     Volume 6, Number 25                                  19 June 1989
     +---------------------------------------------------------------+
     |                                                  _            |
     |                                                 /  \          |
     |                                                /|oo \         |
     |        - FidoNews -                           (_|  /_)        |
     |                                                _`@/_ \    _   |
     |        International                          |     | \   \\  |
     |     FidoNet Association                       | (*) |  \   )) |
     |         Newsletter               ______       |__U__| /  \//  |
     |                                 / FIDO \       _//|| _\   /   |
     |                                (________)     (_/(_|(____/    |
     |                                                     (jm)      |
     +---------------------------------------------------------------+
     Editor in Chief:                                  Vince Perriello
     Editors Emeritii:                                     Dale Lovell
                                                        Thom Henderson
     Chief Procrastinator Emeritus:                       Tom Jennings
     
     FidoNews  is  published  weekly  by  the  International   FidoNet
     Association  as  its  official newsletter.  You are encouraged to
     submit articles for publication in FidoNews.  Article  submission
     standards  are contained in the file ARTSPEC.DOC,  available from
     node 1:1/1.    1:1/1  is  a Continuous Mail system, available for
     network mail 24 hours a day.
     
     Copyright 1989 by  the  International  FidoNet  Association.  All
     rights  reserved.  Duplication  and/or distribution permitted for
     noncommercial purposes only.  For  use  in  other  circumstances,
     please contact IFNA at (314) 576-4067. IFNA may also be contacted
     at PO Box 41143, St. Louis, MO 63141.
     
     Fido  and FidoNet  are registered  trademarks of  Tom Jennings of
     Fido Software,  164 Shipley Avenue,  San Francisco, CA  94107 and
     are used with permission.
     
     We  don't necessarily agree with the contents  of  every  article
     published  here.  Most of these materials are  unsolicited.    No
     article will be rejected which is properly attributed and legally
     acceptable.    We   will  publish  every  responsible  submission
     received.


                        Table of Contents
     1. EDITORIAL  ................................................  1
     2. ARTICLES  .................................................  2
        A European Response  ......................................  2
        The European Situation  ...................................  4
        "FOOLS" in FidoNet  .......................................  8
        FidoCon '89 Update  .......................................  9
        Thoughts on the Nodelist  ................................. 14
        An April Fool joke that wasn't  ........................... 22
        European Autonomy and Domestic Meddlers  .................. 31
     3. COLUMNS  .................................................. 32
        The Lost FidoNet Archives - Volume 3  ..................... 32
     And more!
     FidoNews 6-25                Page 1                   19 Jun 1989


     =================================================================
                                 EDITORIAL
     =================================================================

     Hello, I'm  back.    Thanks to Harry Lee for assembling files and
     running  MAKENEWS  last week (and the hour or two  of  work  that
     precedes and follows that).

     There seems to be  no  lack of articles about FidoNet these days.
     I think that's just fine.   Glad  to  see  it.    Maybe  a little
     controversy will get us all more interested  in  what this is all
     about.  At the very least it will warm up the old varicose veins!

     This week there are a number of articles  about the initiative(s)
     taken recently in Zone 2, two of them in  response  to  an earler
     article  by  Daniel  Tobias,  and one by TJ, which addresses  the
     issue in his usual brief but cutting fashion.  There is also more
     material by Daniel, and by Jack Decker.   Isn't there anyone else
     in Zone 1 who has something to say?    These guys are so prolific
     they're putting you all to shame ...

     This week  we're  restarting  the  "Lost FidoNet archives" series
     after a one-week  hiatus.    We've  gotten some more stuff and it
     should be running for a while now.

     On  to other things:  the "Current Versions" page in FidoNews has
     recently been  accused  of  an  unreasonable bias towards certain
     compression methods and  computing platforms.  To address this, I
     feel that we would  have  to  expand  this  page  to a relatively
     unreasonable length for a weekly  repeat.  How does everyone feel
     about opening this page up to  a  monthly  section, with coverage
     for additional software, and for non-MSDOS systems?

     Finally,  somewhere  (I  believe  that it was in Daniel's article
     last  week  or  so)  there  was  some  mention  of  turnaround in
     FidoNews.  Basically, I try to keep a two or three week retention
     on stories, but if things back up I'll move more stuff.  Or, if a
     story has particular immediate relevance,  I'll  try  to  get  it
     right in.  I know a  couple  of  things  fell by the wayside last
     week because I didn't notice them before  I  sent  everything  to
     Harry, but in general, that's the way it will work.

     Well, on to the rest of the newsletter. Enjoy!

     -----------------------------------------------------------------
     FidoNews 6-25                Page 2                   19 Jun 1989


     =================================================================
                                 ARTICLES
     =================================================================

                           A European Response"

                              by John Burden
                                2:255/112

     Reading  the  recent  article  by  Daniel  Tobias  regarding  the
     "European situation" was  a  depressing  experience  in  that  it
     seemed to typify some  of  the  reasons why Europeans feel out of
     tune with IFNA and want a more democratic structure.


     Daniel seems to miss the fact that POLICY4E has been in force for
     12 months in Europe without any apparent disapproval by IFNA.  It
     is hard to know how the Europeans  voted  on  POLICY4.06  as  all
     we've  seen  reported so far are the global  figures.    But  I'd
     hazard a guess that several of the NO votes  were  from this side
     of  the Atlantic.  (And while we're talking about votes,  take  a
     few  moments to look in the current world nodelist, see how  many
     nodes there are in total, then see how many folks actually wanted
     POLICY4.06 enough to say so.  Did someone say 152?)

     Like it or not, it is a sad fact that IFNA and democracy seem not
     to know  each  other  very  well.  If you are minded to challenge
     this claim, just  cast your eyes on a recent copy of Fidonews and
     see how many (do I mean how few?) directors there are in Zone 2.

     Fidonet will probably always  have  an  inbuilt American majority
     for many valid reasons.   For  that  very  reason I believe it is
     incumbent  upon  IFNA  to  ensure  that    there    is   adequate
     representation for zones outside zone 1, so  that these zones may
     have a meaningful voice.

     Whilst  I  believe that Daniel's reference to a  "Declaration  of
     Independence" was tongue-in-cheek, let us carry on with that  for
     just  a  few  more  lines.    The  UK  has  a   long  history  of
     colonisation, as do many other European nations.  However, except
     way back in  the  darkest days of colonialism, we *did* allow our
     colonies to vote AND  TO  HAVE SELF-GOVERNING STATUS.  So, if the
     analogy to colonial times is  relevant, so is our claim to have a
     meaningful voice.

     Unless Daniel and I have read  different  versions  of a proposed
     European Fidonet policy, I think he may  be mistaken when he says
     we want to be "not subject to overall FidoNet policy".  I read it
     with entirely the opposite understanding, namely, that we want to
     be free to make our own zone policy, but subject  to overall IFNA
     policy.    What  we  are  asking is that the overall IFNA  policy
     should permit such self-governing at zone level.

     The claim  that  the  American  coordinator shouldn't have to pay
     long  distance charges  to  distribute  a  nodelist  including  a
     lengthy list of European nodes is so far wide of the mark that it
     FidoNews 6-25                Page 3                   19 Jun 1989


     can't go unchallenged.  The  reality  is  the exact opposite (and
     always will be as long as  North  American  nodes  outnumber  the
     rest),  namely  that here in Europe, with  our  higher  telephone
     charges, we pay a LOT of money shunting  an  enormous US nodelist
     around.

