reading of the above paragraph it appears as though FidoNet is scared to admit that "other networks" even exist (we do) and that by "sticking your collective heads in the sand" FidoNet can "make them go away (we won't). ***************************************************************** GATEWAY POLICY DOCUMENT 3.4 - Application of FidoNet Administrative Policy -------------------------------------------------- For the purposes of applying FidoNet policy, FidoNet will view the entire Other Network as a single FidoNet "node" under the control of the individual named as the "Administrative Contact / Responsible Party" (or an authorized agent thereof) in the administrative agreement outlined in paragraph 3.3 above. All other systems and their users will be viewed by FidoNet as users on the "responsible party's" node for the purposes of FidoNet official policy application. FidoNet holds the operator of a FidoNet node responsible (from an administrative policy standpoint) for the actions of that node's users, subordinate "point" systems, and the "point" system's users. FidoNet views single or multiple Other Network Gateways as a single "boss" node under the control of the "responsible party" and will apply FidoNet official policy accordingly. FidoNet reserves the right to sever links to one or more of the Other Network's Gateways as its final remedy for violations of administrative policy. (see the paragraph titled "Points" in the "Overview" section and the paragraph titled FidoNews 7-02 Page 8 8 Jan 1990 "Responsible for All Traffic Entering FidoNet Via the Node" in the "Sysop Procedures" section of FidoNet's official policy document, for further information). END OF QUOTED SECTION ************************************************************* Does the "internetwork coordinator" in FidoNet have the power to remove from fidonet any node who refuses to abide by your policy??? Nope...They can only file "policy complaints" and even at that the past track record of Fidonet is such that a policy complaint is fast becoming the local joke. Also if a node in another network violates fidonet policy and is removed where does the other network policy come into play? What happens to a fidonet node that violates the policy in the other network? Does that violation carry the same weight as a violation of FidoNet policy even though there may be no rule against it within FidoNet. If FidoNet truly wants to be fair about all this then the same set of rules need to be applied to both sides of the equation (even Algebra teachers will tell you this). *************************************************************** GATEWAY POLICY DOCUMENT 3.5 - Supported Message Types ----------------------------- FidoNet will grant Gateway interconnection for the purposes of exchanging messages of the type defined above as "Netmail" and optionally for the purposes of exchanging messages of the type defined above as "Echomail". FidoNet will not grant Gateway interconnection for the purposes of exchanging "Echomail" only. The ability to generate a private and personal "Netmail" reply to an "Echomail" message is one of the basic facets of FidoNet and cannot be compromised. END OF QUOTED SECTION ***************************************************************** This I agree completely with. EchoMail Only gateways are a true waste of time. If they have room for processing echomail then they have room for processing a few netmail messages too..... FidoNews 7-02 Page 9 8 Jan 1990 ***************************************************************** GATEWAY POLICY DOCUMENT 3.6 - Acceptance Criteria (All Other Networks) ---------------------------------------------- The granting of Other Network Gateways into FidoNet is not automatic nor is it based solely on the Other Network's ability to demonstrate technical compliance with the objectives set forth in section 4 below. Some other criteria include: END OF QUOTED SECTION ***************************************************************** Why are you limiting other networks. After all to get into FidoNet to begin with all a node need do is sent a netmail message a be able to recieve a reply. Why should you be any harsher on networks since you stated earlier that the entire network would be treated as a point net off of the gateway system. ***************************************************************** GATEWAY POLICY DOCUMENT 3.8 - Shared Echomail Conferences --------------------------------- Echomail conferences shared between networks must