Volume 6, Number 27 3 July 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. EDITORIAL ................................................ 1 2. ARTICLES ................................................. 3 Computer Literacy ........................................ 3 FidoCon '89 Update ....................................... 6 A network constitution? .................................. 8 Thoughts on the Nodelist (Revisited) ..................... 11 Multiple Nets in a Single Geographic Area ................ 18 More of My Opinions if Anyone Cares ...................... 21 SDNet/Works! UPDATE ...................................... 25 And we thought the mud-slinging presidential campaign w .. 28 A Short Story, With a Moral .............................. 29 And more! FidoNews 6-27 Page 1 3 Jul 1989 ================================================================= EDITORIAL ================================================================= This is getting ridiculous. Frankly, at this point I could care less who the good guys and bad guys are. My suspicion is that both sides are at fault. But this apparent attempt to bury FidoNews in POLICY squabbles has gone far enough. To date I have printed nearly everything that has been sent on the topic(s) in question, because of our open policy. The only items I haven't printed were sent to the Publications committee for review in one case, and exceeding the MAKENEWS limit in another. (The long article will be published after PubComm looks at it) The result: some very HEAVY FidoNews editions. Has anyone benefitted from this? Answer: No. Is this serving the public interest? Answer: No. So what can be done about this? Change the Editorial Policy? I think not. I've spent some time thinking about it and I don't believe that any policy can be drafted that will properly curb abuse of the FidoNews forum without causing severe damage to the usefulness of FidoNews to the community at large. And I'm not so certain that devising long-winded policy documents accomplishes much more in this network than usurping the normal role of everyone's manners and good judgement, and putting all that into the hands of others (however well-intentioned they might be). So we're down to ASKING. PLEASE, DON'T SEND US SO MUCH MATERIAL ABOUT POLICY SQUABBLES. If you feel strongly about publishing something about some local issue, try to keep it down to one or two concise articles. The current ratio of anywhere from 4 to 6 articles or more per dispute is just too much. If there really are issues that we can all see, one well-written article should be able to make them apparent. All you accomplish by sending in 20K of text a week is getting everyone pissed off at YOU. I still intend to print what I receive as long as it passes scrutiny for possible legal problems by me or the Pubs committee (this isn't new, this is the policy we have been operating under) but I would like some cooperation from certain combatants in America's Heartland and elsewhere to help keep FidoNews on track. There are important political issues facing the network. We need a forum that enjoys wide readership in order to discuss them. Spending too much time in a local Wisconsin dispute will drive the Louisiana or Luxembourg reader away. I'm not taking sides here. I'm just telling it like it is. PLEASE give this some consideration. FidoNews 6-27 Page 2 3 Jul 1989 As always, thanks for shopping K-Mart, er, reading FidoNews ... ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 6-27 Page 3 3 Jul 1989 ================================================================= ARTICLES ================================================================= Claude F. Witherspoon Fido 1:288/525 Home of KidsNews Computer Literacy to be Top National Priority Its that time of year again. Computer Learning Month will be upon us before we know it. With that in mind, we at KidsNews would like to share the following information in hopes to make this year even better than last year: COMPUTER LITERACY TO BE TOP NATIONAL PRIORITY FOR NEW INDUSTRY-SUPPORTED FOUNDATION PALO ALTO, Calif. (Feb. 13, 1989) -- In a bi-partisan effort to address the nation's eroding educational levels, the Computer Learning Foundation (CLF) today announced plans for a year round campaign to promote computer literacy in North America. Supported by major software publishing companies, as well as Apple and IBM, CLF expects to recieve up to $1 million in funding this year. The announcement coincides with predictions of a national technologigal decline touched off by last week's release of an Educational Testing Service study that showed 13-year-old U.S. students scoring the lowest in an international comparison of mathmatics and science skills. Earlier, a National Research Council study reported that American students were being *left behind* by a mathematics teaching system that set its expectations too low. The establishment of the non-profit Computer Learning