Aminet 15/Aminet 15 - Nov 1996.iso/Aminet/comm/fido/fnews6.lzh/fido623.nws

Text File | 1989-06-05 | 101KB | 2,082 lines

     Volume 6, Number 23                                   5 June 1989
     +---------------------------------------------------------------+
     |                                                  _            |
     |                                                 /  \          |
     |                                                /|oo \         |
     |        - FidoNews -                           (_|  /_)        |
     |                                                _`@/_ \    _   |
     |        International                          |     | \   \\  |
     |     FidoNet Association                       | (*) |  \   )) |
     |         Newsletter               ______       |__U__| /  \//  |
     |                                 / FIDO \       _//|| _\   /   |
     |                                (________)     (_/(_|(____/    |
     |                                                     (jm)      |
     +---------------------------------------------------------------+
     Editor in Chief:                                  Vince Perriello
     Editors Emeritii:                                     Dale Lovell
                                                        Thom Henderson
     Chief Procrastinator Emeritus:                       Tom Jennings

     FidoNews  is  published  weekly  by  the  International   FidoNet
     Association  as  its  official newsletter.  You are encouraged to
     submit articles for publication in FidoNews.  Article  submission
     standards  are contained in the file ARTSPEC.DOC,  available from
     node 1:1/1.    1:1/1  is  a Continuous Mail system, available for
     network mail 24 hours a day.

     Copyright 1989 by  the  International  FidoNet  Association.  All
     rights  reserved.  Duplication  and/or distribution permitted for
     noncommercial purposes only.  For  use  in  other  circumstances,
     please contact IFNA at [phone]. IFNA may also be contacted
     at PO Box 41143, St. Louis, MO 63141.

     Fido  and FidoNet  are registered  trademarks of  Tom Jennings of
     Fido Software,  164 Shipley Avenue,  San Francisco, CA  94107 and
     are used with permission.

     We  don't necessarily agree with the contents  of  every  article
     published  here.  Most of these materials are  unsolicited.    No
     article will be rejected which is properly attributed and legally
     acceptable.    We   will  publish  every  responsible  submission
     received.


                        Table of Contents
     1. ARTICLES  .................................................  1
        The European Situation  ...................................  1
        Response to Pete White's article  .........................  3
        The Fake Users Manual  .................................... 10
        The Lost FidoNet Archives - Volume 2  ..................... 15
        Here We Go Again!  ........................................ 21
        Something Exotic - Polish traffic in Net/Echo Mail  ....... 29
     2. COLUMNS  .................................................. 31
        The Veterinarian's Corner: Elimination Problem Behavior  .. 31
     3. LATEST VERSIONS  .......................................... 33
        Latest Software Versions  ................................. 33
     And more!
     FidoNews 6-23                Page 1                    5 Jun 1989


     =================================================================
                                 ARTICLES
     =================================================================

                          The European Situation
                             by Daniel Tobias
                                  1:380/7

        This article  is my reaction to the Zone 2 Policy situation as
     announced in FidoNews 622.

        The European nodes' statement to the  effect  that  they  have
     repealed  POLICY3  for  their    zone,    replaced    it  with  a
     European-specific  policy,  and  rejected the  proposed  POLICY4,
     amounts  to  a "Declaration of Independence"  of  sorts  for  the
     European nodes, who now claim not to  be  subject to the overall,
     American-dominated FidoNet policy.

        As a Libertarian politically, I have no moral objection to the
     European nodes declaring independence  from  the Americans, which
     sort of turns the tables on the Americans who did a similar thing
     to Europe over 200 years ago.

        However, I'm not entirely thrilled with  the  manner  in which
     they  did  it.    They  are  claiming to be fully autonomous  and
     self-governing, not subject  to  overall FidoNet policy, but yet,
     they still consider themselves  part  of  the FidoNet, and are in
     the nodelist distributed in zones  1,  3,  and 4 as well as their
     zone.

        It seems to me, if they  want  their  full  independence, they
     should  have to leave FidoNet altogether, and become a  different
     network like  AlterNet  and  EggNet.   Under those circumstances,
     they would no  longer  be  in  the  FidoNet nodelist, or have the
     rights to the name  FidoNet  under  Tom Jennings' license, unless
     they engaged in separate negotiations  to secure such privileges.
     After all, why should the American coordinator structure pay long
     distance  charges  to distribute a nodelist including  a  lengthy
     list  of  European  nodes, if those nodes refuse  to  accept  the
     authority  of the FidoNet Policy which is supposed to  cover  ALL
     zones?

        I  think  the  Europeans  should  either break free of FidoNet
     altogether  if they want that level of  autonomy,  or  else  work
     within the system to get a POLICY4 passed  that  allows  for wide
     latitude  for  zone  policies  taking  into  account  the  varied
     circumstances of  different  world  regions.   But they shouldn't
     repudiate POLICY3 but  still  act  like  they're  part of the net
     governed by this policy.

        As for the specific  elements  of  European  policy,  the most
     controversial one is their mandatory fee  for  nodes.  That's the
     element  most in conflict with existing policy,  and  some  might
     argue it contravenes the general spirit of FidoNet.    That  more
     than anything else might compel European nodes to leave  FidoNet,
     since I don't know if the rest of the network would be willing to
     FidoNews 6-23                Page 2                    5 Jun 1989


     adopt  a policy permitting zones (and perhaps regions or nets) to
     impose  mandatory  charges.    That  would  open up a real can of
     worms;   even  if  it is permitted, some controls would likely be
     placed to prevent  the  possibility  of profiteering NCs, RCs, or
     ZCs imposing excessive charges for their personal profit.

        In  conclusion,  I'd like  to  see  FidoNet  preserved  as  an
     international network,  held  together  by  one consistent policy
     statement (with some  latitude  allowed for local policies within
     the constraints of the  global  one).  If other systems, wherever
     in the world they may  be  located,  wish  to carry on networking
     under different rules, they've got every  right  to  do  so,  but
     they're not then part of FidoNet.

     -----------------------------------------------------------------
     FidoNews 6-23                Page 3                    5 Jun 1989


     Jack Decker
     Fidonet 1:154/8  LCRnet 77:1011/8


     RESPONSE TO PETE WHITE'S ARTICLE

     In Fidonews 622, Pete White published an article containing
     certain "ramblings".  I'd like to touch on a few of the points
     he made.

     As Pete noted, among many other positions, he is the Regional
     Coordinator of Region 16.  He's also held positions in the
     IFNA.

     Pete then goes on to admit confusion on certain things.  He
     states, "I see attacks on those who are spending their time and
     money trying to feed the `echo-holics'.  I see attacks on the
     *C structure for much of what they do, or don't do.  I see a
     lot of commentary by folks who are obviously so biased and
     upset they ought to be collecting stamps or seeking an inner
     light....  What I don't see are answers to some of the basic
     questions I've asked since day one, that first day I
     unknowingly got a mailer to work!  When I see all the messages
     about 'power plays' and 'the coordinators have all the power' I
     really get confused.  Will someone out there tell me POWER over
     what?  Is there a monetary benefit here that I'm missing that
     makes POWER profitable?  If I have the POWER can I make my echo
     feeds send me the echos instead of me paying to go after them?
     I somewhat doubt that!  Actually, it looks very much like those
     who are blamed for wanting POWER are those who are doing all
     the work."

     I'll bet a lot of common sysops read the above and shook their
     head sadly.  The problem is that Pete's an RC.  If anybody
     should be making an effort to find out the reasons behind these
     complaints, an RC and IFNA member should.  Instead, what I see
     is a "why is everybody always picking on me" type of reaction.

     When I think of the Coordinator structure in Fidonet, it
     reminds me of the cartoon about the overzealous boy scout, who,
     determined to do his "good deed for the day", helps the old
     lady across the street.  Whereupon, he just can't understand
     why, instead of thanking him, she bashes him over the head with
     her umbrella.  The problem, of course, was that the old lady
     didn't want to cross the street, she was just standing on the
     corner waiting for a bus!

     Why do the coordinators want POWER?  Doggone if I know.  You
     would think that as many complaints as they receive, at least
     some of them would wise up to the fact that they're doing
     things that just aren't popular with the common sysops...
     they're trying to take us in a direction we don't want to go...
     or they'd quit.  The POWER is in forcing others to do things
     YOUR way, even though perhaps the majority doesn't think YOUR
     way is the BEST way.  I'm sorry, but I don't know why some
     people thrive on that sort of power.  They will endure flames,
     FidoNews 6-23                Page 4                    5 Jun 1989


     insults, and even sometimes a financial loss just to retain
     that sort of power over others.  Maybe a sociologist can
     explain it, but I can't.

     What do I mean by "they're trying to take us in a direction we
     don't want to go?"  I think it can be summed up in two ways.
     First, they are trying to impose a tight, rigid, unbending
     structure over a group of hobbyists, who really want a loose,
     informal, friendly structure.  We want equals working together,
     not dictators imposing rules.  Second, they want to impose a
     top-down form of government, whereas most sysops want a
     bottom-up (representative) form of government.

     Pete then goes on to say:  "How about those who are screaming
     for democracy?  Have any of them every watched 'democracy at
     work' within FidoNet?  You really ought to try it.  Watching
     democracy at work when there was an ECHOPOL conference was
     enough to sell me on anything but.  All I saw there was a few
     who were interested in only themselves and spent most of their
     time practicing in the age old FidoNet tradition of 'the
     beating of dead horses' while a few others tried to get some
     intelligence from the proceedings.  Those who scream loudly for
     'democracy' have absolutely NO idea what they are asking for."

     It's interesting that Pete should use the ECHOPOL conference as
     an example.  I can tell you exactly what happened in ECHOPOL,
     because I was there.  Basically, a number of us were opposed to
     the geographic (regional) restrictions on echomail.  We wanted
     to be able to continue sending echomail between systems
     irregardless of regional boundaries, as we had always done in
     the past.

