F I D O N E W S -- Vol.10 No.12 (22-Mar-1993) +----------------------------+-----------------------------------------+ | A newsletter of the | | | FidoNet BBS community | Published by: | | _ | | | / \ | "FidoNews" BBS | | /|oo \ | +1-519-570-4176 1:1/23 | | (_| /_) | | | _`@/_ \ _ | Editors: | | | | \ \\ | Sylvia Maxwell 1:221/194 | | | (*) | \ )) | Donald Tees 1:221/192 | | |__U__| / \// | Tim Pozar 1:125/555 | | _//|| _\ / | | | (_/(_|(____/ | | | (jm) | Newspapers should have no friends. | | | -- JOSEPH PULITZER | +----------------------------+-----------------------------------------+ | Submission address: editors 1:1/23 | +----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Internet addresses: | | | | Sylvia -- max@exlibris.tdkcs.waterloo.on.ca | | Donald -- donald@exlibris.tdkcs.waterloo.on.ca | | Tim -- pozar@kumr.lns.com | | Both Don & Sylvia (submission address) | | editor@exlibris.tdkcs.waterloo.on.ca | +----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | For information, copyrights, article submissions, | | obtaining copies and other boring but important details, | | please refer to the end of this file. | +----------------------------------------------------------------------+ ======================================================================== Table of Contents ======================================================================== 1. Editorial..................................................... 2 2. Articles...................................................... 3 === downLoad! === neurozine................................. 3 Policy 5 - Nice Try; but No Democracy Here.................. 4 NEW FidoNet Policy 5 DRAFT report!.......................... 8 Another view of Caller ID and BBS access.................... 39 Yet another Fidonet packet format proposal.................. 43 Caller ID and "The Right to Privacy"........................ 51 Original to: Zone 1 Sysops at 1:141/730.(Election results).. 52 3. Fidonews Information.......................................... 53 FidoNews 10-12 Page: 2 22 Mar 1993 ======================================================================== Editorial ======================================================================== We were up all night because the cat, Binkley, was gone, so we're writing quickly. i didn't know whether he had *decided* to go away, which would be more or less ok, or if he had been inadvertently shut outside during comings and goings of visitors, which would be worry-making. This morning, he is here, proud of whatever excursion he'd had. So-k. This week there's another caller-id article, and an anonymous refutation of a "policy five" proposal. i must apologize and confess i haven't read the "policy five" document end to end. It is VERY long. It might seem odd that the "policy five" document follows its refutation; that's because we print the articles in the order they're received . It's confusing that caller-id seems more of an issue than message content. Is the identity of a person talking more important than what gets said? Perhaps that is the real issue ... real names are useful for controlling discussion. Is preventing abuse of the medium more important than allowing unfettered expression? It has been stated in several articles that aliases are only required if the speaker has something to hide. What never gets explained is why having something to hide means that one has nothing useful to say? Much, including much of importance, would never be said at all without the protection from retribution afforded by privacy. There is also the other side of the coin. We have heard professional writers express a reluctance to publish electronicly because the potential for loss of control, and loss of copyright once things are on the net. Caller id could rectify some of that. The entire issue requires more thought and more balance. Simple polemic is not the answer. Fidonet started as a grand experiment. Experimentation requires anarchy ... too much rigour results in tunnel vision. Control and vitality can been seen as opposite ends of the spectrum. Quoting Mikael Cardell in the latest issue of "PRACTICAL ANARCHY: "the idea is, therefore, to publish the texts under copyleft instead of copy-right and allow copying. i mean, copying is the way these texts are distributed in the first place so there's no possibility to stop it". Editor's note: In keeping with this philosopy, the above is reprinted without permission. Editor's P.S.: The Zone 1 election results came in at the last moment, and are at the end of the issue. FidoNews 10-12 Page: 3 22 Mar 1993 ======================================================================== Articles ======================================================================== === downLoad! === neurozine === downLoad! === neurozine Call for contributions downLoad!, a completely non-profit co=operative 'zine for your neurons, is seeking contributions for our inaugral issue. Our goal is to get information that's available on the net out on paper so those here in Sydney who aren't hardwired in can access it. The general style of information we're looking for is ... well, intelligent, quirky, progressive, weird, strange, paranoid, oddball, serious, alternative, learned, left-wing, modern, frivilous, postmodern, critical, structuralist, sub-genius, anarchist, or irreverent. The subject matter? That's for you to decide, but examples of current articles include, an article about the unanswered questions of the Jonestown "suicide"; speculation on UFOs (the wierder the better here); virtual reality; CIA brainwashing techniques & MK Ultra, the nature of the networks we use, where their political power lies, what are the forces behind their development; raves and dance parties; education, television, and video games; pros and cons of smart drugs, "extasy", and other popular designer drugs; electronic media art; alternative culture on the net; and so on. Length: generally under 1000 words. You should also state whether you want your name credited, or whether we should use a handle of some form, and what this is. downLoad! will be released in a no copyright "ShareRight" form, that is, it can be freely reproduced unless for profit. We'll also accept stuff forwarded from netnews or echomail. Please email your contributions to: Scot Art 3:712/634@fidonet scot@asstdc.oz.au You can also leave mail by using your computer and modem to call System-X on +(61-2)361-4063. or send an IBM or Macintosh formatted disk with your contribution in plain ASCII text, Word for Windows, or Word 5 for the Mac to me via snail-mail: PO Box E253 FidoNews 10-12 Page: 4 22 Mar 1993 St. James NSW 2000 Australia And remember, "information wants to be free". ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Policy 5 - Nice Try; but No Democracy Here Since the NY-NJ crowd introduced a Policy proposal (version 4.1C), it seems that other people have jumped on the policy revision bandwagon. Another NJ sysop named Bob Germer submitted a document called Policy 5, and now we have another entry distributed by Christopher Baker, RC18, ALSO called Policy 5. How we're going to know which Policy 5 we're talking about should be interesting :) The point of this article is to make a comparison between 4.1C and the Policy 5 distributed by Baker. The FIRST Policy 5, (the Germer version), doesn't even merit discussion IMHO. The 4.1C proposal appears to very strong support in Zones around the world, and very little support in Zone 1. This is probably more due to the unpopularity of the authors of it with some Zone 1 coordinators, than the actual text of the document, or at least it would seem so. The Policy 5 distributed by Baker is brand new, and how it will fare around the world remains to be seen, although in this author's opinion, it probably won't get very far. So we don't get confused with which Policy 5 we're talking about, we'll refer to the one distributed by Baker as BAKERPOL. Comparison of BAKERPOL with Draft Policy 4.1C Quick Summary: BAKERPOL 4.1C NC,RC selection not specific, each net Democratic has its own method elections one sysop one vote. Term is No term two years (The 4.1C proposal requires that all coordinators up to and including Zone Coordinator be elected by majority vote of the SYSOPS of the area involved, and places a two year term of office on the successful candidate. BAKERPOL is not specific. It does not incorporate a term of office, and does not GUARANTEE the right of the sysops to vote. Nets, Regions and Zones can have wildly differing election methods and terms of office, IF any. BAKERPOL also does not REQUIRE elections.) FidoNews 10-12 Page: 5 22 Mar 1993 IC selection ZC's by absolute ZC's 2/3rds majority, else RC's if ZC's "unable to" (Policy 4.1C requires a 2/3 majority of the Zone Coordinators to elect an Internation Coordinator. BAKERPOL requires just a majority of the ZCs and give control of the election to the RCs if the ZCs can't seem to come up with a winner.) Replacement of By RC,ZC regardless 20% below can call NC,RC of sysops a sysop election. wishes. to replace, limited (This is an important contrast. The Policy 4.1C proposal gives SYSOPS the authority to recall or replace coordinators whom they feel are not performing. BAKERPOL on the other hand, gives unlimited authority to the RCs to replace an NC, and unlimited authority to the ZC to replace an RC. Under BAKERPOL, all 2000 sysops in a Region could object to the removal of their RC, yet the ZC would still have the authority to do so.) Local policies OK if "procedural" Can't contradict like coordinator policy 4.1, uniform. selection, excessively One network, one annoying is a local policy. definition (2.1.2) (This is another sore point. The 4.1C proposal keeps a unified Fidonet under one basic set of guidelines. It also provides for the implementation of local policies provided that they are not more RESTRICTIVE than 4.1C itself. BAKERPOL allows for local definition of what should be net-wide. Like what "excessively annoying" is.) Points Access can be refused no change from existing Excommunications Notice to next level no change from required existing Policy Ratification Can be selectively Whole document changed by section. must be presented (Fidonet has always adopted entire policy documents, not amendments by section. The reasons why are even stated in current policy. The 4.1C proposal doesn't change that. However, BAKERPOL would allow sections of policy to be amended, and has no provisions for preventing approval of an amendment that would clearly contradict another existing section. If this were to happen, we could end up with a totally ambiguous policy!) Policy Ratification RC's must approve NC's must approve to allow a vote to allow a vote (A significant change in 4.1C over current policy is that it moves the FidoNews 10-12 Page: 6 22 Mar 1993 level of approval of policy referendums DOWN a notch to the NC level. BAKERPOL still gives complete control over policy referendums to the RCs) Excessively examples, including no change Annoying defying a moderator (4.1C doesn't change the current definition of excessively annoying. The BAKERPOL proposal offers examples of what excessively annoying is, by talking about disrupting a conference after the moderator has ordered a link cut. However, the document doesn't define what a conference is, or what a moderator is or how he gets to BE a moderator, etc. The document uses echomail as a reference yet doesn't define it) Examples removed removed (Both documents have removed the case histories currently found in our current policy) Non-referenced three, a sample election none Appendix "procedure",FTSC and standard file names? (There are three appendices; 2, 4 and 5 in BAKERPOL that are referenced nowhere in the document. Appendix 5 talks about file naming conventions and looks like it came from the Binkleyterm manual. Appendix 2 gives a SAMPLE election procedure, and note that its a sample so it therefore isn't binding. And Appendix 3 talks about Fidonet Technical Standards. Again, these appendices are referenced NOWHERE in the policy itself!) echomail separated from NETMAIL just a flavor of links are consentual NETMAIL (Again, BAKERPOL gives echomail as an example, and doesn't define it. While No echomail policy can be recognized by Fidonet unless it is ratified in a manner similar to the way our current policy was ratified, it makes no sense at all to use echomail as an example when you don't define what it is or what its rules are or how its structured, etc.) Detail: Both version allows local procedures to be issued at every level as long as there is no contradiction, however 4.1c requires democratic elections, BAKERPOL allows any method. How local policy comes into existence is not specified in BAKERPOL, yet the *C structure is required to abide by it when judging "excessively annoying". What is excessive in net 1234 may not be excessive in net 6789. Multiple policies are unworkable. BAKERPOL is not specific as to elections however it gives a "sample procedure" whatever a sample procedure is good for. 4.1C requires a vote of the sysops and the terms of the *C's are set at two years. Under BAKERPOL the terms can vary at random. Imagine an RC with 30 nets each having random terms and procedures. Then FidoNews 10-12 Page: 7 22 Mar 1993 having to decide a controversy as to a "procedure" when 6 people, each claim a different procedure. The good ole boys network is still preserved at the ZC level. Only NC's and RC's vote. In BAKERPOL there is warm and fuzzy language asking the NC to poll the net. All in Zone one has witnessed the recent 4 month fiasco, selecting a ZC. Now, even if a net chooses an NC or RC, BAKERPOL allows the RC or ZC to replace the person. Granted it references the responsibilities in policy, but they can be interpreted. So the NC the sysops elect may be replaced without their consent. 4.1C requires a replacement election with 20% of those "below" and then the sysops vote. To protect against harassment, only two of these elections are allowed AND the replacement may not be replaced. How is policy changed. 