Foundation will extend the annual industry-sponsored Computer Learning Month (CLM) public education campaign in October to a year-round initiative. Last year's program reached more than 60 million people and was the catalyst for nearly 3,000 computer literacy events in schools and cities throughout the U.S. and Canada. "With increasing concern over the high school drop-out rate, poor student performance levels and the erosion of the country's competitive edge, the importance of having an educated and computer-literate population has emerged as a top national priority as we experience a quantum leap in technological development," said Sally Bowman, director of CLF. Predictions by Forcasting International indicate that by the year 2010 every job in America will require some form of information technology skills. "Our number one goal os to motivate more effective uses of technology in schools, homes and businesses by raising public recognition of what is really possible with computers. In 1989, FidoNews 6-27 Page 4 3 Jul 1989 we are building a broader coalition of partners to reach out to children, adults and teachers from every socioeconomic background and help to increase computer compfort and confidence around the country. Computer literacy goes well beyond Silicon Valley: is is the nation's future." In 1989, for the first time, sponsorship of Computer Learning Foundation activities will be open to organizations outside the computer industry. Through joint promotional tie-ins with mass-marketers of consumer products, CLF expects to extend its "You Won't Believe What You'll Achieve!" message nationwide. Industry sponsorship of CLM activities reached an all-time high in 1988, up 300 percent from 1987. The 1988 coalition of support included 61 software and computer industry members, 52 U.S. State Departments of Education and Canadian Ministries of Education, and 21 national non-profit organizations. CLF 1989 programs, using the theme "You Won't Believe What You'll Achieve!," will offer a variety of programs and materials designed to reach millions of children, adults and educators in the U.S. and Canada. Books that address computers and careers, school lesson plans for all age ranges and educational levels, and more will be published and distributed by CLF in the coming year. Last year alone, CLM distributed millions of books, posters and materials as part of its efforts to increase "computer confidence" amoung all age groups. This year, in addition to its books, CLF will also distribute posters and Computer Learning Month event kits to schools and community groups to support their efforts in increasing computer literacy. CLF contest for individuals and educators prompted more than 100,000 entries last year during CLM. In 1989, CLF contests will focus on effective uses of the computer at school and home, as well as development of teacher training materials. Traveling art exhibits featuring creative work done by school-aged children using computers will be displayed at metropolitan libraries and airports throughout the country. And, for the first time, CLF will communicate its computer literacy messages via a nationally syndicated television series entitled SOFTVIEW. The CLF series, which begins airing in late February, will be produced in conjunction with the Central Education Network (CEN) and is aimed at increasing elementary and secondary school educators' understanding and use of computers in the classroom. The weekly programs will feature "hands-on" lesson plans that have effectively incorporated computers and traditional materials, as well as creative computing ideas for the classroom. Published with permission of the Computer Learning Foundation (CLF), Palo Alto, Calif. I have initiated a National Computer Learning Month echo available on Fido 1:288/525 by request. If you are interested in carrying the echo which uses the name NCLM, please send a request to Butch Witherspoon, Fido 1:288/525 (Continuous Mail (CM)), and I will be happy to tie you into the echo and send it to your FidoNews 6-27 Page 5 3 Jul 1989 system. You must be able to accept continuous Mail for this request. This offer is good for the U.S. only until someone offeres to gateway the echo to other regions. I would like to see the echo carried on the Backbone if folks are interested enough. ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 6-27 Page 6 3 Jul 1989 Les Kooyman FidoCon Program Chairperson 1:204/501 FidoCon '89 Update: Dateline Silicon Valley Planning for FidoCon continues at what is beginning to seem like a hectic pace. As we get closer and closer to the actual date of the convention, I'm sure we'll look back on this as our relaxed time! We've been successful enough at attracting speakers that current- ly we're planning on 12 rather than 8 sessions. The conference is still single-track, that is, only one session will be going on att a time. The current program listing for Fidocon '89 is as follows: 1: Tim Pozar on UFGATE 2: Vince Perriello and Bob Hartman on BinkleyTerm 3: Bob Hartman on Bix processing of FidoNet echomail 4: Phil Becker on TBBS 5: Tom Jennings on Fido 6: Chuck Forsberg on Zmodem and protocols 7: Mort Sternheim on FidoNet and IFNA 8: Chris Irwin/Joaquim Homrighausen on D'Bridge/Front Door 9: Rick Heming on Wildcat BBS software 10: OPEN 11: OPEN 12: OPEN We'll be announcing the times and dates of the sessions in July, in case you want to plan on attending a subset of the full con- ference. I would be remiss if I did not emphasize that the deadline for discount registration is quickly approaching (July 15th). Both the registration fee for the Convention itself and the hotel discount rate increase on that date. The FidoCon registration will increase from $60 to $75, and the discount hotel registra- tion will END, meaning that you will pay full price for your hotel room. So get those registrations in, folks! Please see the registration form in this issue of FidoNews for details on the way to proceed to take advantage of our discount offers. We'll accept your registration for FidoCon after July 15 at the $60 rate if you netmail your registration form to 1:1/89 (the offi- cial FidoCon '89 node) by midnight Pacific Time on July 15, and (this is IMPORTANT) your hard copy confirmation and fees reach us within 72 hours of that netmail reservation. This is important both for payments by credit card or check. You cannot, however, guarantee the discount hotel rate through netmail to 1/1:89, this must be done as described in the registration form. We've also arranged for discount automobile rentals through Alamo Rent-a-Car. To take advantage of this discount, you need to call Alamo at 1-800-327-9633 and request an automobile at the conven- FidoNews 6-27 Page 7 3 Jul 1989 tion rate. Mention FidoCon '89 and the dates of the conference at the time you request the convention rate. You must make your reservation no later than 30 days prior to the event, which means you would need to reserve your car by July 24th. All of the following rates include automatic transmission, air conditioning and radio. All of the discount rates include unlimited free 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. Remember that you really don't have to rent a car in the San Francisco Bay area if you don't want to, public transportation is quite good. However, if you are interested in seeing as much as possible of the area and making a real vacation of it, you should consider a car, and these rates strike me as being very good. That's all for the moment... see you in San Jose! ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 6-27 Page 8 3 Jul 1989 A network constitution? I know it may sound kinda funny...but do we need such a thing? I'm beginning to think that it might not be such a bad idea to help us improve and expand our network. I have been reading some of the echos floating around and the FIDOnet news letters and it is beginning to get pretty hostile. Anyway after some thought and discussion with other sysops I drafted the following document as a proposed "constitution" for a logical network called FREEnet. Such a net would include all sysops whether they are in a organized network or not. Now you are probably saying why? What good would this do me the regular BBS sysop? Wouldn't this just be another layer of stuff I would have to put up with! Well here in short and sweet are some of the reasons that such a collective body can be a benefit to you. 1) It would allow each member more democratic input into the hows, whys, and whats of how the networks are run. 2) A collective body could exert influence on the legislative bodies of state and federal governments. Issues like the FCC's rate setting for long distance telecommunication products/services. 3) Representation in national/international standards meetings. Where things like X.400 are right now being put on paper. The future of ISDN and how that will impact Email and networking. 4) A collective force that can influence the computer equipment producers and software vendors. There are a lot more reasons than I have listed above and I'm sure there are some that may or may not agree with the ones I've listed. But I hope that we can somehow get together as a group and tap some of the great potential we already have as sysops. To get this thing started we need people willing to function as a "constitutional congress" and designate a legislative working group for each of the 50 states and each over-seas country. I hope I have sparked some interest in this idea.... Please contact me with your comments, thoughts, suggestions... anything that you feel like saying on this constitutional organization. David Winters The "Drifting Sysop" MCImail: 328-8890 Telex: 6503288890 CIS: 73327,1075 Fido: 281/10 (route to 777/1) DDN/Arpa: sac.23bms-do@e.isi.edu FidoNews 6-27 Page 9 3 Jul 1989 FREEnet Constitution 9 June 1989 PREAMBLE: The