     Now, to hear Pete talk, you'd think that a vote was taken, that
     the regional echomail restrictions were approved by the
     majority, and that a few "crybabies" just wouldn't let it go,
     and yield to the will of the majority.  But, that's simply not
     what happened.  What DID happen was that at the very start, the
     folks running the ECHOPOL conference decided that the issue of
     echomail crossing regional boundaries was NON-NEGOTIABLE.  The
     fact of the matter is that we NEVER GOT TO VOTE on probably the
     single most important issue affecting echomail handling.

     Not that we didn't try.  I personally asked on numerous
     occasions that they just take a vote to determine the will of
     the majority on this matter, and if we were defeated, I
     promised to shut up about the issue.  But we were told it was
     "too much trouble" to take a vote, and that everybody was in
     favor of the restrictions except a few "troublemakers."

     Oh, we did get to vote on some things... real important
     stuff(?), like the format and length of tear lines and origin
     lines.  But on major points, it seemed that the decisions had
     already been made for us.

     The low point occurred in a message from Mike Ratledge, the
     ECHOPOL conference moderator, to Vince Perriello (slightly
     FidoNews 6-23                Page 5                    5 Jun 1989


     reformatted to fit the FIDONEWS column width):

     -----(message begins)-----

      Message #34, Area "Echopol "
        From: Mike Ratledge
          To: Vince Perriello               16 Nov 88 10:28:00
     Subject: Slight change in timing

     NH>> There is a clear concensus that PATH lines are required.
     NH>> The messages in this conference have been overwelming in
     NH>> favor of them.  We did not feel it was necessary to
     NH>> re-hash topics that alreay had a majority.

     -> PATH lines are NOT necessary. If you guys are going to
     -> design software this way, ignoring the FTSC working group,
     -> then you can damned well WRITE it too.

     They aren't necessary *if* we have the topology "locked down"
     and *if* we can control every one of the fools out there that
     thinks they're better off ignoring the requirements like not
     going out-of-region, etc, etc.

     We *could* totally eliminate SEEN-BY: lines, too - *if* the
     above two things were true - but I don't look for it to happen
     any time in the near future.

     I agree that there are a lot of things that we're talking about
     here that do overlap the FTSC.  I think that the FTSC should be
     responsible for the basic format of the messages, the structure
     of the packets, etc - but the actual message content should be
     more in "our ballpark" here.  I realize it's a fine line -
     especially when we're talking about the kludge lines - but
     we've got to start somewhere - or we'll never get there!

     If the FTSC makes a decision which changes what is written in
     ECHOPOL, then I think that we should ammend the policy - that's
     all.

     --- via XRS 0.30
      * Origin: That Mean ol' RatMan's "Point-Less" Point
     (TComm 1:372/666.1)

     -----(message ends)-----

     The FOOLS comment by the moderator was the straw that broke the
     camel's back for many of us.  It was clear to us then that only
     those whose opinions were in sync with the preconceived notions
     of the ECHOPOL committee were welcome to express an opinion in
     the conference.  So, the participants in the ECHOPOL conference
     were subjected not only to being asked to vote only on
     insignificant matters, while being denied the right to vote on
     important ones (I guess this was so they could later claim that
     ECHOPOL had been arrived at by a vote of the sysops of
     Fidonet), but at the end were subjected to a fair amount of
     character assassination as well.  By the way, I asked Mike
     FidoNews 6-23                Page 6                    5 Jun 1989


     Ratledge for an apology for the FOOLS comment, and he declined
     to offer one.

     Oh, and Pete White?  He was in the conference, and hanging
     solidly with the clique that was running the conference.  In
     fact, he was one of the most vocal supporters of the regional
     echomail restrictions.

     So when Pete tells you that we were beating a dead horse, it
     was only dead as far as the conference moderator and a few
     others (including Pete White) were concerned.  To some of the
     rest of us, it appeared that the horse hadn't even been born
     yet, and that the ruling clique was trying to do a premature
     abortion on it!

     Getting back to Pete's Fidonews article, he then goes on to
     say, "The ones who make me worry are those who want
     'democracy'.  Some of those very same people want to be able to
     run their own nets with their own policy!  Imagine it, hundreds
     of nets all over the place - each with it's very own policy.
     Why, with any work at all we could probably confuse everyone as
     well as the federal, state and municipal laws have!"  Now
     perhaps that sounds bad until you consider the alternatives.
     Someone once said that "Democracy is the very worst form of
     government, except for every other type."  Right now the
     Chinese people have a government that operates a lot like
     Fidonet.  There, despite the fact that the government could
     shoot to kill protestors, many people have gathered with one
     basic demand - they want DEMOCRACY!  Here in the United States,
     we can protest with virtually no fear of anything much worse
     than perhaps a night in jail, and yet how many people do you
     see demonstrating against the government in favor of a
     dictatorship?  Think about it!

     Pete continues, "The strange thing is we have many nets out
     there doing just that, and everyone is happy!  They never
     demanded the 'right' to do it, they all agreed within
     themselves it was the right way to go and they went with it.
     Makes me wonder about those who are screaming for the same
     'rights' that others have had for years.  Sure must be
     something wrong somewhere."  Yes, something is wrong - the fact
     that those nets that are now using a democratic method of
     selecting their Net Coordinator are basically operating outside
     of Policy.  They can get away with it, but ONLY if the Regional
     Coordinator allows them to do so.  However, if the Regional
     Coordinator doesn't like the net's choice of an NC, that NC can
     be replaced at the whim of the RC.  So what you have is a form
     of democracy at the net level, and (if you're lucky) a
     "benevolent dictatorship" at the Regional level.  But if your
     elected NC manages to offend a not-so-benevolent RC, out he
     goes!

     Pete goes on, "...Whatever it is, there's a LOT of people out
     there who are doing a LOT of work - and the pay is pretty slim.
     Sure, there's a few who are difficult to get along with and a
     few who shouldn't be involved as they do more damage than good.
     FidoNews 6-23                Page 7                    5 Jun 1989


     Guess that's because they are people.  But if you have a
     problem with a 'people', try to use the system to rectify the
     problem before you decide that the system is wrong."

     Ah, yes, using the system to rectify the problem.  The problem
     is that it rarely works.  How often do you ever see the ZC
     reverse the decision of an RC?  Rarely to never, except when
     much public pressure (the vocal kind that Pete White really
     hates) is brought to bear.  There's a reason for that.  If you
     have appointed someone to a position, that should indicate you
     have confidence in their ability to do the job.  So, if you
     then reverse a decision they have made, doesn't that sort of
     indicate a lack of confidence in them?  It becomes a matter of
     honor... if you trusted the guy enough to appoint him to the
     position, why aren't you backing up his decisions.
     Unfortunately, this sort of thinking often clouds the facts of
     a case.

     Then, too, coordinators tend to appoint other coordinators that
     think like themselves.  Right now we have a coordinator
     structure who, because they were not elected by the common
     sysops, in many ways don't think about things from the
     perspective of a common sysop.  And, when they appoint other
     coordinators, they appoint clones of themselves (or as near as
     they can get).  I know most coordinators don't see it that way,
     but it sure appears that way to those sysops who are not part
     of the *C structure.

     I would like for you to think for a moment about some public
     figure that epitomizes corruption for you.  Perhaps it would be
     a leader of China or Panama, or perhaps a corrupt leader of a
     cult (such as Jim Jones of the Jonestown massacre).  Now here
     were people who, in many cases, started out with the best of
     intentions in their own minds (not necessarily in everyone
     else's, but few people view themselves as evil).  But as they
     got more and more corrupt, you wonder how on earth they managed
     to go through life without anyone challenging them on their
     actions.  For example, how come nobody told Jim Jones that he
     was crazy?

     Well, the answer is that some folks probably did, but these
     leaders surrounded themselves with folks who agreed with them
     (some only for personal gain, I'm sure, but they still voiced
     agreement with the corrupt leaders).  And they either got rid
     of or avoided those who did NOT agree with them.  Now, if folks
     tell you you're on the right track often enough, you just might
     start to believe them, even if they're lying.  And if you hear
     what a wonderful person you are often enough, it gets pretty
     easy to ignore those few "fools" out there that don't agree
     with you, and that don't appreciate your "wisdom and
     intelligence."  I'm sure Jim Bakker had plenty of people
     telling him that his amusement park complex was a wonderful
     idea, and that he really needed a lavish home.  If all of his
     associates had said, "Jim, the money you're spending on this
     amusement park could be put to much better use feeding the
     needy", chances are he wouldn't have built it.
     FidoNews 6-23                Page 8                    5 Jun 1989


     What has that got to do with Fidonet?  No, I'm not putting the
     Fidonet Coordinators in the same classification as the dictator
     of a country or a corrupted evangelist, but I am saying that
     they have formed their own little clique, where THEY decide
     what's best for Fidonet, and where the voice of the "common
     sysop" is never heard.  It's called the REGCON conference, and
     it's open only to those at the Regional Coordinator position
     and higher.  So, all the Regional Coordinators get into REGCON
     and support each other on their decisions, and probably decide
     who the "troublemakers" in Fidonet are, and who's not worth
     listening to.  Unfortunately, unlike our Congress and Senate,
     we don't have the Fidonet equivalent of C-SPAN to keep us
     informed of what's happening in Fidonet government (for those
     outside the U.S., C-SPAN is a pair of cable television feeds
     that transmit live the proceedings of the U.S. Senate and the
     U.S.  House of Representatives).  The mental picture is one of
     a council of dukes gathered in the king's chamber to decide
     which peasants are "troublemakers" that need to be eliminated,
     or to plot other mischief.

     But the worst thing about REGCON is that is allows Regional
     Coordinators who are about to take some action that is
     questionable in the light of POLICY to muster support for their
     position BEFORE the action is taken, or immediately thereafter.
     In other words, before the victim even knows about an action
     that about to be taken against him, the RC has already
     discussed it with the other RC's and the ZC in the REGCON
     conference.  The problem is that there is no one present to
     speak for the affected person(s)... in effect, it's like
     holding a trial "in absentia", without allowing the defendant
     to have any representation.  Of course, after the affected
     sysop finds out about the action, he can still file a policy
     complaint...  but now he has the burden of convincing this
     council of people who are NOT his peers to backtrack on an
     action that they have already pre-approved!