4.1C lowers the vote threshold to the NC's and provided a 5% of the NC's may trip a referendum. BAKERPOL still allows the RC's 50% control. BAKERPOL has three appendices, which are not referenced in the policy. One on a sample election procedure ????? another on FTS standards and one on file names. They seem to be tacked on without any reference as to use. (ref: appendix 2,4 and 5). BAKERPOL also has a "sample" appeal process, but as a sample, its not binding. Overall summary: BAKERPOL introduces more uncertainty into Fidonet as there can be as many "policies" on a local level as there are nets+regions+zones and they may CONFLICT with each other. The is a reference to "elections" but no REQUIRED specifics and then the *C above can override the elected choice based on his/her opinion. There is no appeal process indicated for this. (What policy allows can never be annoying). Any small problems that BAKERPOL tries to solve will be offset by the generalities introduced. It seems that this document consolidates control at the RC level even more than our existing policy does. And by allowing multiple local policies which could conflict with each other, you'd find that the "Fidonet rules" are different in any given place; it can incite chaos. If democratic reform is what you're looking for, its not here. Elections aren't mandatory, and its perfectly OK to elect a coordinator who serves for life and the sysops have no recourse. No question that whoever wrote the Policy 5 that Chris Baker is promoting, put some work into it. But is more of the same what we really want? FidoNews 10-12 Page: 8 22 Mar 1993 NEW FidoNet Policy 5 DRAFT report! Christopher Baker Rights On! 1:374/14 Here's a REAL Policy 5 Proposal This article consists of the original Netmail message sent to all the ZCs, the IC, the Zone 1 RCs and others concerning a new DRAFT proposal for FidoNet Policy 5. It contains all the original text of that message and the entire text of the DRAFT. [The margins have been changed to accomodate FidoNews formatting and excess linefeeds have been removed to make it as small as possible.] The message was also cross-posted to the SYSOP, SYSOP18, Z1_ELECTION, and REGCON Echos for maximum distribution. The DRAFT is available as DRAFT-P5 from 1:374/98 and from 1:374/14 for those who don't want to chop it out of FidoNews. [grin] The editor and DRAFTScribe is Ken Tuley of 1:374/98. ALL comments and suggestions should be sent to him via Netmail or in one of the afore- mentioned Echos. Msg # 155 Kill/Sent, Direct, W/File, $0.18 Date: 14 Mar 93 17:35:36 From: Christopher Baker on 1:374/14 Rights On! in Titusville FL To: George Peace on 1:13/13 Backbone Collection in Bensalem PA Subj: \mail\policys\draft008.zip _______________________________________________________________________ CC: Matt Whelan, Ron Dwight, Gamey Garcia, Henk Wolsink CC: Honlin Lue, David Garrett, Mark Lynch, Fred Ennis CC: Bill Andrus, Tim Pearson, Marv Carson, D Dawson, Bob Satti CC: B Davis, John Souvestre, Dave James, Steve Cross, Carl Neal CC: Arthur Greenberg, Wes Cowley, Larry Squire, Bob Hirschfeld CC: Al&Linda Thompson, Mike Riddle, Bob Germer, Bob Moravsik CC: Rich Wood, Glen Johnson, Dan Buda, Ken Tuley [This Netmail msg will be cross-posted in several Regional and FidoNet- wide Echos for maximum effect and coverage. It may be further distributed by anyone who wishes to do so to anyone they wish to send it to without restrictions of any kind. It is not flagged Private nor intended to be any kind of 'backroom' process.] [This msg will also be sent to FidoNews as an article for next week's edition along with the DRAFT text.] [Coordinators are encouraged to forward this msg and the attached file to the Coordinators below them in FidoNet and in the Echomail Coordination structures. It has already been sent to all ZCs, Zone 1 RCs, the IC, and the Echomail Stars and ZEC1 and REC18 by direct Netmail from this system.] [Please Note: the word DRAFT is in caps intentionally. It is ONLY a DRAFT and should not be considered anything else at anytime.] Please find attached the DRAFT for a new FidoNet Policy version 5. FidoNews 10-12 Page: 9 22 Mar 1993 This DRAFT was developed and edited by Ken Tuley at 1:374/98 [NC374] with input from me [RC18] based on Policy4 and current FidoNet practices. It has been working for some time as you can tell from the version number. [grin] It addresses old and new concepts of FidoNet Policy and incorporates much of the daily operation now practiced within FidoNet. This DRAFT provides specific process and procedure that is lacking from the recently circulated policy drafts from Bob Germer and Wood/Johnson/Morasvik known as P5DRAFT and 4.1c, respectively. This DRAFT also provides a new Appendix section with samples of elections, Policy Complaint due process, FTSC Standards, standard magic filename conventions and updating of the Zone Mail Hour chart to include Zones 4, 5, & 6. This DRAFT organizes and stipulates much of what is common practice and provides structure for future changes lacking from other drafts. Since several people have asked in various Echos and in Netmail what kind of a Policy draft I would support, this is my answer. Please read it at your convenience and distribute it among your fellow Cs and/or contacts, as you please. It will always be available here as DRAFT-P5. Only the magic name will be supported since the version numbers will probably change as input comes in. [grin] Major thanks to Ken Tuley for taking the time and interest to develop this DRAFT and for accepting input and modifying it as we go along. All input should be sent to Ken at 1:374/98 for consideration and discussion. We can utilize several Echos for discussion such as SYSOP or any other ones appropriate to such discussion. I will apply to the Moderator of Z1_ELECTION for permission to use that Echo during the next election lull as well. He is cc:d on this send of the DRAFT and the msg. We await your responses. You may route Netmail thru me for Ken since he is a local call to me, if you wish, or you may use direct mail or standard routing. Thanks. TTFN. Chris grunt Sysop RC18 [in that order] [grin] p.s. Region Coordinators may also be interested in looking at the current Region 18 Policy DRAFT for future or current reference. It is FidoNews 10-12 Page: 10 22 Mar 1993 available as R18DRAFT from here and from Ken Tuley [1:374/98]. C. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNet Policy Document Version 5 Draft 008 03/12/93 1 Overview This document establishes the policy for sysops who are members of the FidoNet organization of electronic mail systems. FidoNet is defined by a NodeList issued weekly by the International Coordinator. Separate policy documents may be issued at the zone, region, or net level to provide additional detail on local procedures. Ordinarily, these lower-level policies may not contradict this policy, but will add procedural information specific to those areas, such as methods of coordinator selection. However, with the approval of the International Coordinator, local policy can be used to implement differences required due to local conditions. These local policies may not place additional restrictions on membership in FidoNet beyond those included in this document, other than enforcement of local mail periods. 1.0 Language To facilitate the largest possible readership, all international Fidonet documents will be written in English. Translation into other languages is encouraged. 1.1 Introduction FidoNet is an amateur electronic mail system. As such, all of its participants and operators are unpaid volunteers. From its early beginning as a few friends swapping messages back and forth (1984), it now (1993) includes over 20,000 systems on six continents. FidoNet is not a common carrier or a value-added service network and is a public network only in as much as the independent, constituent nodes may individually provide public access to the network through their systems. FidoNet is large enough that it would quickly fall apart of its own weight unless some sort of structure and control were imposed on it. Multi-net operation provides the structure. Decentralized management provides the control. This document describes the procedures which have been developed to manage the network. 1.2 Organization FidoNet systems are grouped on several levels, and administration is decentralized to correspond to these groupings. This overview provides a summary of the structure; specific duties of the coordinator FidoNews 10-12 Page: 11 22 Mar 1993 positions are given later in the document. 1.2.1 Individual Systems and System Operators The smallest subdivision of FidoNet is the individual system, corresponding to a single entry in the nodelist. The system operator (sysop) formulates a policy for running the board and dealing with users if the sysop provides access to others through that node. The sysop must mesh with the rest of the FidoNet system to send and receive mail, and the local policy must be consistent with other levels of FidoNet. BBS operation is not required to be a Fidonet sysop. 1.2.1.1 Users The sysop is responsible for the actions of any user when they affect the rest of FidoNet. (If a user is annoying, the sysop is annoying.) Any traffic entering FidoNet via a given node, if not from the sysop, is considered to be from a user and is the responsibility of the sysop. (See section 2.1.3.) 1.2.1.2 Points A point is a FidoNet-compatible system that is not in the nodelist, but communicates with FidoNet through a node referred to as a bossnode. A point is generally regarded in the same manner as a user, for example, the bossnode is responsible for mail from the point. (See section 2.1.3.) Points are addressed by using the bossnode's nodelist address; for example, a point system with a bossnode of 114/15 might be known as 114/15.12. Mail destined for the point is sent to the bossnode, which then routes it to the point. In supporting points, the bossnode may make use of a private net number which should not be generally visible outside of the bossnode-point relationship. Unfortunately, should the point call another system directly (to do a file request, for example), the private network number will appear as the caller's address. In this way, points are different from users, since they operate FidoNet-compatible mailers which are capable of contacting systems other than the bossnode. Outside the local bossnode, a point may be refused access to other Fidonet systems since points are considered users and sysops have full control over users' access to their systems. 1.2.2 Networks and Network Coordinators A network is a collection of nodes in a local geographic area, usually defined by an area of convenient telephone calling. Networks coordinate their mail activity to decrease cost. The Network Coordinator is responsible for maintaining the list of nodes for the network, and for forwarding netmail sent to members of the network from other FidoNet nodes. The Network Coordinator may make arrangements to handle outgoing netmail, but is not required to do so. The Network Coordinator is selected by the nodes of that net. Nets are encouraged to formulate policies regarding the mechanism for FidoNews 10-12 Page: 12 22 Mar 1993 accomplishing this. 1.2.2.1 Network Routing Hubs Network Routing Hubs exist only in some networks. They may be appointed by the Network Coordinator, in order to assist in the management of a large network. The exact duties and procedures are a matter for the Network Coordinator and local policy to arrange, and will not be discussed here, except that a network coordinator may not delegate responsibility to mediate disputes. 1.2.3 Regions and Regional Coordinators A region is a well-defined geographic area containing nodes which may or may not be combined into networks. A typical region will contain many nodes in networks, and a few independent nodes which are not a part of any network. The Regional Coordinator maintains the list of independent nodes in the region and accepts nodelist segments from the Network Coordinators in the region. These are compiled to create a regional nodelist, which is then sent to the Zone Coordinator. A Regional Coordinator does not perform message-forwarding services for any nodes in the region. The Regional Coordinator may participate in netmail routing between the coordinator levels, but is not required to do so. Regional Coordinators are selected by the nodes of that region. Regions are encouraged to formulate policies regarding the mechanism for accomplishing this. 1.2.4 Zones and Zone Coordinators A zone is a large geographic area containing many regions, covering one or more countries and/or continents. The Zone Coordinator compiles the nodelist segments from all of the regions in the zone, and creates the master nodelist and difference file, which is then distributed over FidoNet in the zone. A Zone Coordinator does not perform message-forwarding services for any nodes in the zone. The Zone Coordinator may participate in netmail routing among the coordinator levels, but is not required to do so. Zone Coordinators are selected by the Net and Regional Coordinators in that zone as representatives of the nodes to whom they provide service (see section 8.3). 1.2.5 Zone Coordinator Council In certain cases, the Zone Coordinators work as a council to provide advice to the International Coordinator. The arrangement is similar to that between a president and advisors. In particular, this council considers inter-zone issues. This includes, but is not limited to: working out the details of nodelist production, mediating inter-zone disputes, and such issues not addressed at a lower level of FidoNet. FidoNews 10-12 Page: 13 22 Mar 1993 1.2.6 International Coordinator The International Coordinator coordinates the joint production of the master nodelist by the Zone Coordinators. The International Coordinator acts as the chair of the Zone Coordinator Council and as the overseer of Fidonet-wide elections -- arranging the announcement of referenda, the collection and counting of the ballots, and announcing the results for those issues that affect FidoNet as a whole. The International Coordinator is selected by the Zone Coordinators. See section 7.2. 1.2.7 Top-down Organization. Checks and Balances. These levels act to distribute the administration and control of FidoNet to the lowest possible level, while still allowing for coordinated action over the entire mail system. Administration is made possible by operating in a top-down manner. That is, a person at any given level is responsible to the level above, and responsible for the level below. For example, a Regional Coordinator is responsible to the Zone Coordinator for anything that happens in the region. From the point of view of the Zone Coordinator, the Regional Coordinator is completely responsible for the smooth operation of the region. Likewise, from the point of view of the Regional Coordinator, the Network Coordinator is completely responsible for the smooth operation of the network. If a person at any level above sysop is unable to properly perform their duties, the coordinator at the next level may replace them. For example, a Regional Coordinator who fails to perform may be replaced by the Zone Coordinator. Interim replacements will be appointed until such time as a formal replacement can be selected under the local or regional policies. Such appointments will be considered final in the absence of such policies. To provide for checks and balances at the highest level of FidoNet, there is an exception to this top-down organization. The International Coordinator is selected by a majority vote of the coordinators of the Zone Coordinators (see section 7.2). Similarly, decisions made by the International Coordinator can be reversed by the Zone Coordinator Council. Decisions made by other coordinators are not subject to reversal by a vote of the lower level, but instead are subject to the appeal process described in section 9.5. 1.3 Definitions 1.3.1 FidoNews FidoNews is a weekly newsletter distributed in electronic form throughout the network. It is an important medium by which FidoNet sysops communicate with each other. FidoNews provides a sense of being a community of people with common interests. Accordingly, sysops and FidoNews 10-12 Page: 14 22 Mar 1993 users are encouraged to contribute to FidoNews. Contributions are submitted to the node listed in Fidonews and in the nodelist for that purpose; a file describing the format to be used is available from that and many other systems. 1.3.2 Geography Each level of FidoNet is geographically contained by the level immediately above it. A given geographic location is covered by one zone and one region within that zone, and is either in one network or not in a network. There are never two zones, two regions, or two networks which cover the same geographic area. If a node is in the area of a network, it should be listed in that network, not as an independent in the region. (The primary exception to this is a node receiving inordinate amounts of host-routed mail; see section 4.2). Network boundaries are based on calling areas as defined by the local telephone company. Even in the case of areas where node density is so great that more than one network is needed to serve one local calling area, a geographic guideline is used to decide which nodes belong to what network. Network membership is based on geographic or other purely technical rationale. It is not based on personal or social factors. There are cases in which the local calling areas lead to situations where logic dictates that a node physically in one FidoNet Region should be assigned to another. In those cases, with the agreement of the Regional Coordinators and Zone Coordinator involved, exemptions may be granted. Such exemptions are described in section 5.6. 1.3.3 Zone Mail Hour Zone Mail Hour (ZMH) is a defined time during which all nodes in a zone are required to be able to accept netmail. Each Fidonet zone defines a ZMH and publishes the time of its ZMH to all other Fidonet zones. See sections 2.1.8 and Appendix 1. 