Volume 7, Number 45 5 November 1990 +---------------------------------------------------------------+ | _ | | / \ | | /|oo \ | | - FidoNews - (_| /_) | | _`@/_ \ _ | | FidoNet (r) | | \ \\ | | International BBS Network | (*) | \ )) | | Newsletter ______ |__U__| / \// | | / FIDO \ _//|| _\ / | | (________) (_/(_|(____/ | | (jm) | +---------------------------------------------------------------+ Editor in Chief: Vince Perriello Editors Emeritii: Thom Henderson, Dale Lovell Chief Procrastinator Emeritus: Tom Jennings Copyright 1990, Fido Software. All rights reserved. Duplication and/or distribution permitted for noncommercial purposes only. For use in other circumstances, please contact Fido Software. FidoNews is published weekly by and for the Members of the FidoNet (r) International Amateur Electronic Mail System. It is a compilation of individual articles contributed by their authors or authorized agents of the authors. The contribution of articles to this compilation does not diminish the rights of the authors. 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. Fido and FidoNet are registered trademarks of Tom Jennings of Fido Software, Box 77731, San Francisco CA 94107, USA and are used with permission. Opinions expressed in FidoNews articles are those of the authors and are not necessarily those of the Editor or of Fido Software. Most articles are unsolicited. Our policy is to publish every responsible submission received. Table of Contents 1. ARTICLES ................................................. 1 FidoNet Gateway Policy ................................... 1 The Trouble with **C's ................................... 16 Operational Domain Gate .................................. 17 A LISTING OF KNOWN OTHERNETS ............................. 19 NEWS_CHECK 1.6 - A FidoNews pre-submission format check .. 21 response to abortion! .................................... 25 The Saudi Connection ..................................... 30 269 or not 269? .......................................... 32 The StarGate Conference Distribution System .............. 34 And more! FidoNews 7-45 Page 1 5 Nov 1990 ================================================================= ARTICLES ================================================================= Matt Whelan, 3:3/1000 International Coordinator FidoNet Gateway Policy ---------------------- I have accepted the following document, the final draft version of the FidoNet Gateway Policy, and it will be implemented as part of FidoNet policy commencing immediately upon publication of this issue of FidoNews. I'm sure I'd better follow that statement immediately with some points of clarification: o When the first draft of the document was published in January, a few people assumed it was designed to cut off communication with other networks, especially FidoNet-technology (or 'break- away') networks. This is entirely incorrect. o The document is an attempt to establish a valid technical base for increasing contact between the various networks. It is designed to encourage communication between FidoNet and _all_ other networks. o The document was revised after publication in an attempt to correct areas where its intent was clearly misunderstood. Its implementation was further intentionally delayed to allow discussion of its content, and an international echomail conference was established for that purpose. o This is definitely not a case of FidoNet telling others how to run their nets. We are saying how others should behave when present in our network, just as they should have the right to say how we should behave when 'guests' in their 'house'. o Please note where I said "commencing" in the opening paragraph -- we will, naturally, allow time for adjustment where anyone thinks that is necessary. The Gateway Policy deliberately does not specify implementation details. There are many ways to achieve its requirements, several of which already exist in experimental or released software. The aim was to specify the 'end', leaving the 'means' to the software authors and users who have made our 'hobby' a hub of pioneering creativity. I thank everyone involved for their work on the document, especially Tim Pearson and David Dodell for their effort, perseverence and, in the end, patience. FidoNews 7-45 Page 2 5 Nov 1990 FidoNet(tm) Internetwork Gateway Policy July 22, 1990 Section 1 - Purpose =================== This document sets forth the administrative policy require- ments for interconnection between the FidoNet amateur interna- tional electronic mail network and other electronic mail net- works. As an amateur network, membership in FidoNet is open and available to any individual or group capable of meeting the technical challenge and willing to participate constructively within the technical and administrative guidelines employed within FidoNet. FidoNet desires to extend this idea, "The free exchange of information," to include other electronic mail net- works. While connectivity with other networks can be beneficial to all parties involved, it cannot be expected to operate smooth- ly unless the parties involved understand and agree to observe technical and administrative guidelines designed to promote the orderly flow of traffic between networks and to provide a mecha- nism for problem resolution should problems arise. This document intends to address those points. Section 2 - Definitions ======================= "FidoNet" --------- An amateur electronic mail wide area network consisting of several thousand computer systems world wide. Most of these systems operate electronic bulletin board (BBS) software giving each system the capability to provide electronic mail services to up to several hundred users. Detailed information on the techni- cal and organizational aspects of the FidoNet mail network is beyond the scope of this document. Further information can be obtained from various FidoNet publications including the FidoNet official policy document. "Other Network" --------------- FidoNews 7-45 Page 3 5 Nov 1990 The term "Other Network" will be used in this document as a shorthand term referring to any other electronic mail network, whether inherently compatible with the technology employed within FidoNet or not. This term will often be used to refer specifi- cally to the electronic mail network making application to Fido- Net for a "Gateway" (defined below). "Gateway" --------- A gateway is a system of computers equipped with the hard- ware and software necessary to pass electronic mail messages (possibly of various types, see below) between FidoNet and a specific Other Network. A Gateway acts as a translator, allowing messages entered on a system in the Other Network and addressed to a destination within FidoNet to be translated into a form that is technically acceptable to and compatible with FidoNet and vice versa. All messages originated in the Other Network and ad- dressed to a destination within FidoNet are first routed to a Gateway. At a Gateway, the message is made technically acceptable to and compatible with FidoNet and forwarded into FidoNet's wide area network for delivery to its final destination. A message originated within FidoNet and addressed to a destination within the Other Network is handled in a similar manner. "Netmail" --------- The term Netmail, as used within FidoNet, refers to an electronic mail message that is addressed to a specific physical destination. Netmail messages can be addressed to a particular individual at the destination site. Public messages can be read by users other than the named addressee while private messages cannot typically be read by any user other than the named ad- dressee and the system administrator/operator at the destination site. Further information on Netmail is available in other Fido- Net technical and policy documents. "Conference Mail" ----------------- Echomail is the term used within FidoNet to refer to elec- tronic "Conference Mail" messages that, while possibly containing the name of a particular individual in the "To:" field, are copied and distributed to multiple (possibly several hundred) destination systems. Some Other Networks refer to their analo- gous capability under the terms "GroupMail" or "newsgroup". Echomail messages are segregated into "Conferences" based upon the topic