     Pete closes his commentary with: "Enough, already!   All I can
     recommend is that when reading ANY commentary, including this,
     it's best to remember that the ones doing all the complaining
     are representative of less than 5% of the members of FidoNet.
     The *C structure is responsible to 100% of the net.  Look at
     what FidoNet is.  Simply amazing that it works at all!  And
     what makes it work?  The very same people who are doing
     everything wrong.  And you wonder why I'm confused?"  There are
     a couple of very valid points above.  First, probably even LESS
     than 5% of the sysops ever bother to express their point of
     view.  If EVERY sysop who wanted a more democratic form of
     government in Fidonet would write to their NC and RC and SAY
     SO, I'm sure it would have an impact.  The problem is that, for
     example, I hear from lots of folks who agree with me on various
     issues, but they don't want to make waves.  I say, "Why don't
     you write an article for Fidonews" and they say, "You write so
     much better than I do, and you say everything I'd want to say!"
     That's not the point!  It's not how well you write, the whole
     idea is to convince the powers-that-be that you and most other
     Fidonet sysops want a more representative form of government,
     FidoNews 6-23                Page 9                    5 Jun 1989


     and that you're tired of the dictatorship in Fidonet.  I could
     write like Shakespeare but if they think it's only a few lone
     nuts that want democracy, we aren't going to get it.

     The other thing is that Pete implies that everything is
     "working".  Well, if you call having Regional Coordinators
     going around throwing nodes out of Fidonet for no real good
     reason a net that's "working", then I guess Fidonet is
     "working".  At least some folks are working.  Trouble is,
     sometimes they're working to make life difficult for the rest
     of us (whether they realize it or not).

     Please, folks, if you want to see some changes in Fidonet, take
     time to write to your RC and ZC today, or write an article for
     Fidonews expressing your sentiments.  Let the *C. structure
     hear from some folks outside their "inner circle" for a change
     ... from some folks that they haven't already branded as
     "troublemakers."



     -----------------------------------------------------------------
     FidoNews 6-23                Page 10                   5 Jun 1989


                           The Fake Users Manual
                           =====================
                        Written By Jamie MacDonald
                        ==========================
               Sysop of The Romulan Sector QuickBBS - 222/20
               =============================================
                     [phone] - Sudbury, Ontario
                     ================================

         May 22, 1989
         ============

         I have just arrived home  from  my  long  weekend.   I hadn't
     looked at the user edit program  in about a week and a half and I
     thought I'd check to see my new  users.    To  my  surprise,  and
     dismay, I have found that I have 60  new  users  in  just  over a
     week.  Did some local store have a modem  sale?  Is there someone
     standing in downtown Sudbury handing out free modems?


         Nope.  The fakes are back, and they are worse than ever.


         INTRODUCTION
         ============

         When  I first introduced the Romulan Sector to the public  on
     January  6th,  1989,  I  had  visions  of  a wonderful board with
     seriously  oriented  users enjoying  themselves.    NEVER  had  I
     thought it would come to  this.    In the months that I have been
     running this board, I have had  certain  games  running  on  this
     board, which is the target of the fakes.  In this file, I will be
     discussing  a  topic  that  many  sysops  have  the  PLEASURE  of
     discussing, the good old fake users.

         CHAPTER 1 - CLASSIFICATION OF FAKES
         ===================================

         There are many different types of fakes, and the  first  step
     to  stopping them is to know who you are dealing  with...so  here
     they are:

     #1) The Common Download/Gaming Idiot:

         This is the most common type of fake.  They gain small access
     (but  small  is  enough  for  them!)  to  the  BBS  and then take
     advantage of it, the games, the files for downloading, etc.  Many
     of these users  are  the users who make regular calls to 'handle'
     boards and who only  call  the  serious  boards because of games,
     downloads, etc.  The most  popular game for fakes is the infamous
     Trade Wars.  It is a  great  game,  a very interesting simulation
     and an excellent idea for a BBS.  Too bad these users take a good
     thing and warp it.  They tend to  take it SO SERIOUSLY, that they
     would  do  almost  anything to get more fighters/credits or  even
     access to it.  It is almost addictive.  The only good thing about
     these users is that they are easy to catch, and they  are  rather
     FidoNews 6-23                Page 11                   5 Jun 1989


     chicken when it comes to catching them.

     Example:

         When  you  see  a user who you don't know on your board  (new
     user  or  old  user) and you dial his/her number and get either a
     recording or a  ring  indicating  that  this  user  is either not
     calling from home, or is a fake!

     You break in....

     BBS:   Hello John Doe, this is Jamie MacDonald.
     User:  ya hi what
     Sysop: Hi, I just dialed your number and there is no busy signal,
            could you please explain this?
     User:  (Hangs up quickly)

     #2) The Gutsy Fake

         This is a fake  similar  to  #1,  but is a lot more gutsy and
     will even risk his/her own  account's  deletation  for this fake.
     To explain this, I will use  an  example  of  a  fake I had on my
     board a little while back called David Harrison.  I still haven't
     found the owner of that fake, but I  have an idea of who it might
     be.  For now, the owner will be called Joe Blow.

         A new user logs on to your board, David  Harrison.    After a
     few  days  of  putting his deletation off, you call another  area
     BBS, and find that David Harrison hasn't called there.  You voice
     validate David and find out he is a nonexistant person.  I delete
     David.  2 days later, I get a message from David (logged on  as a
     new user) saying:

         "I AM NOT A FAKE...WHY CAN'T YOU GET THAT INTO YOUR THICK
          SKULLS?!"

         Without hesitation, I deleted him.  Never called back since.

         These fakes are the  worst  kind,  because they are stubborn.
     Once they know they are caught, they don't give up.

     #3) Mr. Congeniality

         These  fakes are rather fun  because  they  believe  that  by
     sucking up and kissing the sysops  feet  they  will  be  able  to
     remain a validated user.  For example,  a  fake  (you know he's a
     fake but you will be deleting him later) pages you and says:

     Hi there, Jamie.  Would it be okay  if  you tell me why the board
     was down earlier today, if you aren't to busy?

         I would reply:

     I was working on a new door.

         He says:
     FidoNews 6-23                Page 12                   5 Jun 1989


     Oh wonderful, that is just terrific if there was  a new door, not
     that this BBS isn't great as it is, did I mention what a good BBS
     this is?

         As I throw up in the garbage can next to me, I terminate chat
     mode.  I recieve a message an hour later from the fake saying:

         Thank you very much for letting me know why it was down.

                           Thanks again!

         The goody two  shoes  approach used to work with many sysops,
     but doesn't anymore.

     #4) The Forgetful Fake

         This type usually occurs  with  a user with more than 1 fake.
     He either forgets entirely about  the  fake  and lets the program
     delete the account after no call  for  a while, or he forgets the
     password of the fake.  It is  kind  of  fun  to  watch  a  person
     forgetting his password.

     #5) The generally stupid fake

         Most users with fakes have an IQ of 10-20, but there are some
     that have slightly lower.  These users fall into  this  catagory.
     In my new user screens, I make mention that you  MUST  contribute
     something to the BBS, either in posts, uploads, ideas, etc.  Some
     of  the fakes who fall under catagory #5 like seem to think  that
     by writing 4 word posts, they are contributing to the board.  You
     sysops know what I'm talking about:

     Message #2456
     From: John Doe
     To:   All
     Subject: hi

     hi everyone hows life send me mail bye john

     Or of course, the famous insult-the-message-area post:

     Message #2457
     From: John Doe
     To:   All
     Subject: ----

     man this area is lame get some posts going bye john

         I have  a  message  area  on  my  board  called  "The Romulan
     Resthome" for users  whos  access  was lowered because of lack of
     contribution to the board,  and  most  of  the posts in this area
     look like these.


     #6) The Non-Consistent Fakes

     FidoNews 6-23                Page 13                   5 Jun 1989


         These fakes are the DUMBEST  fakes  around,  yes,  even  more
     idiotic than type #5.  This  type  needs barely any explaination,
     on your board they are Sean, on  another they are Shawn.  On your
     board they are John, on another they are Jon.  On your board they
     are.....well you get the idea.

     #7) The Friends of Modem Users

         These are fakes that claim they are over at  a  friends house
     when they call your board, but never seem to be  at  home.   Some
     even  admit  to  not  having  a modem, but they soon learn  their
     lesson when the sysop says "NO MODEM - NO ACCESS".  Or even those
     who  claim to have a busted modem are always a royal pain in  the
     ass.   These are, in my opinion, the worst type of users, because
     you can rarely tell whether they are fakes or not.

     You may have  noticed  that  this  file is beginning to look like
     "The Loser User's Manual".   I am not surprised because the users
     with fakes are very similar to those in that manual.

                       Other famous types of fakes:
                       ----------------------------

     The Page-The-Sysop-For-Access Fakes.

     The Try-To-Hack-Someone-Elses-Pass-And-If-Impossible-Make-A-Fake
     Fakes

     And many other types (See the end of this file for more details)

                                What to Do
                                ==========

         Well, my advice  is  to  voice validate all new users.  If it
     gets too much out of hand (too many over and over again), just go
     to the centre of the problem:

     a) If your problem is download fakes, go through  your  user list
     and  give  access  to the download areas ONLY to users  who  have
     proved themselves by posting and uploading.

     b) If your problem is games, you can take out the  game  entirely
     (I  may  take  out  Trade Wars eventually due to the surprisingly
     large number  of  fakes).   You may also want to put in hours for
     the games or  doors  (using an event file) or maybe restrict them
     to only those who have proved themselves.

         The one piece of advice  to  you is NOT to run a program like
     VERIFY.  If you are unfermiliar with verify, it is a program that
     gives a new user 2 minutes to  prepare  his/her  modem  for  auto
     answer while it calls them back to verify  them.    This may seem
     like a good idea, but many new users don't  know how to put their
     modem  on  auto  answer, therefore deleting just about all fakes.
     Perhaps you get a user who either is, or claims to  be, from Hong
     Kong.  You certainly don't want your modem calling there!  Beware
     of such programs  and  don't  be fooled by the description beside
     FidoNews 6-23                Page 14                   5 Jun 1989


     the file name!

