ftp.wwiv.com/ftp.wwiv.com.zip/ftp.wwiv.com/pub/HATCH/WWIVNEWS.ZIP/9308_1.NWS

Text File | 1993-08-04 | 28KB | 491 lines

               ┌┐┌┐┌┐┌┐┌┐┌┐┌────┐┌┐  ┌┐┌─┐ ┌┐┌────┐┌┐┌┐┌┐┌────┐
 ╔═════════════││││││││││││└─┐┌─┘││  │││ └┐│││┌───┘│││││││┌───┘═════════════╗
 ║   Volume 4  ││││││││││││  ││  └┼┐┌┼┘│  └┘││└───┐│││││││└───┐  June/July  ║
 ║   Issue 2   ││││││││││││  ││   ││││ │┌┐  ││┌───┘││││││└───┐│    1993     ║
 ╚═════════╤═══│└┘└┘││└┘└┘│┌─┘└─┐ └┼┼┘ ││└┐ ││└───┐│└┘└┘│┌───┘│═══╤═════════╝
           │   └────┘└────┘└────┘  └┘  └┘ └─┘└────┘└────┘└────┘   │
           │   The Electronic Forum for WWIVNet Sysops & Users!   │
           └──────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

                          ┌─────────────────────┐
                          │This Issue's Features│
┌─────────────────────────┴─────────────────────┴───────────────────────────┐
│ Random Factors...................................Wayne Bell (1@1)         │
├──────────────┬─────────────────────────────────────────────┬──────────────┤
│              │    WWIVNews Feature Topic: The UU Debate    │              │
│              └─────────────────────────────────────────────┘              │
│ Introduction to the UU Debate....................Omega Man (1@5282)       │
│                                                                           │
│ Editorial Contributors...........................The Menace (1@4071)      │
│                                                  Redman (1@16950)         │
│                                                  Sleepy (1@3085)          │
│                                                  Snorkel (1@3459)         │
│                                                                           │
│ Technical Contributors...........................Deltigar (1@1052)        │
│                                                  Snorkel (1@3459)         │
│                                                  Tolkien (1@3456)         │
├───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Filo's Mod of the Month..........................Filo (1@2050)            │
│                                                                           │
│ Type 0 Forum.....................................Omega Man (1@5282)       │
│                                                                           │
│ WWIV-Compatible Networks List....................Red Dwarf (1@6264)       │
│                                                                           │
│ TechnOTES........................................WWIVNews Staff           │
│                                                                           │
│ Dateline: @#$*()#!...............................Omega Man (1@5282)       │
└──────────────┬─────────────────────────────────────────────┬──────────────┘
               └─────────────────────────────────────────────┘

───────────────┬─────────────────────────────────────────────┬───────────────
               │               Random Factors                │
               │   Creative Commentary by Wayne Bell (1@1)   │
               └─────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Quite a few things to discuss this issue, so let's get started:

NET33 BUG:

Yes, NET33 does have a bug where the 'BAD PW' SSM lops off the last digit of
a node number. That's because i had strlen(s+1) instead of strlen(s)+1. This
has been fixed for NET34, and the current one is still usable as an error flag
If you see there's a bad PW, you can always look at NET.LOG and see which node
is having connection problems.

NET34:

NET34 should have multiple nets in the same callout, although I haven't
started coding that part of it yet. As usual, there have been a few minor bug
fixes since net33. No major changes have been done yet, though. I (obviously)
do not have a release date set yet.


NEW DE1.EXE:

As most of you saw in the last mail_to_all_sysops, I've sent out a new
DE1.EXE. (If you haven't installed it, then you won't be reading this.)This
was sent as a UU encoded .ZIP file. To use this, you need to UUDecode it,
unZip it, then overwrite your current WWIVNet DE1.EXE with this. You should no
longer use the old DE1.EXE (the one in NET*.ZIP).

There have been those on some of the Sysop subs that have shown concern
whether the UU'd file did in fact originate from @1, despite the source
verification flags. If you're one of those who are still worried about this,
take a look at the archive once you've decoded it. If PKZIP reports the CRC as
331fe474, then you have an authentic copy.

If you are in more than one network, make sure you overwrite the correct
DE1.EXE. Your DE1.EXE is probably in your WWIVNet data directory, or if not
there, probably in your main WWIV directory.

This new DE1.EXE utilizes compression (PKWare Data Compression Library) to
reduce the size of net updates, and hopefully decrease network costs. This
also means it is slower than the older version.