     In his article, Daniel claimed " the Europeans ...    should  ...
     work  within the system to get a POLICY4 passed that  allows  for
     wide  latitude  for  zone policies taking into account the varied
     circumstances of  different world regions." Well, we weren't even
     going so far as wanting "wide" latitude, just a bit more latitude
     and a bit more democracy.

     The idea to charge  nodes  a  fee  to  operate  within Fidonet in
     Europe  is  not  something  that   Daniel  is  alone  in  finding
     controversial.  Whilst most UK sysops  are reported to be against
     the idea.  I can see benefits  in  it.    Personally,  I don't go
     along with the idea that *Cs should have to dig deep all the time
     just to fulfil their roles effectively.  OK, I  know  a lot of us
     finish up out of pocket because we're doing something we chose to
     do as a hobby, but that just isn't good enough if  someone has to
     attend meetings, briefings, deputations,  etc  on  a  continental
     basis.  This is particularly relevant in Europe at the moment, as
     here in the UK we have  a  draft  Parliamentary  Bill  that  will
     effectively outlaw bulletin board systems.

     In conclusion his article in Fidonews 623,  Daniel says "I'd like
     to  see  FidoNet  preserved  as  an  international network,  held
     together  by  one consistent policy statement (with some latitude
     allowed  for  local policies within the constraints of the global
     one).  As we are asking for exactly that for Europe, it sounds as
     though we might still be talking the same language after all.

     Comments, etc to John Burden on 2:255/112.

     -----------------------------------------------------------------
     FidoNews 6-25                Page 4                   19 Jun 1989


     The European Situation, an informed perspective
     By Ron Dwight ZC2
     2:515/1


        This article  is  my reaction to an article in FidoNews 623 by
     one Daniel Tobias of 1:380/7.   I  am disturbed that the Fidonews
     editorial  staff would publish such an article  without  checking
     into the facts of the matter beforehand.   Anyway,  on  with  the
     article, my first for FidoNews.

        Zone  2 has been operating, quite successfully under POLICY-4E
     for almost 18 months.   The  only  critisism of this, that I have
     read has been within the last  few  weeks.    If other zones have
     been  so  concerned  about  zone 2 operating  under  a  different
     policy, why have we heard nothing of this  before  this  time?  I
     suggest  the reason is that POLICY-4E and POLICY-3 mesh  so  well
     together that there has been and will be no problem with this.

        As  to  the  statement that this amounts to a "Declaration  of
     Independance" by the European nodes, I feel  this  is  an extreme
     overreaction  to  a  statement which has NEVER BEEN  MADE.    The
     situation in zone 2 is vastly different to that  in  zone  1.  We
     have  many different languages and cultures to contend with.   We
     do not have the benefit of a common regulatory system within  the
     various  PTT's  and  what  may  be perfectly legal in one country
     (region) may well be unlawful in another.

        Zone 2, Europe as you call it (wrongly), has no desire at this
     point in time to break away, be divided from, removed from, split
     apart or in any other way severed from, any of the other zones in
     FidoNet.  Zone 2  has  special  needs due to it's special nature.
     These needs must be addressed  if  we  are  to proceed, as we ALL
     wish, in an orderly manner to a better FidoNet.

     QUOTE from Danial Tobias:

        As a Libertarian politically, I have no moral objection to the
     European nodes declaring independence from the  Americans,  which
     sort of turns the tables on the Americans who did a similar thing
     to Europe over 200 years ago.

        However,  I'm not entirely thrilled with the manner  in  which
     they did it.  They  are  claiming  to  be  fully  autonomous  and
     self-governing, not subject to overall FidoNet  policy,  but yet,
     they still consider themselves part of the  FidoNet,  and  are in
     the nodelist distributed in zones 1, 3, and  4  as  well as their
     zone.

     END quote

        I am sorry that Mr.  Tobias is "not entirely thrilled with the
     manner in which  they  did it".  I repeat Mr.  Tobias, it has not
     been done and I  object  in  the strongest possible terms to your
     stating that it has.   The  remarks you have made here seem to be
     designed to fuel a fire dissention between zone 2 and the rest of
     FidoNews 6-25                Page 5                   19 Jun 1989


     FidoNet, a fire which is non-existant and totally unnecessary.


     QUOTE from Danial Tobias:

        It seems to me, if they want  their  full  independence,  they
     should  have to leave FidoNet altogether, and become a  different
     network like  AlterNet  and  EggNet.   Under those circumstances,
     they would no  longer  be  in  the  FidoNet nodelist, or have the
     rights to the name  FidoNet  under  Tom Jennings' license, unless
     they engaged in separate negotiations  to secure such privileges.
     After all, why should the American coordinator structure pay long
     distance  charges  to distribute a nodelist including  a  lengthy
     list  of  European  nodes, if those nodes refuse  to  accept  the
     authority  of the FidoNet Policy which is supposed to  cover  ALL
     zones?

     END quote

        Your reaction above seems to be due to the zone 2 rejection of
     the proposed POLICY (4.06).    Mr.    Tobias, the proposed policy
     document was placed for a  democratic  vote  by the *C structure.
     The  votes from zone 2 overwhealmingly  rejected  this  proposal.
     This is democracy in action and people  letting their opinions be
     known.  I get the impression from your  article that a democratic
     vote is ok as long as eveyone goes along with your opinion.  Free
     speech  is about people being able to express their own  opinions
     and have that expression respected.  I see absolutely no need  of
     reactions  such  as,  "They (zone 2) don't agree with us (zone 1)
     therefore they  must  be  reactionaries and should no longer be a
     part of Fidonet."  Forgive me if I misinterpret your article, but
     this is how it comes across on this side of the water.

     QUOTE from Danial Tobias:

        As for the specific  elements  of  European  policy,  the most
     controversial one is their mandatory fee  for  nodes.  That's the
     element  most in conflict with existing policy,  and  some  might
     argue it contravenes the general spirit of FidoNet.    That  more
     than anything else might compel European nodes to leave  FidoNet,
     since I don't know if the rest of the network would be willing to
     adopt  a policy permitting zones (and perhaps regions or nets) to
     impose  mandatory  charges.    That  would  open up a real can of
     worms;   even  if  it is permitted, some controls would likely be
     placed to prevent  the  possibility  of profiteering NCs, RCs, or
     ZCs imposing excessive charges for their personal profit.

     END quote

        Please read the first sentence of the above quotation at least
     twice.  You are stating, as  a  matter  of  record, that European
     policy specifically requires a mandatory fee.   Could  you kindly
     send me a copy of this "European policy"  which  contains  such a
     statement?  For your information and the ACCURATE information  of
     Fidonet,  no such document exists and no such document has  every
     been written.  POLICY-3 does not contain such a clause, POLICY-4E
     FidoNews 6-25                Page 6                   19 Jun 1989


     does not  contain  such  a clause, the proposal which I have been
     working on and  which,  at  this point, I alone have been working
     on, does not contain  such a clause.  Your, incorrect, statements
     concerning  this  matter  are inflammatory  in  the  extreme  and
     excessively annoying.

