Aminet 15

home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search

/ Aminet 15 / Aminet 15 - Nov 1996.iso / Aminet / comm / fido / fnews6.lzh / fido633.nws < prev next >

Wrap

Text File | 1989-07-13 | 79KB | 1,573 lines

Volume 6, Number 33 14 August 1989 +---------------------------------------------------------------+ | _ | | / \ | | /|oo \ | | - FidoNews - (_| /_) | | _`@/_ \ _ | | International | | \ \\ | | FidoNet Association | (*) | \ )) | | Newsletter ______ |__U__| / \// | | / FIDO \ _//|| _\ / | | (________) (_/(_|(____/ | | (jm) | +---------------------------------------------------------------+ Editor in Chief: Vince Perriello Editors Emeritii: Dale Lovell Thom Henderson Chief Procrastinator Emeritus: Tom Jennings FidoNews is published weekly by the International FidoNet Association as its official newsletter. You are encouraged to submit articles for publication in FidoNews. Article submission standards are contained in the file ARTSPEC.DOC, available from node 1:1/1. 1:1/1 is a Continuous Mail system, available for network mail 24 hours a day. Copyright 1989 by the International FidoNet Association. All rights reserved. Duplication and/or distribution permitted for noncommercial purposes only. For use in other circumstances, please contact IFNA at (314) 576-4067. IFNA may also be contacted at PO Box 41143, St. Louis, MO 63141. Fido and FidoNet are registered trademarks of Tom Jennings of Fido Software, 164 Shipley Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94107 and are used with permission. We don't necessarily agree with the contents of every article published here. Most of these materials are unsolicited. No article submitted by a FidoNet SysOp will be rejected if it is properly attributed and legally acceptable. We will publish every responsible submission received. Table of Contents 1. EDITORIAL ................................................ 1 We need a fresh look at Excommunication .................. 1 2. ARTICLES ................................................. 3 Does the I in IFNA mean Anything? ........................ 3 A New Echomail Backbone System ........................... 6 How Did This Happen? ..................................... 11 Hasn't This Gone Far Enough? ............................. 12 Democracy? Who needs it? ................................ 15 Vervan's Gaming Net ...................................... 19 Words from Zone 1 Coordinator ............................ 22 3. LATEST VERSIONS .......................................... 25 And more! FidoNews 6-33 Page 1 14 Aug 1989 ================================================================= EDITORIAL ================================================================= Excommunication. It's the only punitive measure we have to deal with problems in FidoNet. Is that a Good Thing? I don't think so. Now, before you think this is going to turn into some kind of attack on the *C's, let me make it very plain that I am entirely supportive of their attempts to keep things going with what they've got. I don't agree with a lot of what they have done (and probably will differ with many things that they will do in the future) but they're trying. Very hard. I think the problem lies in the lack of good tools. And perhaps just a bit too much authoritarianism. Why is there such a thing as excommunication? Its primary purpose was originally to deal with technical problems, such as nodes that didn't answer the phone any more, or had answering machines on their lines, or whatever. That makes sense. If a node isn't functioning as one, then it should be removed from the nodelist. But even THEN, there was "The Dog House". A nonfunctioning node wasn't removed right away. It was listed in The Dog House for a few weeks, and then taken out of the nodelist if it didn't resurface as a working node. What ever happened to The Dog House? And doesn't that make sense for at least SOME of the non-technical situations for which nodes have been removed from the Nodelist? I know that there are social and other reasons why someone in a "position of authority" must get involved in the way FidoNet is interfaced to and/or used by someone on occasion, but for most situations, " a misused node number" sounds a lot like "a non functioning node". Maybe the same logic should apply. What ever happened to the "don't be easily annoyed" part of Policy? Isn't that ever taken into account? Harry Lee suggested once that a "You Bet Your Node Number" clause should be added to Policy to reduce the number of frivolous complaints. Interesting thought. But the goal should be to keep BOTH nodes, if at all possible. Why are the *C's so heavily involved in personal squabbles between nodes? Is there some reason why "This isn't a technical or legal (Yes, Virginia, there are litigious people in FidoNet) issue and it isn't affecting the flow of mail. You two work it out on your own" shouldn't be a valid response to a Policy complaint? FidoNews 6-33 Page 2 14 Aug 1989 So what should we do? How about cleaning up Policy4? Get rid of most if not all of the parts that have no technical basis. Let's put The Dog House back. Let's allow reinstatement of excommunicated nodes (with suitable confirmation that the reason for removal has been addressed). Most importantly, this idea that an excommunicated SysOp should not be allowed to post into an echomail area carried anywhere in FidoNet is unenforceable and should be set aside. Echomail has its own enforcement tools and those can be employed in the event that the excommunicated SysOp creates a nuisance. I'd sure like to see a worldwide synchronized nodelist. Isn't that what the *C's are supposed to be in the business of producing? Can we get some attention to that issue, guys? Thanks. ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 6-33 Page 3 14 Aug 1989 ================================================================= ARTICLES ================================================================= Bill Bolton 3:711/403 Does the I in IFNA Mean Anything? As the 1989 Fidocon draws near, so does another IFNA Board of Directors meeting. Having served on the IFNA BoD for 12 months, as Director for Division 12, I have come to appreciate the frustrations that have caused many good people in the Fidonet give up and to walk away from IFNA. My specific goals in seeking election to IFNA were to make the organisation live up to the "International" part of its name. To date I have been almost totally frustrated in making any progress at all towards those goals. Firstly, all the BoD meetings are held in North America. It is not financially possible for me to attend these meetings as it would cost me approximately 5 days (due to time zone differences and jet lag) and somewhere in the region of $2500 dollars. Secondly, there is no provision in the structure of IFNA for me to appoint a proxy to attend and vote at BoD meetings. Under the IFNA bylaws I am able to appoint an Alternate Director for my District, however an Alternate has much more responsibility and potential power than a proxy does and I am not prepared to consider appointing an Alternate who do not come from Division 12.... and of course anyone from Division 12 will generally also have the same financial and time restrictions on attending BoD meetings as I do. Catch 22. Thirdly, no minutes have been published for the past two BoD meeting, so I have no way of knowing what really transpired there. Fortunately Matt Whelan, the At-Large Director who resides close by to me, is usually able to time business trips to coincide with Fidocon so at least I have some idea at what happened on the last Fidocon BoD meeting. The lack of minutes has been a significant problem for the BoD in that we cannot agree