An aside note to the AC's and GC's: Please make sure that new systems joining
the network receive this new DE1.EXE. It's also suggested that you make it
available for download by those sysops who are either unfamiliar or
uncomfortable with the use of the UUDECODE procedures.


WWIV v4.23:

WWIV v4.23 is being worked on now. No, I do not have a preliminary date set
for its release yet. I will let people know when a date is set, so please do
not email me to ask. Unlike previous releases, though, v4.23 will have some
significant portions of the new/upgraded code installed by other people.
Tolkien (@3456) has installed a number of new features, augmented existing
ones, and has made a lot of cosmetic changes. Jim Wire (@3950) is in the
process of installing multi-instance (multi-line) code, and that should be
being tested by the time this WWIVnews is released.

v4.23 already has multi-languages supported (although most of the code for
that was in v4.22 also, and not many non-English language .str files are
available yet). Shakespear (2@2050) is currently working on a FidoNet
implementation, which should work more elegantly than existing interfaces
(which require "fake" fidonet node numbers (@6xx)).


UU'D FILES & WWIVNet:

As has been made clear in the mail-to-all-sysops before the one containing the
DE1.EXE update, files should >NOT< be sent through WWIVNet, except if you have
the permission of all intervening systems. This covers not only UUENCODEd
files, but also PACKSCAN files, and any other method that may pop up.

Yes, many times it may be convenient to use WWIVNet to send files to someone.
However, by sending them through the net, you make other people pay for your
convenience, which is not fair. If you have a need currently to send files to
someone on a continuing basis, the best way is to set up your own mini-
network, and then send files (uuencoded or via PACKSCAN) on your own network.
That leaves the convenience for you, does not cost other people anything, and
will not end up routing normal WWIVNet traffic between your systems (as would
be the case if you simply added a WWIVNet connection between systems). I know
some systems in the St. Louis area have set up their own separate network for
this very purpose.

Some people have complained to me about the no-file policy, saying things like

"But I already pay $xx a month for dues to the server."  Yes, but that is for
just ONE server. messages of any type on the net tend to go through many
intervening systems, not just the one server. Files also tend to be much
larger than normal net traffic, and server dues are based upon normal traffic,
not based upon the few people who want to send large files. In any case, in
the relatively near future (no, no date yet), there will be an FREQ-type
program available for WWIV systems, which will allow direct transfer
of files between WWIV systems, not using any network. This will end up being
(I believe) the most convenient method, and will limit the costs to those
actually doing file transfers.

Rules and policies regarding this matter will be covered in detail in the new
WWIVNet policy docs that will accompany the release of NET33.ZIP. Any
questions regarding the FREQ utility should be directed to the author, 2@2050.


REGISTRATION & MULTI-LINE WWIV:

Prior to this writing, I've received several E-Mails regarding the per-line
registration deal. I would like to take a somewhat more mellow attitude about
it right now, than what these people seem to think is the situation.
Basically, explaining what the situation is, why changes are necessary, and
what we're currently proposing, and why. This opposed to taking the attitude
of "This is it, love it or leave it."

Previously, the license agreement has not explicitly addressed the issue of
running a multiple line WWIV, as until recently, it has only been possible to
run it on one line (and even so, not many people have been going multi-line
with it so far anyway). Since more and more people have become interested in
running multi-lines, and since v4.23 will probably support multiple lines,
obviously the license should be modified to explicitly address the multi-line
issue. That much, everyone should agree with.

The real issue, therefore, is in what way should multi-lines be handled (in
the license)?

A long time ago, someone (I'm sure) wanted to run two WWIV's. Not multi-line,
but two separate BBS's. The question therefore came up, "Do I need one or two
registrations?"  If someone could run two BBS's with one registration, then it
would also be possible for someone to say, "Yes, I run two BBS's - one at my
house, and one at my friend John's house" as a way to try to get John's BBS to
count as registered for "free."  Also, other DOS-based licenses (eg, BC++)
don't work that way - the license is for one copy on one computer. In any
case, as I understand copyright law (and they just gave a big lecture at work
on this), the standard license is for one copy on one computer. Anything
beyond that has to be explicitly granted by the license agreement.

So, obviously, if someone was running two BBS's, he needed two registrations.

That "decision" also expanded when someone wanted to run two separate BBS's on
the same computer (under DV, say). It therefore came to be "one registration
per phone line." I'm almost certain I've posted that on at least one sysop's
sub.

Currently, that also applies to one person running a two-line BBS.

Yes, I agree that's not perfectly fair, but it's all I could come up with. If
I went with anything less restrictive than that, it would become possible for
people to 'cheat' on it (although I don't think most people would intend to do
that).