        I just love this mention of the "Spirit of FidoNet."  Where do
     you obtain this belief as to  what  FidoNet  actually is?  I have
     never seen, in any FidoNews, in an  article, in any communication
     from  TJ  or  in  any policy, that Fidonet  should  be  free  and
     financially  supported by the few who can afford it.    I  firmly
     believe  that FidoNet provides the means for global communication
     but it  does not provide the means for financing same.  We should
     not allow FidoNet  to  bleed  dry,  those who would support us as
     this path does not lead us to future stability.

        For your information:   At  EuroCon III it was decided that an
     attempt should be made to establish  a  European  organisation to
     benefit Fidonet in zone 2.  Among  other  things,  the  folks  at
     EuroCon III felt it would be necessary to  charge  a fee to every
     node in zone 2 in order for this organisation  to  operate  in  a
     successful manner.  The majority of people at EuroCon III, please
     read that again, felt that in order to ensure the future  success
     and  stability  of  this  organisation,  the fee would have to be
     mandatory.  There is absolutely nothing in any policy document of
     which I am  aware  which  states that a zone, region, net or node
     must pay any fee in order to be a part of FidoNet.

        I sincerely believe that a mandatory fee is SIGNIFICANTLY more
     democratic than the way we operate at the present time due to the
     need for people who are  willing  to  help finance Fidonet mearly
     because it is something they believe  in.   The present situation
     demands the help of organisations or somewhat wealthy individuals
     in order to operate the more senior positions.    The post of ZC2
     has already cost me more than I can really  afford  and that cost
     is expected to rise when the nodelist comes to my  second system.
     Is  it  reasonable  to  limit the responsible posts ONLY to those
     that can  afford  them,  when  there  is  significant  talent and
     dedication available from those who wish to see Fidonet improve.

        Zone 1 has already demonstrated that an organisation which has
     no mandatory membership fails badly.  Have you ever heard of IFNA
     having sufficient funding to support  the  IC  and  ZC's?  It was
     tried with Ken Kaplan and Ben  Baker,  but failed.  The proposals
     and I repeat they are PROPOSALS issued  from EuroCon III were for
     an organisation to help FidoNet and to provide  some  small means
     of  financial support to keep the vital lifeblood flowing.    The
     initial  suggestion was for a fee from each and every  node,  but
     was later changed to be from each and every net.   This  allows a
     much  larger degree of freedom for the collection of the required
     fee.   I  also  believe  that  this would involve the SysOps to a
     greater degree in the operation and wellbeing of FidoNet.

        Perhaps a couple MORE examples give some food for thought:

     1)  The zonegate in region 30 attempted to obtain voluntary
     FidoNews 6-25                Page 7                   19 Jun 1989


         donations to keep running.  It failed.

     2)  They also attempted to start an Echo to discuss the problem
         It failed also.

     3)  The TAP project.  Voluntary contributions in NO WAY account
         for enough money to make it work.

        I will even  go  so  far  as  to  making  the following public
     announcement.  While I am  zone  coordinator  of  zone 2, no node
     will be forced to pay a  mandatory  fee  to  be a part of FidoNet
     unless such a payment has been previously agreed by a majority of
     the SysOps, who care to vote, in zone  2.    In  other  words, in
     order  for  the European organisation to come into being  with  a
     right  to  collect a mandatory fee from each net, the  SysOps  of
     zone  2  must  agree  to  this  by  a  simple majority.   I  will
     personally organise  such a referendum when more has been decided
     by the steering  committee  for  the  formation  of  the European
     organisation.  Until such  a time, it would be deeply appreciated
     if rumour and misinformation were not spread.


     QUOTE from Danial Tobias:

        In  conclusion,  I'd  like to  see  FidoNet  preserved  as  an
     international network,  held  together  by  one consistent policy
     statement (with some  latitude  allowed for local policies within
     the constraints of the  global  one).  If other systems, wherever
     in the world they may  be  located,  wish  to carry on networking
     under different rules, they've got every  right  to  do  so,  but
     they're not then part of FidoNet.

     END quote

        In  conclusion,  I basically agree with the  above  statement,
     except that I feel  very  strongly  that  FidoNet  should adopt a
     truly world policy, containing little  more  than a definition of
     Fidonet,  it's  history  and  the very  highest  levels  of  it's
     organisation and ZMH's.  It would then  leave  all  zone specific
     matters  to  each zone, which would create similar  policies  and
     allow  each  region to neccessarily create it's own local  policy
     according to it's own needs.

        I see little or no need for the very highest levels of FidoNet
     organisation to concern itself with  matters  pertaining  to  the
     very lowest levels.  FidoNet has  to  work, the various componant
     parts  have  to  mesh  together in a  friendly  and  co-operative
     manner.  This is 'still' a hobby?


                                                 Cheers,

     Ron Dwight, ZC2

     -----------------------------------------------------------------
     FidoNews 6-25                Page 8                   19 Jun 1989


     "FOOLS" in FidoNet
     A rebuttal for Jack Decker
     Mike Ratledge, 1:372/666

     Jack, you  know  that  I have really been pretty quiet lately and
     haven't bothered to respond to your flames, but the trash you put
     in last week's FidoNews  regarding  Pete  White  surely caught my
     eye, since you  chose  to dig out an eight-month old message from
     *me* to make your point.

     When Butch Walker asked me to  commandeer ECHOPOL and get it to a
     vote right after he resigned, several things were presented to me
     as "givens" and not to be voted on  either  due  to the fact that
     they were obvious or requirements of the ZEC/NEC system.  Since I
     have no true authority to do any of this, except  that granted by
     Butch  which  was  later  confirmed by David Dodell (another long
     story <grin>...), I didn't really have much input on those items,
     beyond the fact that they were required.

     One  of  those things  was  the  prohibition  of  random  message
     delivery across regional boundaries for "backbone" echos.

     I know you like to  pick  up  on  things and take them under your
     wing as you have a personal  zeal  -  just  like  me - to see the
     network work better.  The fact of  the  matter  is that I *could*
     have  worded  my "fools" comment better - it  was  certainly  not
     addressed  to  Jack Decker, and perhaps I should have  made  that
     "foolish people".

     Another  fact  is that there will always be those foolish  people
     that ignore the good of the masses and take it upon themselves to
     break things!

     And - there will always be fools like me that really *are* trying
     to make FidoNet a better place for us.

     -----------------------------------------------------------------
     FidoNews 6-25                Page 9                   19 Jun 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 6-25                Page 10                  19 Jun 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 6-25                Page 11                  19 Jun 1989


                          Some More Comments
                           by Daniel Tobias
                                1:380/7

     Here are a few more comments since I wrote my last article,
     which appeared in FidoNews 624.

     First of all, I somehow managed to get my own node number
     wrong when I asked for comments in reply (though I wrote it
     correctly at the head of the article).  It's 380/7, not
     380/2, which was the number of a system I used to run which
     no longer exists.  I apologize for any inconvenience this
     caused.  Remember, send all constructive comments about my
     article to 1:380/7.  (Personal attacks, as always, should go
     to NUL: on MS-DOS systems, or \dev\nul on UNIX machines.)

     I see that POLICY4 has passed.  I feel this is a good thing,
     even though I disagree with some elements of this policy.
     The rampant factionalism in FidoNet has pretty much stifled
     progress of any sort for several years, so I'm glad to see
     something moving forward, even if not in the direction I
     would prefer.  That's better than going nowhere.  The old
     POLICY3 had many obsolete elements, such as the lack of
     reference to zones, that needed to be corrected, and it is
     only the infighting and factionalism that prevented a
     POLICY4 from being enacted long ago.  Now, a new policy is
     in effect, with a clearly-defined means by which it can be
     further changed; this is a good thing, and will hopefully
     end the stagnation and allow for significant progress in the
     future.

