F I D O N E W S -- Volume 15, Number 27 6 July 1998 +----------------------------+-----------------------------------------+ | The newsletter of the | ISSN 1198-4589 Published by: | | FidoNet community | "FidoNews" | | _ | 1-209-251-7529 [1:1/23] | | / \ | | | /|oo \ | | | (_| /_) | | | _`@/_ \ _ | | | | | \ \\ | Editor: | | | (*) | \ )) | Zorch Frezberg 1:205/1701 | | |__U__| / \// | | | _//|| _\ / | | | (_/(_|(____/ | | | (jm) | Newspapers should have no friends. | | | -- JOSEPH PULITZER | +----------------------------+-----------------------------------------+ | Submission address: FidoNews Editor 1:1/23 | +----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | MORE addresses: | | | | submissions=> editor@fidonews.org | | | +----------------------------------------------------------------------+ | For information, copyrights, article submissions, | | obtaining copies of FidoNews or the internet gateway FAQ | | please refer to the end of this file. | +----------------------------------------------------------------------+ ...and where it stops, nobody knows... Table of Contents 1. EDITORIAL ................................................ 1 2. LETTERS TO THE EDITOR .................................... 4 3. ARTICLES ................................................. 6 Response to Editorial Response ........................... 6 Response to Doc Logger ................................... 8 North American Backbone Echo Changes [May-Jun] ........... 8 The Elist "Battle" ....................................... 9 "Building a Better Fidonews" ............................. 12 Valid reason for new Net shot down in flames ............. 14 4. COLUMNS .................................................. 16 Did Zorch vote twice in the ZEC election? ................ 16 5. WE GET EMAIL ............................................. 18 Nodelist Statistics (from N5020.SYSOP) ................... 18 FIDONET Nodes on Internet ................................ 19 Policy ................................................... 20 6. NOTICES .................................................. 23 Future History ........................................... 23 7. FIDONEWS PUBLIC-KEY ...................................... 24 FidoNews PGP Public-Key Listing .......................... 24 8. FIDONET BY INTERNET ...................................... 25 9. FIDONEWS INFORMATION ..................................... 28 FIDONEWS 15-27 Page 1 6 Jul 1998 ================================================================= EDITORIAL ================================================================= An interesting week...no? Thanks go out first to Jim Barchuk, who has managed to fix the problem with the mail server at the FidoNews web site at http://www.fidonews.org. With that, a number of articles and E-Mail came tumbling forth, to be published in this issue, as well as adding a bit of delay to the publication this week through volume and the ANSI characters to boot throwing the software out of whack... Just as interesting is the selection process used to implement the ELIST in Zone 1...not so much the technical aspect, but the lack of investigation into the claims being put forth. Like a good illusionist, the audience is drawn to the object that the illusionist wants you to see, while making you forget the rational part of your mind that wants to know how it is done...or why. It's called 'misdirection'. One has to ask why such claims are being made by the RECC, when the person behind the effort has yet to be asked a single question about the content. And, I suppose, it goes to further their own agenda which has yet to be as fair or open as they have collectively claimed it to be. But, for now, Thom LaCosta has been named by the RECC as the new EchoList Coordinator in Zone 1. Our congratulations to his appointment...as defined in existing rules and procedures. And, as it may be interesting to note, a long-time critic of this Editor puts forth the idea of a change to the way in which the FidoNews is published. Hmmmmmmm... Interesting that someone from a society where free speech and free press makes such suggestions, while another reader from a society in which such freedoms have been restricted in the past asks for the FidoNews to remain the same. If nothing else, it makes for an interesting contrast in what is and is not taken for granted when one lives in a society where freedom has never been so constrained. Other than this, there is little news that came forward this week, though we do have a message from Peter Karlsson, who apparently has better connections to the FTSC as a 'member in limbo' than I have as a full member...but inquiries into the reasons why still go unanswered. FIDONEWS 15-27 Page 2 6 Jul 1998 How odd. And just as interestingly, we hear from the "Zone 7" members...a sign that there is still hope for FidoNet, if only they can be allowed to develop as their own Zone. Added in here is another reminder to all who submit articles to the FidoNews that the "flush left, margin 70" standard is the one thing that will guarantee that your submission will be edited to meet. Among the submissions in the 'flood', only two were compliant to the FidoNews specifications. And, lastly, the issue of advertising in the FidoNews... I asked for particulars on this some time back in the FIDONEWS echo and received some comments, but recent events (and submissions) have caused me to re-open the request for comments. Interestingly enough, some of the comments suggest that I am asking only to justify doing this...especially in the light of one such request offering to sponsor or even _buy_ advertising space in the FidoNews. There has even been a threat to stop distribution of the FidoNews based on the same innuendo and assumptions that Fido has become trademarked for of late, rather than on any basis of fact. More on this in a moment... The reality, as those who have made the innuendo that has become so very typical in FidoNet of late, is that I would like to formulate a specification for myself and future Editors (if any) to operate from as to which types of advertising are 'acceptable' to FidoNet sysops. Should the FidoNews reject *ALL* advertising? Should it accept only that advertising which is _directly_ involving FidoNet, to the exclusion of such things as TCP/IP-capable hybrids which also incorporate Fido technology (programs such as ARGUS, TransX and iFTP come to mind)? Or should the Editor decide on a submission-by-submission basis as to what may be of interest to FidoNet sysops? The issue of payment for advertising in FidoNews is without merit, since FidoNews is free, distributed