being discussed. Echomail message content is usually restricted to the topic(s) for which the particular conference was created. Several hundred Echomail conferences exist within FidoNet dedicated to topics ranging from technical discussions of various computer systems and peripherals to philosophy and reli- gion. Further information on Echomail can be obtained by con- FidoNews 7-45 Page 4 5 Nov 1990 sulting other FidoNet technical and policy documents. "FidoNet Technology Network" (FTN) ---------------------------------- For the purposes of this document, a "FidoNet Technology Network" (FTN) shall be defined as an Other Network whose message format and transmission protocols strictly meet the technical requirements set forth by the FidoNet Technical Standards Commit- tee (FTSC). FidoNet Technology Networks are inherently techni- cally compatible with FidoNet. Connectivity options are avail- able to FTN's that are not (for technical reasons) available to non-FTN Other Networks. Internetwork Coordinator (INC) ------------------------------ The Internetwork Coordinator is the individual within Fido- Net who has the responsibility for overseeing the granting, in- stallation, and maintenance of FidoNet to Other Network Gateways. The INC shall be designated by and act as the agent of the Fido- Net International Coordinator. Multi-Network (MultiNet) ------------------------ A "multinet" is a type of "super" network whose function is to provide connectivity between many other networks and to allow bidirectional communication between these networks. Duplicate Message ----------------- Because of the technology employed by some FidoNet Confer- ence Mail distribution systems, improper routing information or topology can cause multiple copies of the same message text to be delivered to FidoNet systems. A duplicate message is as any message arriving at a FidoNet node whose message body (the text entered by the human originator of the message) is identical to the message body of a previously received message. Messages manually forwarded to another recipient are not considered dupli- cates for the purposes of this document. Section 3 - Administrative Guidelines ===================================== This section is intended to outline the administrative framework under which Other Networks may connect to FidoNet. FidoNet reserves the right to reject any Other Network Gateway application for any reason. FidoNews 7-45 Page 5 5 Nov 1990 3.1 - Other Network Connectivity to FidoNet Through "MultiNets" --------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNet may elect to seek and obtain connectivity to various multinet host facilities for the purposes of communicating with a wide range of Other Networks. Any Other Network that desires to communicate with FidoNet may elect to facilitate such communica- tion via the multinet. However, FidoNet reserves the right to refuse to deliver incoming message traffic arriving via such an arrangement based upon the guidelines set forth in this document. An Example: FidoNet is now gated into Internet via UUCP. It has agreed to the terms and conditions necessary for membership in and connectivity to the Internet multi-network "umbrella". One obvious method for achieving connectivity to FidoNet (and a whole host of other wide area networks) is for the Other Network to apply to Internet for a gateway. Under this scenario, the Other Network is bound by the terms and conditions of Internet just as FidoNet is. In this peer relationship, the terms and conditions stated in this document are used by FidoNet to determine if Other Network message traffic arriving at a FidoNet/Internet gateway will be accepted into FidoNet. 3.2 - Connectivity Only Through Mutually Recognized Gateways ------------------------------------------------------------ While FidoNet has no desire to inhibit experimentation or connectivity between consenting systems it must maintain the technical and administrative integrity of its network. Hence- forth, FidoNet will not permit non-FidoNet addresses to appear in any addressing or routing control fields (Some current examples include: the "From" or "To" address fields, the "* Origin" lines, the "seen-by" fields, or the "^APath" fields.) of any netmail or echomail messages traveling on any portion of FidoNet's wide area network. This restriction applies to all present and future FidoNet nodes. FidoNet nodes who wish to participate in Other Networks may do so but must insure that all message traffic transmitted to other FidoNet systems contain only valid FidoNet addresses in the addressing and routing control fields. The Fido- Net coordinators will enforce this requirement and are authorized by the International Coordinator to take whatever action may be necessary to prevent non-FidoNet addresses from entering Fido- Net, including without limitation, referring the offending nodes to this document and to the InterNetwork Coordinator for informa- tion on how to establish proper Gateways. The sole exception to this requirement is set forth in the following paragraph: FidoNews 7-45 Page 6 5 Nov 1990 The exchange of message traffic, on an experimental or private and closely controlled basis, between an Other Network and a system or systems that happen to be members of FidoNet is permitted and encouraged if such message traffic is confined to the consenting FidoNet systems and is not allowed to travel on or to any portion of FidoNet's wide area network that has not previ- ously consented to carry such traffic and if such connectivity does not prohibit the FidoNet system(s) from fulfilling the technical and policy requirements necessary for membership in FidoNet. FidoNet requests that the INC be informed of such ar- rangements so that any unintentional "leakage" of Other Network message traffic into FidoNet's wide area network may be rapidly isolated and corrected. The exchange of message traffic between any Other Network and FidoNet on any basis other than the one mentioned in the paragraph above shall only be done through mutually recognized and proper Gateways meeting the requirements set forth in this document. 3.3 - Administrative Agreement and Registration ----------------------------------------------- FidoNet requires that an Administrative agreement be execut- ed by and between the individual(s) responsible for the adminis- tration of the Other Network and the FidoNet International Coor- dinator, or the IC's authorized agent. This agreement should out- line, at a minimum, the following items: 1 - The name of the organization. 2 - The name, address, and voice telephone number where the administrator of the Other Network may be reached. (Administrative contact and responsi- ble party). 3 - A brief description of the organization. 4 - The name, address and voice telephone number where the individual(s) responsible for the operation of the FidoNet/Other Network Gateway(s) may be reached. (Technical Contact(s)) 5 - A list of computer system(s) requesting Gateway status containing the following information: o The name of the gateway system as it will appear in the FidoNet nodelist. o The Locality, State / Province / Department / etc., and Country where the Gateway is FidoNews 7-45 Page 7 5 Nov 1990 physically located. o The name of the system administrator for the particular Gateway. o The complete data telephone number for the Gateway, including country code. o The maximum baud rate supported by the Gate- way and all modem standards supported. o The hours during which the Gateway will support FidoNet dial up mail sessions. (*SEE NOTE BELOW*) o The date the Gateway is expected to become operational. o The FidoNet compatible session protocol(s) supported o If the Gateway is now a member of FidoNet, the zone, net, and node number of the FidoNet system applying for Gateway status. NOTE: For a system to be granted Gateway status, it must at least be available for FidoNet dial up mail sessions during the FidoNet dedicated mail period for the geographic locality concerned. FidoNet calls its mandatory dedicated mail period the "Zone Mail Hour". The time for "Zone Mail Hour" varies through- out the world and can be found in Appendix A of the current FidoNet Policy Document. 