     Some people, I hear, are questioning the validity of the
     process by which POLICY4 has been ratified; while they may
     have some cogent arguments (after all, POLICY3 didn't give
     any means of amendment, and it is a circular argument to
     refer to POLICY4's amendment procedure to determine the
     correct way of enacting itself), I fervently hope that they
     do not press their argument to the point of leading to civil
     war within the net over the question of whether POLICY4
     should be considered to be in effect or not.  This would
     only lead to yet another round of infighting and backbiting,
     and stifle further progress for years to come.  It's much
     better to use the means provided for POLICY5 ratification to
     place a new policy into effect that handles the criticisms
     of the present one, and that is the tack I intend to take.

     It appears that by present policy the only way a POLICY
     amendment can even legally be proposed is by the approval of
     a majority of the RCs.  I have no idea what their reaction
     will be when I come out with my proposed POLICY5 document;
     they could suppress it by refusing to even consider it.  One
     regrettable feature of POLICY4 is the oligarchic powers
     granted the RCs; they select both the ZCs and the NCs, and
     can suppress any consideration of POLICY change.  They
     maintain that they're not seeking personal power, and I
     fervently hope they are right.  If they're not seeking power
     FidoNews 6-25                Page 12                  19 Jun 1989


     for themselves, then maybe they will give consideration to
     amendments which will reduce their power somewhat, if
     presented in the context of an entire POLICY5 proposal
     designed to benefit FidoNet as a whole.  One can hope,
     anyway.

     Some more notes on geographical exceptions:  It may be
     relevant to consider what other organizations with
     geographically-defined regions and local chapters do in this
     regard.  For instance, Mensa has regions and chapters which
     are defined in terms of zip-code ranges.  However, members
     may elect to be a member of a different local chapter, and
     needn't get the approval of any official to do this.  Maybe
     somebody has more loyalty to his old hometown than to the
     place he currently lives, or is planning on moving soon to
     another city and wishes to begin receiving his new town's
     local newsletter a few months ahead, or maybe he's just got
     more friends on the other side of the regional boundary than
     in the one to which he officially belongs.  All of these are
     reasons somebody might choose to join a different local
     chapter, but at any rate, Mensa doesn't demand any reason or
     explanation.  To the best of my knowledge, no problems have
     been caused by this policy.  While Mensa has had its share
     of factionalism and disputes (not unlike FidoNet), none of
     them involve the making of exceptions to geography.  (During
     one local conflict, it was suggested by a member of the
     losing faction that they switch their affiliation en masse
     to an out-of-state group which they could then outnumber the
     locals in and dominate its policy; however, this was never
     actually attempted.  If it was, I don't know what national
     Mensa would do about it.)

     At any rate, it seems like organizations can allow members
     to join out-of-town chapters without it causing undue
     problems.  Some exception might need to be made to prevent
     blatant political tactics (like excommunicated nodes
     rejoining the nodelist in a different region, coordinators
     signing up all of their out-of-town friends to enhance their
     power in FidoNet politics, etc.), but in general I see
     nothing wrong with a node being allowed to join where its
     sysop feels he fits best, even if it doesn't conform to his
     strict geographical place.  Such arrangements should be
     between the sysop and his net coordinator (or region
     coordinator if an independent node), with other coordinators
     only being allowed to butt in if some clear harm is being
     done to FidoNet by that particular geographical exception.
     (e.g., if it imposes excessive costs on other nodes, or
     assists the node involved in bypassing POLICY in some
     manner.)

     At any rate, once I write up a POLICY5 proposal, I'll make
     it available for file-request on my system, and publish
     excerpts from it in FidoNews.  (I won't send the whole thing
     here, since that would make for a very massive FidoNews, and
     most of the text will probably be the same as POLICY4
     anyway.  I'll just send in the major changes, and let you
     FidoNews 6-25                Page 13                  19 Jun 1989


     request the file from me if you want to examine the whole
     thing.)  Then, the next step will be to try to find people
     who agree with my proposals, and see if I can get the RCs to
     place it on the table for consideration.  I don't know what
     extent of lobbying is needed to accomplish this, but I'll
     find out as I go along.  If the RCs turn out to be dead set
     against any amendment that cuts their power (such as
     providing some bottom-up democracy, adding a way of
     proposing POLICY changes that bypasses the RCs, and reducing
     RC authority over geographical exemptions), it could prove
     necessary to rally large masses of grunt sysops and NCs in
     support of the amendment to convince the RCs to change their
     minds.

     Anyway, input from any concerned sysop is encouraged.

     I've already gotten some feedback (despite the wrong address
     given).

     One point raised by a couple of people is that it would be
     better to let separate policy amendments be voted on
     individually instead of as a whole document.  That will take
     a little thought; due to the interrelatedness of the whole
     document, it's hard to make piecemeal changes without
     revising the whole thing.  But maybe something can be worked
     out; for instance, two separate methods of amendment, one to
     make sweeping changes by proposing an entire revised
     document, and another (simpler) method to propose minor
     revisions via a list of specific changes referenced by
     paragraph number.  What do others think about this?

     -----------------------------------------------------------------
     FidoNews 6-25                Page 14                  19 Jun 1989


     Jack Decker
     Fidonet 1:154/8  LCRnet 77:1011/8

     Do you wonder why, if this is supposed to be a hobby and we're
     all supposed to be having fun, that sometimes it seems like
     we're all in the middle of a raging civil war?   Do you ever
     wonder if we really need the layers of bureaucracy, and pages
     of Policy that are part of Fidonet?  Do you ever wish that
     we could all just communicate and have a good time and forget
     all the politics?  Then don't skip the following article...


                         THOUGHTS ON THE NODELIST

     We're all familiar with the Fidonet nodelist.  When we first
     start out in Fidonet, we need to obtain a copy in order to
     communicate with other Fidonet nodes.  Thereafter, we need to
     apply weekly nodediffs to keep it current.  Many of us have
     automated our batch files so that when a new nodediff shows up,
     our systems automatically process it to create the latest
     nodelist, without us having to even think about it (much to the
     chagrin of the nodelist creators, who would like us to read the
     comments that often appear at the front of the nodediffs).

     For that reason, we rarely stop to think about the role the
     nodelist plays in Fidonet.  But let's consider some things
     about the nodelist.

     First, what is it, really?  Reduced to its simplest level, it's
     just a directory of nodes using compatible software to exchange
     mail packets.  In that respect, it's much like a telephone
     directory.  In fact, by comparing the nodelist with a telephone
     directory, we can come perhaps come up with some new ways of
     thinking about the nodelist.

     A telephone directory lists "nodes" (businesses and residences)
     that have compatible equipment (telephones) that can be used
     for communication.  Now, there are different types of telephone
     directories.  There are the directories published by the
     telephone companies, which list anyone with a telephone who
     wants to be listed.  But there are also private telephone
     directories.  For example, many organizations publish
     directories of their members.  In order to have your phone
     number listed in a particular organization's directory, you
     have to be a member of the organization.  Some churches publish
     directories of their members.  In order to be listed in their
     directories, you have to be a member (or in some cases, just a
     regular attendee) of that church.