"But," I hear people saying, "I can mod my BBS however I want, and I choose to
mod it to handle multiple lines."  Actually, that's not accurate. What people
have done to handle multiple lines is modify the BBS so that multiple copies
can be running simultaneously, not that one copy can handle multiple lines
(that is, the difference between having one BBS.EXE running, and having more
than one BBS.EXE running). So, even though it is one computer handling two
phone lines, it is still two BBS.EXE's running at the same time. That's two
copies. Thus the need for two registrations.

Let me explain the difference there a bit more. Modifying your BBS to handle
multiple phone lines would mean that you would have one BBS.EXE running on
your machine, which would have the multi-tasking code built into it, and it
would be the same BBS.EXE that was handling all users (on the same CPU). What
people have done is to have the BBS.EXE's lock files, and gracefully allow
multiple BBS.EXE's to access the same files almost concurrently.


Unfortunately, since DOS machines can typically handle only one user at a
time, DOS people have never encountered real multi-user licenses. In other
environments (eg, UNIX, which is what I use at work), where multi-user
machines are common, the typical licensing agreement is for a set number of
concurrently running copies. For example, FrameMaker (a word-processor type
program) has a "license server" program running on one machine in a network.
Whenever a user (on that machine or on another) wants to run FrameMaker, their
copy of FrameMaker gets a "license" from the license server. The server
ensures that no more than the set number of licenses are active at a time. If
you need to run more than that, then you pay more money for more licenses, and
they send you a new keyfile or password to enable the greater number of
licenses (the keyfile/password is based upon the machine name/serial-number/
ethernet-address, to ensure that you don't use the same key/pass on more than
one machine).

So, in response to all this, the WWIV license is being changed to be less
restrictive. Instead of having to have a separate registration for each phone
line, people will now be able to (legally) run a multi-line WWIV paying much
less than $80 per line.

Hopefully this clarifies matters a bit.


UTILITY.WW4:

Finally, Filo (1@2050) is in the process of compiling a comprehensive list of
utilities for WWIV, to be included in the documentation package. If you wish
to have your utility (or utilities, as the case may be) the following
information should be submitted:

FILENAME.EXT, Author's Name, ID, Description

   ^      ^       ^          ^   ^
   :      :       :          :   :...Description MUST not be longer than
   :      :       :          :       102 characters including spaces.
   :      :       :          :       If it is available only at a fee
   :      :       :          :       then include the fee in the
   :      :       :          :       description.
   :      :       :          :
   :      :       :          :....... Use PD, SW, or CM as ID to
   :      :       :                   indicate Public Domain, ShareWare
   :      :       :                   or commercial.
   :      :       :
   :      :       :.................. Self Explanatory
   :      :
   :      :.......................... Type of Compression used
   :
   :................................. Filename used as identification

Submissions can be sent to the following addresses:

WWIVNet:  1@830
WWIVLink: WWIVNet #1 at 830 @2050
IceNET:   WWIVNet #1 at 830 @2050

That's all for now. See you next issue.

───────────────┬─────────────────────────────────────────────┬───────────────
               │        Introduction To The UU Debate        │
               │            by Omega Man (1@5282)            │
               └─────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Transmission of UU encoded files over WWIVNet has been a topic of debate for
as long as the net has been in operation. The arguments for and against the
use of UU encoding have periodically turned sysop subs across the net into
heated flamefest arenas, producing lots of hurt feelings and very few real
answers to the questions raised.

The questions raised were simple ones with complex answers. Was the UU method
actually more efficient than a file request network relying on direct hookups?
Were UU'd files containing archives actually larger than the archives by
themselves? Should text files be UU'd? Do servers and pass-through nodes have
the right to scan network packets and purge UU'd files regardless of size or
content? Does the WWIVNet as a whole have the responsibility to bear the
costs involved in sending such large files, or does it have the right to
take steps as a whole to prevent this perceived abuse of resources?

Oddly enough, while it appeared the majority of WWIVNet was against UU'd file
transmissions, many of those opposed also expressed their doubts against any
sort of absolute rule against their use. At the same time, those in favor of
few or no controls on UU transmission were also some of the more outspoken and
persuasive members of WWIVNet, and what they lacked in acceptance among their
peers they made up for with tenacity and aggressiveness.

In an effort to help present all sides of this serious issue, WWIVNews placed
a Call for Articles on UU encoding. There were quite a few submissions for
editorials, as well as several reviews and technical articles regarding the
various utilities designed to manage - and even eliminate - network packets
containing UU'd files.