in electronic discussions on what was actually agreed on at the last face to face meeting because there are no minutes to refer to! Fourthly, when the last set of by-laws amendments were put out for voting on by the IFNA membership, all the international members had their voting papers SURFACED MAILED to them.... so they did not arrive until after the closing date for the vote. Those amendments created a new Division 3 for Australia and New Zealand, but the IFNA members in this part of the world were not given any opportunity to vote on whether it was what they wanted or not. Division 12 now covers the remainder of Fidonet Zone 3 and I am in the somewhat difficult position of not living in the FidoNews 6-33 Page 4 14 Aug 1989 Division that I now represent. So, here I am, a member of the IFNA BoD who is completely unable to actually do anything as far as influencing IFNA for the members I represent. From my experience on the BoD to date I cannot realistically see the I in IFNA as anything but a farcical. Another major concern for me is the attempt by some BoD members to spread the role of IFNA to cover networks other than the network called Fidonet. I joined IFNA because it was an organisation for the network called Fidonet and I have zero interest in IFNA trying to represent other networks. Apparently there was some discussion about this at the Fidocon 1988 BoD meeting but as there are no minutes the recollections of what was agreed or not amongst the BoD at that time seem to depend on who is doing the recollecting. I have asked the secretary of IFNA to place the following items on the Agenda for the Fidocon 1989 BoD meeting in one last attempt to try and make IFNA pay anything more than lip service to both the I and FN in it's name. Time will tell whether this will be any more successful than my other attempts. [The following 3 line quote is extracted from a message to BoD members by Kris Veitch, the IFNA secretary] > BTW - I am also accepting ideas and items for the Agenda that > I would like to publish by the 10th of August if possible. > Thanks in advance. Item 1. This organisation resolves to disband itself within one calendar month if minutes of this Board Meeting are not publically published within 10 working days of the end of the meeting. Item 2 This organisation resolves to disband itself within two calendar months if minutes of the previous two Board meetings (Fidocon 1988 and February 1989) are not publically published within 20 working days of the end of this Board Meeting. Item 3. IFNA resolves to give up the pretence of be an international organisation and rename itself to the North American Fidonet Association. FidoNews 6-33 Page 5 14 Aug 1989 Item 4. Should Item 3 be adopted, that all NAFNA districts outside of North America be dissolved immediately. Item 5. Should Item 3 not be adopted that IFNA immediately implements a method that allows IFNA directors not located in North America to participate meaningfully in voting at BoD meetings. (Assigning an Alternate who does not come from the area represented in order to get a vote a BoD meetings is a complete farce.) Item 6. Should item 3 not be adopted, that provision for the payment of IFNA dues by internationally available credit cards, as discussed and agreed in principle at the BoD Meeting at Fidocon 1988 (if I had the minutes I could quote the resolution), be implemented immediately. Item 7. That IFNA (or NAFNA) affirms that it solely exists to serve the technical advancement of the network called Fidonet and has no interest in serving other networks which may be based on Fidonet technology. Item 8. The IFNA (or NAFNA) affirms that it abhors politicisation of the technical administration of Fidonet by ANYONE. Item 9 I wish to advise that should Items 1, 2 and 5 not be adopted my resignation as a member of the BoD is tendered immediately as I cannot meaningfully participate in any aspect of BoD activities. If items 1, 2 and 5 are not adopted the organisation will have proved itself morally bankrupt unless it does adopt item 3. Bill Bolton Vice President - Technical Co-ordinator Division 12 Director ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 6-33 Page 6 14 Aug 1989 Jack Decker 154/8 (via 154/0) LCRnet 77:1011/8 A NEW ECHOMAIL BACKBONE SYSTEM I can just bet that some of you, having read the title, are already thinking that this is going to be a) an attack on the present echomail backbone, and b) an attempt to replace the current backbone system with something resembling total anarchy. Well, please hold on for a moment before you pass judgement, and hear me out. Despite the differences I've had with certain folks over the attempts to impose geographic restrictions over echomail (and over Fidonet in general, I might add), I have a lot of respect for the guys that operate the Fidonet echomail backbone and the Star system. In many cases these guys have volunteered their equipment and their time to the mostly thankless task of making sure that echomail flows smoothly. Even though we may disagree on various points of what should or should not be in Policy, we have to give these guys a lot of credit for the job they've been doing in moving the echoes around. What concerns me, however, is the attempts to make the Fidonet echomail backbone an "enforcement arm" for the Fidonet *C structure. For those of you that may not have heard, certain Fidonet *C's (notably David Dodell and Justin Marquez, the former IC and former Region 19 RC respectively) have decreed that if a node is excommunicated from Fidonet, they may not participate in any echo that is carried on the Fidonet backbone. Not even if the echo originates in another network. Not even if the excommunicated sysop calls in as a user on another board. And, any board that allows an excommunicated sysop access to an echo area that might be carried on any Fidonet node is itself subject to excommunication. The logic behind this is that if a sysop is expelled from Fidonet for being a troublemaker, it sort of defeats the purpose of excommunication if he can get right back into the Fidonet echoes by joining another network. While that is a valid point, it leaves so many loose ends as to be a nightmare to enforce. Just some of the questions left hanging by this decree include: * Does the reason for the excommunication make any difference? For example, should a sysop excommunicated for technical reasons (running a mailer that won't properly observe ZMH, for example) be barred from participating in Fidonet echo conferences as a user of another system? (The decree left no room for such distinctions, all excommunications are treated as though the sysop in question is a twit that does not deserve access to Fidonet). FidoNews 6-33 Page 7 14 Aug 1989 * Is there any time limit, after which the sysop in question would be eligible to participate in Fidonet echoes again? (Under the decree as stated, a sysop excommunicated at age 13 for being a twit would still be denied access to Fidonet echoes at age 65, should anyone care to keep track of excommunicated sysops that long. In other words, an excommunication is considered a "life sentence" under current Policy). * What if a "John Smith" manages to get himself excommunicated from Fidonet? Must Fidonet Sysops all over the world deny access to every John Smith in the world, in order to keep the name "John Smith" from appearing in the "From" line of a message that originates from their board (on the chance that it might be the excommunicated John Smith, accessing an echo area from their board which would make the sysop of that board subject to immediate excommunication?) Will we, as one sysop asked, now be required to receive an "excommunicated sysops list" each week that contains