6. A clearly worded statement indicating that the responsible party in the Other Network and Fido- Net agree to the terms and conditions set forth in the Administrative Agreement and those in this document (included by reference as a part of the agreement). 3.4 - Application of FidoNet Administrative Policy -------------------------------------------------- For the purposes of applying FidoNet policy, FidoNet will view the entire Other Network as a single FidoNet "node" under the control of the individual named as the "Administrative Con- tact/Responsible Party" (or an authorized agent thereof) in the administrative agreement outlined in paragraph 3.3 above. All other systems and their users will be viewed by FidoNet as users on the "responsible party's" node for the purposes of FidoNet official policy application. FidoNews 7-45 Page 8 5 Nov 1990 FidoNet holds the operator of a FidoNet node responsible (from an administrative policy standpoint) for the actions of that node's users, subordinate "point" systems, and the "point" system's users. FidoNet views single or multiple Other Network Gateways as a single "boss" node under the control of the "re- sponsible party" and will apply FidoNet official policy accord- ingly. FidoNet reserves the right to sever links to one or more of the Other Network's Gateways as its final remedy for viola- tions of administrative policy. (see the paragraph titled "Points" in the "Overview" section and the paragraph titled "Responsible for All Traffic Entering FidoNet Via the Node" in the "Sysop Procedures" section of FidoNet's official policy document, for further information). 3.5 - Supported Message Types ----------------------------- FidoNet will grant Gateway interconnection for the purposes of exchanging messages of the type defined above as "Netmail" and optionally for the purposes of exchanging messages of the type defined above as "Echomail". FidoNet will not grant Gateway interconnection for the purposes of exchanging "Echomail" only. The ability to generate a private and personal "Netmail" reply to an "Echomail" message is one of the basic facets of FidoNet and cannot be compromised. 3.6 - Acceptance Criteria (All Other Networks) ---------------------------------------------- The granting of Other Network Gateways into FidoNet is not automatic nor is it based solely on the Other Network's ability to demonstrate technical compliance with the objectives set forth in section 4 below. Some other criteria include: o The Other Network should have an individual will- ing and able to carry out the role of "Responsible Party" as defined herein. The Other Network "administration" should be willing to help in assuring that technical, social, and administra- tive policy standards are consistently met in all message traffic emanating from the Gateway(s). FidoNet pledges to do likewise. o The Other Network must have demonstrable stabili- ty. It should have been in operation as a free standing network for a period of time sufficient to prove its reliability. It should be able to prove that it has the technical and administrative expertise to maintain and regulate reliable Gate- ways over an extended period of time. FidoNews 7-45 Page 9 5 Nov 1990 3.7 - Other Criteria (FTN Other Networks) ----------------------------------------- Current FidoNet compatible software allows a system to par- ticipate simultaneously in FidoNet and in other FTN networks, completely isolating one network from the other; i.e., using only valid FidoNet addresses in FidoNet traffic and only valid Other- Net addresses in OtherNet traffic. This "isolated dual identity" approach is simple to use and eliminates any need for gateways, administrative controls, written agreements, etc. An OtherNet node wishing to participate in FidoNet simply does so, isolating their own memberships similarly to separating participation in Compu$erve and the Internet. This approach allows for FidoNet connectivity on a node by node basis, speeds mail transfers (since messages from each node enter FidoNet's wide area network at the point of origin rather than having to first pass through a Gateway), gives each node contact with a nearby FidoNet coordinator to provide FidoNet ser- vices more effectively, and eliminates possible administrative policy conflicts between the OtherNet and FidoNet as the node ad- heres to FidoNet policy in FidoNet and to OtherNet policy in OtherNet message traffic. Given the simplicity and advantages of the isolated dual-identity scheme and the non-trivial technical and administrative work of maintaining gateways and policies for linked/gatewayed OtherNet connections to FidoNet, there is an onus on OtherNets wishing to gate to FidoNet to show mutually be- neficial technical and/or social considerations which would justify the work of setting up gateways and administrative agree- ments as opposed to merely encouraging OtherNet nodes who wish to participate in FidoNet to do so in the simple isolated dual- identity fashion discussed above. This is not meant to preclude gateways to FTN OtherNets, but rather to place an onus to show cause in order to reduce trivial or unnecessary formal gateways and gateway agreements. 3.8 - Shared Echomail Conferences --------------------------------- Echomail conferences shared between networks must be regis- tered with the appropriate FidoNet echomail coordinator. It is the responsibility of the Other Network and its Echomail source(s) within FidoNet to insure that proper topology is ob- served between the FidoNet / Other Network Gateway(s) and that duplicate echomail messages do not enter FidoNet. It cannot be overemphasized that all message traffic emanating from a Gateway must contain only valid FidoNet addresses in the message's ad- dressing and routing fields. Current examples include, without limitation, the "from" and "to" addresses in the message header, the *ORIGIN line address, the SEEN BY addresses and the ^APath addresses. FidoNews 7-45 Page 10 5 Nov 1990 3.9 - Network Integrity ----------------------- In the event that FidoNet determines that significant harm is being caused to the technical or social integrity of its network, it may immediately sever links between the Other Network Gateway(s) and FidoNet. FidoNet will make all reasonable at- tempts to contact the "Responsible Party" as soon as possible (before the severing of links if possible) to inform the Other Network of the problem and to work toward its resolution. Section 4 - Technical Objectives ================================ At this time, FidoNet has not published a detailed technical standard for Gateways. FidoNet reserves the right to develop, implement, and require adherence to such a standard at a future date. In the mean time, the following general guidelines are set forth for Other Networks that desire to communicate with FidoNet. 4.1 - Technical Standards within FidoNet ---------------------------------------- The FidoNet Technical Standards Committee (FTSC) has de- veloped and published technical standards for message packets and mailer-to-mailer protocols. The Gateway system(s) must be able to assemble and transmit FidoNet standard message packets using FidoNet standard session protocol. A gateway must also be able to receive and disassemble FidoNet standard message packets using FidoNet standard session protocol. Translation from the Other Network's internal message format to FidoNet standard packets and vice versa is the responsibility of the Gateway. 4.2 - Logical Other Network Address ----------------------------------- Software at a Gateway shall modify each message entering FidoNet (whether Netmail or Echomail) such that FidoNet software will interpret the logical address of origin of the message as the Gateway's FidoNet address. 