However, as this issue was being compiled, WWIVNet 1@1 issued what can best be

described as "The Last Word" on UU transmissions. As a result, several of
those who submitted editorials on this topic requested that their submissions
be dropped from publication. The reason cited was the same in all cases: Wayne
had rendered the debate a moot issue, and the forthcoming release of a File
Request netutil simply added the final nail to the coffin.

Still, there were some views that were allowed to be expressed. The following
editorials, technical papers, and product reviews are the remainder of the
30+ submissions on this topic. While the matter has arguably been settled,
for future reference the WWIVNews staff came to the consensus to publish the
remaining submissions, as presented below.

─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
The Menace (WWIVNet 1@4071)
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

As of late there has been a controversy concerning UUENCODED files being
transferred across WWIVNet. A UUENCODED file (UUE) is coded with a special
program called UUENCODE, a program common to the UNIX world. By UUE'ing a
file, WWIVNet is capable of sending it across the network as a message. This
encoding is done since WWIVNet and WWIV itself, does not have the capability
of transferring files between nodes of the network. Upon receipt of this
encoded file, you would use UUDECODE to transform it back to it's original
usable/readable state.

The issue seems to reside in the cost of the network connects. When these UUE
files are transferred across the network, and distributed amongst the some
5000 BBS's in WWIVNet, each system must endure the extra cost and time, in
addition to the normal cost associated with a normal network transfer. This
issue may not seem like a concern to many, but there are those who abuse the
freedom that WWIVNet offers. Occasionally sending a UUE file is not the issue,
it is the constant transfer of packets containing large UUENCODED files
created by rather lazy users. Most of these Sysops are accepting the increase
in phone charges without a charge to the users. Most Sysops start a BBS
because it is fun, and the idea behind WWIVNet was the free flow of
information. These UUENCODED files in net packets, increase the cost of
running a BBS and are tarnishing the charm of being "networked".

In addition, some users and/or Sysops have been sending Non-Public Domain
files (NPD) across the net in a UUE fashion. This exchange of illegal files is
somewhat alarming to the Sysops who do not wish to associated with that part
of BBS'ing community. The possibility of legal action being taken against a
sysop on a network who has packets containing NPD software could be a major
detraction to those that only wish to use the network as a message medium.

A few users have compared WWIVNet to FidoNet, where files from other sites are
allowed to be transferred and housed by your system. WWIVNet is a different
medium all together. That feature was built into FidoNet by its creator, not
much unlike the way it was left out by the creator of WWIV. Wayne wanted a
message based BBS to exchange ideas and information, not files.

My opinion, although it will probably anger many, is to come up with a simple
across-the-board policy/standard. I think we should disallow ALL UUENCODED
files from being transferred across WWIVNet. I feel that we can not compare
apples to oranges anymore. We must decided together what the policy for the
network is. In this decision, there should be fair consideration to all, no
matter who they are or for what reasons they run their BBS. This approach
seems fairest to everyone involved.

I have heard talk of a feature in an upcoming release of WWIV, where you would
be able to send a file directly to another node by aid of the BBS list. This
way the cost would be incurred directly to the system who intends to send the
file. This seems to be a wise solution, if it is possible to implement. The
Sysop of the originating system could be notified about the file for transfer,
and have final say as to whether he should let the file be transferred
directly to the intended receiver node. Much like the NET VALIDATION option in
the netted WWIV subs, this would help sysops to regulate the network into an
orderly manner for all, yet maintain a high degree of fairness. Sysops would
have a say in how their systems would be used....

─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Sleepy (1@3085)
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

There has been more than enough discussion on the transfer of UU'd files
across WWIVnet. It seems to me that some of the more obvious (not to mention
Important) reasons against them have been completely ignored. That is what
prompted me to offer my opinion for everyone to read. One more thought before
I get to it, please remember that this is only my opinion, backed up with a
few facts that are available to all WWIVnet SysOp's, the only thing I did was
Read The Docs...

Here is a partial quote from the WWIVNET.DOC Introduction, which *everyone*
should have read. This quote maybe considered superfluous by a lot of you
however, everything and everyone *Must* start somewhere.

"WWIVnet is a voluntary association of bulletin boards using WWIV software,
and participating in a network by calling one another to facilitate the
transfer of electronic mail (e-mail) and message bases (subs)..."