for free and there would be no possible way to determine who to pay any such fees to, let alone for what purpose they would be used for...or by whom. In simpler words, no paid advertising will be done in the FidoNews. If any company submits software for review, no 'quid pro quo' is to be expected, nor is one offered other than a legitimate and earnest assessment of the value and usefullness of the software...and even then, it would be more likely to be turned over to another sysop to perform the review itself, as chosen by the Editor...to do otherwise is to merely open the door for a 'ringer' to be used. At least, lacking any more suggestions, this is the _intended_ base FIDONEWS 15-27 Page 3 6 Jul 1998 for the proposed advertising specification. But, the question still remains...and although I have many responses, including those sent to be posted here, the direction is not there. Should there be *no* advertisements? Should there only be Fido-based advertisements? Or is there a 'middle ground' that is acceptable to all that meets and satisfies as many as is possible? And, in reference to the pause above, how very interesting that for a 'tabloid-style' publication, which is 'losing readers' for being so 'biased', that several companies have decided that the FidoNews is of sufficient distribution to be 'useful' to them. In all, an interesting week...no? -zf- ### 30 ### ----------------------------------------------------------------- FIDONEWS 15-27 Page 4 6 Jul 1998 ================================================================= LETTERS TO THE EDITOR ================================================================= RESPONSE TO EDITORIAL IN FIDONEWS OF 29 JUN 1998 By Kent Anderson, 1:382/92 kand@onr.com In Fidonews V15N24, in part of your editorial, you said this: "In other news, the battle to wrest control of the EchoMail Listing has now moved into high gear, with the RECC all but demanding that the Z1C choose a particular system." I am a long time hangout in the Moderator and ZEC echos, and am a Moderator, (Memories) so I have to wonder where did this "battle to wrest control take place?" There was an outcry from Moderators when John Souvestre reported Adrian Walker's alleged wish that the Echolist be turned over to Peter Witschi, the Zone 2 Echolist Coordinator. I have been told that Zone 2 operates under an unratified Echopol which much resembles a certain ECROC, so why would I want my echo handled in Zone 2. Adrian Walker was never anything but helpful and nice to me, so I have no quarrel with him, but his departure did appear to me to be much like that of a child throwing a temper tantrum. He certainly did not do it with the grace and dignity of Mich Fuchs, who had the courtesy to see that the robot was smoothly passed into Adrian's hands. Thus, there was no disruption of Echolist updates. We might say that the uproar, or stink if you will, was caused by this tantrum. "Odd how this came out immediately after the existance of other ELIST systems was announced in the FidoNews." But, I think you tie their action to the wrong event. Your mention in an earlier Fnews did not name any specific echolists other than the Zone 1 and Zone 2 echolists. We Moderators, all along, have been aware that there were other, smaller echolists. In Zone 1, however, the major one has been the one which Adrian's Robot faithfully handled each month. In the Moderator Echo and elsewhere, Thom Lacosta announced that he had what he believed to be an excellent replacement system for Adrian's robot, and offered to run an open test of it to see if his assessment was correct. There was a tremendous response from Moderators, and it became obvious that his system's performance was very, very good, and it was then accepted by many, if not most of the Moderators who had input to it. So, recognizing that Moderators should have the major influence in selection of such a system used, the RECC's were kind enough to "suggest" to Bob Satti that Thom's system be awarded the title of "Echolist Robot" under a separate node number to distinguish it from Adrian's old system. In my considered opinion, not only was this move not politics but a recognition of the desire of Moderators as expressed by many, many of them. As I see it, it was done to help keep a political battle from erupting, and in FIDONEWS 15-27 Page 5 6 Jul 1998 consideraton of the necessity for getting an operating Echolist Robot in place as quickly as possible. "One would think that a more prudent RECC would look at all of the accesibile systems before settling on one...or is this just another jab at the ZEC, and the RECC refusal to work with him?" You may manufacture any scenario you like out of it, but how do you know the RECC didn't look at others, but recognized and supported those most affected rather than some other faction? "More odd that the RECC would claim that the ZEC is supposedly to 'moderate and present' to the RECC, but then turns around to lock the ZEC out of discussions, then claim that the ZEC is not doing his assigned duties." If the ZEC is Bob Kohl, he has also said that the Echolist should be above politics, and your charges of some political agenda driving toward the selection of Thom's system appear to me to be totally manufactured and paranoid. "But then, these are also the same people who present in their erstwhile ultimatum to the Z1C that they wish the ELIST process to be above politics, while using the same proposed system as a political tool." I believe my other remarks have covered this. ### 30 ### ----------------------------------------------------------------- FIDONEWS 15-27 Page 6 6 Jul 1998 ================================================================= ARTICLES ================================================================= Response to Editorial Response by Bob Kohl, 1:102/861 > ================================================================= > LETTERS TO THE EDITOR > ================================================================= > RESPONSE TO EDITORIAL IN FIDONEWS DATED 22 JUNE 1998 > By Ben Hamilton, FidoNet 1:124/7008 > This letter is in response to the editorial that was included in > the FidoNews issue on June 22, 1998. > In response to the editor's opinion that the RECs have posted the > results of the no-confidence vote, then refused to reveal the > particulars, I can only say this: The ZEC duties, as written by > Bob Kohl, approved by the RECs, and then recognized by the ZC, > state the "charges" quite clearly. First point, the ZEC duties were written with input not only from the RECs, but from the sysops of Z1 themselves. There was no single author to the list.