4.3 - Physical Other Network Address ------------------------------------ Software at a Gateway shall embed the Other Network address (physical point of origin), in human readable form, at a predict- able location in the message body immediately preceded by a predictable identifier such that software designed to facilitate the automatic inclusion of this information in FidoNet replies to Other Network messages will be able to glean this information from the other text in the body of the message reliably. This requirement applies to Other Network messages entering FidoNet, both Netmail and Echomail. FidoNews 7-45 Page 11 5 Nov 1990 4.4 - FidoNet to Other Network Addressing (Netmail) --------------------------------------------------- FidoNet users must be provided with a procedure for routing what FidoNet defines as "Netmail" to Other Network users via a Gateway. FidoNet users will be instructed to address netmail to Other Network users to the FidoNet Zone:Net/Node address for an Other Network Gateway. The exact method by which these messages are forwarded to their final destination within the Other Network is left to the discretion of the Other Network. One obvious method is to have the FidoNet user enter the "physical Other Network address" in the proper location preceded by the proper identifier as outlined in paragraph 4.4 above. FidoNet will help the Other Network in educating FidoNet users on the proper form and location of the additional address information necessary to route a FidoNet to Other Network message to its final destination automatically via a Gateway. FidoNet netmail arriving at a Gateway with improper Other Network addressing information must either be corrected and forwarded to the proper Other Network address or returned to the FidoNet sender with text inserted notifying the sender that the message was undeliverable. 4.5 - Echomail Standards ------------------------ Echomail entering FidoNet shall conform to FidoNet (FTSC) standard format. FidoNet control, routing, and addressing infor- mation in each message shall show that it originated from the Gateway's FidoNet address. Internal Other Network routing infor- mation (if any) attached to echomail messages must be removed at the Gateway with the exception being the "Physical Other Network Address" as defined in paragraph 4.3 above. Section 5 - Network Policy Implications ======================================= 5.1 - Interpretation -------------------- FidoNet retains the exclusive right to interpret the terms and conditions stated herein based upon its representatives' best understanding of those terms and conditions and upon its knowl- edge of the original intent of the authors. Draft Administrative Agreement This agreement made this ________ day of _________, __________ between "FidoNet" and __________________________________________________, hereinafter referred to as "Other Network", shall be mutually exclusive and binding upon the parties herein until rescinded or revised by agreements of the parties. FidoNews 7-45 Page 12 5 Nov 1990 Article 1. ---------- Other Network and FidoNet desire to exchange electronic mail between their respective networks. The parties do therefore mutually covenant and agree as follows: Article 2. ---------- The parties hereto agree that the FidoNet document titled "Internetwork Gateway Policy" shall be controlling and is incor- porated as if referenced and set out in full. Paragraph 2.1 - Internetwork Gateway Policy ------------------------------------------- Other Network and FidoNet agree to be bound by the terms and conditions set forth in the FidoNet document titled "Internetwork Gateway Policy" included by reference in Article 1 above. Paragraph 2.2 - Gateway Certification ------------------------------------- FidoNet and Other Network agree not to exchange or attempt to exchange electronic mail via the proposed Gateway system(s) other than on a limited and mutually agreed "test" basis until both parties certify that the Gateway(s) are open for general message traffic. Paragraph 2.3 - Registration Information ---------------------------------------- Other Network agrees to provide FidoNet with complete and accurate information as requested in Articles 3 and 4 below and with any other information FidoNet may deem necessary as a prior condition for the certification of any FidoNet/Other Network gateways. Article 3 - General Information. -------------------------------- Organization name : _________________________________________ Administrative Contact/Responsible Party: Name:___________________________________ FidoNews 7-45 Page 13 5 Nov 1990 Address:___________________________________ City:___________________________________ State/Province:___________________________________ Country:___________________________________ Voice Telephone:___________________________________ Other Network Address:___________________________________ Technical Contact: Name:___________________________________ Address:___________________________________ City:___________________________________ State/Province:___________________________________ Country:___________________________________ Voice Telephone:___________________________________ Other Network Address:___________________________________ Brief Description of the Other Network Organization: _______________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________ Article 4 - Gateway Specific Information (duplicate if needed) -------------------------------------------------------------- Gateway name as it is to appear in FidoNet nodelist: ____________________________________________________ Gateway System Administrator: FidoNews 7-45 Page 14 5 Nov 1990 ____________________________________________________ Physical Gateway Location: Address:___________________________________ City:___________________________________ State/Province:___________________________________ Country:___________________________________ Voice Telephone:___________________________________ Gateway dial-up telephone number: _____________________________ Maximum asynchronous baud rate: ________________ Hours FidoNet dial-up mail sessions are supported (GMT):_______ Anticipated operational date: ____/____/____ FidoNet session protocols supported: __________________________ Is this system at present a FidoNet node? ___Yes ___No If yes, Zone:_____ Net:______ Node:______ Article 5 - Termination ----------------------- This agreement shall be terminated _______ days after the giving of notice by either party at which point all Gateway activities will cease. Article 6 - Sole and Exclusive Agreement ---------------------------------------- This agreement is the sole and exclusive agreement between the parties. FidoNews 7-45 Page 15 5 Nov 1990 Article 7 - Remedies -------------------- Both parties agree that their sole and exclusive remedy for non compliance with the Internetwork Gateway Policy shall be to terminate gateway activities. Witnessed: For FidoNet: Name:___________________________________________ Title:___________________________________________ Date: ___________________ For Other Network: Name:___________________________________________ Title:___________________________________________ Date:____________________ ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 7-45 Page 16 5 Nov 1990 Arturo Batista Fidonet 1:135/79.0 The Trouble with **C's I have followed with great interest the current topic being exposed in the FIDONEWS. Please note that I said the current topic (singular), because I feel that it all comes down to a determined effort by a few persons to take away the rights of free expression and communication that we currently enjoy (somewhat), and given to us by the US Constitution. Abortion, the budget mess, the taxes mess, the determined attempts at curtailing the free exchange of information in the nation's BBSs, and last but not least the ECHOPOL fiasco, are all directly related to a long and dangerous trend, of taking away the right of the people to decide their own lives. The fact that George Peace has singlehandedly raped the rest of us by imposing this outrageous piece of fiction on 8000 others, is strikingly similar to the way South Africa's white minority has over the years raped the black majority. It is pure and simple tiranical, detestable, terroristic and preposterous. The same way that the pro-lifers and pro-choicers attempt to force their views down everybody else's throat, and the same way that the US Congress has attempted to regulate the BBSs, and the same way that the control of this country have fallen in the hands of demigods in Washington, that seem to gain office for life, whithout hardly a peep from the people. I urge all, to let George know your views on this watchamacallit that he tries to force on the rest of us. I will hate the day when a few (less than 1%, by my count) **C's will determine policy that affects all of us, and even worst, gives a small minority, proprietorship of the soul of FIDONET (read echoes), that so many moderators have work so hard to set up and mold into the wonderful forums that we have grown accustomed to. It is not only amoral, it is also a disgrace that tactics better suited for China or someplace in the Third world are attempted here in the land of Jefferson, Hamilton and Lincoln. It is time that the Policy be ammended to force elections for all the **C's at regular intervals, not to far appart, to remind them who is in charge, not too close to give them time to learn the job. Elections, by the way, that include the body of FIDONET, that other 99% that George has forgotten about. ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 7-45 Page 17 5 Nov 1990 Tony Davis 1:147/100 1:1/100 Domain Addressing Gateway I am proud to announce the existence of a Domain Addressing Gateway currently operating in Fidonet. I also must plead guilty of procrastination since I did volunteer to do this at Fidocon 90, and its now almost three months later. Effective immediately, 1:1/100@fidonet will accept and deliver domain addressed netmail to the domains of: Fidonet Alternet Eggnet Rbbsnet Network Kinknet These networks are the only networks that I am aware of that are currently operating the domain gating software. As any other networks set up a node that can receive the domain addressed netmail, the list will be expanded. 1:1/100 will operate as a help node for domain questions, and hopefully will be able to talk Ralph Merritt (who compiled the existing network lists I worked from) into helping contact other networks. The software (originally written by Jim Nutt and hacked by Bob Hartman and Burt Juda) is available for file request by the magic name of "DOMAIN" from: 1:13/13 1:147/100 1:107/528 (bark only) Also available for anyone interested in the technical area of Domains is a conference (both in Echo & Group formats) named "DMNGATES". This conference should be available through the normal distribution channels. There are no requirements other then technical to be listed as a recognized domain. The technical requirement is that a node in the network be willing to setup the currently available software (or create a functionally compatible piece of software). There are no geographical or network restrictions. The technical specifications for domain addressing are available in FSC-0038. The current software has been set up with Binkley / Seadog / Tims / and Frontdoor. It should function as is with most fidonet compatible software. FidoNews 7-45 Page 18 5 Nov 1990 Domain addressing is the way of the future. It will allow a de-coupling of the nodelist that is getting too large to handle. As an example, the current Fidonet nodelist, in archived form, will not fit on a 360k disk. Using the domain method of addressing, a netmail message could be sent to any node in Fidonet, with only 1 phone number in the users nodelist. It also does away with the problems created by the duplicate z:net/node arrangement that is currently being used for inter network communications. Zones were designed for different geographical locations in a network, not different networks. Domain addressing allows for the peaceful co-existence of different geographical or political subgroups, and for these groups to be treated as a fully independent network. I am looking forward to working with this new method of addressing, and the possibilities it allows us all in the future. And I wish to thank the "pushers" who finally got me moving; George Peace, Fabian Gordon, Burt Juda, and the rest of the people that have worked hard at getting Domains implemented. ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 7-45 Page 19 5 Nov 1990 Last Updated: 11/02/90 Ralph Merritt 1:269/111 Here is some info on various networks (that occupy zones) which I've compiled from multiple sources. Hope you find it useful/ informative! The working copy of this textfile can be file- requested as NETSALL.ART. Zone (Zone/0) Fidonet FREQ from Network Name Zone Coordinator Address 1:269/111 ================== ==== ================ ========== ========= FidoNet N. America 1 George Peace 1:1/0 NODELIST Fidonet Europe 2 Ron Dwight 2:515/1 " Fidonet Oceania 3 Bill Bolton 3:711/403 " Fidonet S. America 4 Pablo Kleinman 4:900/101 " Fidonet Africa 5 Henk Wolsink 5:494/2 " Fidonet Asia 6 Honlin Lue 6:720/13 " MacList 6 Tom Heffernan 1:107/554 MACLIST AlterNet 7 Karl Schinke 1:107/516 ANETLIST RbbsNet 8 Rod Bowman 1:10/8 RBBSLIST The NETWORK 8 Bob Hoffman 1:129/34 NETLIST Paranet 9 Michael Corbin 1:207/109 PARANET PhoenixNet 9 Glen Cranford n/a PHNXLIST PernNet 10 James Pallack 1:325/101 PERNLIST OPCN 11 Jim Grubs 1:234/1 OPCNLIST KesherNet 18 Jason Frokin 1:108/185 KNETLIST SIGnet 24 Jamie Penner 1:153/169 SIGNODES " 25 William Mastop 1:153/170 " " 26 Tom Mcgivern 1:103/328 " " 27 Fabiano Fabris 2:310/11.22 " " 28 J. Homrighausen 3:362/308 " " 29 Borlong Lin 3:722/5 " " 34 Andrew Farmer 1:163/115 " EmergencyNet 31 Guy Hokanson 1:212/107 ENLIST " 32 Vacant " " 33 Vacant " " 34 Vacant " " 35 Vacant " " 36 Vacant " " 37 Vacant " CandyNet 42 Dr Pepper 1:103/241 CANDYNET ChatNet 44 Clive Walker n/a CHATLIST ChatNet (USA) 45 Steve Freoschke n/a " ChatNet (Germany) 49 Klaus M. Ruebsam 2:247/816 " ChatNet (Spain) 46 Jordi Murgo n/a " Vervan's Gaming Net 45 Ron Lahti 1:207/3001 VNETLIST EchoNet 50 Ed Lawyer 1:261/3000 ENETLIST HobbyNet 57 Joe Adamson 1:147/16 HOBBYNET GhotiNet (USA) 60 John Marlett 1:116/18 FISHLIST GhotiNet (Australia) 61 Graeme Nichols 3:714/404 " ADULT_LINKS 69 Jim Deputy 1:103/158 69LIST APINET 69 Robert Eckert 1:269/304 APINET HAMLINK 73 Jim Grubs 1:234/1 HAMLINK LCRNET 77 Tom Sirianni 1:105/301 LCRNODES FidoNews 7-45 Page 20 5 Nov 1990 SpectroNet 77 David Musick 1:363/61 SPECLIST BBSnet 86 Tom Hendricks 1:261/662 TrekNet 87 Rob Lehrman 1:203/57 TREKLIST Alternet CDN 89 John Dunn n/a ANETLIST Eggnet_Asia 96 Bob Germer 1:266/21 n/a Eggnet_Europe 97 Bob Germer 1:266/21 EEGGLIST MIL_NET 98 Kerry Buckingham 1:123/22 EggNet 99 Johnny Pulliam n/a EGGLIST MetroNet 200 Jason Steck 1:104/424 METRONET ================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 7-45 Page 21 5 Nov 1990 NEWS_CHECK 1.6 by Mike Bartman Crystal Gryphon Enterprises Fidonet node 1:109/508 Have you ever though about sending something in for publication in FidoNews, but were put off by the submission requirements? I know they aren't very stringent as to content (as recent discussions have mentioned, and proven!), but there are a lot of rules for the *format* of submissions. They have to have particular file extensions, there are restrictions on right margins, you can't have funny control codes in the file (and how many of us are *sure* that our word processors aren't putting in the occasional "soft" return?), and you should also follow some "appearance" guidelines to make your article look nice (like having most lines flushleft, having most lines get near the 65 column mark, having a table of contents line at the beginning of the article, etc.). The last time I sent an article to FidoNews I spent a few days worrying that I had done something wrong, missed a control code, had a bare linefeed or something equally disastrous, and that my article would be rejected and returned for corrections, or, worse, that I would be the cause of the editor having to do extra work to fix my blunders. I hate it when that happens! (And I'm sure the editor isn't too thrilled by it either...) It is easy enough to find out what the requirements and recommendations are (just F'Req. ARTSPEC), but it is harder to be sure you have not made some minor mistake, or missed a requirement, or had your word processor "help" you without your knowledge. I suspect that many people have been put off sending in an article more than once for fear of making a mistake, or not wanting to take the time to read ARTSPEC. In many cases this may even be a Good Thing, but even so, I'm in favor of greasing the wheels of communication wherever I can and just count on being nimble enough to avoid getting run over in the ensuing rush of ideas. Being a programmer, and having a copy of Turbo-Pascal 4.0 that I had not used in a while, I decided to write a program a couple of years back to make submitting without fear a little easier. NEWS_CHECK is the result. Since there have been a couple of changes to the submission requirements recently, I decided that NEWS_CHECK needed a face lift, and that copy of Turbo Pascal 5.5 didn't look too busy...and NEWS_CHECK v1.6 was born. FidoNews 7-45 Page 22 5 Nov 1990 NEWS_CHECK is intended for use by authors of articles for FidoNews, Klore, or any other compatible newsletters, for pre-submission verification of format. Once you have your article written you just run NEWS_CHECK, give it the name of your file and it will check it for fatal errors as well as non-fatal "aesthetic" errors such as not being flushleft, having too many blank lines at the top of the file, etc. It does not make any changes to your submission file; it just lists errors and suggestions to your screen. It is possible to redirect the messages to a file for use as a reference while editing-in the corrections. NEWS_CHECK will *not* check spelling or grammar! You want miracles you go talk to Borland. NEWS_CHECK looks for the following mistakes or ill-advised practices: 1. Incorrect file name extension. Must be ART, SAL, WAN, COL, LET, or NOT. Any other extension is flagged as a FATAL error. 