rights and interests of computer hobbyists around the world are diverse and ever changing. As each ventures to learn and grow the need to communicate with their peers is a necessity that fosters this expanding interest in the field. This communication should be easy and agreeable with minimal interference from outside organizations. The RIGHT of these individuals to explore as they will must be protected and nurtured as a fundamental goal. To this end the following constitution is dedicated and drafted for those who hold to this basic purpose. ARTICLES of CONSTITUTION: 1. This constitution shall be a document used as a foundation for all members participating in FREEnet and as a guide for operations. It is ratified by each individual member's decision to participate. As a guide it is not the absolute...but a living changing document. 2. Each member of the network has the right to one vote on any issue that concerns this network, its operation, or this constitution and amendments. A member is an individual that has identified themselves as a willing participant to FREEnet and this constitution. 3. All operations of FREEnet will be in accordance with the laws of the sovereign state in which the member resides. Any actions which conflict with these local laws...the local law will take precedence over the network constitution and amendments. 4. Any operations or subjects not addressed in these articles or amendments are retained to the members and shall not be abridged without their consent and approval. 5. There will be elected by simple majority a president and vice- president, who shall function as the executives for FREEnet. They retain the office for one year and have the power to appoint individuals as assistants as needed. All assistants will be confirmed by the legislative congress. The president will represent the FREEnet and its members on all matters not retained to the members or the congress. The vice-president will perform tasks assigned by the president. The president also retains the right of the VETO on legislation written by the congress. 6. The congress shall consist of members elected by majority in their area of operation. Each 50 members shall have one representative in the FREEnet congress. The area should consist of members who are closely located geographically. In remote areas of 5 or more there may be elected a representative upon approval of the judicial council. The representatives will retain FidoNews 6-27 Page 10 3 Jul 1989 office for one year. The congress has the power to put forth new legislation that effects the operation of FREEnet. 7. The judicial council will consist of 12 members selected by the president and approved by the congress. Each judge will retain their office for two years. The judicial council will arbitrate questions about operations with reference to this constitution. The council has the power of REVISION for all legislation where conflicts arise with this constitution and amendments. The council will rule on matters between members, members and the FREEnet organization, and non-member organizations and FREEnet. The council may appoint sub-councils to performs judicial tasks as assigned. 8. No member may hold more than one office in FREEnet. 9. Amendments to this constitution may be enacted by: a 3/4 majority of congress or by vote of 90 percent of the members. Legislation may be introduced by any congress representative or by a petition of 500 members. Introduced legislation must be approved by a 3/4 majority of congress 10. The act of impeachment for any member, congress representative, or president requires the vote of 90 percent of congress and a majority of the judicial council. WE THE FOLLOWING SIGN THIS DOCUMENT IN GOOD FAITH AND WITH THE HOPE THAT IT WILL FOSTER EACH MEMBERS BEST INTEREST. ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 6-27 Page 11 3 Jul 1989 Jack Decker (Formerly?) Fidonet 1:154/8 LCRnet 77:1011/8 THOUGHTS ON THE NODELIST (REVISITED) This may well be my last Fidonews article as a member of Fidonet. In a scant few hours, the new Fidonet nodelist will be issued, and our Net will no longer exist as far as Fidonet is concerned (although we are still quite alive and well, thank you). This particular cloud may indeed have a golden lining, however. It has caused us to give some really serious thought to the matter of the nodelist, and as a result, the "Official Public Computer Network" Nodelist is now in production. The current OPCNLIST and OPCNDIFF are requestable from 154/970, and that's also where you can send your Net's nodelist segment if you'd like to be included in the OPCN nodelist. The only problem, of course, is that by the time you read this, 154/970 will no longer be in the Fidonet nodelist, unless something pretty miraculous happens between now and then. Never fear, at the end of this article I'll give you enough information to temporarily plug a subset of Net 154 into your private