1.3.4 Nodelist The nodelist is a file updated weekly which contains the addresses of all recognized FidoNet nodes. This file is currently made available by the Zone Coordinator not later than Zone Mail Hour each Friday, and is available electronically for download or file request at no charge. To be included in the nodelist, a system must meet the requirements defined by this document. No other requirements may be imposed. Partial nodelists (single-zone, for example) may be made available at different levels in FidoNet. The full list as published by the International Coordinator is regarded as the official FidoNet nodelist, and is used in circumstances such as determination of eligibility for voting. All parts that make up the full nodelist are available on each Zone Coordinator's and each Regional Coordinator's system. 1.3.5 Excessively Annoying Behavior FidoNews 10-12 Page: 15 22 Mar 1993 There are references throughout this policy to "excessively annoying behavior", especially in section 9 (Resolution of Disputes). It is difficult to define this term, as it is based upon the judgement of the coordinator structure. Generally speaking, annoying behavior irritates, bothers, or causes harm to some other person. It is not necessary to break a law to be annoying. There is a distinction between excessively annoying behavior and (simply) annoying behavior. For example, there is a learning curve that each new sysop must climb, both in the technical issues of how to set up the software and the social issues of how to interact with FidoNet. It is a rare sysop who, at some point in this journey, does not manage to annoy others. Only when such behavior persists, after being pointed out to the sysop, does it becomes excessively annoying. This does not imply that it is not possible to be excessively annoying without repetition (for example, deliberate falsification of mail would likely be excessively annoying on the very first try), but simply illustrates that a certain amount of tolerance is extended. See section 9 for more information. 1.3.6 Commercial Use FidoNet is an amateur network. Participants spend their own time and money to make it work for the good of all the users. It is not appropriate for a commercial enterprise to take advantage of these volunteer efforts to further their own business interests. On the other hand, FidoNet provides a convenient and effective means for companies and users to exchange information, to the mutual benefit of all. Network Coordinators could be forced to subsidize commercial operations by forwarding host-routed netmail, and could even find themselves involved in a lawsuit if any guarantee was suggested for mail delivery. It is therefore FidoNet policy that commercial mail is not to be routed. "Commercial mail" includes mail which furthers specific business interests without being of benefit to the net as a whole. Examples include company-internal mail, inter-corporate mail, specific product inquiries (price quotes, for instance), orders and their follow-ups, and all other subjects specifically related to business. 2 Sysop Procedures 2.1 General 2.1.1 The Basics As the sysop of an individual node, you can generally do as you please, as long as you operate a mailer compatible with FTS-0001 specifications, observe mail events, are not excessively annoying to other nodes in FidoNet, and do not promote or participate in the distribution of pirated copyrighted software or other illegal behavior via FidoNet. 2.1.2 Familiarity with Policy FidoNews 10-12 Page: 16 22 Mar 1993 In order to understand the meaning of "excessively annoying", it is incumbent upon all sysops to occasionally re-read FidoNet policy. New sysops must familiarize themselves with this policy and any applicable local, regional or zone policies before requesting a node number. 2.1.3 Responsible for All Traffic Entering FidoNet Via the Node The sysop listed in the nodelist entry is responsible for all traffic entering FidoNet via that system. This includes (but is not limited to) traffic entered by users, points, and any other networks for which the system might act as a gateway. If a sysop allows "outside" messages to enter FidoNet via the system, the gateway system must be clearly identified by FidoNet node number as the point of origin of that message, and it must act as a gateway in the reverse direction. Should such traffic result in a violation of Policy, the sysop must rectify the situation as soon as notified. 2.1.4 Encryption and Review of Mail FidoNet is an amateur system. Our technology is such that the privacy of messages cannot be guaranteed. As a sysop, you have the right to review traffic flowing through your system, if for no other reason than to ensure that the system is not being used for illegal or commercial purposes. Encryption obviously makes this review impossible. Therefore, encrypted and/or commercial traffic that is routed without the express permission of all the links in the delivery path constitutes annoying behavior. See section 1.3.6 for a definition of commercial traffic. 2.1.5 No Alteration of Routed Mail You may not modify, other than as required for routing or other technical purposes, any message, netmail or echomail, passing through the system from one FidoNet node to another. If you are offended by the content of a message, the procedure described in section 2.1.7 must be used. 2.1.6 Private Netmail The word "private" should be used with great care, especially with users of a BBS. Some countries have laws which deal with "private mail", and it should be made clear that the word "private" does not imply that no person other than the recipient can read messages. Sysops who cannot provide this distinction should consider not offering users the option of "private mail". If a user sends a "private message", the user has no control over the number of intermediate systems through which that message is routed. A sysop who sends a message to another sysop can control this aspect by sending the message direct to the recipient's system, thus guaranteeing that only the recipient or another individual to whom that sysop has given authorization can read the message. Thus, a sysop may have different expectations than a casual user. 2.1.6.1 No Disclosure of in-transit mail FidoNews 10-12 Page: 17 22 Mar 1993 Disclosing or in any way using information contained in private netmail traffic not addressed to you or written by you is considered annoying behavior, unless the traffic has been released by the author or the recipient or is a part of a formal policy complaint. This does not apply to echomail which is by definition a broadcast medium, and where private mail is often used to keep a sysop-only area restricted. 2.1.6.2 Private mail addressed to you The issue of private mail which is addressed to you is more difficult than the in-transit question treated in the previous section. A common legal opinion holds that when you receive a message it becomes your property and you have a legal right to do with it what you wish. Your legal right does not excuse you from annoying others. In general, sensitive material should not be sent using FidoNet. This ideal is often compromised, as FidoNet is our primary mode of communication. In general, if the sender of a message specifically requests in the text of the message that the contents be kept confidential, release of the message into a public forum may be considered annoying. There are exceptions. If someone is saying one thing in public and saying the opposite in private mail, the recipient of the private mail should not be subjected to harassment simply because the sender requests that the message not be released. Judgement and common sense should be used in this area as in all other aspects of FidoNet behavior. 2.1.7 Not Routing Mail You are not required to route traffic if you have not agreed to do so. You are not obligated to route traffic for all if you route it for any, except as required of a Net Coordinator if you hold that position. Routing traffic through a node not obligated to perform routing without the permission of that node may be annoying behavior. This includes unsolicited echomail. If you do not forward a message when you previously agreed to perform such routing, the message must be returned to the sysop of the node at which it entered FidoNet with an explanation of why it was not forwarded. (It is not necessary to return messages which are addressed to a node which is not in the current nodelist.) Intentionally stopping an in-transit message without following this procedure constitutes annoying behavior. In the case of a failure to forward traffic due to a technical problem, it does not become annoying unless it persists after being pointed out to the sysop. 2.1.8 Exclusivity of Zone Mail Hour Zone Mail Hour is the heart of FidoNet, as this is when network mail is passed between systems. Any system which wishes to be a part of FidoNet must be able to receive mail during this time using the protocol defined in the current FidoNet Technical Standards Committee publication (FTS-0001 at this writing). It is permissible to have FidoNews 10-12 Page: 18 22 Mar 1993 greater capability (for example, to support additional protocols or extended mail hours), but the minimum requirement is FTS-0001 capability during this one hour of the day. This time is exclusively reserved for netmail. Many phone systems charge on a per-call basis, regardless of whether a connect, no connect, or busy signal is encountered. For this reason, any activity other than normal network mail processing that ties up a system during ZMH is considered annoying behavior. Echomail should not be transferred during ZMH. User (BBS) access to a system is prohibited during ZMH. File requests should not be honored during ZMH. A system which is a member of a local network may also be required to observe additional mail events, as defined by the Network Coordinator. Access restrictions during local network periods are left to the discretion of the Network Coordinator as defined in local policy. 2.1.9 Private Nodes The rare exception to ZMH compliance is private nodes. Persons requesting private nodes should be supported as points if possible. A private listing is justified when the system must interface with many others, such as an echomail distributor. In these cases, the exact manner and timing of mail delivery is arranged between the private node and other systems. Such an agreement between a private system and a hub is not binding on any replacement for that hub. A private node must be a part of a network (they cannot be independents in the region.) Private listings affect each member of FidoNet, since they take up space in everyone's nodelist. Private listings which are for the convenience of one sysop (at the expense of every other sysop in FidoNet) are a luxury which is no longer possible. Non-essential redundant listings (more than one listing for the same telephone number, except as mandated by FTSC standards) also fall into this category. Sysops requesting private or redundant listings must justify them with a statement explaining how they benefit the local net or FidoNet as a whole. The Network Coordinator or Regional Coordinator may review this statement at any time and listings which are not justified will be removed. 2.1.10 Observing Mail Events Failure to observe the proper mail events is grounds for any node to be dropped from FidoNet without notice (since notice is generally given by netmail). 2.1.11 Use of Current Nodelist Network mail systems generally operate unattended, and place calls at odd hours of the night. If a system tries to call an incorrect or out-of-date number, it could cause some poor citizen's phone to ring in the wee hours of the morning, much to the annoyance of innocent bystanders and civil authorities. For this reason, a sysop who sends mail is obligated to obtain and use the most recent edition of the nodelist as is practical. FidoNews 10-12 Page: 19 22 Mar 1993 2.1.12 Excommunication A system which has been dropped from the network is said to be excommunicated (i.e. denied communication). If you find that you have been excommunicated without warning, your coordinator was unable to contact you. You should rectify the problem and contact your coordinator. Systems may also be dropped from the nodelist for cause. See sections 4.3, 5.2, and 9. It is considered annoying behavior to assist a system which was excommunicated in circumventing that removal from the nodelist. For example, if you decide to provide an echomail feed to your friend who has been excommunicated, it is likely that your listing will also be removed. 2.1.13 Timing of Zone Mail Hour The exact timing of Zone Mail Hour for each zone is set by the Zone Coordinator. See Appendix 1. 2.1.14 Non-observance of Daylight Savings Time FidoNet does not observe daylight savings time. In areas which observe daylight savings time the FidoNet mail schedules must be adjusted in the same direction as the clock change. Alternatively, you can simply leave your system on standard time. 2.2 How to obtain a node number You must first obtain a current nodelist so that you can send mail. You do not need a node number to send mail, but you must have one in order for others to send mail to you. The first step in obtaining a current nodelist is to locate a FidoNet bulletin board. Most bulletin board lists include at least a few FidoNet systems, and usually identify them as such. Use a local source to obtain documents because many networks have detailed information available which explains the coverage area of the network and any special requirements or procedures. Once you have a nodelist, you must determine which network or region covers your area. Regions are numbered 10-99; network numbers are greater than 99. Networks are more restricted in area than regions, but are preferred since they improve the flow of mail and provide more services to their members. If you cannot find a network which covers your area, then pick the region which does. Once you have located the network or region in your area, send a message containing a request for a node number to node zero of that network or region. The request must be sent by netmail, as this indicates that your system has FidoNet capability. FidoNews 10-12 Page: 20 22 Mar 1993 You must set up your software so that the from-address in your message does not cause problems for the coordinator who receives it. If you pick the address of an existing system, this will cause obvious problems. If your software is capable of using address -1/-1, this is the traditional address used by potential sysops. Otherwise use net/9999 (e.g. if you are applying to net 123, set your system up as 123/9999). Many nets have specific instructions available to potential sysops and these procedures may indicate a preference for the from-address. The message you send must include at least the following information: 1) Your name. 2) The phone number to be used when calling your system. 3) The name of your system. 4) The city and state where your system is located. 5) Your voice phone number. 6) Your hours of netmail operation. 7) The maximum baud rate you can support. 8) The type of mailer software and modem you are using. Your coordinator may contact you for additional information. All information submitted will be kept confidential and will not be supplied to anyone except the person who assumes the coordinator position at the resignation of the current coordinator. You must indicate that you have read, and agree to abide by, this document and all the current policies of FidoNet. Please allow at least two weeks for a node number request to be processed. If you send your request to a Regional Coordinator, it may be forwarded to the appropriate Network Coordinator. 