     The Fidonet nodelist, and indeed, all the "other" net
     nodelists, are also private directories.  There is not, at the
     present time, a nodelist that will list any node that runs
     Fidonet-compatible hardware and software, regardless of whether
     or not they wish to be affiliated with the Network publishing
     the nodelist.  This is an important distinction.  At the
     present time, all nodelists are published by a Network, whether
     FidoNews 6-25                Page 15                  19 Jun 1989


     it be Fidonet, Alternet, Eggnet, LCRnet, etc.  These Networks
     only publish the listings of individual "Nets" and nodes that
     have affiliated with that Network.  There is no "public"
     nodelist that will publish the listing of any "Net" or node,
     regardless of which Network that "Net" is affiliated with.

     Why do people want to be listed in the telephone directory in
     the first place?  It's so others can communicate with them.  If
     someone knows your name, and the city you live in, they can
     look in the directory (or get the Directory Assistance operator
     to do it) and find out everything they need to communicate with
     you (your phone number).  You can choose to remain unlisted in
     the directory, but then only those who already know how to
     communicate with you will be able to do so.  Much the same is
     true of a nodelist listing.  There are situations where nodes
     exist that can be reached (either directly or through a Net
     somewhere), but because they aren't listed in the nodelist,
     only those who know about those nodes can reach them.  In
     Fidonet, there's the additional problem that some pieces of
     software (e.g. Opus 1.03b) will refuse to send messages to
     nodes not listed in the nodelist.  So, not being listed in the
     nodelist can make your node virtually unreachable to everyone
     except those who already know how to go about getting mail to
     you.

     Now a word about copyrights (if you couldn't care less about
     them, feel free to skip this and the next two paragraphs).  The
     telephone directory is copyrighted.  So is the Fidonet
     nodelist.  But, in both cases it is what is known as a
     "compilation copyright".  A "compilation" is the act of taking
     individual pieces of information, which individually may or may
     not be in the public domain, and collecting and publishing them
     in one single work.  Even though the individual pieces of
     information may not be copyrighted, the collection of those
     pieces of information is copyrightable.  You may have seen
     collections of "public domain" software programs on diskettes.
     The individual programs are still public domain, but the
     collection of programs on that disk may be copyrighted.  If the
     disk is copyrighted under a "compilation copyright", then you
     are still perfectly free to give away individual programs from
     that disk to others, but legally, you can't just start making
     full disk copies of that disk and start selling them for
     profit.

     Your name and telephone number are not copyrighted.  But, the
     telephone directory IS copyrighted.  No one can simply
     photocopy the pages out of the phone book, place them in their
     own directory, and start selling that.  In fact, they can't
     even simply re-type the listings out of the phone directory
     into the pages of their directory.  So, you may ask, how do all
     those "alternative" and "area-wide" phone directories manage to
     publish without being the targets of lawsuits initiated by the
     phone company?  In one of two ways... either they buy the
     listings (and the rights to re-publish them) from the phone
     company, or they obtain the listings by some means other than
     by copying them from the directory.  For example, they could do
     FidoNews 6-25                Page 16                  19 Jun 1989


     door-to-door canvassing, asking each resident for their name
     and phone number.  If they obtain the names, addresses, and
     phone numbers through independent means, without simply copying
     them from the telephone company's directory, then they can
     publish them without any legal liability even though many of
     the listings will probably duplicate those in the telephone
     directory.

     The information on your BBS that you provide to your Net
     Coordinator for inclusion in the Fidonet nodelist is not
     copyrighted.  In fact, the nodelists for each individual "Net"
     in Fidonet are not copyrighted.  When the Net Coordinator sends
     them to the RC, they do not bear a copyright notice (at least
     not in any Net that I'm aware of, though it's possible that
     some individual Nets do place a compilation copyright on their
     Net nodelists).  Your NC could just as easily send the same
     list to someone who publishes a list of local BBS's in your
     city (and that often happens).  It's only when the listings are
     collected into the complete Fidonet nodelist, and the
     "compilation copyright" is attached, that the listings become
     copyrighted.  If someone gathers information on individual
     nodes in a Net, or even if they get the entire nodelist for a
     single Net from the NC (assuming the Net's nodelist is not
     copyrighted, or that they obtain permission to use it), they
     can include those listings in a larger nodelist without
     violating the Fidonet nodelist copyright.  Once again, the key
     is that the listings were gathered by independent means, not
     simply copied from the Fidonet nodelist.

     Now, there is one big difference between the telephone
     directory and the Fidonet nodelist.  Your telephone directory
     listing is never used for disciplinary purposes.  If you make
     obscene phone calls, you might go to jail, but as long as are
     connected to the telephone system you have the right to be
     listed in the phone book.  If you hurl a letter to the branch
     manager of your local telephone company that contains nasty
     insults, he may get quite upset with you, but unless he wants
     to face the wrath of his employers and the Public Utilities
     Commission of your state (not to mention the possibility of a
     nasty lawsuit), he had better not retaliate by deleting your
     listing from the telephone directory.

     But in Fidonet, your nodelist listing can be cut for
     disciplinary reasons.  The reason is because, as pointed out
     above, the Fidonet nodelist is really a private nodelist.  It's
     not so much that you are being dropped from the nodelist as
     that you are being dropped as a member of Fidonet (for all
     practical purposes, they are one and the same).

     Now we come to the whole point of this discussion.  The main
     reason that many sysops have joined Fidonet in the first place
     was so that their systems could be listed in Fidonet's
     telephone directory, which as it happens is (at the present
     time) the largest such listing of compatible systems around.
     Some sysops might say that they joined to get echomail, but
     that can also be seen as a function of being listed in the
     FidoNews 6-25                Page 17                  19 Jun 1989


     nodelist, because if the nearest source of echomail is listed
     only in the Fidonet nodelist, and uses only the Fidonet
     nodelist as his system's "phone book", then you have to be
     listed in that same "phone book" before that system can send
     echomail to you, and you yourself will have to use that "phone
     book" to send echomail to him.

     What I suspect is that many of you that are sysops didn't
     realize at the time you joined Fidonet was that you were not
     just signing up to be listed in the nodelist, you were also
     joining a private organization.  You were joining an
     organization that imposes rules on the conduct of its members,
     and that disciplines members that don't follow the rules by
     removing them from the organization's telephone directory.  Not
     only that, but you were joining an organization in which the
     members have little or no say in the formulation or enforcement
     of the rules.  You were joining an organization that had a
     certain philosophy on how sysops within the net should be
     "governed" (in my humble opinion, a philosophy that would be
     right at home in the government of countries like Panama or
     Communist China).

     What I hear from a lot of Fidonet sysops is, "Hey, I joined
     Fidonet so that I could communicate with other systems, get my
     echomail, and have some fun.  I didn't join to have the leaders
     of some organization tell me how to run my system!"  And if you
     stop and think about it, that's really the truth.  I'd guess
     that fully 90% of the sysops in Fidonet really don't care what
     happens at the higher levels of Fidonet, except when it
     directly affect them.  When you get right down to it, their
     MAIN reason for joining Fidonet was to get into the Fidonet
     nodelist, so that they could send and receive echomail and (in
     fewer cases) netmail.  The truth is that most sysops really
     don't give a you-know-what about Fidonet as an organization
     (particularly at any level above that of their own Net)... they
     just want to be in the Fidonet "phone book" (which will in turn
     allow them to send and receive echomail).