     One more piece  of advice, to find out if a long distance user is
     a fake or not, call long distance directory assistance and ask if
     the number that you have  belongs  to  the  person  who claims it
     does.

     And there you have it, The  Fake  Users Manual.  Always be on the
     look out for fakes, hey, who knows?    Maybe  the  person reading
     this right now is a fake?

     You never know..............

                             Jamie MacDonald.

     =================================================================

     To Sysops:

     If you have any other types of fakes  that you would like to warn
     the  public  about, or any tips on catching fakes,  please  leave
     netmail  to  Jamie MacDonald at The Romulan Sector QBBS, 1:222/20
     or  call  The Romulan Sector QBBS at 300 (hopefully not) 1200  or
     2400  baud  at  [phone].   Next edition will be sent In the
     Fall of 1989.

     =================================================================


     -----------------------------------------------------------------
     FidoNews 6-23                Page 15                   5 Jun 1989


                         THE LOST FIDONET ARCHIVES
                                VOLUME TWO

                  Compiled by various members of FidoNet
                         Edited by Vince Perriello


     This is  the  second article in a series which reprints documents
     of historical significance to FidoNet.  This week we feature some
     of the responses from  early Fido sysops to Tom Jennings' FidoNet
     proposal.  There are some  really  interesting  items  buried  in
     these comments that even today hold real significance to the net.

     Please note that most  if  not all of the FidoNet addresses, data
     line phone numbers, and company  names and/or addresses mentioned
     in this or any of the  other  articles  in this series are not to
     be considered reliable for current use in  locating  something or
     someone  mentioned here.  Refer to the current  nodelist  if  you
     want to try to find any of the above.


     From John Madill, in file FIDONET.JNM (May 26, 1984):


     Considerations for FidoNet

     As  mentioned,  one of the major drawbacks in the FidoNet project
     is  the  way  by  which  it  would  be  paid  for.   One  of  the
     possiblities  is  the  'Pay Ahead' method.  The amount to be paid
     should most likely be a predetermined quantity of TJ Cubits.  The
     application of the payment should be an entry, by  the  SysOp  of
     the  local  Fido,  into  the  USER.BBS  file.   This  places  the
     necessary information into a location that can be verified  as  a
     user  utilizes their allocation of cubits.  Each time an entry to
     the mail system is made, the  available  cubit  quantity  can  be
     updated on a real time basis.

     Another major problem is the verification of recieved mail.  This
     applies  not only to the FidoNet concept, but also to the message
     system as it exists in FidoBBS.  A possible way of  handling  the
     transfer/receipt  of  remote  mail,  is  to  calculate the return
     message (received your  message  ###  at  FidoNet  Location  ###,
     time/date...)   as  part  of  the  initial outgoing message.  The
     local  FidoMail  system  should  in  theory,  check  the  senders
     USER.BBS  record  to  determine  the  message area last used, and
     enter a message with the acknowledgement.  As  this  pertains  to
     local  messages, when a message is entered, Fido could verify the
     name of the "To:" party, and the message area last used.

     Another thing to be considered is the possiblity of automating SQ
     and  LU  modules  in  conjunction within a destination processor.
     This could squeeze all messages, and pack them into a library for
     each  destination,  cutting  costs  even  further.   If  not   to
     difficult,  the  receiving  Fido  could  utilize  a squeezed file
     interpreter to  speed  up  the  acknowledgement  of  receipt,  as
     opposed   to   unsqueezing/de-lbr   while   on  line.   The  only
     FidoNews 6-23                Page 16                   5 Jun 1989


     alternative would  be  for  the  remote  Fido  to  call  back  an
     acknowledgement,  shifting  the  cost to a location not receiving
     the payment.

     The  prospect  of  transferring,  or  as in another communication
     which shall remain un-named,  "attachment"  of  program  or  data
     files  would  definately increase the potential value of FidoNet.
     This is especially true for club  or  commercial  ventures.   The
     problem  becomes  one  of  cost accounting.  Would subscribers be
     willing to pay for a portion, pro-rated amount, of the  transfer?
     Obviously a stickey point, but should be considered.

     I  certainly  hope that this input is helpful.  The possiblity of
     using this type of relay system is exciting!  Hopefully  it  will
     be rewarding.


     From Jim Ryan, in file FIDONET.NOT (May 26, 1984):


     Jim Ryan
     02 May 84

     Notes on the FidoNet System

     Tom Jennings has outlined,  in  his  article  dated  30 Apr 84, a
     proposal  for FidoNet-- a communications  network  for  Fido  and
     other message systems.

     I  have  some comments and suggestions  for  improvement  of  the
     FidoNet system.

     -----

     If  FidoNet  were  to  use a structure  similar  to  DecNet,  the
     networking  system for Digital computers, a person could  send  a
     message using the syntax :

     To : -F01 Tom Jennings

     meaning  "Send this message to FidoNet Node 1, addressed  to  Tom
     Jennings".  A message to all could be coded as :

     To : -F01 All

     and a message going to all systems could be coded as :

     To : -F All

     The originating Fido system could keep a log of all  messages  in
     all areas that are flagged to other FidoNet nodes, and send  them
     with  a  record  indicating  there  originating  node,  and  area
     description :

                   Message : 25
                   From    : -F01 Tom Jennings
     FidoNews 6-23                Page 17                   5 Jun 1989


                   To      : All
                   Subject : FidoNet List
                   (Area   : General )

     -----

     In my opinion, the  major  drawback  to the FidoNet system is the
     reliance on the SysOp to  foot  the  bill  for  the long distance
     charges to all the FidoNet nodes  he needs to send mail to.  This
     may make the system prohibitive to smaller users.

     An alternate idea would be to send  the  FidoNet  mail through an
     alternate system such as MCI Mail or Compuserve.   In this manner
     each sysop would only be paying the charges of  the  various host
     systems  instead  of  the  long  distance charges to each FidoNet
     node.

     For  example  :   If Tom (or some other willing volunteer)  would
     write a FidoNet mail system on Compuserve, a sample session might
     run  like    this    (with  the  FidoNet  computer  handling  the
     input/output) :

                      host : Welcome to Compuserve

                      User Id : XXXXX,XXX
                      Password : ____________

                      Compuserve Information Service
                      XX-XXX-XX at XX:XX:XX

                      FidoNet Host System
                      Login : FIDO-01
                      Pass  : XXXXXXX

                      Welcome FIDO-01
                      Checking for mail
                      Ready to send mail

                      (CIS sends mail to FidoNet node)

                      Ready to recieve mail

                      (FidoNet node sends mail to CIS)

                      Thank you for using FidoNet

                      (logoff)

     The disadvantages of  this  system  (especially  on  CIS  or  the
     Source) would be transmission  speed.    Unless you want to spend
     the extra $12.00 per hour  for 1200 baud service, your stuck with
     300 baud.

     But  the advantages would be a  central  point  for  all  FidoNet
     messages, and probably much greater efficiency.

     FidoNews 6-23                Page 18                   5 Jun 1989


     -----

     Well, those are my comments.  I  think the idea of a national BBS
     network is fabulous, but it's up to us  to  figure  out  the nit-
     picking details!!!!!

                                                  Jim Ryan


     From Richard P. Wilkes, in file FIDONET.RPW (May 26, 1984):

     FIDONET:  Response    5/24/84

     Richard P. Wilkes
     WILKES SOFTWARE SYSTEMS

     With  all  due  respect  to  Tom  Jennings,  I feel  the  FidoNet
     implementation  as  described  in  the  FIDONET.DOC  file  is not
     practical.   Let  me  explain,  hopefully  without  becoming  too
     verbose.

     I have been  working  on  networking systems for seven years now.
     One thing that truly amazes me is the effort by every implementor
     to reinvent the wheel.   Now,  sometime  when  the  wheel doesn't
     exist, you have to create it.    But  in  this  case,  there  are
     already  MANY different ways to network computers  together  that
     WORK;  if a network is to be designed, let's chose one that won't
     leave us isolated from the "rest of the world."

     People  in the micro BBS environ often are totally  unaware  that
     there  is  a  working,  FREE,  network of mini and microcomputers
     exchanging gigabytes of mail around the country (by phone).  Some
     are part of the Arpanet, but the one we should examine is UUCP, a
     network of machines running Unix.

     The UUCP mailer  is  not small, but could be modified (with great
     effort) to run on  a  PC.  I know that vortex!lauren@RAND-UNIX is
     working on an MSDOS version.   Note that the address format shown
     here is a standard.  Messages  addressed  in  this  manner can be
     gatewayed through many networks to finally reach its destination.
     "vortex"  is  the UUCP machine;  "lauren" is  the  username  (for
     Lauren Weinstein);  RAND-UNIX is the Arpanet gateway.

     Now,  all  of  this may not seem like it  has  much  to  do  with
     FidoNet.  But, the viability of such a network depends on several
     vital points:

     1)  Virtually  no  cost  or  minimal  cost  that  could be easily
     absorbed by local administrations (as they do now).

     2) Connectivity with other systems.

     3) Personal  mailboxes,  a  feature  unsupported by Fido to date.
     These also gobble disk space.

     4) net.news:   This  is  the  equivalent  of  country-wide  SIGs.
     FidoNews 6-23                Page 19                   5 Jun 1989


     Messages are gatewayed through  several hosts and utimately reach
     all systems where they are  posted  in  message areas.  Note that
     messages may range from 5 to 500 *lines*.

     Now, I could go on for  many pages on the capabilities of systems
     like  these.  Right now, you can  mail  a  message  and  have  it
     delivered  free  to  almost  any  university or major  technology
     corporation in the country via this network.  Other networks also
     allow file transfer (FTP).