"Through this network, a user of any of the bulletin boards that are members
may send e-mail to a user of any other board. A User may also post on a
message base which may be read by the users of systems which subscribe to that
message base;...Because this system of Communication  read by others and
because it has an effect on systems other than the one on which it originates,
a spirit of cooperation must prevail. Out of this spirit grows a system of
organization and regulation which are discussed in the pages that follow."

After reading the above documentation there is only one intelligent
interpretation:  Data (be it messages or files) transferred on WWIVnet *MUST*
be WWIVnet Message Subs posts or WWIVnet e-mail. IMHO if nothing else common
sense should have turned a light on somewhere.

Since we are all only human, and as such have responsibilities, some with
families, but all with the same feelings that are too often hurt. We should be
able to afford one another common courtesy. Common Courtesy is easily given
and should be extended to everyone in the same manner and

degree that we should all like to expect to receive. I don't run up your phone
bill so don't you run up mine. We have all agreed to incur the costs necessary
to transfer WWIVnet to and from our connects, some connects are fortunate
enough to be local to one another. But there are some out there that must pay
to transfer their packets.

I don't mean to sound condescending, I honestly believe that all of us were
taught manners by our parents. Everyone wants to be liked and wants to like
everyone in return. However when Joe Blow on AbracadrabraNet will send
anything and everything over his network, that does not mean that Wayne Bell
allows the same. What matters is what is fair. Plain and simple, you don't use
Sally's phone to do Sam's business nor can you expect others to incur charges
for something that has nothing to do with what they are interested in. Would
you pay for you neighbor's newspaper, say the daily East Palooka Extra?  Oh
that isn't the newspaper that you wanted to read?  So sorry, but it is already
here so what can you do???
It is impossible to run a board without expecting it to cost money. But the
normal expenses are high enough without having to pay for another board's
interest in a network that you have no interest in. And saying that sending
"Mod" files is not fair because other files cannot be sent is completely
unfair. The "Mod" files that are sent are for a Message base (which is in the
Documentation as legit data) and the majority of SysOp's in WWIVnet do benefit
from the Mods.

I truly believe the whole UU'd discussion took place only because the file's
being sent could be considered "unsolicited junkmail". I'm not calling
anyone's Network Junk...I along with I'm sure 99% of the other WWIV SysOp's,
don't begrudge success to anyone in any project they wish to pursue. We just
don't want to foot the bill. Most of us have already agreed that we don't what
unsolicited e-mail, so the same would (IMHO) be true of files that have
nothing to do with WWIVnet.

Although I do not believe that UU'd files should be completely banned, but
once the guidelines are abused the abuse will continue. Most of the SysOp's
that I know fairly well have no problems with WWIVnet files being UU'd and
sent. If someone wants a file bad enough they should pay for it. Whether they
are paying for a Commercial file or for the toll charges for a Shareware
download.

We should all care about each other's feelings, boards and pocket's. We are
all in it for the same reason....FUN!  We know just how hard we all have to
work at keeping our boards running. Have a little respect for your fellow
SysOp's and you'll get a lot in return.


─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Redman (1@16950)
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

The practice of sending a UUE of your net package through another net is not
a very good idea. This is not a practice that other nets should follow. To
start with there was a reason for your starting your own network. And I am
sure that one of the reasons was that you felt you had something better to
offer.

Therefore, having started your own net, it would only be proper that you do
not send your net startup package, nor updates through another net. In my
opinion you should either call that board or have the board that wants to
join, call your board for the package. But to send a UUE of your net package
for any reason is not right.

I am sure that there is a reason for the UUE's. Otherwise the program would
not have been made. But to use it for one network to send your net package
over another network (Even if it is just one {this time}) is not right. You
and I both know that it is not a 1 time thing. I am sure that many updates
(startup) packages are being sent.

I am the AC of DEADnet and I WILL NOT SEND the initial package or even an
upgrade on someone else's network. Other networks were set up (more then
likely) because WWIVnet did not quite suit your needs. Therefore you MUST be
obligated to either a) pay for calling the board that wants to join your net,
or b) have them call you. Seams BLACK AND WHITE. Reason being that I would not
want another network to be sending their updates or start up packages through
my net.

Look at it this way, those that have set up nets did so with the understanding
that their net would be used for their net, not for other networks. Would you
like to set up a net and have other networks tieing up all of your members
boards sending their network through yours? I do not think so!

And to think that you can send it in UUE and then complain because it was
deleted is moronic. It plainly states in the doc's that UUE's are allowed for
the MOD sub ONLY. Reasoning behind this was so that those that program would
be able to send ( small ) exe's and com's in a mod. Plus the big boys of WWIV