a list of user names that must not be permitted to have access to echomail areas? (The irony of this is that the REAL excommunicated "John Smith" could just log onto other boards (or set up another BBS of his own) using an assumed name, so that other "John Smiths" would get hassled while the real, excommunicated John Smith could keep on posting under a different name!). By the way, if you don't appreciate the possible impact of this, substitute YOUR name for "John Smith" in this paragraph (and pretend you're NOT the one that got excommunicated!). My personal feeling is that Fidonet is beginning to take on some of the traits of a religious cult (this latest dictum sounds just like a practice known as "shunning" which is practiced by several cults. It's an attempt to keep those who have been inside the organization and then left from communicating with the "faithful", and possibly exposing them to thoughts and ideas that those in charge would rather suppress). In any event, I have to wonder how the *EC structure feels about being pressed into service as an "enforcement arm" for the *Cs. This is truly a situation where the backbone and Star system operators have an opportunity to be part of the problem, or part of the solution. The Echomail coordinators hold the true power in Fidonet, whether they realize it or not (consider how long Fidonet might last if, for example, the Echomail backbone decided to align themselves with another network. Without echomail, there would not be much left to attract sysops to Fidonet). If the majority of the backbone sysops (or possibly even just ONE Star system) were to announce itself as independent (no longer aligned exclusively with Fidonet), the *C structure would lose most of its power in one fell swoop. Therefore, it seems to me that the *C structure ought to be treating the *EC's with a little more respect, instead of just handing down dictates (unenforceable ones at that) all the time! FidoNews 6-33 Page 8 14 Aug 1989 In the case of an excommunicated Sysop, I would at the very least suggest to the *EC's that you ought to insist that there be some sort of time limit on any excommunication, after which the excommunicated node is eligible to apply for reinstatement to Fidonet, or if he chooses not to do that, to receive echoes again through another network. The way the current dictate reads, a guy could lose access to echomail for life if he is excommunicated and chooses not to try to rejoin Fidonet at some later date, and YOU could be excommunicated if he happens to get echomail from your system. Do you really want to be keeping a list of everyone that's ever been excommunicated since the beginning of Fidonet, and having to check that list every time a new sysop wants to get echoes from you? Perhaps it's time for a new echomail backbone system that's not exclusively aligned with Fidonet. I know some *EC's and Star nodes might be opposed to this, but I imagine that others may be chafing under the layers and layers of Policy that are being imposed by the *C structure (after all, the *EC's are sysops, too). I imagine right about now that a lot of sysops would really appreciate access to a non-aligned backbone system. I have an idea for how such a structure might operate, and it's SIMPLE. So simple, in fact, that it can be explained in a couple of paragraphs: You have a few Star nodes (as at present) that carry virtually all available echo conferences. These in turn distribute them to the "backbone" nodes (which in turn feed individual nets) or to individual Net echo hosts. In fact, the whole system is similar to the present one, with a couple of major differences. First, Net echo hosts can go to the least cost echo feed, they are not required to go to only one particular feed, but they may NOT get echoes from two different feeds at the same time. In other words, each Net echo host sticks with one feed (no matter where it is), changing feeds only if there is a cost savings to the net to do so, or in the case of an irreconcilable personality conflict with the present feed (the latter would not be encouraged, but would be permitted. Why force individuals who despise each other to have to communicate with each other on a daily basis? That's just guaranteed to increase the level of flames and conflicts within the net). The restriction on getting your echoes from only one feed maintains a proper topology that avoids the infamous "dupe loops." Please note that geography is *not* a factor here, and there is no reason it should be. The second difference is that each Star system would maintain a list of Nets that it feeds (either directly or indirectly) and these lists could be used to facilitate netmail handling. If you wanted to send netmail to another system, you (or your net echomail host) could send it to the Star system serving your net, who would in turn forward it either to a) the destination net (if served by the same Star), b) the Star serving the destination net, or c) the Zonegate (actually to the Star serving the Zonegate system, for mail destined to nodes in another continent). This would give us a FULLY connected network, which FidoNews 6-33 Page 9 14 Aug 1989 is something we don't have now (despite claims to the contrary). A further note on that last paragraph. For some reason, certain backbone system operators have a marked aversion to handling netmail. In my opinion, if the echomail hubs would handle netmail along with echomail, it would ultimately decrease costs for everyone. Consider the following situation: A BBS user (remember users?) sees a message in an echo area and wants to reply to it. His reply is really something that could be private and that does not need to be in the echo conference, BUT, a netmail reply costs money (if he can access netmail at all, which in my experience is the exception more often than the rule). So he leaves the reply in the echo. That message goes out to EVERY system receiving the echo, perhaps accumulating nine or ten lines of SEEN-BY's as it goes, and costing EVERY sysop, backbone node, and Star system carrying that echo money. Then, if the message contains anything that is the least bit controversial (or is perhaps considered "off topic" for that echo conference), someone else jumps on it and the REPLIES to that message start flying, each accumulating nine or ten lines of SEEN-BY's and each costing money for EVERY sysop handling that echo. If netmail could be "piggybacked" along with echomail and travel via the Stars and backbone nodes, a private or questionable reply to an echomail message would only travel through the few nodes necessary to get the message passed (e.g. Net echo host to Star to destination Star to destination Net echo host), saving money for all the other nodes not in that path. The message would not accumulate any SEEN-BY's as it travels, nor would it generate a string of replies. Would this save money for the echomail backbone? You betcha. Would it help cut a lot of extraneous crap out of many echo conferences? Sure would! Are the present backbone nodes in favor of such a plan? Not on your life, judging from the reaction I've seen whenever someone dares to suggest such a scheme in an echo conference (they seem to be so worried that someone might pass some "free" netmail at their expense that they fail to consider the obvious savings that would accrue from such a scheme. It's a case of not seeing the forest for the trees...). Many SYSOPS tend to send netmail Crash anyway (they want to get it there quickly, and would find the possible 2-3 day delay through the echomail system unacceptable) so I really don't anticipate a large amount of netmail being dumped on the Stars by sysops. On the other hand, USERS will send the