2.3 If You are Going Down If your node will be down for an extended period (more than a day or two), inform your coordinator as soon as possible. It is not your coordinator's responsibility to chase you down for a status report, and if your system stops accepting mail it will be removed from the nodelist. Never put an answering machine or any other device which answers the phone on your phone line while you are down. If you do, calling systems will get the machine repeatedly, producing large phone bills, which is very annoying. In short, the only thing which should ever answer the telephone during periods when the nodelist indicates that your node will accept mail is FidoNet-compatible software which accepts mail. If you will be leaving your system unattended for an extended period of time (such as while you are on vacation), you should notify your coordinator. Systems have a tendency to "crash" now and then, so you will probably want your coordinator to know that it is a temporary condition if it happens while you are away. 2.4 How to Form a Network FidoNews 10-12 Page: 21 22 Mar 1993 If there are several nodes in your area, but no network, a new network can be formed. This has advantages to both you and to the rest of FidoNet. You receive better availability of nodelist difference files and FidoNews, and everyone else can take advantage of host-routing netmail to the new network. The first step is to contact the other sysops in your area. You must decide which nodes will comprise the network, and which of those nodes you would like to be the Network Coordinator. Then consult your Regional Coordinator. You must send the following information: 1) The region number(s), or network number(s) if a network is splitting up, that are affected by the formation of your network. The Regional Coordinator will inform the Zone Coordinator and the coordinators of any affected networks that a new network is in formation. 2) A copy of the proposed network's nodelist segment. This file should be attached to the message of application for a network number, and should use the nodelist format described in the current version of the appropriate FTSC publication. Please select a name that relates to your grouping, for example SoCalNet for nodes in the Southern California Area and MassNet West for the Western Massachusetts Area. Remember if you call yourself DOGNET it doesn't identify your area. Granting a network number is not automatic. Even if the request is granted, the network might not be structured exactly as you request. Your Regional Coordinator will review your application and inform you of the decision. Do not send a network number request to the Zone Coordinator. All network number requests must be processed by the Regional Coordinator. 3 General Procedures for All Coordinators 3.1 Make Available Difference Files and FidoNews Each Coordinator is responsible for obtaining and making available, on a weekly basis, nodelist difference files and FidoNews. 3.2 Processing Nodelist Changes and Passing Them Upstream Each coordinator is responsible for obtaining nodelist information from the level below, processing it, and passing the results to the level above. The timing of this process is determined by the requirements imposed by the level above. 3.3 Ensure the Latest Policy is Available A Coordinator is responsible to make the current version of this document available to the level below, and to encourage familiarity with it. FidoNews 10-12 Page: 22 22 Mar 1993 In addition, a coordinator is required to forward any local policies received to the level above, and to review such policies. Although not required, common courtesy dictates that when formulating a local policy, the participation of the level above should be solicited. 3.4 Minimize the Number of Hats Worn Coordinators are encouraged to limit the number of FidoNet functions they perform. A coordinator who holds two different positions compromises the appeal process. For example, if the Network Coordinator is also the Regional Coordinator, sysops in that network are denied one level of appeal. Coordinators are discouraged from acting as echomail and software- distribution hubs. If they do so, they should handle echomail (or other volume distribution) on a system other than the administrative system. A coordinator's system should be readily available to the levels immediately above and below. Another reason to discourage multiple hats is the difficulty of replacing services if someone leaves the network. For example, if a coordinator is the echomail hub and the software-distribution hub, those services will be difficult to restore when that person resigns. 3.5 Be a Member of the Area Administered A coordinator must be a member of the area administered. That is, a Network Coordinator must be a member of that network by virtue of geography. A Regional Coordinator must be either a member of a network in the region or an independent in the region. A Zone Coordinator must be either a member of a network in the zone or a regional independent in the zone. The International Coordinator must be a Fidonet sysop. 3.6 Encourage New Sysops to Enter FidoNet A coordinator is encouraged to operate a public bulletin board system which is freely available for the purpose of distributing Policy, FidoNews, and Nodelists to potential new sysops. Dissemination of this information to persons who are potential FidoNet sysops is important to the growth of FidoNet, and coordinators should encourage development of new systems. 3.7 Tradition and Precedent A coordinator is not bound by the practices of predecessor or peers beyond the scope of this document and other applicable net, region or zone policies. In addition, a new coordinator has the right to review any decision made by predecessors for compliance with Policy, and take whatever actions may be necessary to rectify any situations not in compliance. 3.8 Technical Management The primary responsibility of any coordinator is technical management FidoNews 10-12 Page: 23 22 Mar 1993 of network operations. Decisions must be made on technical grounds. 3.9 Review and Acceptance of Lower Policies Individual regions and nets are encouraged to formulate policies to deal with local issues not specifically covered in this document. It is the responsibility of coordinators to review policies submitted from lower levels for compliance with higher policies, and to support those policies whenever possible in deciding matters related to those areas. In the absence of procedures determined by local/regional policies, the coordinator should attempt to act in accordance with the interests and wishes of the majority of nodes in the affected area. 4 Network Coordinator Procedures 4.1 Responsibilities A Network Coordinator has the following responsibilities: 1) To receive incoming mail for nodes in the network, and arrange delivery to its recipients. 2) To assign node numbers to nodes in the network. 3) To maintain the nodelist segment for the network, and to send a copy of it to the Regional Coordinator whenever it changes. 4) To make available to nodes in the network new nodelist difference files, new issues of FidoNews, and new revisions of Network Policy Documents as they are received, and to periodically check to insure that nodes use up to date nodelists. 5) To make available to nodes in the network information regarding Fidonet elections and referenda, to solicit input from those nodes and to act as a representative of those nodes in such elections when appropriate. 4.2 Routing Inbound Mail It is your responsibility as Network Coordinator to coordinate the receipt and forwarding of host-routed inbound netmail for nodes in your network. The best way to accomplish this is left to your discretion. If a node in your network is receiving large volumes of mail you can request that the sysop contact the systems which are sending this mail and request that they not host-route it. If the problem persists, you can request your Regional Coordinator to assign the node a number as an independent and drop the system from your network. Occasionally a node will make a "bombing run" (sending one message to a great many nodes). If a node in another network is making bombing runs on your nodes and routing them through your inbound host, then you can complain to the network coordinator of the offending node. (If the node is an independent, complain to the regional coordinator.) Bombing runs FidoNews 10-12 Page: 24 22 Mar 1993 are considered to be annoying. Another source of routing overload is echomail. Echomail cannot be allowed to degrade the ability of FidoNet to handle normal message traffic. If a node in your network is routing large volumes of echomail, you can ask the sysop to either limit the amount of echomail or to stop routing echomail. You are not required to forward encrypted, commercial, or illegal mail. However, you must follow the procedures described in section 2.1.7 if you do not forward the mail. 4.3 Assigning Node Numbers It is your responsibility to assign node numbers to new nodes in your network. You may also change the numbers of existing nodes in your network, though you should check with your member nodes before doing so. You may assign any numbers you wish, so long as each node has a unique number within your network. You must not assign a node number to any system until you have received a formal request from that system by FidoNet mail. This will ensure that the system is minimally operational. The strict maintenance of this policy has been one of the great strengths of FidoNet. You may not assign a node number to a node in an area covered by an existing network. Further, if you have nodes in an area covered by a network in formation, those nodes must be transferred to the new network. You should use network mail to inform a new sysop of the node number, as this helps to insure that the system is capable of receiving network mail. If a node in your network is acting in a sufficiently annoying manner, you can take whatever action you deem appropriate, according to the circumstances of the case and due process. Notification must be given to the Regional Coordinator if that action taken is excommunication of a node. 4.4 Maintaining the Nodelist You should implement name changes, phone number changes, and so forth in your segment of the nodelist as soon as possible after the information is received from the affected node. You should also on occasion send a message to every node in your network to ensure that they are operational. If a node turns out to be "off the air" with no prior warning, you can either mark the node down or remove it from the nodelist. (Nodes are to be marked DOWN for a maximum of two weeks, after which the line should be removed from the nodelist segment.) At your discretion, you may distribute a portion of this workload to routing hubs. In this case, you should receive the nodelist segments from the these hubs within your network. You will need to maintain a set of nodelist segments for each hub within your network, since you FidoNews 10-12 Page: 25 22 Mar 1993 cannot count on getting an update from each hub every week. You should assemble a master nodelist segment for your network every week and send it to your Regional Coordinator by the day and time designated. It is suggested that you do this as late as is practical, so as to accommodate any late changes, balanced with the risk of missing the connection with your Regional Coordinator and thus losing a week. 4.5 Making Available Policies, Nodelists and FidoNews As a Network Coordinator you should obtain a new issue of FidoNews and a new nodelist difference file every week from your Regional Coordinator. The nodelist difference file is currently made available each Friday, and FidoNews is published each Monday. You must make these files available to all nodes in the network, and you are encouraged to make them available to the general public for download. You should also obtain the most recent versions of the Policy documents that bind the members of your network, and make those available to the nodes in your network. Policies are released at sporadic intervals, so you should also inform the nodes in your network when such events occur, and ensure the nodes are generally familiar with the changes. Policy, FidoNews, and the nodelist are the glue that holds us together. Without them, we would cease to be a community, and become just another random collection of bulletin boards. 5 Regional Coordinator Procedures 5.1 Responsibilities A Regional Coordinator has the following responsibilities: 1) To assign node numbers to independent nodes in the region. 2) To encourage independent nodes in the region to join existing networks, or to form new networks. 3) To assign network numbers to networks in the region and define their boundaries. 4) To compile a nodelist of all of the networks and independents in the region, and to send a copy of it to the Zone Coordinator whenever it changes. 5) To ensure the smooth operation of networks within the region. 6) To make new nodelist difference files, Policies, and issues of FidoNews available to the Network Coordinators in the region as soon as is practical. 7) To make available to Net Coordinators and independent nodes in the region information regarding Fidonet elections and referenda, to solicit input from the independent nodes and to act as a representative of those nodes in such elections when appropriate. FidoNews 10-12 Page: 26 22 Mar 1993 5.2 Assigning Node Numbers It is your responsibility to assign node numbers to independent nodes in your region. You may also change the numbers of existing nodes in your region, though you should check with the respective nodes before doing so. You may assign any numbers you wish, so long as each node has a unique number within your region. You should not assign a node number to any system until you have received a formal request from that system by FidoNet mail. This will ensure that the system is minimally operational. The strict maintenance of this policy has been one of the great strengths of FidoNet. You should use network mail to inform a new sysop of the node number, as this helps to insure that the system is capable of receiving network mail. If a node in your region is acting in a sufficiently annoying manner, you can take whatever action you deem appropriate, according to the circumstances of the case and due process. Notification must be given to the Zone Coordinator if the action taken is the excommunication of a node. If you receive a node number request from outside your region, you must forward it to the Regional Coordinator of the applicant's region. If you receive a node number request from a new node that is in an area covered by an existing network, then you must forward the request to the Coordinator of that network instead of assigning a number yourself. If a network forms in an area for which you have independent nodes, those nodes will be transferred to the local network as soon as is practical, unless those independent node assignments were made for reasons of high volume or commercial traffic. 5.3 Encouraging the Formation and Growth of Networks One of your main duties as a Regional Coordinator is to promote the growth of networks in your region. You should avoid having independent nodes in your region which are within the coverage area of a network. There are, however, certain cases where a node should not be a member of a network, such as a system with a large amount of inbound netmail. See section 4.2. If several independent nodes in your region are in a local area you should encourage them to form a network, and if necessary you may require them to form a network. See section 2.4. 