2. Non-Flushleft margin. Based on a percentage of the lines in the file, not all of them. (I.E. If 50% of the lines in a file are not flushleft a WARNING is generated.) 3. Right margin greater than 65 on any line generates a FATAL error. If the line is over 65 characters long, but less than 70, and all characters after column 65 are spaces, then only a WARNING will be generated. This is the only exception to the column 65 limit. This exception is based on a comment made by a past FidoNews editor, and may not be valid anymore, so ignore this warning at your own peril! 4. "funny characters". Control chars (except CR-LF pairs) result in a FATAL error message. All characters must be in the range 20 hex (SPACE) to 7E hex (~). 5. If the file is an ad or a notice (SAL, WAN, or NOT) a WARNING is generated if the total length of the submission is over 30 lines. 6. Checks for existence of a "contents" line at the top of the file. Outputs a WARNING if there isn't one. 7. Checks for "dashed lines" at the beginning and end of the file. Dashed lines result in WARNING messages. A "dashed line" is any line consisting of at least 4 of only one type of character (SPACE excepted). "# # # #" counts as a "dashed line", for example. 8. Checks for excessive "whitespace" at top and bottom of the file. More than 3 blank lines at the front or end of the FidoNews 7-45 Page 23 5 Nov 1990 file generates a WARNING message. 9. Checks for articles that are "too narrow" (have the right margin set to too low a value). If over 50% of the lines in a submission don't reach at least column 55 a WARNING is generated. There are times when narrowness is fine, but most articles should have the right margin at 65 for the best appearance after publication. NEWS_CHECK is designed so that it may be run from a BAT file, and it returns ERRORLEVEL codes to allow an automatic determination of what happened with the check. An example of such a BAT file is included, as are several test files that contain errors of various kinds, and a (short) documentation file. The program is available for file request from 1:109/508, and possibly from other places by now, as NEWSCH16.ARC. If you have any suggestions for improvement, or reports of problems, I would appreciate hearing about them, but I can't guarantee that I will fix or include all of them in future versions of the program (though I will try). If you publish a FidoNews-like newsletter (or even FidoNews!), but prefer other parameters for things like margins, number of blank lines to allow, length of ads, etc. please let me know. It is easy enough to generate a custom version with these things changed. There is no charge for use of this software, and none will be permitted. If you really like the software a lot, then write a good article for FidoNews and NEWS_CHECK it before you send it in. By the way...NEWS_CHECK was written on an IBM PClone, using Turbo Pascal 4.0 and 5.5 from Borland International. This would seem to indicate that those folks who can't run IBM PClone software under MS/PC-DOS are out of luck at the moment. If someone is interested in porting NEWS_CHECK to a non-MS/PC-DOS machine/operating system, I will seriously consider releasing the source code to them, provided that the resulting software is made available to the public under terms substantially like those of NEWS_CHECK 1.6. * * * * Copyright Notice and disclaimer: The NEWS_CHECK program and documentation are Copyright 1988, 1990 by Mike Bartman. All rights are reserved. Permission is granted to anyone to distribute the documentation and software, provided that no alterations are made to either, and no charge is made for the distribution or the software. No warranty or guarantee of any kind is implied or stated. You use it at your own risk. The program has functioned on my 10mhz AT Clone with no trouble, but this is no guarantee of future behavior. FidoNews 7-45 Page 24 5 Nov 1990 * * * * Good luck and happy writing! ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 7-45 Page 25 5 Nov 1990 Thanks for the Encouragement Steven Watsky Before I get to the point of this, I'd first like to say thanks to each of you who took the time to respond to my article on abortion. I was urged by the sysops of two Baton Rouge BSS's to allow the story to be sent up, and I agreed. The story you read was published in the Baton Rouge magazine Gris Gris. It was a gift to my friend, John Maginnis, the publisher of the magazine on the occasion of his debuting a new statewide political magazine. I get the feeling from the tone of some of the responses I've read that a few of you don't understand who I am, or what I did for a living since 1972. I was, until last month, a reporter. For the past four-and-a-half years I was employed by United Press International, the world's second-largest newsgathering organization. For those of you with a strong belief that the media is liberal and pro-choice, I'm very sorry. I oppose MOST abortions, with good reason, but that's not the point here. I have never been accused by any of UPI's estimated 50 million readers that my articles were one-sided or favored one position over another. In writing the story, I approached the issue in the only way I knew how -- it was a spectacle from Day One until the last night of the 1990 session. It was calculated to be spectacle, by both sides, to maximize media impact. If the story offended you, good. It should have. Such an emotional and philosophical issue belongs on a higher plane than retail politics at the state level. I was the president of the Capitol Correspondents Association this year, the organization that oversees the activities of reporters in the Louisiana State Capitol. In that capacity, I was liason for countless national print reporters and network crews that descended on Louisiana to watch the debate on banning abortion. I was asked by ABC's "Nightline" program to moderate a debate between two of the key players in the Louisiana abortion debate because I was recognized BY BOTH SIDES on the issue as being an unbiased and knowledgable source. I also was interviewed by National Public Radio's "Morning Edition," and was interviewed by CNN for a piece on how the Louisiana Legislature turned a bill dealing with beating up people who desecrate the flag into the "Crime of Simple Battery of Abortion." All that being said, let's get to the point. The abortion debate in Louisiana this year WAS a spectacle, not matched in this state since the bitters legislative arguments over right to work laws in the 1970s. FidoNews 7-45 Page 26 5 Nov 1990 There's an old saying that there are two things you never want to see being made: sausage and politics. Truly, the abortion debate -- on both sides -- proved that statement 100 percent true. I have never seen behavior like I saw this year from the pro-life lobby. Yes, the article does pick on them more, but for a simple reason: they overran the State Capitol in such numbers that it was virtually impossible to move from one place to another, much less get any work done. The pro-choice lobby had its act together more than people realize; they simply