message one way or another, and if they can't send netmail they'll put it in the echo so that it goes out to everyone, so the Stars wind up handling the message either way. But getting back to the present controversy... In the "ideal" backbone structure, conference MODERATORS would be the ones to decide who is allowed in any given echo. That's the way it was intended to be in Fidonet (in fact, the last draft of Echopol specifically gave this authority to conference moderators) but somewhere on the way to Policy4, someone decided that the echomail system should act as an enforcement arm against FidoNews 6-33 Page 10 14 Aug 1989 excommunicated sysops. While this arguably might be appropriate for LIMITED amounts of time under certain well-defined circumstances (that would related to bona fide misbehaviour on the part of a sysop), the blanket prohibition against a sysop who has been excommunicated from Fidonet for ANY reason EVER AGAIN participating in an echo conference certainly goes beyond the boundaries of reason. Anyway, that's the whole proposal. Not a major change from what we have now, just a couple of common sense modifications to the present scheme that would save money, increase the efficiency of the net, and eliminate about 95% of the echomail-related flames. I wish somebody would try it before they flame it. If the Fidonet backbone won't, perhaps an independent "all-networks" echomail backbone should be set up that would try it. It may come to that anyway, if the *C's start using Echomail feeds as an enforcement tool. Remember, any time a system is excommunicated, or is prohibited from accessing an echo area, it could potentially hurt YOU more than the excommunicated sysop. That sysop (or one of the users of his or her BBS) might be the person who has the solution to whatever problem you last posted a message about in an echo area. Maybe they even wrote you a detailed reply that would fix your problem and save you money to boot, only you never saw it because the sysop was excommunicated and the echomail links were cut. Most of us are in Fidonet because we want to COMMUNICATE with others, and when others are EXcommunicated, that hurts US as well. Just some ideas for your consideration and discussion... ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 6-33 Page 11 14 Aug 1989 How Did This Happen? Tom Jennings 1:125/111 Let's keep this simple: at no time have the sysops of our FidoNet network given /0's the privilege of determining how our network is run. They are not representatives of anyone but themselves; they are merely administrative nodes to generate nodelist fragments, help new sysops get online and act as repositories of the necessary network files. They are ordinary nodes with more work to do. A dangerous thing has been attempted, and is undermining the trust that we rely on. "POLICY4" is simply not in effect, it was not voted upon by the members at large. I, and many many others, are simply ignoring the supposed policy "change". How did this happen? POLICY4 is terrible policy. It takes the right to choose your own net host way! It entrenches /0's as positions of authority. This is insane and does not facilitate our communications. A "smoothly running network" is not our goal; we are here to communicate, that is all. We do that well now. Even voting on POLICY4 is insane, it certainly will not benefit the 6000 or so sysops in the network! I've had FidoNet users tell me that their host doesn't automatically route them their host-routed mail. This was the most basic purpose of a net host to begin with! The whole concept of host-routing was to make FidoNet more effecient by concentrating calls! Anyways, If a few-dozen or -hundred /0's can vote, then a few-thousand can represent themselves just as simply. So what if it takes a long time, expediency is not a goal. If we don't have the tool(s), write them or do it by hand. Freeze a nodelist as the "list of registered voters". Have everyone send in a message. Check them off the list. Hold redundant votes, compare results. Give it a month. The net runs fine, there is no need to implement bad policy just to satisfy some bureaucratic urge! ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 6-33 Page 12 14 Aug 1989 Hasn't This Gone Far Enough? by Daniel Tobias 1:380/7 A couple of months ago, I jumped into the arena of FidoNet policy debate with a series of articles. I'm not sure what effect, if any, they had, but I ended the series when I had said all I needed to say. Since then, things have gotten even more acrimonious than before, and I shudder at participating in this debate, but recent articles impel me to jump in once again with an opinion, which could get me hated by all factions. We're now in the midst of a spectacle in which an excommunicated node claims unfair treatment on the part of the *C's, and in turn the *C's claim malicious activities on the part of the sysop in question. I don't know if this situation will ever be untangled, but it's clear that one or both of the parties to this dispute is either lying, mistaken, misunderstands the situation, or a combination of all of these. Determining the actual truth is nearly impossible, since the scads of net- and echomail messages (public and private) put forth as evidence by the different parties could be real, fake, altered, used out of context, or misinterpreted. E-mail is a perilous medium; in the absence of encryption schemes which are not presently in wide use, there is no way of verifying that a message was really written by the person it purports to be from, and since messages do not transmit "body language" they may easily be misunderstood even if no fraud or offense is intended. At this point, I don't know if I really give a damn who is right and who is wrong in this particular controversy. I'd rather see the net work together in a spirit of friendship rather than slit one another's throats in an effort to ensure that "right" and "justice" (as defined by whomever is speaking at the time) prevails. In this and other disputes, both sides need to back off a little, and stop assuming the other side is evil. There may be some true evildoers lurking, but they can't do much damage if the rest of us don't let them. However, most disputants in such cases are more likely to be well- intentioned people, even "nice guys", who through some misunderstanding or personality conflict end up at loggerheads with one another. The solution is to cool down a little: "chill out", as the expression goes. Maybe that sysop's excommunication was unjust; however, it was upheld by the chain of command, so it must be allowed to stand without further damaging agitation. Maybe someday when things cool down a bit he can try for readmission, if he even wants it after the way FidoNet treated him. But now that the IC has had his say, there's no further appeal under any present or past policy document, so the sysop in question is just out of luck. FidoNews 6-33 Page 13 14 Aug 1989 On the other hand, the attempt by the *C's to forbid this sysop from participating in any message area on any FidoNet BBS, whether as a user or as a member of an alternative network participating in a gateway to FidoNet, is simple vindictiveness, and shouldn't be tolerated. If he is causing trouble through such messages, by doing things that are "excessively annoying", then THAT would be a valid subject for a policy complaint against whatever FidoNet sysop allows his messages to be gatewayed. Such a complaint would have to be separately adjudicated as with all policy complaints. But, to simply make him an "unperson" (in Orwellian terms) and forbid his name from ever intruding on FidoNet, is an offensive swipe at the rights of all sysops and echomail conference