be registered with the appropriate FidoNet echomail coordinator. It is the responsibility of the Other Network and its Echomail source(s) within FidoNet to insure that proper topology is observed between the FidoNet / Other Network Gateway(s) and that duplicate echomail messages do not enter FidoNet. It cannot be overemphasized that all message traffic emanating from a Gateway must contain only valid FidoNet addresses in the message's addressing and routing fields. Current examples include, without limitation, the "from" and "to" addresses in the message header, the *ORIGIN line address, the SEEN BY addresses and the ^APath addresses. END OF QUOTED SECTION ****************************************************************** Now this is pure bull, plain and simple. Dupes are more likely to emenate from FidoNet to the other network then from the other net- work back to FidoNet. Also as I stated earlier these "rules" are for the most part an attempt by fidonet to "stick their head in the sand" to make other networks "go away". ***************************************************************** FidoNews 7-02 Page 10 8 Jan 1990 GATEWAY POLICY DOCUMENT 3.9 - Network Integrity ----------------------- In the event that FidoNet determines that significant harm is being caused to the technical or social integrity of its network, it may immediately sever links between the Other Network Gateway(s) and FidoNet. FidoNet will make all reasonable attempts to contact the "Responsible Party" as soon as possible (before the severing of links if possible) to inform the Other Network of the problem and to work toward its resolution. END OF QUOTED SECTION ***************************************************************** Social integrity?????? I see that FidoNet has finally adopted the "holier then thou" attitude officially. FidoNet could not be socially harmed since in order for it to be "socially harmed" it would first need to be social, which FidoNet, by simply writing this "document" has proved it is not... ***************************************************************** END OF COMMENTS END OF COMMENTS END OF COMMENTS ***************************************************************** Well, that is all I have to say on this matter. I for one will be the absolute first to veto any attempt to "gateway" to fidonet if it is to be done under the above referenced document as it is published in FidoNews Issue # 651. I feel that, as I stated, if FidoNet wants to dictate the entire show....I DON'T NEED IT !!! I think some serious thought should be given by FidoNet to write a set of rules that are fair and equitable to BOTH sides of the gateway(s) and not slanted so much toward this "it's my ball and we will play by my rules" attitude that FidoNet seems to have adopted of late. This is the end of the eightys....let's make it the end of the "me generation" also.....OK? Jerry Hindle PS: for those who really wish to flame me personally I do have a mail system up and running 24hrs a day. The phone number is: 1-901-683-5410 and it is 9600bps with an HST using SEAdog 4.51a if you just wanna flame me in fidonews.....go ahead I really don't care. I amy or may not read it. I will read any and all netmail and if you are in zone 1 I will even reply via netmail, that is if your system allows mail from "unlisted nodes". If your system does not allow this feature then you miss out on half of the fun in this HOBBY, mail from the unexpected. Bill Paul (sysop of the THINK TANK 1:123/7 is simply acting as a system for fidonews to contact me should they need to before publication of this article. FidoNews 7-02 Page 11 8 Jan 1990 He is in no way responsible for this article or it's contents. ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 7-02 Page 12 8 Jan 1990 Jamie Penner FidoNet 1:153/169 SIGnet and Other Networks ------------------------- (or: Are We Getting Squeezed Out?) I've been seeing comments flying around like 'who owns the echomail?', 'does anyone OWN the echomail?', 'does a gate have to be authorized?', 'can the mail be ported out?', 'does policy really mean what it says?'