nodelist long enough to file request a copy of the OPCN nodelist (assuming you can't find a distribution point nearer to you). I think the nicest compliment that we've received so far came, believe it or not, from an RC (not ours!), who said "Nice idea - perhaps what FidoNet was SUPPOSED to have been....." This is, in fact, exactly what we're hoping for... to cut away all the political crap and return Fidonet (or at least, computer networking) to what it was originally intended to be. We have made one change in the way we're doing things. We now support the Fidonet style usage of the CM flag, that is, CM is no longer assumed to be the default condition. While we still feel that it would make more sense for CM to be the default (since the majority of nodes are now CM), we also recognize that it creates a hardship for NC's to have to make two separate nodelists (one for Fidonet, and the other for the OPCN nodelist). So, you can now send the same Net nodelist to both. You still have the option of creating a nodelist just for the OPCN nodelist (since we do support some additional nodelist flags that Fidonet doesn't), but you don't HAVE to if you don't want to. Another reason you may wish to create a separate nodelist for the OPCN nodelist is that the OPCN nodelist allows you a lot more freedom to list all the nodes in your net. If you have private nodes, or nodes that are outside your local calling area that you haven't been listing for fear of bringing down the wrath of the Fidonet *C's upon you, feel free to list these nodes in the OPCN nodelist. The OPCN nodelist is in no way affiliated with Fidonet. When you list your Net in the OPCN nodelist, think of it as though you're actually listing a FidoNews 6-27 Page 12 3 Jul 1989 private Net that just happens to use the same Net number as your Fidonet Net, but that need not contain exactly the same list of nodes as your net in Fidonet. If you're an NC, we would like to invite you to have your Net listed in the OPCN nodelist. You may use the same Net number that you are now using in Fidonet (or in any other Network, so long as it does not conflict with an existing Fidonet Net number), so you need not alter your system's control files. Send your net's nodelist updates (under the filename NET.xxx, where the "xxx" is your net number) to George Kasica (the OPCN nodelist compiler) at 154/970. (NOTE: Should you have a four digit Net number, please use the filename xxxx.NET when you send your nodelist segment in to 154/970). For those who'd like more involvement in this project, we'll be forming a "Nodelist Distribution Network" to assist in the distribution of the OPCN nodelist, and to assist in the gathering of nodelist segments from individual Nets. For more information on the OPCN nodelist and/or the Nodelist Distribution Network, please send netmail to George. You might be asking why you would want your net listed in the OPCN nodelist. There are several reasons, but here are a few of the main points: 1) We've deliberately tried to make the OPCN nodelist as non-political as possible. You do not have to agree with anyone else's philosophy as to how a network should be operated in order to be in the OPCN nodelist. Nor do you have to give up any existing affiliation with Fidonet or AnyOtherNet in order to be listed in the OPCN nodelist. You should consider listing your net with us, if for no other reason than that we could be a valuable "second source" listing of Fidonet compatible nodes in the event that anything ever happens to disrupt publication of the Fidonet nodelist. 2) We allow you to list ALL the nodes in your Net. No need to "hide" certain nodes for fear that someone might complain that they're on the wrong side of a geographic boundary. 3) If you are now listing certain nodes that are really full, operational BBS's in a Point Net because they don't quite meet certain technical standards, they can be listed as private, unlisted nodes in the OPCN nodelist. We don't get our noses out of joint because you have private, unlisted nodes in your net. And as long as the Net's NC can connect with the private, unlisted node to exchange mail, it's nobody's business if anyone else can (since all inbound mail to such nodes will be host-routed anyway). 