coordinators. If I wish to allow this guy on my system as a user, what right does any *C have to deny it, so long as his participation is peaceful and friendly? His past behavior is not relevant here; his punishment has already been meted in the form of excommunication. Any further sanctions against him or his friends must be based on actual, proven, new offenses. As for echo conference coordinators, they too have the right to determine the content, tone, and rules of their conference, and who to allow or disallow. If the backbone systems, which spend lots of money to distribute the conferences (as noted in last week's FidoNews), decide that the tone of a conference makes it unworthy of their distribution, it is their right to drop it, with or without just cause. One would hope, though, that they make such a decision for more rational reasons than a grudge against a particular individual. At any rate, the backbone is NOT equivalent to the *C structure, and the IC is not empowered to speak on their behalf. The *C's action with regard to excommunicated sysops is very scary. It threatens to impose a reign of terror on all sysops, particularly those who are involved in setting up gateways to other networks. Such gateways are likely to be increasingly numerous in the future, connecting FidoNet not only with other Fido-compatible networks, but also with other networks like UUCP, InterNet, BitNet, MCI Mail, etc. Will all such gateways be forced to place electronic censors screening out all traffic from, to, or mentioning any excommunicated person? Will ALL sysops be ordered to screen incoming new users against a list of the excommunicated? Maybe there will be a "bulletin list" like that of stolen credit card numbers, and sysops will be forbidden to allow anyone on the list full access to their system lest they enter an echomail message? I'm starting to feel like FidoNet is degenerating into an authoritarian cult. Some religious groups forbid their members from even speaking to an excommunicated former member; I would never join such a group, since I believe in freedom of inquiry and like to hear all sides to any dispute before making up my mind. I hope this is not the direction FidoNet is heading. For the first time ever, I'm starting to seriously wonder if resignation from FidoNet might not be the best course. FidoNews 6-33 Page 14 14 Aug 1989 Hopefully, FidoCon will help "rejuvenate" my interest; I'm attending for the second time, and found last year's to be a refreshing show of friendliness and cooperation in contrast to the tone of echomail conferences and FidoNews articles. ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 6-33 Page 15 14 Aug 1989 Democracy? Who needs it? By Daniel O'Callaghan (3:634/383.451) Bob stared glumly at his cornflakes. Suddenly, their crispiness annoyed him. He took a sip of coffee, hot and black, the way he liked it, and decided that it was too hot, too black, and very annoying. Bob pushed away his breakfast and, burying his face in his hands, heaved a sigh of despair. Jane, his wife, came up to him and put her hand on his shoulder. "Bob, come on. Don't get so upset. I really think you're over-reacting." "Over-reacting? I'm a Californian! I was born in L.A. I've lived most of my life here in San Diego. The wines we sell are Californian and we're proud of it. We use the fact that they are produced in California to sell them. People trust wines from California. And now? Now I'm not from California; I don't live in California; our wines are not produced in California." "Yes, dear," sighed Jane, "I know that state pride is very important to you, but you have to think of everyone else. The decision to form the United North America was made in a properly democratic manner, and a majority of States and Canadian Provinces voted in favour. You have to respect democracy, Bob. That's what's made America so great." Bob could hardly believe that his own wife was sincere in what she had just said. Sure, Democracy was the best system of government anywhere. Even the Canadians knew that, despite their Legislative Council. But something went wrong. Something went terribly wrong, only he could not put his finger on just what it was. Was he the only person to miss being a Californian? Surely New Yorkers wanted to remain New Yorkers; people from Florida wanted to be able to say, "I'm from Florida," with pride. Definitely the Quebecois would not be happy with the unification of all states and provinces into one, undivided country. And yet it had been a democratic decision. At work there was a vague, uneasy quietness. People chatted and talked, but less than usual, and all talk was work based or very superficial. Bob's telephone rang. It was Anne, an old friend from New York. "Anne! Hi, where are you?" FidoNews 6-33 Page 16 14 Aug 1989 "At work, here in sunny Manhattan. I just had the worst workday of my life. Nobody spoke. I had an argument with George this morning and I had to talk to someone. This UNA thing. Do you really think it will work? Bring us all closer together like they said?" "UNA is going to destroy the way we think. It is going to take away our individuality. We will be a people without identity. Oh, sure, when we go overseas we can say we are from United North America, but how can we individualise ourselves at home?" "That's how I feel," agreed Anne. "Even the Europeans weren't stupid enough to stop people from saying, "I'm French," "I'm German," when they unified Europe back in '92. This is just ridiculous." "But it was a democratic decision, Anne, and that's what I don't understand." "Democratic? Hah! Who needs democracy if this is what it does? Anyway, It's good to know I'm not the only one who dislikes UNA." "OK Anne, I'll call you later and we can discuss it at more length then. Bye." As Bob carefully replaced the handset in its cradle he noticed that everyone was staring at him, but they quickly turned away. He thought he heard a muffled, puzzled voice say, "Doesn't like it?" But Anne had lifted Bob's spirits. "I'm not crazy after all," he thought. * Over the next month massive changes in the structure of the country were announced. With no states to collect them, all State income and sales taxes were abolished and replaced with new or increased national taxes. "Now everybody pays the same tax, wherever they live," said the newspapers. All building construction approvals had to be approved by a committee in Miami, so everyone could live as one big family, and nobody would feel that his home was not as good as his neighbour's. All universities, colleges and institutes of technology were to be united into a single United North America Tertiary Institute Education (UNATIE). All UNATIE campuses would teach all courses and follow standard syllabuses so that no graduate would be disadvantaged in not being able to pursue the career of his or her choice. The elitism of Yale, Harvard, MIT, UCLA was to be a thing of the past. "Everyone is the same, has the same ability, and will be educated as such." FidoNews 6-33 Page 17 14 Aug 1989 Local shopping store chains were forced to merged into nationwide chains to improve efficiency by bulk purchasing of stock. The stock control of all stores was managed in Fairbanks. A programme was announced which would standardize the language spoken in UNA. It was a mixture of Spanish, French and English. All schoolchildren would be given elocution lessons so that they would not feel ashamed of their accents when they visited another part of the country. Bob reflected on these changes ruefully. Already wine sales had dropped. Overseas buyers were turning to Australia and New Zealand where the wines varied from state to state, region to region, and the region name