... With the proposed InterNetwork GateWay Policy being currently tossed about, these questions are flying fast and furious, and they seem to be getting a little more furious. About 8 months ago, I started a network called SIGnet. Its basic purpose was to bring echomail in that the local FidoNet network couldn't. It was created as a supplement to the already existing FidoNet mail flow in my local area. The concept of SIGnet quickly caught on and grew to be nearly 200 systems within a few months. The mail flow has been VERY tightly controlled and never has there been a single complaint about duplicate messages from us yet. When the year turned over, I look at my report and saw that as the SIGnet International GateHost, I had passed-on just over 100,000 echomail messages in less than 3 months. Out of that, my system nabbed about 70 dupes. Not bad. As I see things happening, our sources of echomail are going to be drying up rather quickly unless EVERYONE in SIGnet has a FidoNet number. Well, it just so happens that not everyone in SIGnet wants one to be in FidoNet, or for that matter, sees a need for the extra administrative or technical problems caused by being multi-network. I fail to see the problems with the current policy regarding gating mail. Policy 4 (v4.07) states in 2.1.3 that a sysop is responsible for all traffic entering FidoNet via the node. What was wrong with this? If I choose to gate mail into SIGnet from FidoNet and port mail back out, what is the big problem? A couple of days ago, I met with the local honchos of FidoNet in my area to discuss this whole arrangement with echomail. It turned out that we could better each other's arrangments by cooperating with each other so long as I, as the gateway system, conformed to policy. The meeting went well and everyone went away happy and not feeling compromised. FidoNews 7-02 Page 13 8 Jan 1990 It seems that this policy is a muscle-flex and will shake off the 'other networks'. Why can't we face the fact that the 'other networks' are here stay and may not be politically motivated? Some of us aren't! We can't FidoNet see (like the locals here do) that some of the 'other networks' may be able to better things and with cooperation, everyone is better off? Recently there were a couple of incidents whereas there was a system in at least 5 different networks that was committing questionable acts via his node numbers. Each network was building a case against him and had no idea about the actions of the other networks around him. I proposed at the time, that we form a committee of the 'heads' of the 'other networks' to address these issues and other inter-network issues. I have gotten favourable response from nearly everyone. FidoNet appears to want to go this one alone. IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE! I am planning to continue with the forming of this committee, with or without the involvement of FidoNet. I can only hope that we can act together on this. Is FidoNet's InterNetwork Policy really for the better of all sysops or is FidoNet running with its tail between its legs? Only time will tell. I hope that a vote comes to be on this issue and that the sysops of FidoNet realize that you can catch more flies with honey than with acid. - Jamie Penner - ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 7-02 Page 14 8 Jan 1990 ================================================================= LATEST VERSIONS ================================================================= Latest Software Versions MS-DOS Systems -------------- Bulletin Board Software Name Version Name Version Name Version Fido 12q+ Phoenix 1.3 TBBS 2.1 Lynx 1.30 QuickBBS 2.61* TComm/TCommNet 3.4 Kitten 2.16 RBBS 17.2B TPBoard 6.0 Opus 1.03b+ RBBSmail 17.2 Wildcat! 2.10* Network Node List Other Mailers Version Utilities Version Utilities Version BinkleyTerm 2.30 EditNL 4.00 ARC 6.02 D'Bridge 1.30* MakeNL 2.20 ARCA06 2.20* Dutchie 2.90C ParseList 1.30 ARCmail 2.0 FrontDoor 1.99b* Prune 1.40 ConfMail 4.00 PRENM 1.47 SysNL 3.01* EMM 2.02 SEAdog 4.51b XlatList 2.90 Gmail 2.01 XlaxDiff 2.32 GROUP 2.16 XlaxNode 2.32 GUS 1.30* LHARC 1.13 MSG 4.0 MSGED 1.99 PK[UN]ZIP 1.02* QM 1.0 QSORT 4.03 StarLink 1.01 TCOMMail 2.2 TMail 1.12 TPBNetEd 3.2 UFGATE 1.03 XRS 3.10 ZmailQ 1.10* Macintosh --------- Bulletin Board Software Network Mailers Other Utilities Name Version Name Version Name Version Red Ryder Host v2.1b3 Macpoint 0.91* MacArc 0.04 Mansion 7.12 Tabby 2.1 ArcMac 1.3 WWIV (Mac) 3.0 StuffIt 1.51 FidoNews 7-02 Page 15 8 Jan 1990 TImport 1.331 TExport 1.32 Timestamp 1.6 Tset 1.3 Timestart 1.1 Tally 1.1 Mehitabel 1.2 Archie 1.60 Jennifer 0.25b2g Numberizer 1.5c MessageEdit 1.0 Mantissa 1.0 PreStamp 2.01 R.PreStamp 2.01 Saphire 2.1t Epistle II 1.01 Import 2.52 Export 2.54 Sundial 2.1 AreaFix 1.1 Probe 0.052 Terminator 1.1 TMM 4.0b UNZIP 1.01* Amiga ----- Bulletin Board Software Network Mailers