     This is not a happy situation from either the point of view of
     the *C structure or the common sysop.  The *C structure would
     like to "run a tight ship", with an organization of like-minded
     sysops all pulling together toward the same goals.  They are
     visibly distressed by the "apathy" they see in Fidonet, and
     even more upset by those sysops who challenge the current
     structure.  On the other hand, the average sysop either ignores
     or resents the attempts to impose "structure" or "discipline"
     on him or his system.  He just wants to communicate and have
     fun!  So we have an organization divided against itself, and
     like a nation divided against itself, such an organization
     cannot stand for long.

     If you still have trouble understanding this, let me try and
     paint a mental scenario that might help.  Suppose you have a
     club of people who collect stamps.  The club directors, in an
     effort to make the hobby more interesting, start showing films
     about the countries and people behind the stamps, and in order
     FidoNews 6-25                Page 18                  19 Jun 1989


     to boost attendance at their club meetings, they advertise
     these films in the local newspaper.  And it works!  Attendance
     increases by a phenomenal amount in the following year.  But,
     it soon becomes apparent that most of the new members of the
     club aren't really interested in collecting stamps... they're
     interested in viewing travel films!  And now, some of them are
     starting insist that the directors of the club devote the
     majority of the meetings to viewing travelogues, and to spend
     relatively little time on stamp collecting business, which they
     consider boring and not too relevant to their interests.
     Obviously, that club has a problem!  The leaders and some of
     the old time members have much different expectations for the
     club than the newer members, who are now in the majority.

     A similar situation exists in Fidonet.  You might say that
     Fidonet is a victim of its own success.  The leaders and some
     of the long-time members of Fidonet have one set of goals,
     while the newcomers (many of whom were attracted by the fact
     that Fidonet had the largest "phone book" of compatible system
     with which they could exchange echomail and netmail) in many
     cases have a completely different vision of what Fidonet should
     be.  Is either group totally in the wrong?  Not really.  Going
     back to the stamp club example, the old timers would argue that
     it was a stamp club in the beginning, and the newcomers are
     trying to change its original intent, while the newcomers would
     argue that they're simply asking for more of the very thing
     that the leaders used to attract them to the club in the first
     place!

     In the club example, the smart thing to do might be to start a
     travel club for those interested in viewing the travelogues,
     and get the stamp club back to its original purpose.  But if
     the leaders of the stamp club can't stand to let go of the
     members that just aren't interested in stamps... if they figure
     they can't afford to lose the dues money, or they perceive that
     they will lose power if the membership splits, or they figure
     it's super impressive to others to be able to say they're the
     leaders of the largest stamp club in the state, or if they take
     the attitude that "these new members should like stamps, and if
     we try hard enough we can force 'em to take an interest in
     stamps whether they want to or not!", they're going to have
     REAL problems.  Eventually the leaders may wind up being
     replaced by folks who don't really care about stamps at all,
     but only after a long, bitter, and divisive struggle!

     Hopefully, I won't have to explain the parallels between the
     above example and what's happening in Fidonet.  The thing that
     I think we have all lost sight of is that the vast majority of
     systems that have come into Fidonet in the last couple of years
     have been attracted to the network by the availability of
     echomail.  I would even daresay that most sysops see echomail
     as a low cost alternative to commercial services such as
     CompuServe or Genie.  That is the main reason most of the newer
     sysops joined Fidonet.  Small wonder, then, that they are by
     and large unimpressed with actions that are primarily intended
     to facilitate the movement of netmail (or to achieve some other
     FidoNews 6-25                Page 19                  19 Jun 1989


     nebulous goals), particularly when those actions have the
     result of increasing their costs to receive echomail.

     What is the solution for Fidonet?  I know a lot of people won't
     like this thought (particularly those in the present *C
     structure), but I feel the only real, workable solution (and
     the only one that will allow Fidonet to return to its original
     intent, as the *C structure seems to desire) is to return
     Fidonet to a smaller group of like-minded sysops with common
     goals (I've actually read the comments of some *C's who have
     said that they believe things were much better in Fidonet when
     there were only a couple of hundred nodes.  If that's what they
     REALLY want, let's let them return to those happy times!).
     Everyone else should be listed in a new, public nodelist that
     is not controlled by any individual Network, but rather that is
     open to all "Nets" and the nodes in those Nets.  I hope to have
     a proposal for such a nodelist ready for distribution within a
     short time (it's in the draft stage now, I'm just waiting to
     get back some initial comments).

     Fidonet would still have its own nodelist, of folks who belong
     to Fidonet and who agree to submit to the rules and regulations
     of Fidonet.  Ditto for "AnyOtherNet." But the sysops and NC's
     of local "Nets" could choose to affiliate with one of the major
     Networks, or with no Network at all.  As long as they are
     listed in the "public" nodelist, they will still be able to
     receive mail from other systems, and to exchange echo
     conferences that are not "restricted" to just one Network.  The
     nodelist would not be used for disciplinary purposes.  If you
     have problems with another node, you configure your system to
     refuse mail from that node (using password protection or
     similar methods) or in extreme cases you could call in the
     authorities, as you'd do with an obscene telephone caller.
     Keep in mind that RIGHT NOW anyone can configure their system
     to "impersonate" another node, so dropping someone from the
     nodelist in no way guarantees that you'll never hear from them
     again!

     Now, I ask you to please pay careful attention to the
     following, because I know that those who oppose this idea will
     try to claim that it would break up Fidonet.  However, the fact
     that a Net chooses to be listed in a "public" nodelist would
     NOT necessarily mean that they are leaving Fidonet (unless the
     Fidonet *C's decide to make it an either/or choice).  It would
     simply give you, as a sysop, the alternative to communicate
     with other nodes without HAVING to subscribe to any particular
     denominational viewpoint on how a network should be run.  The
     various Network nodelists could be viewed in the same way as
     church member directories, in that they would presumably
     contain the listings of those who adhere to a particular set of
     beliefs (on how a network should be operated in this case).
     The "public" nodelist would list all Nets (that choose to be
     listed)...  those that do choose to align themselves with a
     particular operational philosophy, and those that do not.  I've
     never heard of a church giving a member the boot because they
     allowed themselves to be listed in the "public" phone book, so
     FidoNews 6-25                Page 20                  19 Jun 1989


     unless the Fidonet *C structure wants to be more authoritarian
     than even the strictest of sects, they will not try to
     discourage Fidonet sysops from being listed in the "public"
     nodelist.

     If the *C structure were smart, they'd even encourage those who
     don't really adhere to their operational philosophy to be
     listed in the "public" nodelist only.  I don't mean they'd only
     do that when a Net becomes an irritant to a particular *C,
     either.  What I mean is that once a public nodelist were
     available, it might be wise for the *C structure to really lay
     out their philosophy and say "if you can't agree with this, you
     really shouldn't be here."  Some *C's are saying this NOW, but
     the problem is that in most cases, there's no other viable
     place for a Net to go to (in many cases the choice is between
     staying in Fidonet, or aligning your Net with another Network
     that may have some equally objectionable policies, or trying to
     start your own Network, none of which are particularly
     attractive alternatives).