5.4 Assigning Network Numbers It is your responsibility to assign network numbers to new networks forming within your region. You are assigned a pool of network numbers to use for this purpose by your Zone Coordinator. As a part of this function, it is the responsibility of the Regional Coordinator to define the boundaries of the networks in the region. FidoNews 10-12 Page: 27 22 Mar 1993 5.5 Maintaining the Nodelist As a Regional Coordinator, you have a dual role in maintaining the nodelist segment for your region. First, you must maintain the list of independent nodes in your region. You should attempt to implement name changes, phone number changes, and so forth in this nodelist segment as soon as possible. You should also on occasion send a message to every independent node in your region to ensure that they are operational. If a node turns out to be "off the air" with no prior warning, you can either mark the node down or remove it from the nodelist segment. (Nodes are to marked DOWN for a maximum of two weeks, after which the line should be removed from the nodelist segment.) Second, you must receive the nodelist segments from the Network Coordinators within your region. You will need to maintain a set of nodelist segments for each network within your region, since you cannot count on getting an update from each Network Coordinator every week. You should assemble a master nodelist segment for your region every week and send it to your Zone Coordinator by the day and time designated. It is suggested that you do this as late as practical, so as to accommodate late changes, balanced with the risk of missing the connection with your Zone Coordinator and thus losing a week. 5.6 Geographic Exemptions There are cases where local calling geography does not follow FidoNet regions. In exceptional cases, exemptions to normal geographic guidelines are agreed upon by the Regional Coordinators and Zone Coordinator involved. Such an exemption is not a right, and is not permanent. When a network is formed in the proper region that would provide local calling access to the exempted node, it is no longer exempt. An exemption may be reviewed and revoked at any time by any of the coordinators involved. 5.7 Overseeing Network Operations It is your responsibility as Regional Coordinator to ensure that the networks within your region are operating in an acceptable manner. This does not mean that you are required to operate those networks; that is the responsibility of the Network Coordinators. It means that you are responsible for assuring that the Network Coordinators within your region are acting responsibly. If you find that a Network Coordinator within your region is not properly performing the duties outlined in Section 4, you should take whatever action you deem necessary to correct the situation, up to and including removing the Net Coordinator from that position and having the net membership select a replacement. If a network grows so large that it cannot reasonably accommodate traffic flow during the Zone Mail Hour, the Regional Coordinator can direct the creation of one or more new networks from that network. FidoNews 10-12 Page: 28 22 Mar 1993 These new networks, although they may be within a single local-calling area, must still conform to a geographical basis for determining membership. It is your obligation as Regional Coordinator to maintain direct and reasonably frequent contact with the networks in your region. The exact method of accomplishing this is left to your discretion. 5.8 Making Available Nodelists, Policies, and FidoNews As a Regional Coordinator, it is your responsibility to obtain the latest nodelist difference file, network policies, and the latest issues of FidoNews as they are published, and to make them available to the Network Coordinators within your region. The nodelist is posted weekly on Friday by the Zone Coordinator, and FidoNews is published weekly on Monday by the node indicated in the Fidonews and nodelist. Contact them for more details on how to obtain the latest copies each week. It is your responsibility to make these available to all Network Coordinators and independent nodes in your region as soon as is practical after you receive them. The method of distribution is left to your discretion. You are encouraged to make all these documents available for downloading by the general public. 6 Zone Coordinator Procedures 6.1 General A Zone Coordinator for FidoNet has the primary task of maintaining the nodelist for the Zone, sharing it with the other Zone Coordinators, and ensuring the distribution of the master nodelist (or difference file) to the Regions in the Zone. The Zone Coordinator is also responsible for coordinating the distribution of Fidonet Policy documents and FidoNews to the Regional Coordinators in the zone. The Zone Coordinator is responsible for the maintenance of the nodelist for the administrative region. The Administrative Region has the same number as the zone, and consists of nodes assigned for administrative purposes not related to the sending and receiving of normal network mail. A Zone Coordinator is charged with the task of ensuring the smooth operation of the Zone. If a Zone Coordinator determines that a Regional Coordinator is not properly performing the duties outlined in section 5, whatever action deemed necessary may be taken, up to and including removing the Regional Coordinator from that position and having the nodes of the region select a replacement. The Zone Coordinator defines the geographic boundaries of the regions within the zone and sets the time for the Zone Mail Hour. The Zone Coordinator is responsible for creating new regions within the FidoNews 10-12 Page: 29 22 Mar 1993 zone when regions become too large for efficient coordination by a single Regional Coordinator. The Zone Coordinator is responsible for reviewing and approving any geographic exemptions as described in section 5.6. The Zone Coordinator is responsible for insuring the smooth operation of gates between that zone and all other zones for the transfer of interzone mail. The Zone Coordinators are responsible for the selection of the International Coordinator. 6.2 Selection The Zone Coordinator is selected by a majority vote of the Net and Regional Coordinators within the zone, voting as representatives of their nodes (see section 8.3). 7 International Coordinator Procedures 7.1 General The International Coordinator has the primary task of coordinating the creation of the master nodelist by managing the distribution between the Zones of the Zone nodelists. The International Coordinator is responsible for definition of new zones and for negotiation of agreements for communication with other networks. ("Other network" in this context means other networks with which FidoNet communicates as peer-to-peer, not "network" in the sense of the FidoNet organizational level.) The International Coordinator is also responsible for coordinating the distribution of Network Policies and FidoNews to the Zone Coordinators. The International Coordinator is responsible for coordinating the activities of the Zone Coordinator Council. The International Coordinator acts as the spokesman for the Zone Coordinator Council. In cases not specifically covered by this document, the International Coordinator may issue specific interpretations or extensions to this policy. The Zone Coordinator Council may reverse such rulings by a majority vote. These extensions are valid until such time as a policy referendum may be held to ratify or reject such extensions. 7.2 Selection The International Coordinator is selected (or removed) by an absolute majority vote of the Zone Coordinators with input from the Regional Coordinators. In the event that the Zone Coordinators are unable to select an International Coordinator by absolute majority, the International Coordinator will be selected by a majority of the Regional Coordinators. 8 Referenda FidoNews 10-12 Page: 30 22 Mar 1993 The procedures described in this section are used to ratify a new version of FidoNet policy, which is the mechanism by which policy is changed. This procedure is also used to impeach a Zone Coordinator. 8.1 Initiation A referendum on policy modification is invoked when a majority of the FidoNet Regional Coordinators inform the International Coordinator that they wish to consider a proposed new version of Policy. 8.2 Announcement and Results Notification Proposed changes to Policy are distributed using the same structure which is used to distribute nodelist difference files and FidoNews. Results and announcements related to the referendum are distributed by the coordinator structure as a part of the weekly nodelist difference file. The International Coordinator provides copies to the editor of FidoNews for inclusion there, although the official announcement and voting dates are tied to nodelist distributions. If it is adopted, the International Coordinator sets the effective date for a new policy through announcement in the weekly nodelist difference file and Fidonews. The effective date will be not more than one month after the close of balloting. 8.3 Eligibility to Vote Each member of the FidoNet coordinator structure at and above Network Coordinator is entitled to one vote. In the case of the position changing hands during the balloting process, either the incumbent or the new coordinator may vote, but not both. If a person holds more than one coordinator position, they still receive only one vote. Network Coordinators are expected to assess the opinions of the members of their network, and to vote accordingly. A formal election is not necessary, but the Network Coordinator must inform the net of the issues and solicit input. The Network Coordinator functions as the representative of the rank and file members of FidoNet. Regional Coordinators will fulfill this responsibility with regard to independent nodes in their regions. 8.4 Voting Mechanism The actual voting mechanism, including whether the ballot is secret and how the ballots are to be collected, verified, and counted, is left to the discretion of the International Coordinator. Ideally, ballot collection should be by some secure message system, conducted over FidoNet itself. In order to provide a discussion period, the announcement of any ballot must be made at least two weeks before the date of voting commencement. The balloting period must be at least two weeks. 8.5 Voting on a whole Policy Document or Amendments FidoNews 10-12 Page: 31 22 Mar 1993 Policy may be changed as a whole document or by section as required. Sections changed must include all cross-references affected and the corresponding changes to those sections. Policy changes voted on as whole documents and approved will be incremented to the next whole number from the previous version number. Sectional changes (including multiple sectional changes approved in the same referendum) will increment the policy number to the next tenth of the current version number until nine tenths is reached. Sectional changes that would go beyond nine tenths will increment to the next whole number from the previous version number. 8.6 Decision of vote A Policy amendment is considered in force if, at the end of the balloting period, it has received a majority of the votes cast. For example, if there were 350 eligible voters, 100 of which cast a vote, then at least 51 affirmative votes would be required to declare the amendment in force. In the case of multiple policy changes which are considered on the same ballot, a version must receive more than 50% of the votes cast to be considered ratified. 8.7 Impeachment of a Zone Coordinator 8.7.1 Initiation In extreme cases, a Zone Coordinator may be impeached by referendum. Impeachment of a Zone Coordinator does not require a Policy violation. An impeachment proceeding is invoked when a majority of the Regional Coordinators in a zone request the International Coordinator to institute it. 8.7.2 Procedure as in Policy Referendum The provisions of sections 8.2 and 8.3 apply to impeachment referenda. The definition of "majority" in section 8.6 applies. Only coordinators in the affected zone vote. 8.7.3 Voting Mechanism The balloting procedures are set, the votes are collected, and the results are announced by a Regional Coordinator chosen by the International Coordinator. The removal of the Zone Coordinator is effective two weeks after the end of balloting if the impeachment carries. 8.7.4 Limited to once per year The removal of a Zone Coordinator is primarily intended to be a mechanism by which the zone as a whole expresses displeasure with the way Policy is being interpreted. At one time or another, everyone is FidoNews 10-12 Page: 32 22 Mar 1993 unhappy with the way policy is interpreted. In order to keep the Zone Coordinators interpreting policy as opposed to defending themselves, at least one full calendar year must elapse between impeachment referenda (regardless of how many people hold the position of Zone Coordinator during that year.) Should a Zone Coordinator resign during an impeachment process, the process is considered null and void, and does not consume the "once per year quota". 9 Resolution of Disputes 9.1 General The FidoNet judicial philosophy can be summed up in two rules: 1) Thou shalt not excessively annoy others. 2) Thou shalt not be too easily annoyed. In other words, there are no hard and fast rules of conduct, but reasonably polite behavior is expected. Also, in any dispute both sides are examined, and action could be taken against either or both parties. ("Judge not, lest ye be judged!"). It must be noted that it is someone's "behavior" (action) that is subject to this policy. The content of a person's words or opinions is not necessarily sufficient to be considered annoying in this context. Actions that would be considered excessively annoying behavior include activities that willfully disrupt the operations of one or more Fidonet systems; using non-existent or falsified node numbers with the intent of disguising the origin of mail traffic or of intercepting mail intended for the rightful owner of that node number; willfully compromising the integrity of an echomail conference after having direct links to that conference severed by the conference moderator; or illegal activities that involve, pertain to or utilize Fidonet as part of those activities. The first step in any dispute between sysops is for the sysops to attempt to communicate directly. Any complaint made that has skipped this most basic communication step will be rejected. Filing a formal complaint is not an action which should be taken lightly. Investigation and response to complaints requires time which coordinators would prefer to spend doing more constructive activities. Persons who persist in filing trivial policy complaints may find themselves on the wrong side of an excessively-annoying complaint. Complaints must be accompanied with verifiable evidence, generally copies of messages; a simple word-of-mouth complaint will be dismissed out of hand. Failure to follow the procedures herein described (in particular, by skipping a coordinator, or involving a coordinator not in the appeal chain) is in and of itself annoying behavior. FidoNews 10-12 Page: 33 22 Mar 1993 9.2 Problems with Another Sysop If you are having problems with another sysop, you should first try to work it out directly with the other sysop. If this fails to resolve the problem, you should complain to other sysop's Network Coordinator. If that sysop is not in a network, then complain to the appropriate Regional Coordinator. Should this fail to provide satisfaction, you have the right to follow the appeal process described in section 9.5. 9.3 Problems with your Network Coordinator If you are having problems with your Network Coordinator and feel that you are not being treated properly, you are entitled to a review of your situation. As with all disputes, the first step is to communicate directly to attempt to resolve the problem. The next step is to contact your Regional Coordinator. If your case has merit, there are several possible courses of action, including a change of Network Coordinators or even the disbanding of your network. If you have been excommunicated by your Network Coordinator, that judgement may be reversed, at which point you will be reinstated into your net. If you fail to obtain relief from your Regional Coordinator, you have the right to follow the appeal process described in section 9.5. 