sat back and let the pro-life forces destroy any chance they had of passing a restrictive abortion bill. The failing here, I think, has to do with the church's role in turning abortion into a political crusade. The problem with that approach is that once you threaten a legislator, vow to campaign against him in the next election, you've lost him for life. He'll never vote for any other piece of legislation you support. In mid-June, a very much pro-choice black lawmaker from Baton Rouge was called out of the House during important debate by an insistent citizen. This citizen proceeded to quote scripture to the legislator about why abortion is murder. The legislator patiently listened, thanked the citizen for the input, then returned to his seat on the House floor. Moments later, a second citizen called out the same legislator, who also quoted scripture to the lawmaker. He again patiently listened, thanked the person for the input, then returned to his seat. A third message came to him requesting he meet a citizen outside the chamber. This nice clean-cut young man threatened the lawmaker, then shouted, "Repent, you asshole!" before he was led away by state troopers. A couple of weeks after that shouting incident, a woman who owns several pro-life pregnancy shelters in Louisiana testified in committee on the bill to ban abortions. She assured the panel members she could place each child in a good home if the mother wished to give up the infant. Under Louisiana law, a person who spends some measure of time lobbying on behalf of a bill is banned from also possessing a press credential. The theory, as legislative aides say, is that a member of the media could exert undue influence on lawmakers by virtue of their position. Well, this woman at about the same time got hired by a Christian radio station to report on the abortion goings-on. She was granted a State Police media I.D. -- the credential we use at the Capitol to verify that a reporter really is a reporter and will be given special priveleges in covering all types of legislative hearings. This woman was warned she could no longer lobby the bill because she was now a reporter. She said she understood. She then walked into a Senate committee, signed a form saying she wanted to lobby on behalf of the abortion bill and sat in the area reserved for press. FidoNews 7-45 Page 27 5 Nov 1990 The board of the Capitol Correspondents voted to immediately file a protest against her action. The chairman of the committee, Sen. Mike Cross -- a staunch foe of all abortions -- chewed the woman out for the breach of security and refused to let her testify on behalf of the bill. This woman promptly whined that her constitutional rights were being violated by the "devil-worshippers on press row." She continued to lobby behind the scenes, but at this point, we ignored her. By the way, we didn't ignore some of the female reporters who wore purple, the abortion-rights color -- during some of the debate. One was evicted from the chamber for the day on my orders. Our friend with the Christian radio station probably won't be back next year. On the second-to-last night of the 1990 legislative session, she told several sergeants-at-arms in the House the 20 women with her wearing the "Abortion is Murder" stickers on their blouses were actually reporters and authorities had run out of press passes for them. I'm not real sure what this woman had in mind trying to get 20 of her friends down on the floor of the House of Representatives, but I can tell you that the action was a felony in Louisiana. But we ignored that too. Ironic, isn't it? A woman working for a Christian radio station who runs a string of pro-life shelters stoops to attempting to commit a felony to impress her friends, or perhaps to save the 15,000 fetuses that are aborted in Louisiana each year. One of the key players in the anti-abortion movement was the Eagle Forum, the same group that year after year vehemently opposes sex education in schools. They also support the death penalty and give the impression that they would not want the state to spend one extra nickle to support the children not wanted by their mothers. Every effort to include language that would make the state responsible for the childrens' welfare was blocked by the anti-abortion forces in the Legislature. Politics is the art of pragmatism. It is knowing what you have to give up to get what you want. It is not a knee-jerk reaction to an emotional issue. This was lost on the anti-abortion forces who failed to understand how banning abortion would lead to an increased number of people on the welfare rolls and would cost the state countless thousands of dollars each year. Until they address those questions, they will not win in Louisiana. It is also important to know a bit about some of the people who supported the anti-abortion legislation. Many were NOT in any way shape or form in favor of such a ban. But, and this is sad to say with such an emotional issue, they were in it for the money or the votes. Reporters and Capitol workers snickered when some of those "pious" lawmakers rose in support of the bill, knowing those same lawmakers were chasing the 16-year-old legislative pages and had led, shall we say, a checkered life. FidoNews 7-45 Page 28 5 Nov 1990 The lead author on the bill, Baton Rouge Rep. Woody Jenkins, sent a "questionnaire" out in August. It asked citizens across the state if they supported his abortion ban. It also asked them to send a donation -- apparently to retire Jenkins' campaign debt for a failed U.S. Senate bid six years ago. Nothing wrong with that, but the timing of the mailing was questionable. Jenkins, for his part, spent the better of 1990 telling every camera in sight that the majority of Louisiana citizens favored his outright ban. He told every anti-abortion rally -- and believe me, there were plenty -- that they were in the majority, not the liberal abortionists. What Jenkins forgot to tell his followers, and the cameras, is that the most recent survey on the subject that was taken after the high-profile session shows a whopping 6 percent of the people in Louisiana favor an outright ban. The sad lesson for a lot of lawmakers who got sucked in on the "everyone wants to ban abortions in Louisiana" ruse is that when they returned home after the legislative session, they were pounded by their constituents. While they were busy creating perfect soundbites for the national networks, the state began its fiscal year without a budget and left untouched numerous critical pieces of legislation that affect most of 4.1 million people in Louisiana. A year ago, ex-Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke -- now a Louisiana state representative -- said he supported abortions for welfare mothers. Duke is a master at veiling racism in the cloak of conservatism, and this was no exception. Fast forward to this year: Duke now opposes all abortions. Nobody wants to say this in the media. I would not say this in the media, but I will say it to you, the people who have a head on their shoulders: a good deal of the anti-abortion debate in Louisiana is a thinly disguised racist ploy. It's the poor black women who are getting pregnant and feel they need the abortion. Many get pregnant because they do not understand birth-control methods -- methods the Eagle Forum opposes. As sentiments continue to shift away from trying to achieve equality for all races, more and more creative ways are found to cover racism with a veneer of "conservatism" or "Christian beliefs." The predominantly white Louisiana Legislature didn't see a problem with banning abortions because it would not affect a majority of their constituents. During one of the rallies on the steps of the State Capitol, a woman with an adoption agency from western Louisiana tried in vain to convince some of the 1,000 "Christians" in attendance to adopt some of the unwanted children she must take care of. No one signed up. It helps to know the children were black. FidoNews 7-45 Page 29 5 Nov 1990 D. Rice's response in the latest issue of FidoNews about school prayer points up another angle of what I'm trying to get across. About 5 years ago, I was watching Pat Robertson on the 700 Club. He was urging his viewers to call Washington and convince their