4) If you're now listing certain nodes as "private, unlisted" because you don't want your RC to know where they're really located, you can list the phone number and location in the OPCN nodelist (as far as the Fidonet people are concerned, these nodes don't exist, because they're not in their nodelist!). We don't care where your nodes are located. If you or they are FidoNews 6-27 Page 13 3 Jul 1989 willing to bear the expense to connect with each other, it's none of our business. At this point, I can just hear some folks screaming that we will increase the size of our nodelist by allowing private nodes to be listed indiscriminately. Well, in the first place, we don't have a size problem yet! But in the second place, part of the blame for that problem can be laid on the shoulders of the original designers of Fidonet software. You see, the original designers opted to go with what might be termed a "fully coupled" nodelist. Simply speaking, this means that some pieces of software (Opus, for example) will not allow you to send netmail to a net/node that is not listed in the nodelist. This prevents a user from sending mail to a non-existent node, BUT, it also means that all private nodes must be listed in the nodelist, or users of software that checks the nodelist for a valid address will not be able to send mail to such private nodes. Unfortunately, it soon got to the point where SOME people started screaming about the size of the nodelist, and decided that most private nodes had to go. But to where? That's about the time the whole concept of "points" and "point nets" were developed. So now, users of systems that check the nodelist can now send messages to non-existent points. What have we gained? The net is no longer "fully coupled", since point addresses cannot be checked for validity, but we have added an extra layer of complexity. The Fidonet philosophy in cases like this seems to be to add more software complexity. We in effect took a system that was functioning very well using only nets and nodes, and added "Points" and "Zones" which are essentially KLUDGES. To fully support either of these extensions adds additional complexity and software problems that can reach out to bite sysops in the most unexpected ways. I feel it would have been much better, and much simpler from a technical standpoint, to abandon the idea of the "fully coupled" nodelist and to simply route any traffic for "unknown" nodes to the appropriate net host. In this way, "private, unlisted" nodes would not have to be in the nodelist, and we could have done without the "Point" kludge. To give you just one example of how these kludges can really screw up a system... I have a point off of my system, so I run ReMapper to remap netmail to his system. I also have a node number in LCRnet, which uses Zone 77. Just today, I discovered that if anyone sent me netmail at 77:1011/8, and the sender was running a fully "zone aware" system that put in the ^AINTL kludge line, ReMapper would happily readdress such messages and send them off to non-existent node 1/77! If those systems now operating as "Points" instead had "real" net node numbers (albeit private, unlisted ones), netmail and echomail routing to those systems would be a snap. Unfortunately, because there's still some "fully coupled" FidoNews 6-27 Page 14 3 Jul 1989 software out there, such private, unlisted nodes would have to be listed in the international nodelist to be accessible to everyone in the net. If we could move away from the idea of the "fully coupled" network (which no longer exists anyway, when points are considered), then such private, unlisted nodes would only have to appear in the NC's nodelist, not the big one that gets sent around to everyone. Zones used as gateways to "other" nets are also a kludge, and you can blame the Fidonet *C structure for that one. When Alternet first started out, they asked that a group of Net numbers be reserved for Alternet nodes. This would have made things much simpler for everyone, Unfortunately, small minds decreed that Fidonet had a God-given right to all possible net number combinations, so Alternet was forced to resort to the Zone kludge. The small minds are still at work... Alternet first used Zone 4, and the *C's said they needed that for South America (they wouldn't have DREAMED of just skipping Zone 4 and using Zone 5). So then Alternet changed over to using Zone 7. Now the Fidonet nodelist lists nodes 1/5, 1/6, and 1/7 as "future Zonegates", effectively telling the Alternet folks that they aren't authorized to use Zone 7, either. But when penguins and polar bears start using computers, Fidonet will be ready for them! Now the Fidonet hierarchy wants other networks to use something called "domains", the implementation of which will require additional software and will make life that much harder for sysops, as well as making it totally impossible for users of most older software to send messages to those in other networks. My guess is that most sysops will NOT run "domain" software. The idea of adding yet another layer of complexity onto Zones, Nets, Nodes, and Points is probably just too much for the "average sysop" to stomach. (By the way, when you dial a 1-800- call, do you know how the phone company knows which long distance carrier to route it to? Simple... they look at the first three digits of the exchange, that is, the three digits following the "1-800-". For example, if you dial "1-800-222-xxxx", the call is handled by AT&T. If you dial "1-800-950-xxxx", it goes via MCI. And if it's "1-800-877-xxxx", it goes by U.S. Sprint. Aren't you glad the folks who are making decrees on how "alternate' networks must interface with Fidonet aren't working for the phone company?) We refuse to play these sort of politically-motivated games with the OPCN nodelist, and intend to just list nets in North America under Zone 11, nets in Europe under Zone 12, and so on, regardless of what "network" the net is affiliated with. So, sysops who use the OPCN nodelist won't have to try to figure out if someone is in Fidonet, Alternet, Eggnet, LCRnet or WhatEverNet. If they have the net/node number, and if the NC of that net has permitted it to be listed in the OPCN nodelist, they just type it in as if it were in their own net. No Zonegating to "other" nets, no multiple outbound areas to maintain, no worries about whether all your software is "fully FidoNews 6-27 Page 15 3 Jul 1989 Zone-Aware" (it most likely isn't), and much less complexity all around. Before I close, I'd like to share with you part of a netmail message I received from Carl Linden in response to my first nodelist article. It makes some very interesting observations, I think: I read your article with interest, Jack, and couldn't agree more. However: . . . The IFNA Nodelist already provides what you are advocating. Following is an excerpt from the latest Nodelist: [Note that this is the text that appears at the front of the Fidonet nodelist, reformatted to fit Fidonews:] FidoNet Nodelist for Friday, June 16, 1989 -- Day number 167 : 04941 Copyright 1989, International FidoNet Association (IFNA), Missouri Corporation. All rights reserved. NOTICE: This compilation is the property of IFNA as its created work. This work includes certain individual portions provided to IFNA by operators of Fido and FidoNet Bulletin Boards. IFNA has the right to create and distribute these Nodelists based, in part, on rights granted to it by those originating such portions. Other than the rights granted IFNA, those creating and maintaining the portions retain all residual rights in and to each's individual portion. IFNA grants unlimited duplication and/or distribution for noncommercial purposes only and reserves all other rights, including, but not limited to, any commercial publication, distribution, republication or redistribution in any way of all or any part of the NodeList, except those nodes that are now or hereafter registered in this NodeList shall be and hereby are licensed to utilize this NodeList only in the technical operation of those nodes. Any distribution authorized herein may include recovery of reasonable, actual costs of duplication and/or dissemination. No one is granted any other right to any use, sale, duplication or distribution of this compilation for any commercial purpose..... [Mr. Linden continues:] FidoNews 6-27 Page 16 3 Jul 1989 IFNA enjoys special tax status by being a corporation for the good of the general public. IFNA cannot restrict its services to only its own members, members of FIDOnet, or any other organization. If they do their preferred tax status is in jeopardy. So, the bottom line is that we already have a public nodelist. Being listed in the nodelist is not at the pleasure of the *C's, or anyone else, it is required for IFNA to keep its preferred tax status. Ex-communication is currently used as a disciplinary measure by the *C structure if the *C does not like the views expressed by the "offender". This is a violation of our right to Free Speech. But, enforcing that is at best expensive & time consuming. A much better approach would be to challenge IFNA's preferred tax status if IFNA does live up to its purpose to serve the general public. For now I am not going to publicize this message in any of the echoes, but you are free to do so as a comment on your FIDOnews article. Now, I'm not holding my breath until the IFNA nodelist begins to fulfill its role as a truly "public" nodelist. We'll be happy to do it if the IFNA doesn't want to. But, there are a couple of points worthy of notice here. First, the Fidonet copyright notice grants specific permission for others to use it for non-commercial purposes. So, we COULD take the Fidonet nodelist and merge it into the OPCN nodelist (which could probably be described as "militantly non-commercial", to paraphrase Wynn Wagner) and issue a truly combined nodelist if we wanted to. I would personally prefer not to do things that way, but apparently we wouldn't be violating anyone's copyright if we did! Second, regarding the recent expulsion of Net 154 from the nodelist by a Fidonet RC... the NC of Net 154 happens to be a member of the IFNA Board of Directors. The IFNA claims ownership of the nodelist in the prologue to the nodelist. Doesn't it seem a bit ironic that a member of the IFNA Board of Directors (and his entire net) can be kicked out of the IFNA's nodelist by an RC who is not (to my knowledge) even in the IFNA, or at least not on the IFNA's Board of Directors? But the real question is, does the IFNA have the right, as a tax-exempt organization that is