9.4 Problems with Other Coordinators Complaints concerning annoying behavior on the part of any coordinator are treated as in section 9.2 and should be filed with the next level of coordinator. For example, if you feel that your Regional Coordinator is guilty of annoying behavior (as opposed to a failure to perform duties as a coordinator) you should file your complaint with the Zone Coordinator. Complaints concerning the performance of a coordinator in carrying out the duties mandated by policy are accepted only from the level immediately below. For example, complaints concerning the performance of Regional Coordinators would be accepted from Network Coordinators and independents in that region. Such complaints should be addressed to the Zone Coordinator after an appropriate attempt to work them out by direct communications. 9.5 Appeal Process A decision made by a coordinator may be appealed to the next level. Appeals must be made within two weeks of the decision which is being appealed. All appeals must follow the chain of command; if levels are skipped the appeal will be dismissed out of hand. An appeal will not result in a full investigation, but will be based upon the documentation supplied by the parties at the lower level. For example, an appeal of a Network Coordinator's decision will be decided by the Regional Coordinator based upon information provided by the FidoNews 10-12 Page: 34 22 Mar 1993 coordinator and the sysop involved; the Regional Coordinator is not expected to make an independent attempt to gather information. The appeal structure is as follows: Network Coordinator decisions may be appealed to the appropriate Regional Coordinator. Regional Coordinator decisions may be appealed to the appropriate Zone Coordinator. At this point, the Zone Coordinator will make a decision and communicate it to all affected parties. Zone Coordinator decisions may be appealed to the International Coordinator. The International Coordinator will make a decision and communicate it to all affected parties. Decisions of the International Coordinator may be reversed by a majority of the Zone Coordinators. If your problem is with a Zone Coordinator per se, that is, a Zone Coordinator has committed a Policy violation against you, your complaint should be filed with the International Coordinator, who will make a decision and submit it to the Zone Coordinator Council for possible reversal, as described above. A sample process is described in Appendix 3. 9.6 Statute of Limitations A complaint may not be filed more than 60 days after the date of discovery of the source of the infraction, either by admission or technical evidence. Complaints may not be filed more than 120 days after the incident unless they involve explicitly illegal behavior. 9.7 Right to a Speedy Decision A coordinator is required to render a final decision and notify the parties involved within 30 days of the receipt of the complaint or appeal. 9.8 Return to Original Network Once a policy dispute is resolved, any nodes reinstated on appeal are returned to the local network or region to which they geographically or technically belong. 9.9 Echomail Echomail is one of many uses of Fidonet. Echomail is treated as a use of Fidonet structure and is covered by Policy only to the extent that this use affects primary Fidonet operations. By its nature, echomail places unique technical and social demands on the net over and above those covered by this Policy. It should be noted that echomail distribution is a separate voluntary arrangement between consenting nodes and is distinctly different from the routing of netmail. In recognition of this, an echomail policy which extends (and does not contradict) general Policy, maintained by the Echomail Coordinators, FidoNews 10-12 Page: 35 22 Mar 1993 and ratified by a process similar to that of this document, is recognized by the FidoNet Coordinators as a valid structure for dispute resolution on matters pertaining to echomail. 9.10 Case Histories Some of FidoNet Policy is interpretive in nature. No one can see what is to come in our rapidly changing environment. While the history of previous complaints and decisions may be useful as guidance, each case must be decided on its own merits in the time and circumstances under which it occurs. 10. Credits, acknowledgments, etc. Fido and FidoNet are registered trademarks of Fido Software, Inc. Appendix -------- The Appendices of this document are exceptions to the normal ratification process and are included for information purposes. Appendix 1 may be changed by the appropriate Zone Coordinator, and other sections may be added or changed as needed by the International Coordinator. Appendix 1: Timing of Zone Mail Hour Zone Mail Hour is observed each day, including weekends and holidays. The time is based upon Universal Coordinated Time (UTC), also known as Greenwich Mean time (GMT). In areas which observe Daylight Savings Time during part of the year, the local time of zone mail hour will change because FidoNet does not observe Daylight Savings Time. The exact timing of Zone Mail Hour is set for each zone by the Zone Coordinator. In FidoNet Zone 1, Zone Mail Hour is observed from 0900 to 1000 UTC. In each of the time zones, this is: Eastern Standard Time (GMT -5) 4:00 AM to 5:00 AM Central Standard Time (GMT -6) 3:00 AM to 4:00 AM Mountain Standard Time (GMT -7) 2:00 AM to 3:00 AM Pacific Standard Time (GMT -8) 1:00 AM to 2:00 AM Hawaii Standard Time (GMT -10) 11:00 PM to Midnight In FidoNet Zone 2, Zone Mail Hour is observed from 0230 to 0330 UTC. In Fidonet Zone 3, Zone Mail Hour is observed from 1800 to 1900 UTC. In each of the time Zones involved this is: GMT +12 Zone 6:00 AM to 7:00 AM (New Zealand) GMT +10 Zone 4:00 AM to 5:00 AM (East Australia, Papua New Guinea, Micronesia) GMT +9.5 Zone 3:30 AM to 4:30 AM (Central Australia) GMT +8 Zone 2:00 AM to 3:00 AM (Western Australia) FidoNews 10-12 Page: 36 22 Mar 1993 In Fidonet Zone 4, Zone Mail Hour is observed from 0800 to 0900 UTC. GMT -3 Zone 5:00 AM to 6:00 AM GMT -4 Zone 4:00 AM to 5:00 AM GMT -5 Zone 3:00 AM to 4:00 AM In Fidonet Zone 5, Zone Mail Hour is observed from 0100 to 0200 UTC. GMT +0 Zone 1:00 AM to 2:00 AM GMT +1 Zone 2:00 AM to 3:00 AM GMT +2 Zone 3:00 AM to 4:00 AM GMT +3 Zone 4:00 AM to 5:00 AM In Fidonet Zone 6, Zone Mail Hour is observed from 2000 to 2100 UTC. In each of the time zones involved this is: GMT +9 Zone 5:00 AM to 6:00 AM (Japan, Korea, Eastern Indonesia) GMT +8 Zone 4:00 AM to 5:00 AM (Hong Kong, Taiwan, Central Indonesia, Philippines) GMT +7 Zone 3:00 AM to 4:00 AM (Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand, Western Indonesia) Appendix 2: Sample Election Procedure 1. Qualifications and Terms The Coordinator serves a term of one year and may serve any number of consecutive terms. Any sysop listed in the appropriate segment of the Fidonet Nodelist at the time nominations are opened is eligible to run. A simple majority (50% + 1) of votes cast is required to elect a Coordinator. In the event that no candidate received a majority of votes, a run off election will be held between the two candidates with the greatest number of votes. 2. Nominations Nominations may be made either in a designated echo or by netmail to the election coordinator. Any netmail nominations received by the election coordinator will be cross-posted into the designated echo. Any sysop listed in the appropriate segment of the Fidonet nodelist may nominate any other eligible sysop for the position of Coordinator. Nominees must announce their consent to serve in order to be considered candidates in the election, and are encouraged to be available for discussion during the election process. A minimum of two weeks will be allotted for the nominating process. 3. Election Coordinator At the start of the election process, the appropriate Coordinator will appoint a non-candidate sysop as Election Coordinator. This sysop will have several responsibilities: FidoNews 10-12 Page: 37 22 Mar 1993 Collecting nominations, seconds and statements of consent to serve from netmail and the designated echo and finalizing the election slate. Posting the slate of candidates and the voting format instructions in the designated echo at the close of nominations. Submitting the slate of candidates and the voting format instructions to the Coordinator for distribution via netmail to all Net and/or Regional Coordinators. Collecting and tabulating votes submitted. Notifying the Coordinator of the election results and posting the election results in the designated echo. 4. Discussion Period Following the close of nominations and presentation of the slate of candidates, a minimum of two weeks will be allotted for discussion before voting begins. 5. Voting Procedures Net Coordinators in each net will distribute the slate of candidates, voting instructions and voting schedule to all members of their nets via netmail. Votes must be cast by the node sysops via netmail to the Election Coordinator. Due to changing technology, the exact format and mechanism of placing these votes will be determined by the Election Coordinator at the time of each election. Once a vote has been received and validated, it may not be changed. The Election Coordinator will announce the final counts within seven days of the close of voting. Challenges to the accuracy or completeness of the announced results must be placed via netmail to the Election Coordinator within seven days of the announcement of the results. A successful challenge will necessitate a new election to be initiated. 6. Installation of New Coordinator The newly elected Coordinator will be installed in the nodelist as soon as the transfer of control files and other necessary information can be coordinated between the incoming and outgoing Coordinators, but not later than two weeks from the announcement of final election results. Appendix 3: Sample Process for Resolution and Appeal of Complaints The process of complaint and appeal available to all Fidonet members, as delineated in sections 9.1 through 9.8, follows a step by step procedure from the point at which a complaint has been filed. FidoNews 10-12 Page: 38 22 Mar 1993 1. Offender does something to warrant removal from Fidonet. 2. The Net Coordinator points out this activity to the offender and offers the opportunity to refrain. 3. The Net Coordinator records the response of the offender. 4. If the offender desists, the case is over. Otherwise; 5. The Net Coordinator issues a final warning to the offender stating that the nodelist entry will be removed permanently unless immediate cessation of the offense(s) follows this final warning. Repeating at a later date an offense for which a warning was previously given may be considered refusal to comply. 6. If the offender desists, the case is over. Otherwise; 7. The Net Coordinator notifies the offender of removal from the nodelist. 8. Net Coordinator records offender's final response (if any) and removes offender's node number from the nodelist if no new information is received. 9. Net Coordinator advises Regional Coordinator of complete chronology with documentation and the case is closed, or; 10. The offender appeals to the Regional Coordinator and offers other information contrary to the Net Coordinator's account and requests intervention and/or investigation. 11. If the Regional Coordinator refuses the appeal, the case is over. Otherwise; 12. The Regional Coordinator agrees to consider the appeal and advises the Net Coordinator to refrain from removal pending investigation of the appeal. 13. The Regional Coordinator finds appeal has no merit, advises Net Coordinator to proceed with node removal, and advises offender of finding and of the option to appeal to the Zone Coordinator, or; 14. The Regional Coordinator finds appeal has merit and advises Net Coordinator to retain the node's number and to appeal to the Zone Coordinator if unsatisfied. 15. Steps 10 through 14 may be repeated at the Zone Coordinator and International Coordinator levels if necessary. Appendix 4: Fidonet Technical Standards The Fidonet Technical Standards Committee (FTSC) is a deliberative body charged with developing and maintaining technical standards for operations in a Fidonet Technology Network (FTN). All software used in FidoNews 10-12 Page: 39 22 Mar 1993 Fidonet communications must be in compliance with the appropriate standards, which include: FTS-0001 A basic Fidonet technical standard, R Bush FTS-0002 (superseded by FTS-0005) FTS-0003 (superseded by FTS-0006) FTS-0004 Echomail specifications, B Hartman FTS-0005 The distribution nodelist, B Baker, R Moore FTS-0006 YOOHOO and YOOHOO/2U2, V Periello FTS-0007 SEAlink protocol extension, P Becker FTS-0008 Bark file-request protocol extension, P Becker FTS-0009 Message identification and reply linkage, j nutt Appendix 5: File Name Conventions For those systems accepting file requests via Fidonet, it is generally accepted practice that certain types of information will be available under commonly known alias names. The following are common file aliases: FILES List of files available for file request ABOUT Information about the individual system NODELIST Current full Fidonet nodelist NODEDIFF Current weekly Fidonet nodelist difference file FIDONEWS Current weekly issue of Fidonews POLICY Fidonet policy documents -30- Any typos should also be noted when responding with comments and suggestions. Thanks, for your consideration of and attention to this FidoNet Policy DRAFT. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Another view of Caller ID and BBS access Jack Decker 1:154/8 Another view of Caller ID and BBS access I just want to add a couple of comments to the controversy surrounding the use of Caller ID for a BBS. First of all, let me start by saying that the sysop of a BBS has no obligation to provide access to anyone (unless he has accepted payment in return for access, but that's not what's under discussion here). Frankly, when you use a BBS you are essentially accessing someone's private computer system, and you can no more demand entry to that system via the phone lines than you could knock on the sysop's front door and demand to use his or her computer. When a sysop joins Fidonet, he does agree to accept incoming mail from all comers, especially during Zone Mail Hour, and at any other time of day IF he is listed as a crashmail system (we won't discuss the case FidoNews 10-12 Page: 40 22 Mar 1993 where a particular system has had access denied for cause; that's an exception situation that has no relevance to what we're discussing here). It would not be proper to deny incoming mail calls based solely on lack of Caller ID information. But from what I'm reading here, no one is proposing to do that. The sysops who use this technology simply want a way to identify calls from incoming USERS. However, I assume that most sysops put up a BBS because they want to provide a service. That is, no one (well, hardly anyone) puts up a BBS with the idea of finding new ways to frustrate potential callers. Callers are the life blood of a BBS... if you don't have any, you may have BBS software on your system but you're not really "running a BBS." Now, it is a given that the use of Caller ID can help eliminate abuse by callers who are not who they claim to be. The question you should ask yourself, however, is "Will using Caller ID frustrate connect attempts by legitimate callers?" In other words, will you lose the callers you might want to have because of Caller ID? To some extent, I believe the answer is "YES". Now, let me say going in that Caller ID is probably one of THE most hotly debated topics in many conferences, such as the Internet comp.dcom.telecom conference (an EXCELLENT conference for anyone interested in matters related to the telephone system or telephony in general). So, there are as many opinions about it as there are people to give them. But what I am going to confine my remarks to is the possibility that a call you might really want to receive will be rejected because you use Caller ID. First, let's discuss technical problems. That is, let's suppose a caller to your BBS (or even YOU if you are travelling away from home) does nothing to block transmission of his number, yet it