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 (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 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 ============================================= (705)566-5628 - 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 (705)566-5628. 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 equ