congressmen to support a bill to prayer in school. Robertson was incensed by this. He wanted the United States Congress to adopt a policy of verbal prayer "because we don't want the Hare Krishnas saying their own prayers." That statement, like some made in the Louisiana abortion debate, seems to say that if you're in a majority religion you have the right to decide the morals and convictions of everyone. The framers of the U.S. Constitution must be rolling in their graves. As the editorial in FidoNews 7-43 pointed out, my article was NOT about abortion. It was about the lengths that lawmakers and special-interest groups will go to in order to achieve their goals. These "lengths" include many not-so-Christian ideas such as playing white lawmakers against black lawmakers, and threatening and successfully bottling up the state's $8 billion budget because the votes could not be found to override the governor's veto. The night the legislative session ended, I vowed never to cover the abortion issue again if I could help it. I was accused by both pro-life and pro-choice forces of caving in to the other's demands of equal treatment. I carried out that vow a month ago. I am now the public information officer for Louisiana Attorney General William Guste. You might be interested to know that Guste was one of the prime movers in the 1990 effort to ban abortions in Louisiana. You might also be interested to know that Guste, like many of us, learned a painful lesson this year: it is an issue that leaves no middle ground and leaves no one without physical and emotional scars. Guste, like the rest of the players in this little drama will be back next year, Fighting the Good Fight to ban abortion. But perhaps they'll use a different tactic. One can only hope... ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 7-45 Page 30 5 Nov 1990 Gary Lagier 1:208/2 New Echo "The Saudi Connection" Some History: Probably by now the majority of you have heard of a new echo called "The Saudi Connection." Basically it allows you, the sysop, to offer your callers a chance to send "letters" to American Service personnel in the Saudi Arabian theater of operations (Militarily known as Operation Desert Shield). About 4 weeks ago Mark Niswonger, Sysop of CrossRoads BBS in Manteca California started using his BBS to allow his students to send messages to service personnel in Saudi Arabia. He did this by uploading those messages in file format because his American contact in Saudi Arabia did not have a net-mail capable BBS. Neither did Mark. About 3 weeks ago Mark told me about his local success with this. He had received a grant from the local telephone company to help defray phone costs, and several local businesses also donated money to the operation. He was written up in several local newspapers, reported on by a couple of radio and TV stations, and in general the idea was catching on with his callers. Well, having no fear, I mentioned that this seemed like a very good thing, and that it was a shame that it was only limited to his own callers and school classes. I offered to be a "gateway" to his system from the net-compatible BBSes all over the country. From that day on "The Saudi Connection" echo was born and it has grown to more than 400 BBSes in about 3 weeks. To Join: Setup an echo with the tagname of SAUDI, make it for private mail only. Then make a bulletin announcing this service. Send netmail to 1:208/2 asking to poll for the SAUDI echo. Alter- nately you can Freq (Magic Name) SLIST from 208/2 and see a list of about 100 BBSes where you might want to set up a regu- lar polling schedule. Also, setup a sysop-only echo with tagname of SAUDI_INFO. This will allow you to keep up with the latest in "The Saudi Connect- ion" and to talk with other "Saudi Connection" sysops. FidoNews 7-45 Page 31 5 Nov 1990 That's all there is to it! You can help further by uploading this message or sending it to other BBSes you feel might be interested in this service. If there are any questions please do not hesitate to give me a call at: Gary Lagier TurboCity BBS 1:208/2 (209) 599-7435 SAUDI Moderator ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 7-45 Page 32 5 Nov 1990 269 or not 269? THAT is the Question. by Kwityer Bychin Hi Ho, folks. First of all, before I start this week's tirade, I want to address a netmail I got this week. Because I've been starting my articles off with "Hi Ho, folks", some NITWIT sent me a netmail asking me if I knew KERMIT THE FROG . Now, I know of THAT OLD FROG, but I don't think he's the same guy. Anyway, GET A LIFE, BONEHEAD... Last week, if you found a program that'll unpack the Snooze, you noticed that I beat up on ECHOPOL pretty good. Well, boys & girls, it's gonna be TOUGH to top that one. But I'll give it the 'ol college try... Not content to beat the hell out of a document or a single person, I figured I'd take a stab and kicking the collective asses of an ENTIRE NET. Yeah! Why just piss of one person, when you can get FIFTY? Let me start by saying that I WANT some of WHATEVER IT IS, that the boys in 269 are snorting, smoking, injecting, or are otherwise applying to an available orifice. In Snooze 743, some joker named AL SAVERIANO was rambling on incoherently about his inability to get a bowl of soup in a Chinese laundry and the significance of EIGHT BIT WHEAT TOAST or something. And then, in 744, The Infamous MAHATMA RAVSIK actually RESPONDS to it, as if it had some SOCIAL SIGNIFICANCE or was even REMOTELY relative to ANYTHING TANGIBLE. Then, two unnamed Looney Toons in 269 write ANOTHER article comparing the Snooze to the NEW YORK TIMES. *I* wanna know WHAT ELSE your NC is delivering along with your nodediffs. Not knowing who this SAVERIANO twit is, I decided to look him up in the OFFICIAL FIDONET NODELIST [(c)1990 by Everyone Except IFNA] . And lo and behold, I FOUND HIM! The host entry for net 269 CLEARLY STATES "Saveriano is God"!! Did YOU know that?? I bet not! To HELL with the NEW YORK TIMES, we have the ALMIGHTY writing for the Snooze! Anyway, the phone number on the host entry matches the number on 269/101, so we gotta assume that the warden of that asylum is a guy named GLEN JOHNSON. Well, his NAME might be JOHNSON, but does he HAVE one? That's what I'D like to know ... Hey JOHNSON, *WHAT* is the problem with the "people" in your net, man? FidoNews 7-45 Page 33 5 Nov 1990 Oh wait, let's look at this another way. Maybe we should feel SORRY for him. I mean, what if YOU were the NC of some net, and you had guys writing for the Snooze ANONYMOUSLY and then putting their NAMES on the bottom of the article, had some crazy man writing articles about dipping his wheat toast in a bowl of soup the waiter won't give him, and had a guy like MAHATMA RAVSIK, who will fight with ANYONE over ANYTHING, ANY TIME for ANY REASON, in your net, how would YOU feel?? Did GLEN'S JOHNSON *WANT* to be NC? Or was he SENTENCED to the job?? I wanna tell all these lunkheads to KWITYER BYCHIN, but I can't tell IF they're bitchin' about ANYTHING, and if so, WHAT they're bitchin' about. And WHO wrote MAHATMA RAVSIK's article for him? We all KNOW he can't even spell his own NAME, so SOMEBODY musta wrote it FOR him. Maybe those two anonymous guys named Erik & Peter.... I think we should make this SAVERIANO guy the next ZONE COORDINATOR. Yeah, good idea. That way, if the nodediff doesn't come out, you can write to him, ask why, and get a response like "Ah yes, the nodediff. I musta SMOKED it with the WHEAT TOAST at MAHATMA RAVSIK's house while we were stuffing THE JOHNSON in the NEW YORK TIMES" . Oh wait, I forgot, he's already GOD, so is ZC a promotion or what? Maybe we'll make him IC. So I'm giving the NITWIT OF THE WEEK AWARD to NET 269. These guys should stay off the keyboards and work on their BASKET WEAVING. K.B. '90 ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 7-45 Page 34 5 Nov 1990 The StarGate Conference Distribution System - What is it? As a service of sysops from FidoNet, AlterNet, Eggnet, and Phoenix/Net, a groupmail distribution system has been set up to facilitate the distribution of conferences. For over 2 years, this series of systems, located strategically around the United States has been known as the STARGATE system. The STARGATES make available all Alliance conferences, and all th