Other Utilities Name Version Name Version Name Version Paragon 2.00+* BinkleyTerm 1.00 AmigArc 0.23 TrapDoor 1.11 booz 1.01 WelMat 0.35* ConfMail 1.10 ChameleonEdit 0.10 Lharc 1.00* ParseLst 1.30 PkAX 1.00 RMB 1.30 UNzip 0.86 Zoo 2.00 Atari ST -------- Bulletin Board Software Network Mailer Other Utilities Name Version Name Version Name Version FIDOdoor/ST 1.5c* BinkleyTerm 1.03g3 ConfMail 1.00 Pandora BBS 2.41c The BOX 1.20 ParseList 1.30 QuickBBS/ST 0.40 ARC 6.02* GS Point 0.61 LHARC 0.51 FidoNews 7-02 Page 16 8 Jan 1990 PKUNZIP 1.10 MSGED 1.96S SRENUM 6.2 Trenum 0.10 OMMM 1.40 + 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 7-02 Page 17 8 Jan 1990 ================================================================= NOTICES ================================================================= The Interrupt Stack 1 Feb 1990 Deadline for IFNA Policy and Bylaws election 5 Jun 1990 David Dodell's 33rd Birthday 5 Oct 1990 21st Anniversary of "Monty Python's Flying Circus" If you have something which you would like to see on this calendar, please send a message to FidoNet node 1:1/1. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Thom Henderson, c/o 1:107/528 Chairman, International FidoNet Association Special Meeting of the IFNA Board By my authority as Chairman of the Board of the International FidoNet Association, Inc. under Bylaw 19 of the Association, and in accordance with the wishes of the Board of Directors as established by the Board Meeting concluded on 27 August 1989 and the wishes of the membership as established by the referendum concluded on 1 December 1989, I hereby call for a SPECIAL MEETING of the Board of Directors to be held in Lyndhurst, New Jersey on the 26th through the 28th of January 1990 for the purpose of winding down the affairs of the International FidoNet Association, Inc. I hereby require that all chairmen of all IFNA committees submit to the Secretary prior to that date their Final Reports on the affairs of their committees. Each Final Report shall include recommendations from the committee on how to conclude any ongoing business of that committee and reccommendations on how to dispose of any assets of the IFNA that are within the realm of responsibility of that committee. Motions to be made at this SPECIAL MEETING, in accordance with Bylaw 20 of the Association, may ONLY deal with matters related to the purpose of this meeting as stated herein. Further, in accordance with Bylaw 22 of the Association all motions must be received by me no later than 19 January 1990 in order to be included on the agenda so that they may be distributed to the Board members in advance. FidoNews 7-02 Page 18 8 Jan 1990 Board members who will be attending should contact Irene Henderson at 201-473-5153 as soon as possible to arrange room reservations and travel arrangements. ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 7-02 Page 19 8 Jan 1990 OFFICERS OF THE INTERNATIONAL FIDONET ASSOCIATION Thom Henderson 1:107/528 Chairman of the Board Les Kooyman 1:204/501 President Fabian Gordon 1:107/323 Vice President Bill Bolton 3:3/0 Vice President-Technical Coordinator Kris Veitch 1:147/30 Secretary Kris Veitch 1:147/30 Treasurer IFNA COMMITTEE AND BOARD CHAIRS Administration and Finance * By-laws and Rules John Roberts 1:385/49 Executive Committee (Pres) Les Kooyman 1:204/501 International Affairs * Membership Services Jim Vaughan 1:226/300 Nominations and Elections Steve Bonine 1:1/0 Public Affairs David Drexler 1:147/30.20 Publications Irene Henderson 1:107/9 Technical Standards Rick Moore 1:115/333 Ethics * Security and Privacy * Grievances * * Position in abeyance pending reorganization IFNA BOARD OF DIRECTORS DIVISION AT-LARGE 10 Courtney Harris 1:102/732 Don Daniels 1:107/210 11 John Rafuse 1:12/900 Phil Buonomo 1:107/583 12 Bill Bolton 3:711/403 Mark Hawthorne 1:107/238 13 Fabian Gordon 1:107/323 Tom Jennings 1:125/111 14 Ken Kaplan 1:100/22 Irene Henderson 1:107/509 15 Kevin McNeil 1:128/45 Steve Jordan 1:206/2871 16 Ivan Schaffel 1:141/390 Robert Rudolph 1:261/628 17 Kathi Crockett 1:134/30 Dave Melnik 1:107/233 18 Andrew Adler 1:135/47 Jim Hruby 1:107/536 19 Kris Veitch 1:147/30 Burt Juda 1:107/528 2 Henk Wevers 2:500/1 Karl Schinke 1:107/516 3 Matt Whelan 3:54/99 John Roberts 1:147/14 ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 7-02 Page 20 8 Jan 1990 __ 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 7-02 Page 21 8 Jan 1990 -----------------------------------------------------------------