supposed to be serving the public, to ONLY accept nodelist segments provided to them by Fidonet *C's? If the IFNA is obligated to serve the public interest, and to specifically avoid furthering the goals of one particular private organization, such as Fidonet (and particularly, the RC/ZC/IC structure of Fidonet), then can they legally allow a small group of individuals (the *C's) to decide who will and FidoNews 6-27 Page 17 3 Jul 1989 who will not be allowed to be in the Fidonet nodelist? By giving the *C structure control of who can and cannot be in the IFNA nodelist (based entirely on their private interpretation of Fidonet Policy documents), isn't the IFNA nodelist is being used to further the goals of a specific parochial group, namely, the Fidonet Coordinators at and above the RC level? Doesn't this violate the provisions of the IFNA's tax-exempt status? These questions are ones that I'm sure we will be asking in the weeks ahead! I promised to provide an abbreviated Net 154 nodelist that you can plug into your private nodelist long enough to get a message to us. This is it. Just use a text editor or word processor to clean it up and connect the two halves of each line. If you're an NC, I hope you'll use this to send your Net's nodelist to 154/970, for inclusion in the OPCN nodelist! Host,154,/\/\ilwaukee/\/\etro,Milwaukee_WI, Ted_Polczynski,1-414-282-4181,9600,CM,HST Pvt,8,Northern_Bytes,Sault_Ste_Marie_MI, Jack_Decker,-Unpublished-,2400, ,970,Forecast_Office,West_Allis_WI, George_Kasica,1-414-321-7872,9600,CM,HST ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 6-27 Page 18 3 Jul 1989 Steve Palm Fidonet 1:154/8.2 LCRnet 77:1011/8.2 MULTIPLE NETS IN A SINGLE GEOGRAPHIC AREA After reading the policy documents that hold FidoNet together, and listening to some of the bickering going on in the Echomail areas, I have come to some conclusions. Please bear with me as I point out what I see as some obvious points, which may have been overlooked from time to time by those whom it might benefit the most at the time. Geography is quite an issue. Yes, it affects just about every aspect of the way your system interacts with others in FidoNet. You cannot become part of a Net that is outside of your predetermined Geographic area, unless you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it will be of benefit to *everyone* else in FidoNet. Well, maybe it isn't that bad, but it sure seems like it sometimes, doesn't it? It appears that things have been set up so that a certain Geographic area is covered by a specific Net. Indeed, this may be the best way to approach this situation. However, is it necessarily the best way to handle it in *all* cases? I would think not... Many people have been quick to point out different cases in favor of multiple nets in a Geographic area, if needed. For example, one person has repeatedly mentioned that Cellular phone companies are allowed to co-exist in the same area. Yet, that doesn't in any way shape or form make it any more difficult for you to get your call through to someone, now does it? I was thinking on this, and thought that perhaps only having one Net in an area *would* be ideal. I mean, after all, then you know that everyone in that area is going to be going to THAT net. If you needed to get ahold of them, you would know exactly where to go ahead of time. There would be *no* guesswork involved. And forget about those costly connections too. One phone call to each area, and you won't have to worry about some facet of that group not getting it. I think we should even extend this idea a little further, outside of FidoNet altogether. What about our broadcasters? Surely you must realize what an awful tragedy we have fallen into here! I mean, after all, the FCC will allow you to have more than one FM, one AM, and one TV station in the same area! That should be stopped immediately! Consider advertising costs! A business will have to put his/her advertisement on how many stations to cover the wide range of people in their own area. And if a news bulletin needs to be delivered, *all* of the stations must be notified lest someone not hear about it. Can you see the terror that FidoNews 6-27 Page 19 3 Jul 1989 lurks here? You might listen to station X, while station Y is broadcasting just what you needed to know. You have just missed it, and it will not be repeated. Wouldn't it be great if you only *had* station Y to listen to? Then you wouldn't have to worry! I hope that by now you can see the stupidity of this argument. It in no way shape or form helps out the community by allowing only one station. In fact, it hurts it. There is no variety. No way for the people to have their choice of what to listen to. Do you think FidoNet should be different? Sure it might make a slight bit of change necessary. But, if FidoNet is for the people, why shouldn't they be allowed a choice? I find it difficult to believe that it would make it impossible for m