     I don't want to throw so much cold water on  this  that  it never
     gets done.  However, I have been around long enough to  know that
     this  ain't  no  one  man  task.   Please, consider how naive the
     notion is  of  a  "simple" routing scheme for 40,000 pc's!  [UUCP
     gets  around  this    by  chaining  host  names.    For  example,
     brl-bmd!jhu!aplvax!joe is a message  address.  To deliver it, the
     holder contacts brl-bmd (Ballistic Research  Lab).    It need not
     know where it is headed after that.  brl transfers the message to
     jhu (Johns Hopkins) which passes it on  the  the  Applied Physics
     Lab (aplvax).  "joe" is a user on  aplvax;  the message is put in
     his  mailbox.  This scheme may sound clumsy, but  it  works  with
     small, fairly static routing tables.]

     The idea of a network is terrific.  As a  matter  of  fact, I was
     working on interfacing with a UUCP host myself for a BBS  that  I
     use to  publish,  CompuCenter.   I came to these conclusions:  1)
     you need at  least  a  33M hard drive at the major nodes, perhaps
     more.    This  is   expensive.    2)  You  need  nodes  that  are
     multi-caller.  I mean, most  of these systems are busy for HOURS.
     You don't want mail delayed like  that.    And, major nodes would
     have to spend so much time transferring  that  they  would not be
     usable for anything else.  If you had  one line dedicated to MAIL
     with another for file transfer and another for messages, maybe it
     would work.  But hey, an IBM PC at 4.77MHz  just  ain't  the baby
     for that kind of load.

     All in all, I'd say...  wait.  The technology is  coming.  With a
     good multiprocessing environment  with  5-6  serial lines, a high
     speed processor (80286?), and  86M  drives on the major nodes, we
     can start to really work at making it a reality.

     For the time being, I  strongly urge that those that are strongly
     interested  in this type of system  start  doing  some  research.
     When  you  can  hold  a reasonable discussion  on  file  transfer
     protocols (real ones, of course--NOT XMODEM), message headers and
     formats,  routing  algorithms,  connectivity  analysis,  delivery
     systems and scheduling, plus  some  of  the  more  intricate cost
     analyses, we can join the  work  that is already advancing in the
     "other world" so we are not left out once again.

     I  welcome  any reasonable comments.   I  frequent  Fido  CLP  --
     Baltimore, only.  [Other  addresses  mentioned  by author removed
     from this paragraph -- ed.]

     Please, let's  keep  up  the talk.  But more importantly, we must
     approach this formidable task with a little humility and a lot of
     FidoNews 6-23                Page 20                   5 Jun 1989


     good, solid knowledge.

     Sincerely,

     Richard P. Wilkes


     -----------------------------------------------------------------
     FidoNews 6-23                Page 21                   5 Jun 1989


     Jack Decker
     Fidonet 1:154/8  LCRnet 77:1011/8


                           HERE WE GO AGAIN!

     One of the major problems we have in Fidonet is that of *C's
     and *EC's trying to impose new policies before they have even
     been formally adopted.

     Last year about this time, they came out with ECHOPOL.  Now,
     Echopol was an extremely overly-restrictive document that
     hardly anyone cared for, except the folks that helped write it
     (and I think some of them weren't too sure about parts of it).
     It has NEVER been formally adopted as policy in Fidonet, but
     that hasn't stopped some *EC's from trying to enforce it as
     though it has been voted on and formally adopted by the sysops
     of Fidonet.  Many sysops lost feeds of one or more echo
     conferences as a direct result of premature enforcement of a
     policy that was still in the draft stage (and that even now, a
     year later, has not gained acceptance among the sysops of
     Fidonet).

     Well, here we go again.  Now they've come out with POLICY4,
     another overly-restrictive document that hardly anyone seems to
     like.  And guess what... although it's still in the draft
     stage, and although the very first sentence states that "This
     policy document has been released for vote by the coordinator
     structure ..., AND IS NOT YET IN FORCE" (emphasis added), we
     have at least one Regional Coordinator that is trying to
     enforce the draft policy as though it had been signed, sealed,
     and approved.

     Someone in our net asked me recently why it always seems like
     Spring is when things crawl out from under rocks.

     The message bearing the bad news was as follows:

             From: Steve Bonine
          Subject: Misplaced systems in net 154

           * Original to Affected systems and coordinators @
          1:115/777.0

          cc:  Ted Polczynski 154/0
               Mike Bader 120/0
               Bruce Casner 139/0
               Mario D'Ulisse 222/0
               Tom Kashuba 12/0
               David Dodell 1/0
               Jack Decker 154/8
               Robert Kubichek 154/11
               Mike Musolf 154/969

          Examination of net 154 indicates that the following
          systems should be in other nets:
     FidoNews 6-23                Page 22                   5 Jun 1989


          154/8 in Sault Ste Marie should be in net 222, the
          Sault Ste Marie net.

          154/11 in Manitowoc should be in net 139.

          154/969 in Gwinn, MI should probably be in net 120,
          although I can't seem to find Gwinn on my map (there
          is a misprint in the index).

          Ted, please contact the appropriate NC's and get
          these systems moved.  I have no problem with
          duplicate listings for three weeks, but I would
          expect these systems to be in their correct nets and
          removed from 154 no later than the end of June.

          Thank you.

     Now, there are a few interesting you should know about the
     above:

     First, the affected nodes are not really in the area of another
     net.  Two of the mentioned nodes are in the 906 area code,
     which is the Upper Peninsula of Michigan.  The U.P. is "no
     man's land" as far as Fidonet is concerned, as there is no
     active net operating in this area.  Historically, Michigan's
     Upper Peninsula has always had economic ties with Wisconsin
     (most of our supermarkets are supplied from Wisconsin, for
     example) and even telephone calls between Michigan's Upper and
     Lower Peninsulas are routed through Wisconsin and around Lake
     Michigan.  So one could easily justify placing nodes in
     Michigan's Upper Peninsula in a Wisconsin net (particularly
     since intrastate calls within Michigan are billed at a MUCH
     higher rate than interstate calls).  Also, for the Gwinn node,
     Net 154 IS geographically closer than any Michigan net.

     Second, there is no way that node 154/8 should be in net 222,
     according to strict interpretation of Fidonet Policy.  The
     reason is simple.  Node 154/8 is located in Sault Ste. Marie,
     Michigan, which is in Region 11.  Net 222 is located in Sault
     Ste. Marie, Ontario, Canada, which is in Region 12 and which is
     NOT a local call from the Michigan Sault.  Now, admittedly, if
     it weren't for all this geographic nonsense that the *C's are
     pushing, it might make a lot of sense for a node in Sault Ste.
     Marie, Michigan to be in the Sault, Ontario net.  But here we
     have an RC that's trying to break a node out of a net because
     he feels that node is not geographically entitled to be there,
     and put it into another net in another region, where it is
     definitely not supposed to be, according to the "standards"
     he's trying to use!

     Third, Node 154/8 is a private node, with the phone number not
     even listed in the nodelist.  I could put ANY city down for a
     location, and no one would know the difference.  Actually, it
     is a "sister system" to 154/7, which IS located in Milwaukee
     (actually in the suburb of Cudahy).  The whole reason for the
     existence of 154/8 is to allow easy remote control of 154/7,
     FidoNews 6-23                Page 23                   5 Jun 1989


     since the actual sysop of 154/7 is out of town most of the
     time.  The two systems run the same software, and even have (in
     effect) common netmail areas.  It's a pretty unique setup, but
     one that pretty much dictates that both nodes be in the same
     net.

     Someone is bound to ask why 154/8 isn't a point.  Glad you
     asked.  For one thing, I do receive some echo conferences
     directly from a different BBS in Net 154, that are not carried
     on 154/7.  For another thing, I have a point user (that uses a
     Commodore Amiga, no less) that operates off of 154/8, and
     receives echoes from here.  So I do need to have full node
     status, albeit private because my system is not up 24 hours a
     day.

     Anyway, our RC didn't make much of an attempt to discover any
     of these facts.  Apparently, he was just sitting around one day
     and on his own initiative, decided to see who he could make
     trouble for.  I say that because no one had complained about
     the placement of these nodes.  He just decided he didn't like
     the situation and wanted to force a change.

     Now, the truth of the matter is that I don't think he had to
     think too long or hard about who he wanted to bother.  Make no
     mistake, there are other nets in Region 11 that are much more
     geographically diverse than ours.  One other net in particular
     has nodes in FOUR different area codes (and one of those area
     codes is NOT technically in Region 11, although it is logical
     for those nodes to be in that net), and covers a radius of
     approximately 450 miles.  But the RC has been looking to pick a
     fight with Net 154 for quite some time.  Why?  I'm not sure.
     But last year, he tried (unsuccessfully) to forcefully replace
     Ted Polczynski, the Net 154 NC.  He failed in this because no
     one in Net 154 wanted to take Ted's job away from him!

     Now, Ted has been in Fidonet longer than most NC's, and is an
     At-Large member of the IFNA Board of Directors... he is not
     some greenhorn kid who just got the NC post, and as far as I
     can tell, Ted is well liked and highly respected by everyone in
     Net 154.  But, he is not the sort to take dictates from an RC
     who bends Policy to suit his own convenience.  So, Ted and
     Steve have had some disagreements in the past.  Not only that,
     but Steve and I have also had a few differences of opinion.
     So, there's no doubt in my mind why Net 154 was singled out for
     "selective enforcement."

     But the purpose of this article is not to air our Regional
     "dirty linen" nationally.  Rather, it's a living example of the
     type of abuse and heavy-handed regulation that we can probably
     expect on a regular basis if POLICY4 is approved.

     You see, Policy4 contains the following language:

          1.3.2  Geography

          Each level of FidoNet is geographically contained by
     FidoNews 6-23                Page 24                   5 Jun 1989


          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...

     What does the phrase "Network boundaries are based on calling
     areas as defined by the local telephone company" mean?  There
     are at least two possible definitions I can think of offhand:

     1) It means that if you're a local call from a net host, you
     should be in his net, and if you're not in his local calling
     area, you should not be.

     2) It means that if you're in the same LATA (or maybe area
     code?) as a net host, you should be in his net, otherwise you
     should not be.