appears as "private" on your display, indicating to you that transmission of the calling number was actively blocked by the caller. This is, in effect, erroneous information provided by your phone company. The question is, does this occur frequently? The answer is, "it depends on where your calls are coming from." If you never get long distance callers, this may not be a problem for you. However, according to some messages that have appeared on comp.dcom.telecom, some calls originating in the State of California are being delivered with the "private" flag set, even though California telcos are not offering Caller ID there! Why does that happen? Well, it seems that the California Public Utilities Commission told California telcos that they could offer Caller ID _only_ if they offered both per-call and per-line blocking AND made per-line blocking the default for anyone with an unlisted number. In other words, they assumed (quite correctly in my opinion) that anyone who cares enough to pay for an unlisted number probably does NOT want their unlisted number delivered to anyone they might call... after all, what's the point of paying for an unlisted number if you're giving it out freely? But the California telcos (led by Pac*Bell) balked, and in effect said that if they couldn't offer Caller ID under their terms, they would pick up their ball and go home. Ah, but there's a technical glitch. The same connections that make Caller ID possible also make services like Call Trace and Call Return FidoNews 10-12 Page: 41 22 Mar 1993 possible. And, the California telcos wanted to offer those services, which meant that the calling number (used for those services as well as Caller ID) had to be transmitted between switches. Now, since no one in California can subscribe to Caller ID, that is not a problem for in-state calls. But what about calls going out of state? They could either not send the calling number at all, or they could send it with the "private" flag set so that it wouldn't display on Caller ID units in other states, but Call Trace and Call Return would still work. Guess which route they chose! So, when a Californian calls someone in another state who subscribes to Caller ID, the only indication they get is that the call is "private". Of course, there are still some older phone exchanges in California not capable of transmitting the calling number, and some long distance carriers don't yet transmit the calling number, so not all calls from California will come through as "private". But many will. Some have suggested that Pac*Bell is doing this deliberately in the hope that folks will complain to the PUC when the can't get calls to complete, and the PUC will relent and let Pac*Bell offer the service the way it wants to (that is, with no protection for unlisted numbers). Now, who would ever believe that Pac*Bell would be capable of such behaviour? ;-) There are other states where Caller ID is banned because of privacy concerns (Pennsylvania is one example) so it's quite possible that calls from some other states may be affected in this way, though I haven't personally heard of any. Long distance carriers may present another problem. Some (especially smaller carriers, and especially "data only" carriers with local outdials such as Sprintnet's PC Pursuit) may transmit a number that is totally erroneous... it's not the number of the caller, but rather of an access line at the carrier's switch or modem pool. Of course, the carrier may decide that they don't want incoming calls on their outgoing trunks, so they may decide to block Caller ID on all outgoing calls from their modem pool or switch. I've also been told that Caller ID information may not be transmitted from behind certain types of PBX or Centrex equipment. Let's say I visit your town and try to do a little modeming from my motel room, but the motel has per-line blocking on their outgoing lines. I wouldn't be able to connect to your BBS. And then there's the operator-assisted call... someone is having trouble reaching you so he asks the operator to try. Sorry, but Caller ID is almost never transmitted on operator-assisted calls, and depending on the carrier, the call may show up as "private." Note that in all of the above scenarios, the caller generally has NO idea that his number is being blocked. In many cases he may be dialing the call normally, but his local telco (or the long distance carrier) might present the call as a "private" one. Now let me say one other word, and that is about Bob Seaborn's comment in last week's Fidonews (Hi, Bob!), in which he said "Furthermore, while I can try to understand your reasons to hide your number, my gut FidoNews 10-12 Page: 42 22 Mar 1993 feeling is that any time someone's hiding something, they're up to something. And I don't want that something affecting me." Well, Bob, I think your gut may be deceiving you a bit on this one! :-) To be honest, I do not like to give my real name and number on the first call to a BBS, unless I've seen it in operation before or know the sysop or at least know something about the BBS. Why? Because I want to know a little about the BBS before I register as a user. If the BBS carries pornography or blatant computer cracking information, I do not want to be listed as a registered user of that BBS! And what if the system is run by a life insurance salesman (or some similar sales go-getter) who sees ever caller as a potential prospect? Now, you do have the right to not let me look around without giving you the information you want, BUT I don't want you just taking that information from me before I'm even connected to the BBS! Now, if you really are running one of the types of BBS that I don't want to be listed as a user of, neither of us have lost anything if I can't connect. However, suppose your board caters to a different clientele... maybe former computer newsletter editors! You might be happy to have me on your system in that case, but you'll never know if you reject me solely because my Caller ID doesn't come through. You may not want to believe this, but the ONLY reason I personally resist giving out my phone number to all and sundry is because of the increasing level of telemarketing activity that has occurred in recent years. Some sysops do operate businesses on the side, after all, and maybe I really don't want them calling me up to solicit my business. Now, as a sysop, maybe you're not doing anything like that, but my point is that the caller doesn't know that until he's had a chance to look over your board and get to know you a bit. In my opinion, both caller and sysop should know a bit about each other before personal information like voice phone numbers are traded (not everyone can afford a separate data phone line for their modem excursions!). In many cases I have given "-unlisted-" or "000-000-0000" for a phone number in an initial questionnaire, and then, if I like what I see during my initial access to the BBS, I'll leave a logoff message to the sysop giving my real voice number (and yes, I've had a couple of sysops drop me when they saw me entering the "000-000-0000." I figured if they couldn't even bother to break in to chat mode to find out why I did it, it was no great loss to either of us, and I didn't call back. There are THOUSANDS of BBS's in North America, after all). There is one final point I want to make about the pitfalls of misusing Caller ID. Some sysops are getting real clever and using the caller ID information to bypass the logon. At first blush this sounds great... I call a BBS and it immediately throws me into the main menu because it knows exactly who I am. The problem with this can be stated as follows: CALLING NUMBER DOES NOT EQUATE TO A PARTICULAR PERSON! Some of your users may wish to call from multiple locations, such as home and office. Some callers may place calls on multiple lines, and if calling from behind a PBX or some such equipment, may not even have control over which line the call goes out on. And conversely, in some homes or offices there may be more than one caller to your BBS sharing FidoNews 10-12 Page: 43 22 Mar 1993 the same line (co-workers; husband and wife; siblings or combinations thereof). Last summer I visited a friend in Minnesota. While there, I called several local BBS's from his home, with his permission. Suppose one of those BBS's had been programmed to recognize his home phone number and just assumed that it was him calling? I would have had total access to his account... not that I would have abused it, but you can see that this could cause unintended problems. So what's my point? Basically, that if you do use Caller ID as a way to screen callers, recognize that it's an imperfect tool. Please consider offering some alternate form of access that can be made available to callers whose numbers unintentionally display as "private", at least until such time as the technology is perfected (which will probably not occur for several years!). And keep in mind that your users may sometimes wish to call in from locations other than the ones they usually call from. No, you aren't required to do any of this, and I know that a few sysops delight in finding ways to make life hard for callers. I'm hoping that you, the reader, aren't like that. And, if you have access to the Internet and can receive either the comp.dcom.telecom newsgroup or the Telecom Digest mailing list (same messages in different formats), you'll be able to read a lot more about the Caller ID debate, and all the reasons why one should/should not use it, ad nauseum. But you will also learn that it's not quite the reliable service that your local telco would like you to think it is. As Caller ID usage expands, sysops need to be aware of the limitations of this service, not just the supposed benefits. Please try to become informed BEFORE you possibly seriously inconvenience some of your users (or potential users). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Yet another Fidonet packet format proposal by Paul Martin A previous revision of this proposal was posted to NET_DEV where it received a mixed response. This proposal is put forward for wider discussion amongst the general fidonet community as it differs radically from any current packed message format, but encapsulates most of the currently used "kludges" used in FTS-0001 Type 2 packets in a cleaner format. It also opens Fidonet to more computer types, for example Unix systems, as by being plain text it tries to remove the bias towards IBM-PC compatibles. It is also easily extended to cope with the changing needs of the Fidonet community. I am very open to suggestions for change to this proposal. It is important that any radical change to Fidonet's internals should be discussed widely. Any similarities to RFC-822 and the Internet SMTP protocol are intentional -- a good concept should not be ignored just because you FidoNews 10-12 Page: 44 22 Mar 1993 didn't think of it. Document: FSC-???? Version: 001 Date: 19-Mar-1993 A proposal for a new Fidonet(r) packet format Paul Martin last revised 19 Mar 1993 Background: ~~~~~~~~~~ There is currently a great need within Fidonet and Fidonet Technology Networks to allow proper interconnectivity. This is not currently practicable with current packet formats. This proposal is for a purely text-based packet format which should address these shortcomings. The proposal: ~~~~~~~~~~~~ A packet consists of a series of text strings terminated by a given sequence, and its end is given by an empty string. Within a string, paragraphs are the only division of the text, and an end of paragraph is given by an ASCII CR character (13 decimal 0D hex). Within a packet, the first string is the packet header, and subsequent strings are messages. A message has two parts: first a header which ends at the first zero-length paragraph, and following that the message body text. The string terminator sequence is 0x0d, 0x2e, 0x0d (carriage return, period, carriage return). Any part of a string which contains this sequence shall have the period replaced by two periods. When dismantling a packet, the sequence 0x0d, 0x2e, 0x2e, 0x0d shall be translated back to 0x0d, 0x2e, 0x0d. (This paragraph assumes the C convention for hexadecimal constants.) A header consists of paragraphs containing fields describing the packet or message to which the header applies. A header field consists of a key, a colon, a space, and then the associated value. The case of the key is not significant, except for the "FPKT" key which should always be in upper case. No limitation on the length of a message body is made by this document, but a suggested minimum for compliance is 32k. A header paragraph, however should not exceed 200 characters in length. Defined header fields ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ FPKT: x Packet header. Specifies revision of standard. This field should be the first in the packet, and packets should be identifiable by having the first four characters being "FPKT". The value is a number. (Could be other information also here...) FidoNews 10-12 Page: 45 22 Mar 1993 Origin: addr|addrpath[ brag] Packet and message header. This identifies where the packet/message originated. In the packet header the optional brag portion is not allowed. Destin: addr|addrpath Packet header (compulsory). This identifies where the packet is to be sent. Product: hexnumber[ prodname[ version]] Packet header (optional). This gives the 16 bit FTSC product code of the program which generated the packet (expressed as a 4 digit hexadecimal number), and optionally the product's name and version. If no product code has been assigned, a value of "FFFF" should be used. Date: YYYY-MM-DD HH:NN:SS[ [ZZZ]+HH[:MM]][ #id] Optional in packet header, but compulsory in a message header. It gives the date that the packet/message was created. Y=year in Gregorian calendar, M=month, D=day of month, H=hour, N=minute, S=second, Z=local time zone code (EST,EDT,GMT,BST,NZT), +HH:MM is the displacement of your timezone from UTC, expressed as local time-UTC. Western hemisphere timezones yield negative displacements, and the sign should always be given. Note that this differs from most compilers' ideas of how timezones work, but is closer to the more usual formats of showing timezone differences. For duplicate checking, the field #number should make the date field unique for all messages posted with the given origin address. This number should, if present, be a small positive integer. Groupmail: conference_name Packet header (optional). Indicates that all the messages in this packet are for this groupmail conference. If this field is present, the Destin: field of the packet header may be omitted. Area: echo_name Message header (optional). Indicates that this message belongs to this echomail conference. To: name[@addrpath] Message header. The name of the intended recipient of the message. The address part is only optional in echomail or groupmail. From: name[@addrpath] Message header. The name of the person sending the message. The address part is only optional in echomail or groupmail. Subject: description Message header. A short description of the contents of the message. FidoNews 10-12 Page: 46 22 Mar 1993 Via: addr[ YYYY-MM-DD HH:NN:SS[ [ZZZ]+HH[:MM]]] Message header, netmail only (optional). These are placed in a netmail messages by the mail processing programs which have processed the message. Unlike all the other message header fields, the order of these fields within the header should be preserved. File: filename The file with this filename has been sent with this message. Multiple "File:" lines are permissible. There is no obligation for a bulletin board system to pass on to another system any files that may be attached to a message which has been received. Editor: name[ version] Packer: name[ version] Message header (optional). The editor is the program which created the message, in whatever form. The packer is the program which first placed the message into interchange (packet) format. The editor broadly corresponds to what would go on a FTS-0004 tear line, and the packer broadly