     One other point that needs to be mentioned is that there are no
     guarantees that the Fidonet nodelist will continue to be
     published.  If the *C structure of Fidonet decides that they
     have lost "control" of Fidonet, or if the people in charge of
     publishing the Fidonet nodelist simply get tired of doing it,
     there's no absolute guarantee that it will continue to be
     published.  Should something like that happen, wouldn't it be
     nice to have a "public" nodelist available?

     When I originally let this idea out to a few people, one of the
     comments I got back was on the order of "but how will we get
     echomail?"  My answer is, "for the present time, the same way
     you get it now."  People tend to want to view this as an
     either/or situation...  EITHER you're in the Fidonet nodelist,
     OR you're in SomeOther nodelist.  That does not necessarily
     have to be the case.  Consider the situation where you have a
     Net that has a couple of nodes that the RC just doesn't like,
     for any of a number of reasons (maybe they just happen to be on
     the wrong side of some geographic boundary line).  Now, in the
     Fidonet nodelist, that Net could be listed, but without the
     offending nodes.  However, that same Net could be listed in the
     "public" nodelist intact, with all its nodes (in most cases, it
     could even be listed under the same Net number as it uses in
     Fidonet if things are planned correctly).  In such a case, it
     would still be "legal" for any of the Fidonet nodes to receive
     echomail from the Regional Echomail Coordinator, and if they
     pass it on to one of the nodes that doesn't appear in the
     Fidonet nodelist, chances are nobody will notice or complain
     anyway - but if someone does, it could always be argued that
     those systems are "points" for Fidonet purposes (after all,
     they don't appear in the Fidonet nodelist, so they must be
     points, right?  And in Fidonet, you can send echomail to a
     point system no matter where it's located, since points are not
     bound by any sort of geographic restrictions).

     If the "public" nodelist idea really catches on, though, I
     FidoNews 6-25                Page 21                  19 Jun 1989


     expect that many REC's might eventually consider modifying
     their policies to accommodate the "public" nodelist (although
     not without some initial "kicking and screaming"; change never
     seems to come easily in this hobby!).  Please keep in mind that
     the Echomail Coordinators are not part of the *C structure, and
     in many cases do not really have a vested interest in
     perpetuating that structure.

     What I have tried to give to sysops here is a simple way to
     break the stranglehold that the RC/ZC power structure has on
     our ability to communicate with each other.  It's not that I'm
     anti-Fidonet (an accusation I fully expect to hear sooner or
     later), but I am against the non-democratic, "top-down",
     dictatorial power structure that we now have.  I see a lot of
     similarities between the present Fidonet power structure and
     the ruling governments in certain countries where Fidonet nodes
     aren't permitted.  It appears that Zone 2 (Europe) has decided
     to, for all practical purposes, pull out of what we think of as
     "Fidonet" and form their own democratic organization (actually,
     I'm quite surprised that they're allowed to remain in the
     Fidonet nodelist... if a Region or Net in the United States did
     the same thing, I'm sure they would be summarily dismissed from
     Fidonet.  But I guess the IC will overlook infractions at the
     Zone level that would never be tolerated at the Region or Net
     levels).  While I agree wholeheartedly with Zone 2's desire for
     a more democratic form of government, I do *NOT* agree with the
     "nodelist tax" they have decided to impose on each node in
     order to be listed in the nodelist.  A "public" nodelist would
     not help support a "top-down" governmental structure, and it
     would give nodes a place to be listed without the requirement
     of a "nodelist tax", so in effect it's the best of both worlds.

     I don't expect everyone to agree with these ideas.  I fully
     expect they will be somewhat controversial.  But, if the
     Fidonet *C's really want to have a network of 5,000 nodes, then
     they are going to have to learn to accept the wishes of the
     majority of the 5,000, not just the will of the twenty or
     thirty in leadership positions (above the Net level) or even
     the will of just the few hundred that may have been around
     since the very early days of Fidonet.  On the other hand, if
     what they would prefer is to have fewer nodes but ones that
     support their philosophy, then having a separate "public"
     nodelist would allow that to happen without cutting off
     anyone's ability to communicate.  I feel that unless something
     is done to resolve the current conflicts between those with
     differing ideas on where Fidonet should be headed, we're going
     to continue to have the equivalent of "civil war" here in
     Fidonet.  And that sure isn't FUN for anybody!

     -----------------------------------------------------------------
     FidoNews 6-25                Page 22                  19 Jun 1989


     An April Fool joke that wasn't
     From a posting in Usenet submitted by Randy Bush, 1:105/6

     From: chuq@Apple.COM (Chuq Von Rospach)
     Newsgroups: news.admin
     Subject: What you *won't* see April First....
     Date: 28 Mar 89 17:25:46 GMT
     Organization: Life is just a Fantasy novel played for keeps

     Since the  whole  moderator/r.h.f  blowup  is  de-escalating much
     faster than expected  (thanks, Karl, for cancelling the vote....)
     I find that the  April  Fools parody I'd planned on posting isn't
     really relevant any more.  Sigh.  These things happen.  We'll try
     again some other time....

     I'm going to post it here,  now, because I think there's a lesson
     in  it.    The thing that really  worried  me  about  this  whole
     conflagration was that people who normally are pretty  smart were
     screaming  for  folks  to  come  in and start regulating  USENET.
     USENET's  worked  quite  well  as an anarchy, and the thought  of
     adding  a  bureaucracy  telling  us 'do' and 'don't' scares me --
     once  you  create  the    bureaucracy,   controlling  it  becomes
     problematic.  It will continue  fixing  problems for you, whether
     you want them to or not.

     Note:  this 'parody' is not  funny.    Unlike  many of the annual
     April Fools messages, it wasn't designed to  be.    It's  hard to
     poke fun at a network with no sense of humor any more, but that's
     another  posting  at  another time.  This was aimed  squarely  at
     scaring  the  sh*t  out  of  the people screaming to get  rid  of
     commercialism  on the net without really thinking about what that
     meant.   So  I took a couple of days and tried to find all of the
     things that could  plausibly be considered commercial and created
     a (fortunately false) bureacracy to get rid of them.  The results
     scared me -- and I think they should scare everyone -- and taught
     me a good lesson about asking  for  things  without  knowing what
     that meant.

     The cautionary tale:  Beware of asking  for  things  -- you might
     get them.  Hopefully, my next April Fools  posting  with  have  a
     little  more levity.  The r.h.f furor brought out  the  worst  in
     everyone  (including  myself), and you can't write funny material
     about things  that have no kernel of humor in them.  The funniest
     thing about it  was  how serious everyone took it -- and all that
     has at the kernel  is  a pitiable sadness.  It's *just* a network
     folks.

     See ya next April Fools... Maybe.

     chuq
     ------ [note: neither Gene, nor Greg, nor Rick had *anything* to
                   do with this. Don't send them mail about it....]

     > Path: nsc!amdahl!walldrug!eminus!bloombeacon!hoa!uct!backbone
     > From: admins@utc.usenet.org
                              (Usenet Community Trust Administration)
     FidoNews 6-25                Page 23                  19 Jun 1989


     > Newsgroups: news.announce.important,news.admin
     > Followup-To: news.admin
     > Subject: Commercialism on the net
     > Message-ID: <4-1-1989@medusa.cs.purdue.edu>
     > Date: 1 Apr 89 00:00:00 GMT
     > Expires: 1 May 89 00:00:00 GMT
     > Organization: Usenet Community Trust, Inc.
                                          (A non-profit organization)
     > Lines: 27
     > Approved: admins@utc.usenet.org

     We of the backbone cabal have been following the commercialism of
     USENET discussion with growing apprehension.  Originally, we felt
     that, like most USENET flame-wars, it would burn itself  out over
     time.    Unfortunately,  tempers  continue  to  heat  up  and the
     argument itself  continues  to  grow.    At the current time, the
     volume in the  anti-commercialism  discussion  now  significantly
     exceeds the volume of  all of the material that could potentially
     be described as commercial.   We  have never, not even during the
     infamous Wobegon Wars, seen an argument  blown  so totally out of
     proportion.