     Now, under either definition, the two of the three Net 154
     nodes that our RC is complaining would not qualify to belong to
     ANY net.  The third node, the one in Manitowoc, would not
     qualify to belong to any net under definition 1, and WOULD
     qualify to belong to Net 154, but NOT to Net 139 under
     definition 2 (Manitowoc is in the Southeast Wisconsin LATA, as
     is Milwaukee, while the Net 139 NC is in Neenah, which is in
     the Northeast Wisconsin LATA).

     Now of course, any *C could come along at any time and
     interpret the above policy section in yet another way, but then
     that would just be his opinion.  Another *C could interpret the
     same phrase in a completely different manner.  "Calling areas
     as defined by the local telephone company" could be interpreted
     in a lot of different ways, I guess.

     But, as I pointed out earlier, there are LOTS of nets around
     that contain nodes that are not within the local calling area,
     or even the same area code, as the net host.  YOUR net may have
     a few such nodes.  I know for a fact that other nets in Region
     11 have such nodes.  But, our RC has been looking for a reason
     to "get" Net 154, so I'm sure he'd notice things here that he'd
     overlook in other nets... FOR NOW.

     But if Net 154 falls, YOUR NET COULD BE NEXT!  There is a
     saying that "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts
     absolutely."  If the RC has the right to dictate which nodes
     may or may not be in nets, there are several nets in Region 11,
     and in all the other regions, that may have nodes added or
     taken away without their consent.
     FidoNews 6-23                Page 25                   5 Jun 1989


     Please stop for a moment and think about those nodes in your
     net that are NOT a local telephone call from your Net
     Coordinator.  If POLICY4 passes, just about any of these nodes
     could be subject to being pruned from your net, depending on
     how the RC decides to interpret POLICY4 on a given day (and
     whether or not he's holding a grudge against you, or someone in
     your net).

     You may not agree with me about Echopol, or any of other
     numerous matters on which I've expressed an opinion.  I can
     live with that.  But do you really want the RC to be able to
     come in and prune and graft on your net, with you or your NC
     having no say at all in the matter?

     Some folks thought I was tilting at windmills when I sounded
     the alarm about all this geographic nonsense while Echopol was
     under consideration.  Now that you see where it's leading, are
     you still in favor of it?  Do you really want the day to come
     when the *C structure tells you exactly how you're going to run
     your system, and all you get to do is pay the phone bills?

     I feel that the potential for heavy-handed regulation by the *C
     structure (particularly at the RC level and above) is
     sufficient reason to:

     1) Vote down POLICY4, if and when we ever get to vote on it
     (and IGNORE IT if we DON'T get to vote on it... by the way, the
     same applies to ECHOPOL).

     2) Let other sysops (particularly those in other regions) know
     the dangers in POLICY4 (that's a hint to any of you who still
     have access to echoes such as IFNA or SYSOP... I don't!)

     3) Push ever harder for a truly democratic and representative
     structure in Fidonet, so that we can get rid of the petty
     dictators.  (This isn't Communist China, and we shouldn't have
     to sit still for this type of dictatorship!).

     4) Teach our *C's the difference between geography and network
     topology, or get some new *C's who have the mental capacity to
     understand the difference!

     5) Get rid of Regions in Fidonet altogether (okay, I know
     a lot of folks don't want to go that far... but please consider
     the benefits vs. the disadvantages of the "Region" level of
     Fidonet government.  It seems that this is the level where most
     of the real problems in Fidonet originate!).

     I would also ask those of you who communicate regularly with
     Net 154 to use a text editor and clip the Net 154 segment of
     the nodelist some time in the next week or two, so that if our
     RC decides to slash our whole net from the nodelist, you'll
     still be able to talk to us by placing our nodelist segment in
     a private nodelist.

     Speaking of the nodelist... the only real "club" that the *C
     FidoNews 6-23                Page 26                   5 Jun 1989


     structure has over any net or node is the ability to remove
     them from the nodelist.  I feel it is high time we had a
     nodelist that is NOT used for disciplinary purposes.  In other
     words, you have a node that's Fidonet compatible, you get to be
     in the nodelist, no matter what the *C structure thinks of you.
     Obviously, this will never happen with the "official" Fidonet
     nodelist.  But, suppose that one fine day all of the NC's,
     instead of sending their nodelist updates to their RC's, sent
     them to a new organization whose sole purpose for existence was
     to compile a Fidonet-compatible nodelist without regard to
     politics, and who were pledged to NOT use the nodelist listing
     for disciplinary purposes?

     I've seen similar cooperative efforts spring up in Fidonet.  We
     now have a Software Distribution System and a Software
     Distribution Network.  Perhaps we also need a Nodelist
     Distribution Network, that would simply distribute a St. Louis
     format nodelist, not aligned with any particular group, but
     simply dedicated to giving people the ability to communicate.
     The only problem is that few people have access to the software
     that creates the nodelists and nodediffs, and fewer still know
     how to use it (I'd be tempted to write something myself if I
     could figure out how to calculate that doggone checksum,
     preferably using compiled BASIC).

     ADDENDUM

     I was going to write an article for Fidonews regarding a
     message I had seen that was apparently received by David
     Dodell, and then forwarded out to the *C structure.  David was
     apparently worried enough about this message to forward it out.
     It read:

          After giving the matter serious thought, I'm unable
          to resolve (in my mind) why there is such a negative
          feeling among the FidoNet higher ups against
          democratic process.  We are an amatuer organization.
          To my knowledge, FidoNet is the only international
          organization of its type WITHOUT ANY ELECTED
          OFFICERS.

          At this point I would want to ask all SysOps if there
          is any interest in becoming part of a CLASS ACTION
          against the ZONE and REGION structure of FidoNet?  I
          personally feel that I'm being DENIED my RIGHT to
          select our officers.  Even the corporate structure in
          American business has to answer to the stockholders
          <GRIN>

          What I'm asking for is support in SUEing the
          operators of all '/0' addresses above the network
          level.  The amount can be $1.00 but the issue is the
          drafting of rational documents and election
          procedures. I'm tired of 'good old boy' appointments
          and 'pork barrel politics.'

     FidoNews 6-23                Page 27                   5 Jun 1989


          Think about it.....  Let the campaign slogan be:
          Litigation '89

          After what I've read in 2 years, there is no other
          way!

     Now, I have to admit that the thought of sysops bringing
     lawsuits against other sysops scares me plenty, and I had
     planned to write something along those lines.  But after this
     most recent unprovoked attack by our RC, I now have a new
     appreciation of the frustration that the author of the above
     message must have felt.  We have an unpopular hierarchy that
     simply refuses to yield to the call for reform and democracy in
     Fidonet.  These people weren't elected... in fact, most of us
     aren't quite sure just how these people managed to achieve
     their status in Fidonet.  In more than one instance, one of the
     most unpopular people in a region has managed to get himself
     appointed RC or REC.  And under present policy, there is no way
     for the average sysop to have any input into this appointment
     process!

     I'm not printing the name of the author of the message, because
     I'm still afraid that such a lawsuit might destroy Fidonet
     entirely (sort of like cutting off your head to cure a
     headache).  But if the *C structure doesn't soon begin to
     understand that most sysops do NOT approve of the dictatorial,
     top-down government of Fidonet, I fear that an action such as
     the one mentioned above is bound to occur sooner or later.

     I'll tell you one thing, though.  After this most recent
     occurrence of getting the shaft from our RC, I have to admit
     that the temptation to send this guy a a few bucks toward his
     legal expenses is much stronger now!


     -----------------------------------------------------------------
     FidoNews 6-23                Page 28                   5 Jun 1989


     1:115/982
     CURTIS SAHAKIAN

                   THE FIDONET DEMOCRACY ECHO

     THE FIDONET DEMOCRACY ECHO.....The purpose of this Echo is
     to discuss the best way to implement a fully representative
     democracy within FidoNet. This is not a *C bashing area.
     This is not a place to keep saying 'You can't do this.",
     "Democracy in FidoNet is impossible.", or "You are
     preaching treason and will be  excommunciated."  This area
     is for rational discussion and debate on HOW we will make
     FidoNet democratic not IF we will.  When you enter this
     Echo and participate, you accept the premise that making
     FidoNet fully representative is a foregone conclusion and
     your purpose here is to discover HOW it will be done and
     WHEN it will be done.  Personal attacks of any kind are
     not tolerated.  Name calling, libelous or slanderous
     pronouncements, deliberate distortion of facts or insertion
     of misinformation are not tolerated.   No shouting matchs
     or ego contests.  Everyone is welcome and encouraged to
     make constructive comments and to offer solutions.  We all
     know what the problems are.  Everyone is encouraged to use
     their common sense and to offer well thought out plans of
     action.

     At present, you may link into DEMOCRACY in the Midwest
     (Chicago) at 1:115/982, and in Southeast (Florida) at
     1:135/14, 1:135/10, or 1:133/302.  We are looking for
     Denver, Texas, California and New England Hubs.  The Echo
     is open to anyone with a REAL interest in the goals stated
     above and the intent to observe the simple conference
     guidelines.  If you are interested in picking it up and
     distributing it call any of the above hubs.  It is
     intentionally being kept off the backbone.  We need more
     hubs to spread the word!  The echo is has only just
     recently started and is already is filling up with a great
     deal of constructive comment and discussion.  Lets hear
     your thoughts!

     -----------------------------------------------------------------
     FidoNews 6-23                Page 29                   5 Jun 1989


     Jacek Szelozynski
     Quick Cat BBS, 2:286/201.10
     xx48-58-523319
     Gdansk, Poland

             Something Exotic - Polish traffic in Net/Echo Mail
             ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

     Poland is a country in Europe placed between USSR, East  Germany,
     Czechoslovakia and Baltic Sea. And I am one of three Polish BBSes
     SYSOP. Just few weeks ago we joined the Net/Echo Mail as a  point
     of  AINEX-RBBS  in Holland. Now we exchange  netmail  and  joined
     COMMS, CLONE, C_ECHO, PENPAL, INTERNAT, TELIX and  ZMODEM echoes.
     Soon it turned out that messages from Poland in  worldwide echoes
     are quite a  sensation so I  decided to  drop you  all a  line an
     enlighten you a bit on "BBSes in communist country".