corresponds to what would go in an FSC-0046 ^aPID kludge. Where the two fields would be the same, one should be omitted. Once an Editor or Packer field has been added to a message it should not be altered by any other processing software. Status: flaglist Message header (optional). The status flags for this message. Flags are three letters long, and the list is made up of flags separated by spaces. An echomail message should not normally have any status flags. The following flags are defined, and are all upper case: PVT private message FLA file attached to message (filename in subject field) (omitted if Files field is used) RTQ receipt requested when this message is delivered ADQ audit trail request -- each machine the message passes through sends a receipt RTA message is a delivery receipt ADA message is an audit receipt Further flags may be used internally by mail software, but they should be lower case, and should never be placed in interchanged mail. If they are ever encountered in a received packet, they should be ignored. Suggested internal flags are: imm send message immediately dir send message directly to destination hfp hold for pickup frq file request kst kill message after sending snt message has been sent lcl locally generated mail Content-Type: id[,id[,id...]] FidoNews 10-12 Page: 47 22 Mar 1993 Message header (optional). Various extra information about the message. eg. message,split=1/3,plainascii,richtext (see Internet MIME spec for future ideas) Content-Type: encrypted=pgp2.2 Sent-To: addr[ addr[ addr [...]]] Message header (echomail only). In echomail messages, this is a list of all addresses to which this message has been sent. This is similar to the SEEN-BY lines that occur in FTS-0004 echomail, except that the addresses are multi-dimensional. The list is sorted, in order of significance, alphabetically by domain, numerically by zone, then net, then node, then point. The most significant components of an address may be omitted if the previous address differs from it by only its least significant components. This "stickiness" may not be carried from one Sent-To line to the next. Point number components may be omitted if they are zero. Point addresses may be omitted if the topology allows this, eg. the point does not pass on the echomail to any other system. Local topology may allow other details to be omitted. Path: addr[ addr[ addr [...]]] Message header (echomail only). In echomail messages, this is a list of all addresses which this copy of the message has passed through. As with Sent-To most significant address components are "sticky", but the address list must not be sorted. A system may only add its own address(es) to the Path. [The Sent-To: and Path: fields may be used for circular path protection. Wherever possible, topologies should be star shaped, or triangular fractal like.] Other header fields may be defined in the future. ====== Value components ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ An address has the following format: #:/[.] has the following format: [.[.[...]]] is a string of up to eight characters, the first of which must be alphabetic (a..z, A..Z), and the rest must be alphameric (0123456789-, A..Z, a..z). Addresses should not be case significant. ie. Fidonet is the same domain as fIdOnEt. It should be noted that the leftmost sub-unit of the domain is the most significant. The use of "org.fidonet" or "fidonet.org" is incorrect -- FidoNews 10-12 Page: 48 22 Mar 1993 only "fidonet" is correct. The sub-units are intended for future use to subdivide domains (eg. fidonet.na, fidonet.uk), but this document only notes this as an extension to this proposal. , , , and are integers in the range 0..65535. An address path has the format: *
An is # The address in an address path specifies where the gateway which has gatewayed, or is expected to gateway, this message from or to a different network. An otheraddress is used where the message is to or from a non-Fidonet technology network, and the local part may be enclosed in double quotes ("), if the local part contains spaces or other characters which might give problems. Example addresses: Paul Martin@fidonet#2:250/107.3 User name = "Paul Martin" Domain = "fidonet" Local = "2:250/107.3" Paul Martin@ranet#73:7446/107 User name = "Paul Martin" Domain = "ranet" Local = "73:7446/107" Paul Martin@Ranet#73:7446/107*fidonet#2:250/107 User name = "Paul Martin" Domain = "ranet" Local = "73:7446/107" Gateway = Domain = "fidonet" Local = "2:250/107" Comments: This message has passed through a domain gateway, or has a suggested routing towards a possible gateway. Paul Martin@uucp#"pm@nowster.demon.co.uk"*fidonet#2:250/107.3 User name = "Paul Martin" Domain = "uucp" Local = "pm@nowster.demon.co.uk" Gateway = Domain = "fidonet" Local = "2:250/107.3" Comments: This address be translated at a Uucp gateway from/to Paul Martin FidoNews 10-12 Page: 49 22 Mar 1993 Albert Ross@x400#"/ADMD=afsw/PRMD=iuoa/C=utopia/O=Widgets Corp./ OU=Marketing/"*fidonet#7:999/998 Comments: X.400 address, ficticious, word-wrapped for this document. Example packets ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Line feeds have been added for readability. FPKT: 3 Origin: fidonet#2:250/107 Destin: fidonet#2:250/107.3 Product: 00D4 Stir /a Date: 1992-08-06 19:57:26 BST+1 . Area: GATEWAY From: Stu Churchill To: Paul Martin Date: 1992-08-03 00:33:14 BST+1 #1 Subject: Re: Just testing Packer: PM 3.00/b Origin: fidonet#2:250/107.97 A Pointed Approach To Aspects Sent-To: fidonet#2:250/107 .3 .21 .60 .91 .93 .94 .95 .96 .97 Sent-To: fidonet#2:250/107.98 .99 Path: Fidonet#2:250/107.97 .0 Howdy Paul, On 01 Aug 92, Paul Martin wrote to Nobody: PM> I'm trying FrontDoor. Mummy and Daddy finally gave you a key then ? }8^) Cheers, Stu. . From: Alex McElhinney@fidonet#1:102/752 To: Paul Martin@fidonet#2:250/107.3 Subject: Morning! Date: 1992-08-04 16:00:18 BST+1 Editor: PCRR 1.06/a+ Packer: Stir /a Status: PVT Via: Fidonet#1:102/752 1992-08-04 15:05:00 Via: Fidonet#1:102/2 1992-08-05 03:08:16 Via: Fidonet#1:105/6 1992-08-05 16:49:06 UTC+0 Via: Fidonet#1:105/42 1992-08-05 16:57:33 UTC+0 Via: Fidonet#2:500/1 1992-08-06 02:31:17 MET+2 Via: Fidonet#2:250/101 1992-08-06 02:18:52 BST+1 Via: Fidonet#2:250/107 1992-08-06 19:25:34 BST+1 You silly, twisted boy, you! . FidoNews 10-12 Page: 50 22 Mar 1993 From: Dave Gorski@fidonet#2:250/107 To: Paul Martin@uucp#"pm.nowster@spuddy.uucp"*fidonet#2:250/107.3 Subject: Hi There! Date: 1992-08-06 16:08:17 BST+1 Packer: Stir /a Status: PVT Via: Fidonet#2:250/107 1992-08-06 19:56:28 BST+1 Does this thing work? . . ======== FPKT: 3 Origin: fidonet#2:250/999 Destin: chatnet#44:44/999 Date: 1992-08-07 17:44:54 BST+1 Product: FFFF Mangler 1 . Area: CHITCHAT From: Albert Ross To: C Gull Subject: Birds Date: 1992-08-01 23:42:54 EST-7 Packer: XE /b973 Origin: fidonet#1:789/234.2 Sent-To: chatnet#44:44/999 fidonet#1:123/1 23 45 789/2 234 256 2:250/5 8 Sent-To: fidonet#2:250/102 107 999 Path: fidonet#1:789/234.2 .0 2 123/23 1 2:250/107 999 It gave me a tern, that one did. . Area: INTERCHAT From: pm To: All Subject: Is anyone receiving my messages? Date: 1992-08-02 12:57:21 Origin: uucp#"pm.nowster@spuddy.uucp"*fidonet#2:250/5 Sent-To: chatnet#44:44/999 fidonet#2:250/5 8 102 107 999 Path: fidonet#2:250/5 107 999 I'm not sure if my messages are getting through. Could you please tell my if my messages are getting out? . . Filenames to be used for mail packets ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ To prevent confusion with FTS-0001 Type 2 mail, mail in this format should be offered (sent to remote systems, placed in compressed archives) with filenames of eight alphanumerics, a period, and the suffix "FPK". eg. "09a78sjk2.fpk" FidoNews 10-12 Page: 51 22 Mar 1993 Why Text? ~~~~~~~~~ All popular computers are able to handle this format of data without problems. Text can usually be compressed such that it takes a smaller or similar space as a compressed binary format. There are no problems with the endedness of words. Should binary data need to be included with a message it may be encoded such that it is plain text (for example using UUencoding, XXencoding or BTOA encoding) or sent along with the message as an attached file. The usage of MIME encapsulation may be useful in this respect. Questions and Comments ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ May be sent to me at any of these addresses: Paul Martin@Fidonet#2:250/107.3 pm@nowster.demon.co.uk ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Caller ID and "The Right to Privacy" Chris Farrar 1:246/20@fidonet - Windsor, Ontario, Canada The debate on the use of the inbound Calling Line Identification (CLID) function of Caller ID is still going strong, and I would just like to expand on some of the content of messages by myself and Bob Seaborn in Fidonews 10-11. I keep hearing from people that they want privacy and therefor want to supress the display of CLID to protect their so-called "privacy." I wonder how many of those who protest the display of their phone numbers know that a simple trip to the main branch of their city library can let them gain access to the Cross Reference directory, also refered to as the "Criss Cross Directory." With this little book, you can search based on name, address, or phone number, and in a few minutes, the searcher can discover someone's full name, address, spouce, children, phone number, type of work they do, and even their employer in some cases. Unpublished numbers that don't appear in phone books can usually be found in this directory. As for the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, or the U.S.A.'s Bill of Rights, I have yet to see it written anywhere in these documents that someone has the inalienable right to be able to call a bulletin board system. Here in Canada, and probably in the the United States as well, unauthorized access to a computer system is a criminal offence. To be authorized to access the BBS I run, your phone system, if capable, must provide CLID information to my phone company. Suppressing the display of such information means you are attempting an un-authorized access to the computer system, which could be considered a criminal action. (For those in the United States, Canada only has FidoNews 10-12 Page: 52 22 Mar 1993 one set of "criminal" charges, that are identical across the country, with the same penalties in each province, rather than the US system of having 51 sets of criminal codes and different punnishments under each code.) Also with the information that is available through US Credit Bureaux and information brokers, the display of a mear telephone number is hardly "invading" your privacy. If you want to start with privacy, start cracking down on the first two groups, which are a bigger threat to your privacy than any CLID box ever will be. One final comment. Some people suggest that Call Back Verifiers (CBV) are better than using CLID. Most systems I have called around the US and Canada that use CBV, only let it dial exchanges that are local to the BBS in question. Long distance callers generally have to mail in forms, or accept collect phone calls for validation. I don't know about US telephone bills, but when someone makes a collect call to my number, the phone number they called from is displayed on my telephone bill. So much for the caller's privacy. And their phone number is displayed using the old ANI (Automatic Number Identification) system that provides your phone number to 1-800 and 1-900 calls for billing purposes, so suppressing display of CLID will have no effect in hiding their number, it just means that you have to wait 30 days or less until the phone co. sends you your next bill. All comments, friendly and otherwise, are welcome. You can send them to FidoNews, to my address at the top of this article, or fax to (519) 256-6693. Chris ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Z1C election results Don Dawson 1:141/730 (aka 1:16/0) Original to: Zone 1 Sysops at 1:141/730 CC'd to: Tim Pearson, George Peace, Matt Whelan, David Garrett, Mark Lynch, Fred Ennis, Bill Andrus, Marv Carson, Christopher Baker, Bob Davis, Bob Satti Z1C election results Don Dawson 1:141/730 (aka 1:16/0) Candidate: Pearson Satti Wood ======= ========== ========== Passwords: democracy region16#2 democratic intrinsic eileen round2 voxpopuli skylane mdlynch help_don_go_on_vacation On behalf of all of the RC's I would like to again extend our special FidoNews 10-12 Page: 53 22 Mar 1993 thanks to all of the candidates for offering to serve the sysops in Zone 1. The fine thing about this process is there are no losers. The winners are the Zone 1 sysops for having such a fine group of people willing to help us enjoy our hobby. Don Dawson ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ======================================================================== Fidonews Information ======================================================================== ------- FIDONEWS MASTHEAD AND CONTACT INFORMATION ---------------- Editors: Sylvia Maxwell, Donald Tees, Tim Pozar Editors Emeritii: Thom Henderson, Dale Lovell, Vince Perriello, Tom Jennings IMPORTANT NOTE: The FidoNet address of the FidoNews BBS has been changed!!! Please make a note of this. "FidoNews" BBS FidoNet 1:1/23 <---- NEW ADDRESS!!!! BBS +1-519-570-4176, 300/1200/2400/14200/V.32bis/HST(DS) Internet addresses: Don & Sylvia (submission address) editor@exlibris.tdkcs.waterloo.on.ca Sylvia -- max@exlibris.tdkcs.waterloo.on.ca Donald -- donald@exlibris.tdkcs.waterloo.on.ca Tim -- pozar@kumr.lns.com (Postal Service mailing address) (have extreme patience) FidoNews 172 Duke St. E. Kitchener, Ontario Canada N2H 1A7 Published weekly by and for the members of the FidoNet international amateur electronic mail system. It is a compilation of individual articles contributed by their authors or their authorized agents. The contribution of articles to this compilation does not diminish the rights of the authors. Opinions expressed in these articles are those of the authors and not necessarily those of FidoNews. Authors retain copyright on individual works; otherwise FidoNews is copyright 1993 Sylvia Maxwell. All rights reserved. Duplication and/or distribution permitted for noncommercial purposes only. For use in other circumstances, please contact the original authors, or FidoNews (we're easy). OBTAINING COPIES: The-most-recent-issue-ONLY of FidoNews in electronic FidoNews 10-12 Page: 54 22 Mar 1993 form may be obtained from the FidoNews BBS via manual download or Wazoo FileRequest, or from various sites in the FidoNet and Internet. PRINTED COPIES may be obtained from Fido Software for $10.00US each PostPaid First Class within North America, or $13.00US elsewhere, mailed Air Mail. (US funds drawn upon a US bank only.) BACK ISSUES: Available from FidoNet nodes 1:102/138, 1:216/21, 1:125/1212, (and probably others), via filerequest or download (consult a recent nodelist for phone numbers). A very nice index to the Tables of Contents to all FidoNews volumes can be filerequested from 1:396/1 or 1:216/21. The name(s) to request are FNEWSxTC.ZIP, where 'x' is the volume number; 1=1984, 2=1985... through 8=1991. INTERNET USERS: FidoNews is available via FTP from ftp.ieee.org, in directory ~ftp/pub/fidonet/fidonews. If you have questions regarding FidoNet, please direct them to deitch@gisatl.fidonet.org, not the FidoNews BBS. (Be kind and patient; David Deitch is generously volunteering to handle FidoNet/Internet questions.) SUBMISSIONS: You are encouraged to submit articles for publication in FidoNews. Article submission requirements are contained in the file ARTSPEC.DOC, available from the FidoNews BBS, or Wazoo filerequestable from 1:1/23 as file "ARTSPEC.DOC". Please read it. "Fido", "FidoNet" and the dog-with-diskette are U.S. registered trademarks of Tom Jennings, Box 77731, San Francisco CA 94107, USA and are used with permission. Asked what he thought of Western civilization, M.K. Gandhi said, "I think it would be an excellent idea". -- END ----------------------------------------------------------------------