was clearly marked on the label. He read in the paper that people in the northern UNA town of Ottawa were being given nice new houses with large windows to let the light in, as decided by the Residential Building Committee in Miami, who also declared that double glazing was wasteful of resources, unnecessary and would no longer be installed. Bob could not take his kids to the beach anymore because they had fair skin and burned easily. Sunscreen was unobtainable because people in Fairbanks could not see any point in putting it on the shelves. The department stores carried mittens and fur coats, instead of beach towels and swimwear. Bob had heard a rumour that people in Seattle and Vancouver were wearing these fur coats instead of raincoats, because there were no raincoats to be bought. On a business trip to Reno, Bob saw that the only differ- ence between Reno and San Diego was the weather. The casinos had gone because people throughout UNA did not want casinos in their neighbourhoods. To replace the casinos a Zoo was built, because people liked zoos. The Reno Zoo was filled with animals from San Diego, and the extra space in San Diego, which the animals had taken up looked lonely and bare. Bob reached for the phone and rang Anne in New York. "Hi Anne, How are you? I had to ring. All this stuff in the papers. It's crazy." He knew she had the paper. There was now only the UNA National Times. Local publications had been disbanded because they did not show or share the events of the world. "Yes," said Anne glumly, "But I've been thinking. UNA was not formed democratically." "What!" Bob was shocked that Anne would utter such blasphemy. "Listen. A majority of States and Provinces voted in favour of UNA, but only the Governor or Premier actually voted in the final ballot. They decided on how to vote by how the members of their respective congresses voted, but because of party solidarity, they only needed a majority of government members to decide the vote." FidoNews 6-33 Page 18 14 Aug 1989 "Sorry, I don't follow that," interrupted Bob. "Look, if most of the party who controls the congress voted 'Yes' then all congressmen in that party would vote 'Yes' because of party solidarity. That means that the congress votes 'Yes' even if a minority wanted it. So really, the Governor's vote was not necessarily the wish of the people who elected him, or his congress. "Also, if you look at who voted how, you'll see that New York, California, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Ontario and Quebec all voted 'No' but while they contain more than one third of the people, they only had 6 votes out of 58. That's hardly democratic, is it?" Bob leaned forward, excited. "You're right, Anne. And the 'Yea' or 'Nay' system made it worse. People had to choose the whole, even if there were parts they did not like. It stinks. It really does." "Well, Bob, can we do anything about it?" Bob sighed. "We have to, Anne. It will take a long time to undo the damage, but we have to make a start for everyone's sakes. Come on, Anne, let's start on the slow road back to individualism. Vive la difference." ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 6-33 Page 19 14 Aug 1989 Ed Branley Fido 1:396/10.1 Vervan's Gaming Net Using a computer to play games is certainly nothing new, but one aspect of computer gaming that tends to be overlooked is the use of the computer as a tool to enhance multi-player games, both war and role playing. There are two roles where the computer does a splendid job. First is the concept of computer-moderated games. I'll never forget the first time I wrote a check out for over hundred dollars to pay for my addiction to Compuserve's on-line game Megawars, an advanced version of Decwars. Playing computer games wasn't a new experience for me (even back then on my old grey Color Computer), but using the computer to play against another human opponent was an unbelievable thrill! Of course, electronic bulletin boards now do their best to provide this thrill through on-line games such as Trade Wars. While it's not real time like CIS, it's certainly much less expensive. The second role of the computer in multi-player games is the use of electronic mail in the playing of traditional board wargames and various role-playing games. At first glance this might seem to be an impractical idea, but consider that play-by-mail wargaming is now a well established hobby. Using the computer for mail is merely a replacement for written letters sent via the Postal Service. Role-playing games normally require a group of people in the same place for an extended period of time (usually a minimum of three or four hours). Gamers with irregular schedules normally find it difficult to join in a D&D group that gets together on a regular basis. Using a BBS as the 'meeting place' of the gaming group eliminates the need for gathering everyone together. Sure, some changes have to be made in the play of the game, and certainly the game takes longer, but such is the way of all play-by-mail games. Using a BBS to conduct a game only requires that all players have regular access to a computer and modem, and call the BBS regularly. Using fidonet to expand this concept is the next logical step. The AD&D echo on the national backbone is a good example of this. With the game set up as an echo, players don't even have to be calling the same BBS. Playing RPG's via echomail has expanded into more than one or two backbone echos. Carl Evans of Vervan's War Board (1:207/105 and 8:911/201) in Cucamonga, CA has been running multi-player games on his PCBoard BBS since January 1987. In March 1989, Carl expanded this concept by establishing Vervan's Gaming Network (V-NET), a private echomail network consisting of fidonet and RBBSnet boards whose users and sysops enjoy playing multi-player games. Essentially what Carl did was to allow other boards to participate in the games that originated on his system. This has FidoNews 6-33 Page 20 14 Aug 1989 expanded now, with game moderators coming from boards other than Vervan's. Here's a sample of some of the games currently in progress on Vervan's Gaming Net: * Advanced Dungeons and Dragons (three campaigns: two are first edition and the third a second edition) * Avalon Hill's Diplomacy * Imperial Space Command, a 'play by file' wargame * Mega-Traveller, a RPG set in the far future * Star Fleet Battles, Played by E-Mail/Files * Star Trek, the Role Playing Game * Villians & Vigilantes RPG In addition, another Diplomacy game and a game of Twilight:2000 are in the formative stages. Along with the gaming echos, Vervan's net also includes discussion echos for gamers, sysops, discussion of gaming strategy and tactics, and discussion of the network. Also, Vervan's War Board is a beta test site for most on-line door programs (games, non-games and door managers), so there is a good bit of discussion on this topic as well. Topology: Vervan's is loosely structured at this point. There are three nodes that carry all of the net echos, in addition to Vervan's War Board. These boards serve as 'hubs' for echo distribution. At this time, membership in Vervan's Net is open to any BBS that can establish a link with one of these nodes. (List of net/node #'s to follow). In addition to fidonet distribution, the net is available to RBBSnet (Zone 8) and HYPERLINK (a PCBoard only echo network). If you are interested in multi-player gaming via computer, we invite you to join us in Vervan's Gaming Net. To access the net, sent netmail to any of the 'hub' nodes, and we'll see about getting you hooked up: BOARD NAME NETWORK ADDRESSES CITY/STATE ------------------ ---------------------- --------------- VERVAN'S WAR BOARD 1:207/105 8:911/201 Cucamonga, CA Minas Tirith 1:396/10 New Orleans, LA StarBase 23 1:202/603 8:913/1 San Diego, CA Dragon's Cave 1:296/102 7:520/802 Towaco, NJ FidoNews 6-33 Page 21 14 Aug 1989 To wrap this article up, I'd like to encourage even the skeptics in the group to investigate Vervan's. You'll be surprised at how much fun AD&D or Traveller can be via echomail. Not to mention the fact that you might be able to get your favorite game going (if it already isn't!) ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 6-33 Page 22 14 Aug 1989 Steve Bonine 115/777 (1:1/0) Words from the Zone 1 Coordinator It has taken longer than I anticipated to find time to submit an article to FidoNews. I was planning a more leisurely transition into the job of Zone Coordinator for zone 1, but a lightning strike in Phoenix and a motherboard failure on my own system changed that. I believe that the technical details are pretty well set, and I have a couple of nodelist generations under my belt, so I wanted to share some information and thoughts. First things first. FidoNet owes a giant debt of gratitude to David Dodell. Most of you cannot begin to imagine how much time and effort David has poured into FidoNet during the time that he was ZC1/IC. Even if you do not agree with every decision which he made, please understand that each action was taken after due consideration (and often painful consideration), and was taken in what David believed was the best interest of FidoNet. His sacrifices were made for all of us, and we seldom had the decency to express our gratitude. I don't think that a personal "thank you" to 114/15 would be inappropriate. FidoNews -------- Nothing I say in this section should be interpreted as criticism of Vince Perriello, who is doing a super-human job of carrying out the duties of the editor of FidoNews, as defined by IFNA policy. In Policy4, FidoNews is described as "the glue that holds us together"; lately it has been more like the wedge that drives us apart. Frankly, I'm appalled at what I've been seeing for the past several editions of FidoNews. To say that the articles fail to present an objective viewpoint is a gross understatement. With all the accusations that have been flying back and forth in recent editions, why should a reader believe anything? That makes FidoNews useless for everyone. I do have a suggestion. No, it has nothing to do with changing the IFNA editorial policy. But it does have to do with making FidoNews look more like the newsletter of a respectable BBS network, and less like the National Enquirer. In a group the size of FidoNet, it should be possible to find a few persons who are willing to serve as REPORTERS for FidoNews. These individu- als would do their best to get all the facts and prepare objec- tive articles. On any given issue, it should be possible to find someone with no vested interest who could contact all the inter- ested parties and prepare an objective report. FidoNews 6-33 Page 23 14 Aug 1989 BIX --- Those of you who read the SYSOP conference are aware that plans are under way to offer FidoNet echomail conferences under the auspices of BIX (Byte Magazine's dialup service). I don't want to steal any thunder, or to cause undue concern. More details of this project will be forthcoming. At this point, all I want to do is try to assure the members of FidoNet that the coordinator structure is aware of the development, and is working towards the best interest of FidoNet. If you have no confidence in that coordinator structure, nothing I say will reduce any anxiety you may feel; if you DO have that confidence then I've said all I need to at this point. Policy4 Vote ------- ---- Several weeks ago, Doug Thompson made serious accusations in FidoNews that irregularities had occurred in the vote for Policy4. In actual fact, what happened was that Doug sent a long message to his RC (Tom Kashuba) explaining that he did not feel that the coordinator structure had any right to vote on policy, and stating his objections to Policy4. His vote was recorded as "NO". This is not a case of a "NO" vote being recorded as "YES". It is a case of a vote being recorded when it was the desire to have no vote recorded. (Not a vote of "NO", but no vote. There is a distinct difference.) After investigating the facts, my conclusion is that both Doug Thompson and Tom Kashuba have very strong opinions on this issue. Both of them believe that they are doing the right thing for FidoNet. Tom insisted that the NC's vote, and that they vote either "YES" or "NO". Doug felt that any vote was inappropriate. Both of them did what they felt was the best thing for FidoNet. I have received no specific complaints that Tom Kashuba is not fulfilling his Policy4 responsibilities as RC. Tom takes his responsibilities very seriously. If there are specific complaints on Tom's performance, or the performance of any zone-1 Regional Coordinator, I encourage any sysop to make me aware of them. The End --- --- This article has gone too long already. There are a number of other important issues facing FidoNet, and I will be covering them in subsequent articles. These include the size of the nodelist, private/redundant nodes, democracy, a review process for excommunications, and choice of the next IC. FidoNews 6-33 Page 24 14 Aug 1989 Let me emphasize that my netmail door is always open. One of the most difficult tasks of any coordinator is judging the "mood of FidoNet" on any issue. I consider netmail my best indicator of how people feel. Use it. ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 6-33 Page 25 14 Aug 1989 ================================================================= LATEST VERSIONS ================================================================= Latest Software Versions MS-DOS Systems -------------- Bulletin Board Software Name Version Name Version Name Version Fido 12n+* Phoenix 1.3 TBBS 2.1 Lynx 1.30 QuickBBS 2.04* TComm/TCommNet 3.4 Opus 1.03b+ RBBS 17.2A TPBoard 5.2 Network Node List Other Mailers Version Utilities Version Utilities Version BinkleyTerm 2.20 EditNL 4.00 ARC 6.02 D'Bridge 1.21* MakeNL 2.12 ARCmail 2.0 Dutchie 2.90C ParseList 1.30 ConfMail 4.00 FrontDoor 2.0 Prune 1.40 EMM 2.02 PRENM 1.47 XlatList 2.90 GROUP 2.10 SEAdog 4.51A* XlaxDiff 2.32 LHARC 1.13* XlaxNode 2.32 MSG 3.3 MSGED 1.99 PK[UN]ZIP 0.92* QM 1.0* TCOMMail 2.2 TMail 1.11 TPBNetEd 3.2 UFGATE 1.03 XRS 2.3* ZmailQ 1.09* Apple Macintosh --------------- Bulletin Board Software Network Mailers Other Utilities Name Version Name Version Name Version Red Ryder Host v2.1b3 Tabby 2.0* MacArc 0.03 Mansion 7.0 ArcMac 1.3 StuffIt 1.51 TImport 1.0 TExport 1.0 Timestamp 1.6 Tset 1.0.2 FidoNews 6-33 Page 26 14 Aug 1989 Timestart 1.1 Tally 1.1 Mehitabel 1.2 Archie 1.60 Numberizer 1.5c MessageEdit 1.0 Commodore Amiga --------------- Bulletin Board Software Network Mailers Other Utilities Name Version Name Version Name Version Paragon 1.00+* BinkleyTerm 1.50 ConfMail 1.00 ChameleonEdit 0.10 + Netmail capable (does not require additional mailer software) * Recently changed Utility authors: Please help keep this list up to date by reporting new versions to 1:1/1. It is not our intent to list all utilities here, only those which verge on necessity. ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 6-33 Page 27 14 Aug 1989 ================================================================= NOTICES ================================================================= The Interrupt Stack 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. 23 Nov 1989 26th Anniversary of "Dr. Who" - and still going strong 30 Dec 1989 Telephone area codes (5, 3 and 0) are abolished in Hong Kong If you have something which you would like to see on this calendar, please send a message to FidoNet node 1:1/1. ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 6-33 Page 28 14 Aug 1989 OFFICERS OF THE INTERNATIONAL FIDONET ASSOCIATION Mort Sternheim 1:321/109 Chairman of the Board Bob Rudolph 1:261/628 President Matt Whelan 3:3/1 Vice President Bill Bolton 3:711/403 Vice President-Technical Coordinator Linda Grennan 1:147/1 Secretary Kris Veitch 1:147/30 Treasurer IFNA COMMITTEE AND BOARD CHAIRS Administration and Finance Mark Grennan 1:147/1 Board of Directors Mort Sternheim 1:321/109 Bylaws Don Daniels 1:107/210 Ethics Vic Hill 1:147/4 Executive Committee Bob Rudolph 1:261/628 International Affairs Rob Gonsalves 2:500/1 Membership Services David Drexler 1:147/47 Nominations & Elections David Melnick 1:107/233 Public Affairs David Drexler 1:147/47 Publications Rick Siegel 1:107/27 Security & Individual Rights Jim Cannell 1:143/21 Technical Standards Rick Moore 1:115/333 IFNA BOARD OF DIRECTORS DIVISION AT-LARGE 10 Courtney Harris 1:102/732 Don Daniels 1:107/210 11 Bill Allbritten 1:11/301 Mort Sternheim 1:321/109 12 Bill Bolton 3:711/403 Mark Grennan 1:147/1 13 Irene Henderson 1:107/9 (vacant) 14 Ken Kaplan 1:100/22 Ted Polczyinski 1:154/5 15 Scott Miller 1:128/12 Matt Whelan 3:3/1 16 Ivan Schaffel 1:141/390 Robert Rudolph 1:261/628 17 Neal Curtin 1:343/1 Steve Jordan 1:206/2871 18 Andrew Adler 1:135/47 Kris Veitch 1:147/30 19 David Drexler 1:147/47 (vacant) 2 Henk Wevers 2:500/1 David Melnik 1:107/233 ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 6-33 Page 29 14 Aug 1989 __ The World's First / \ BBS Network /|oo \ * FidoNet * (_| /_) FidoCon '89 in San Jose, California _`@/_ \ _ at The Holiday Inn Park Plaza | | \ \\ August 24-27, 1989 | (*) | \ )) ______ |__U__| / \// / Fido \ _//|| _\ / (________) (_/(_|(____/ (tm) R E G I S T R A T I O N F O R M Name: _______________________________________________________ Address: ____________________________________________________ City: _______________________ State: ____ Zip: ______________ Country: ____________________________________________________ Phone Numbers: Day: ________________________________________________________ Evening: ____________________________________________________ Data: _______________________________________________________ Zone:Net/ Node.Point: ___________________________________________________ Your BBS Name: ________________________________________________ BBS Software: _____________________ Mailer: ___________________ Modem Brand: _____________________ Speed: ____________________ At what hotel will you be staying: ____________________________ Do you want an in room point? (Holiday Inn only) ______________ Are you a Sysop? _____________ Are you an IFNA Member? ______ FidoNews 6-33 Page 30 14 Aug 1989 Additional Guests: __________ (not attending conferences) Do you have any special requirements? (Sign Language translation, handicapped, etc.) ______________________________________________________ Comments: ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________ Costs How Many? Cost --------------------------- -------- ------- Conference fee $60 .................... ________ _______ ($75.00 after July 15) Friday Banquet $30.00 ................ ________ _______ ======== ======= Totals ................................ ________ _______ You may pay by Check, Money Order, or Credit Card. Please send no cash. All monies must be in U.S. Funds. Checks should be made out to: "FidoCon '89" This form should be completed and mailed to: Silicon Valley FidoCon '89 PO Box 390770 Mountain View, CA 94039 You may register by Netmailing this completed form to 1:1/89 for processing. Rename it to ZNNNXXXX.REG where Z is your Zone number, N is your Net number, and X is your Node number. US Mail confirmation is required within 72 hours to confirm your registration. If you are paying by credit card, please include the following information. For your own security, do not route any message with your credit card number on it. Crash it directly to 1:1/89. FidoNews 6-33 Page 31 14 Aug 1989 Master Card _______ Visa ________ Credit Card Number _____________________________________________ Expiration Date ________________________________________________ Signature ______________________________________________________ No credit card registrations will be accepted without a valid signature. Rooms at the Holiday Inn may be reserved by calling the Hotel at 408-998-0400, and mentioning that you are with FidoCon. Rooms are $60.00 per night double occupancy. Additional rollaways are available for $10.00 per night. To obtain these rates you must register before July 15. The official FidoCon '89 airline is American Airlines. You can receive either a 5% reduction in supersaver fares or a 40% reduction in the regular day coach fare. San Jose is an American Airlines hub with direct flights to most major cities. When making reservations, you must call American's reservation number, 800-433-1790, and reference Star number S0289VM. The official FidoCon '89 automobile rental agency is Alamo Rent a Car. Rates are as described below. All rates include automatic transmission, air conditioning, radio, and unlimited mileage. Economy car (example: Geo Metro) $32 day/$109 week. Compact car (example: Chevy Cavalier) $34 day/$120 week. Midsize car (example: Pontiac Grand Am) $36 day/$135 week. Standard car (example: Buick Regal) $38 day/$165 week. Luxury car (example: Buick LeSabre) $40 day/$239 week. To take advantage of this rate, call Alamo at 1-800-327-9633 and request the convention rate. Mention FidoCon '89, the location and dates. ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 6-33 Page 32 14 Aug 1989 __ The World's First / \ BBS Network /|oo \ * FidoNet * (_| /_) _`@/_ \ _ | | \ \\ | (*) | \ )) ______ |__U__| / \// / Fido \ _//|| _\ / (________) (_/(_|(____/ (tm) Membership for the International FidoNet Association Membership in IFNA is open to any individual or organization that pays a specified annual membership fee. IFNA serves the international FidoNet-compatible electronic mail community to increase worldwide communications. Member Name _______________________________ Date _______________ Address _________________________________________________________ City ____________________________________________________________ State ________________________________ Zip _____________________ Country _________________________________________________________ Home Phone (Voice) ______________________________________________ Work Phone (Voice) ______________________________________________ Zone:Net/Node Number ____________________________________________ BBS Name ________________________________________________________ BBS Phone Number ________________________________________________ Baud Rates Supported ____________________________________________ Board Restrictions ______________________________________________ Your Special Interests __________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ In what areas would you be willing to help in FidoNet? __________ _________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ Send this membership form and a check or money order for $25 in US Funds to: International FidoNet Association PO Box 41143 St Louis, Missouri 63141 USA Thank you for your membership! Your participation will help to insure the future of FidoNet. Please NOTE that IFNA is a general not-for-profit organization and Articles of Association and By-Laws were adopted by the membership in January 1987. The second elected Board of Directors was filled in August 1988. The IFNA Echomail Conference has been established on FidoNet to assist the Board. We welcome your input to this Conference. FidoNews 6-33 Page 33 14 Aug 1989 -----------------------------------------------------------------