     First  some history. Our adventure with BBS has started in  March
     1988 from WILDCAT! 1.03 brought from USA by Stach Roth, my fellow
     sysop  and programmer in our company. There has been one  BBS  in
     Poland  at  that time but it worked very irregularly and  we  did
     want  to create something better and more reliable.  Soon  Polish
     adaptation of WILDCAT! was ready (the knowledge of English is not
     too popular in Poland). We started our run on the 12th of  August
     1988. Browsing various BBSes in Europe I have met Arjen Lentz and
     very soon it was clear that our software can not do everything we
     would  like our BBS to do. There was urgent need to implement  Z-
     Modem  (a must on poor Polish lines) and the version of  WILDCAT!
     we used could not work with Net and Echo Mail.

     So  what could we do? One day we got Quick BBS version  2.03  and
     from  10th  of March 1989 we continue our activity as  Quick  Cat
     BBS connected to The Box mailer.

     The  most  often asked question in the messages  is  "Do  commies
     allow  for such an activity as using modems?". I am sorry  if  my
     reply does not agree with certain prejudices, but we are not
     at  all restricted in anything we do. At least nowadays. We  only
     had to register our modem in the Main Post Office and check if it
     meets  Polish  homologation. Anyway... The  condition  of  Polish
     telephone  lines  is in some places so poor that commies  do  not
     have  to be afraid one day their monopoly will be  threatened  by
     thousands  of modem transmissions. We have some 500.000  PC's  in
     Poland  (even buying  true-blue COCOM registered  IBM  PS2/80  or
     Honeywell  or HP is not a problem at all) but the idea  of  modem
     communication  is not very popular as yet. Most of the  computers
     are  used  in working places and they rather do  book-keeping  or
     accounting  jobs  than  send/exchange messages.  The  latter  are
     rather transmitted by faxes. However there ARE few fanatics in my
     country for whom connecting Poland into European modem net is not
     just a mere hobby.

     Why  do I say "European", not "worldwide"? The reason is  simple.
     Poland (as by now) only has direct telephone links with Europe...
     If I want to call to USA or Australia I have to wait about 2 -  3
     days  for the operator-made call. There's probably  another  good
     FidoNews 6-23                Page 30                   5 Jun 1989


     reason  why  Polish  government  doesn't have  to  be  afraid  of
     modems.  All  in  all THEY (not modems!)  control  the  telephone
     network and switching it all off is very easy.

     Well,  back  to the subject. As I mentioned there are  two  other
     BBSes  in  Poland too, one in Warsaw and one in Krakow.  All  use
     Quick BBS. Being an echo pioneer in Poland is quite difficult and
     very expensive. If say (proportionally to your wages) you pay one
     dollar  per minute of Holland - Poland call, then I my costs  are
     at least twice as high. I am alone so I have to download all  the
     support  I  need from abroad on my  sponsor  expenses.  Necessity
     however  is  the mother of invention, so we create the  utils  we
     need  too. E.g. Stach (writes in C) created  extended  log-viewer
     utility  and  now  he writes dBase format data  base  utility  to
     browse and search any records you wish ON-LINE!

     In  fact I have two sponsors. The other one in Holland  sends  my
     netmail all over the world if I have a bug report for someone.  I
     do  not have a phone at home, so the BBS is in my working  place.
     There  are  some  8 (yes, eight, not a mistake)  phones  per  100
     people  in Poland and one have to wait about 15 years to get  one
     connected. Crazy, eh? But I am not guilty of that situation so  I
     do  not have to be ashamed. All the troubles and difficulties  do
     not make me feel like giving it up either, I am really a  fanatic
     of all the mailing beasts and the ROYAL troubles they can  cause.
     Installing the new BBS I used to work on it day by day from 5  pm
     till  midnight  for  over a month and even longer. It  is  not  a
     problem for a night killer like me.

     The  users  of  our  BBS (we have  72  participants)  are  mainly
     programmers.  As  I  said modeming idea in  Poland  is  not  very
     popular as yet and we do work hard to convince people that  it
     is  faster  and  cheaper  to  use  modem  sometimes.  I  am  sure
     connecting  Gdansk  to  worldwide  FidoNet is  a  step  in  right
     direction.

     If you have any questions you are welcome! I'll try to reply  all
     messages (if there will be any :)). You can leave messages to  us
     in the Echoes mentioned above or call directly,  and of course by
     Netmail to 2:286/201.10 (or 2:2/102.10).
     We run our Quick Cat everyday from 22:00 till 09:00 GMT+1, number
     is:  xx48-58-523319.

     Happy modeming!

     Jacek Szelozynski, Quick Cat BBS, Point of AINEX RBBS.

     -----------------------------------------------------------------
     FidoNews 6-23                Page 31                   5 Jun 1989


     =================================================================
                                  COLUMNS
     =================================================================

     The Veterinarian's Corner
     Excerpts from the ANIMED GroupMail Conference

     by Don Thomson, 1:102/1005

     > The problem .... was that it was CONSTANTLY using the couch for
     > a toilet. He was always spraying it, and it smelled horrible...

     You bring up a good, albeit difficult, topic on cats and
     elimination problem behavior.  The first step towards arriving at
     a solution is to make a distinction between spraying (which is
     delivering a forceful urine stream to a vertical surface - the
     tail is held erect, quivering, while the behavior occurs)  and
     innapropriate elimination - the basic squatting and leaving the
     results on a horizontal surface.

     Generally the approach to spraying behavior is different than the
     approach to innapropriate elimination behavior, although with
     some cats the two may occur in the same area.

     Let me first address the 'easier' of the two behaviors-
     inappropriate elimination - or truely 'using the couch as the
     sandbox.' Here I will address generalities on the subject, some
     of which may not be germain to your parents plight, but need to
     be considered in other similar instances.

     Urinary tract infections which create a sensation of urgency to
     eliminate is a cause that must first be ruled out. Not all
     bladder infections (cystitis) are accompanied by blood, so a
     urinalysis and/or urine culture may be warrented in certain
     instances to make sure this is a behavioral rather than medical
     problem. There are also age-related 'senile' or 'weakness'
     related causes in geriatric cats that may contribute to
     elimination problems in some cats.

     Behaviorally, though, we have two general categories, each of
     which have an approach. There are 'Aversions' to the litterbox,
     or 'Attractions' to the innapropriate area. Lastly, there are the
     'Emotional' disturbances that may effect an elimation problem.

     Aversions:  This may in some cases be as simple as not cleaning
     out the litterbox frequently enough. Other times it may be that
     one particular cat will not use the catbox that another cat has
     eliminated in. For some reason a cat may find the smell of
     certain litters offensive - this may be the case in those who use
     certain chlorophyll containing kitty litters or the use of strong
     deodorizors or perfumes. Some cats find kitty litter itself
     aversive and require actual sand. Fortunatly, sand is cheeper
     than kitty litter anyway. Interrupting the cat while using the
     litterbox to administer medications etc may create an 'aversion
     by association' to using the litterbox. Sometimes, too, the
     owners preferred location of the litterbox may be the cause of
     FidoNews 6-23                Page 32                   5 Jun 1989


     the adversion and a change in location may be in order.

     Attractions: One of the biggest problem with urinating in the
     wrong spot is that it quickly becomes self perpetuating by virtue
     of the scent left behind. Cats and dogs have a tremendous
     interaction between smell and certain behaviors, such that even
     the scent of urine triggers a behavioral elimination response. It
     is of absolute importance that the area be completely cleansed of
     the urine smell. There are improved commercial products on the
     market, and some people find that carbonated soda water works
     well. Feeding a cat in the previously soiled area may also reduce
     the likelyhood of using the spot again.

     Emotional Disturbances: This may be the result of early trauma
     and individual 'personality' of the cat. We have reasonably good
     luck in treating this type of behavior with mood altering
     medications, actually synthetic progesterone derivatives. (Megace
     or Ovaban, or injectable Depo-Provera). This medical approach is
     not without a degree of risk of certain side effects, and for
     this reason, the previously mentioned factors should be addressed
     first.

     After the causative factors have been addressed, then the cat
     needs to 're-learn' to use the litterbox. Initially this may mean
     confinement in a relatively small area of the house with the
     litterbox placed where there is the highest likelyhood that it
     will use it. Usually the bathroom is the most convenient place
     because of tile or linoleum floor. As the cat learns to use the
     box regularly, it can gradually be re-introduced into other parts
     of the house. It should be watched fairly closely to make sure it
     doesn't break training. Slowly through 'successive approximation'
     it may be given more and more area, and the cat box slowly moved
     to a place that is more convenient for the owner. Both changes
     (increased area, and movement of the catbox should be gradual.

     > Was there anything they could have done to keep this cat
     > from ruining their furniture?

     Maybe, Phil.  But as you know, the process is difficult at times,
     and there are, sadly, failures.... As your folks' cat sounds as
     though it had a combination of factors acting, possibly a
     combination of medical and behavoral modifaction would be needed.

      Spraying behavior is another story......

     DB Thomson, DVM
     1:102/1005
     9:871/16

     -----------------------------------------------------------------
     FidoNews 6-23                Page 33                   5 Jun 1989


     =================================================================
                              LATEST VERSIONS
     =================================================================

                          Latest Software Versions

                           Bulletin Board Software
     Name        Version    Name        Version    Name       Version

     Fido            12m+*  Phoenix         1.3    TBBS           2.1
     Lynx           1.30    QuickBBS       2.03    TComm/TCommNet 3.4
     Opus          1.03b+   RBBS          17.1D    TPBoard        5.2*

     + Netmail capable (does not require additional mailer software)


     Network                Node List              Other
     Mailers     Version    Utilities   Version    Utilities  Version

     BinkleyTerm    2.20    EditNL         4.00    ARC           6.02*
     D'Bridge       1.18    MakeNL         2.12    ARCmail        2.0
     Dutchie       2.90C    ParseList      1.30    ConfMail      4.00
     FrontDoor       2.0    Prune          1.40    EMM           2.02*
     PRENM          1.47*   XlatList       2.90    GROUP         2.10*
     SEAdog         4.51*   XlaxDiff       2.32    MSG            3.3*
                            XlaxNode       2.32    MSGED         1.99
                                                   TCOMMail       2.2*
                                                   TMail         1.11*
                                                   TPBNetEd       3.2*
                                                   UFGATE        1.03
                                                   XRS            2.2
     * Recently changed

     Utility authors:  Please help  keep  this  list  up  to  date  by
     reporting  new  versions  to 1:1/1.  It is not our intent to list
     all utilities here, only those which verge on necessity.

     -----------------------------------------------------------------
     FidoNews 6-23                Page 34                   5 Jun 1989


     =================================================================
                                  NOTICES
     =================================================================

                          The Interrupt Stack


     15 Jul 1989
        Start of the SAPMFC&LP (Second Annual Poor Man's FidoCon and
        Lake Party) to be held at Silver Lake Park on Grapevine Lake
        in Arlington, Texas.  This started as an R19-only thing last
        year, but we had so much fun, we decided to invite everybody!
        We'll have beer, food, beer, waterskiing, beer, horseshoes,
        beer, volleyball, and of course beer.  It's an  overnighter,
        so bring your sleeping bag and plan to camp out.  Contact one
        of the Furriers (Ron Bemis at 1:124/1113 or Dewey Thiessen at
        1:130/24) for details and a fantastic ASCII map.

      2 Aug 1989
        Start of Galactic Hacker Party in Amsterdam, Holland. Contact
        Rop Gonggrijp at 2:280/1 for details.

     24 Aug 1989
        Voyager 2 passes Neptune.

     24 Aug 1989
        FidoCon '89 starts at the Holiday Inn in San Jose,
        California.  Trade show, seminars, etc. Contact 1:1/89
        for info.

      5 Oct 1989
        20th Anniversary of "Monty Python's Flying Circus"

     11 Oct 1989
        First International Modula-2 Conference at Bled, Yugoslavia
        hosting Niklaus Wirth and the British Standards Institution.
        Contact 1:106/8422 for more information.

     11 Nov 1989
        A new area code forms in northern Illinois at 12:01 am.
        Chicago proper will remain area code 312; suburban areas
        formerly served with that code will become area code 708.


     -----------------------------------------------------------------

     FidoNews 6-23                Page 35                   5 Jun 1989


            OFFICERS OF THE INTERNATIONAL FIDONET ASSOCIATION

     Mort Sternheim 1:321/109  Chairman of the Board
     Bob Rudolph    1:261/628  President
     Matt Whelan    3:3/1      Vice President
     Bill Bolton    3:711/403  Vice President-Technical Coordinator
     Linda Grennan  1:147/1    Secretary
     Kris Veitch    1:147/30   Treasurer


            IFNA COMMITTEE AND BOARD CHAIRS

     Administration and Finance     Mark Grennan    1:147/1
     Board of Directors             Mort Sternheim  1:321/109
     Bylaws                         Don Daniels     1:107/210
     Ethics                         Vic Hill        1:147/4
     Executive Committee            Bob Rudolph     1:261/628
     International Affairs          Rob Gonsalves   2:500/1
     Membership Services            David Drexler   1:147/1
     Nominations & Elections        David Melnick   1:107/233
     Public Affairs                 David Drexler   1:147/1
     Publications                   Rick Siegel     1:107/27
     Security & Individual Rights   Jim Cannell     1:143/21
     Technical Standards            Rick Moore      1:115/333


                      IFNA BOARD OF DIRECTORS

         DIVISION                               AT-LARGE

     10  Courtney Harris   1:102/732    Don Daniels     1:107/210
     11  Bill Allbritten   1:11/301     Mort Sternheim  1:321/109
     12  Bill Bolton       3:711/403    Mark Grennan    1:147/1
     13  Irene Henderson   1:107/9       (vacant)
     14  Ken Kaplan        1:100/22     Ted Polczyinski 1:154/5
     15  Scott Miller      1:128/12     Matt Whelan     3:3/1
     16  Ivan Schaffel     1:141/390    Robert Rudolph  1:261/628
     17  Neal Curtin       1:343/1      Steve Jordan    1:206/2871
     18  Andrew Adler      1:135/47     Kris Veitch     1:147/30
     19  David Drexler     1:147/1       (vacant)
      2  Henk Wevers       2:500/1      David Melnik    1:107/233

     -----------------------------------------------------------------
     FidoNews 6-23                Page 36                   5 Jun 1989


                                                        __
                                   The World's First   /  \
                                      BBS Network     /|oo \
                                      * FidoNet *    (_|  /_)
     FidoCon '89 in San Jose, California              _`@/_ \    _
       at The Holiday Inn Park Plaza                 |     | \   \\
            August 24-27, 1989                       | (*) |  \   ))
                                        ______       |__U__| /  \//
                                       / Fido \       _//|| _\   /
                                      (________)     (_/(_|(____/ (tm)


                     R E G I S T R A T I O N   F O R M


     Name:    _______________________________________________________

     Address:    ____________________________________________________

     City:    _______________________ State: ____ Zip: ______________

     Country:    ____________________________________________________


     Phone Numbers:

     Day:    ________________________________________________________

     Evening:    ____________________________________________________

     Data:    _______________________________________________________


     Zone:Net/
     Node.Point:  ___________________________________________________

     Your BBS Name:  ________________________________________________


     BBS Software:  _____________________ Mailer: ___________________

     Modem Brand:  _____________________ Speed:  ____________________

     What Hotel will you be Staying at:  ____________________________

     Do you want an in room point?  (Holiday Inn only) ______________

     Are you a Sysop?  _____________

     Are you an IFNA Member?  ______

     Additional Guests:  __________
     (not attending conferences)

     Do you have any special requirements? (Sign Language translation,
     handicapped, etc.)
     FidoNews 6-23                Page 37                   5 Jun 1989


               ______________________________________________________


     Comments: ______________________________________________________

               ______________________________________________________

               ______________________________________________________


     Costs                                   How Many?   Cost
     ---------------------------             --------    -------

     Conference fee $60 .................... ________    _______
        ($75.00 after July 15)

     Friday Banquet  $30.00 ................ ________    _______

                                             ========    =======

     Totals ................................ ________    _______

     You may pay by Check,  Money Order,  or Credit Card.  Please send
     no  cash.   All monies must be in U.S.  Funds.   Checks should be
     made out to: "FidoCon '89"


     This form should be completed and mailed to:

                         Silicon Valley FidoCon '89
                         PO Box 390770
                         Mountain View, CA 94039


     You may register by Netmailing this completed form to 1:1/89  for
     processing.   Rename  it  to  ZNNNXXXX.REG where Z is  your  Zone
     number, N is your Net number, and X is your Node number.  US Mail
     confirmation  is  required  within  72  hours  to  confirm   your
     registration.

     If  you are paying by credit card,  please include the  following
     information.   For  your own security,  do not route any  message
     with your credit card number on it.  Crash it directly to 1:1/89.


     Master Card _______     Visa ________


     Credit Card Number _____________________________________________


     Expiration Date ________________________________________________


     Signature ______________________________________________________

     FidoNews 6-23                Page 38                   5 Jun 1989


     No  credit  card registrations will be accepted without  a  valid
     signature.


     Rooms  at the Holiday Inn may be reserved by calling the Hotel at
     408-998-0400,  and mentioning that you are with  FidoCon.   Rooms
     are $60.00 per night double occupancy.   Additional rollaways are
     available  for $10.00 per night.   To obtain these rates you must
     register before July 15.

     The official FidoCon '89 airline is American Airlines.   You  can
     receive  either  a  5%  reduction in supersaver fares  or  a  40%
     reduction in the regular day coach fare.  San Jose is an American
     Airlines  hub  with direct flights to most  major  cities.   When
     making reservations, you must call American's reservation number,
     800-433-1790, and reference Star number S0289VM.


     -----------------------------------------------------------------
     FidoNews 6-23                Page 39                   5 Jun 1989


                                      __
                 The World's First   /  \
                    BBS Network     /|oo \
                    * FidoNet *    (_|  /_)
                                    _`@/_ \    _
                                   |     | \   \\
                                   | (*) |  \   ))
                      ______       |__U__| /  \//
                     / Fido \       _//|| _\   /
                    (________)     (_/(_|(____/ (tm)

            Membership for the International FidoNet Association

     Membership in IFNA is open to any individual or organization that
     pays  a  specified  annual   membership  fee.   IFNA  serves  the
     international  FidoNet-compatible  electronic  mail  community to
     increase worldwide communications.

     Member Name _______________________________  Date _______________
     Address _________________________________________________________
     City ____________________________________________________________
     State ________________________________  Zip _____________________
     Country _________________________________________________________
     Home Phone (Voice) ______________________________________________
     Work Phone (Voice) ______________________________________________

     Zone:Net/Node Number ____________________________________________
     BBS Name ________________________________________________________
     BBS Phone Number ________________________________________________
     Baud Rates Supported ____________________________________________
     Board Restrictions ______________________________________________

     Your Special Interests __________________________________________
     _________________________________________________________________
     _________________________________________________________________
     In what areas would you be willing to help in FidoNet? __________
     _________________________________________________________________
     _________________________________________________________________
     Send this membership form and a check or money order for $25 in
     US Funds to:
                   International FidoNet Association
                   PO Box 41143
                   St Louis, Missouri 63141
                   USA

     Thank you for your membership!  Your participation will help to
     insure the future of FidoNet.

     Please NOTE that IFNA is a general not-for-profit organization
     and Articles of Association and By-Laws were adopted by the
     membership in January 1987.  The second elected Board of Directors
     was filled in August 1988.  The IFNA Echomail Conference has been
     established on FidoNet to assist the Board.  We welcome your
     input to this Conference.

     -----------------------------------------------------------------