     We had hoped this would resolve itself  without our intervention.
     The backbone feels strongly that a hands-off policy  is the best.
     However, this discussion has started to tax our disk  capacities,
     our data transfer links, our budgets and, frankly, our patience.

     Because  of this, and because we feel the emnity being  generated
     by  this  argument  may  be  destructive  to  the basic fabric of
     USENET,  we  have  decided to take steps to stop this discussion.
     Effective immediately,  the Backbone Cabal will no longer forward
     any message discussing the commercialism of the net.

     It is obvious  from  the discussions that there is a mandate from
     the users of USENET  to  do  something about the commercialism on
     USENET.  You want someone  who  can  protect  the  net  from  the
     subversive forces of blatant commercialism.  The backbone has the
     organization  in  place  to  organize  the  controls   needed  to
     implement  these  protections.    Therefore,  the members of  the
     backbone  have decided the time has come to build  a  centralized
     organization  with  the purpose of monitoring and controlling the
     material posted  to  USENET so that the proper purposes of USENET
     are served.   To this end, we have identified all of the improper
     postings being made to  USENET  and,  effective today, started to
     implement a plan to repair these problems.

     Once we finish implementing these  new  restrictions,  we believe
     that  we  will  finally  have the  non-commercial,  unbiased  and
     free-spoken USENET you have mandated us to  give  you.    The net
     will finally be free of the commercial fetters  that have held it
     back,  and  the  users  will finally be able to  use  USENET  for
     anything  they  want  to  use  it  for,  without  the specter  of
     commercial abuse.

     We feel  that  the  implementation  of  this  will  significantly
     increase the freedom  of  expression  on  USENET  by limiting our
     FidoNews 6-25                Page 24                  19 Jun 1989


     discussions to more appropriate  topics  and  removing  the crass
     commercialism  and  vendor  interference  that    inhibits   free
     discussion of ideas.  In addition, the addition of these controls
     will significantly improve our ability to reduce future problems,
     as the backbone now have the bureaucracy and controls in place to
     stop inappropriate discussions before they get out of control and
     contaminate the  network.    Through  these  new restrictions and
     regulations, we expect  USENET  to  prosper  and  grow as the new
     freedoms implied by these  regulations  allow you to better enjoy
     the network.

     You, the users -- no,  the *owners* of USENET -- have given us an
     obvious mandate to step in and  protect  you  from the people who
     would  abuse  and manipulate the network for  their  own  private
     gains.  Through these new controls, we are  implementing the will
     of the people, restricting the inappropriate for the good  of the
     masses.   By voluntarily given up that which doesn't matter,  you
     increase your freedoms.  We are here to serve you, and by serving
     you we shall be able to create a better network for you.    There
     are two phases to this.

     First, in the  short  term,  all  backbone  sites  have installed
     patches to the netnews  software.    These  patches do contextual
     keyword searches and will refuse  to  pass messages that meet the
     keyword  restrictions.   As of now,  these  keyword  restrictions
     include:

         o Any reference to rec.humor.funny in any newsgroup except
           rec.humor.funny.

         o Any reference to Brad Templeton, JEDR  or Matt Crawford in
           news.*

         o Any use of the word "commercial", "commerce" or "income" or
           any of  the expected spelling variants.  We may  add  other
           keywords once we analyze the traffic flow.

         o Any posting made from or that passes through a  commercial,
           public  access  system that charges a usage fee for access.
           Free  systems  will  not  be  affected, but any system that
           generates revenue  from its users, directory or indirectly,
           will be refused  access  to the network.  The most infamous
           of these sites are  Portal  and  the Well, but we have also
           identified  seven  other  systems  qualify    and  will  be
           similarly restricted.  We are also investigating whether to
           extend  this  to corporate machines that chargeback  access
           time internally.  Even though no money changes hands, there
           is  a  revenue  adjustment, and therefore it's a commercial
           interaction.

     These messages will be deleted silently.  You will get no warning
     that we have refused to pass them on.

     The  second  phase    of    the  commercialism  changes  involves
     restructuring part of the  net.  The backbone feels strongly that
     USENET should be non-commercial.   Therefore,  we  will be taking
     FidoNews 6-25                Page 25                  19 Jun 1989


     steps  to  guarantee  that USENET becomes  and  stays  completely
     non-commercial.  Over the next 90 days,  we  will  be  putting in
     place    software    and  procedures  to  enforce  the  following
     restrictions on USENET traffic:

         o All  blatantly commercial newsgroups will be deleted.  This
           includes (but  may  not  be  limited  to) the following.  A
           definited list will  be  published  when  our  analysis  of
           traffic is complete.

             biz.* comp.org.decus comp.newprod comp.org.ieee
             comp.org.usenix comp.org.usrgroup comp.sources.wanted
             misc.forsale misc.jobs.misc misc.jobs.offered
             misc.jobs.resumes misc.wanted rec.arts.wobegon

         o All moderators will be  required  to sign non-commercialism
           contracts.  Any moderator that  refuses  to  agree  to this
           will be replaced or the group  terminated.    This contract
           will require that all material on USENET  be copyrighted to
           the  "USENET  Community Trust" and not be redistributed  on
           any other network.  The moderator will not be allowed to be
           involved  in  any  activity  that  allows  them to generate
           revenue,  directly    or   indirectly,  from  their  USENET
           activities.    The    USENET  Community  Trust  is  a  new,
           non-profit organization that has  been  formed  to maintain
           and administer USENET and material  that  is distributed on
           the  network.  Initially, the backbone  will  act  as  both
           administrators   and  steering  committee  to  UCT.      We
           eventually    hope   that,  once  the  current  emergencies
           involving  commercialized    traffic   are  resolved,  open
           elections for members-at-large on USENET will be possible.

         o All software distributed  by  USENET must from now on be in
           source form only and  be  public domain.  This specifically
           excludes  any  binaries, shareware or  demos.    Also,  the
           public  domain requirement precludes any copyright  in  any
           form,  so distribution of copyrighted sources of  any  type
           will   be  disallowed.    This  includes,  based  on    our
           interpretation of the restrictions, any copylefted software
           including all GNU distributions.  The following groups will
           be deleted as being obsolete because of this clause:

             comp.binaries.amiga comp.binaries.apple2
             comp.binaries.atari.st comp.binaries.ibm.pc
             comp.binaries.ibm.pc.d comp.binaries.mac

         o Many computer vendors directly  or indirectly support their
           products via USENET.  This  is  a form of commercialism, as
           it allows them to use USENET  for  free  technical support,
           marketing and sales promotion.  This will  be  stopped.  In
           the following groups, we will no longer allow  postings  of
           any type from any employee or representative of the company
           being discussed.  This will allow the users of the products
           to be able to discuss it without the taint of commercialism
           currently undercutting the utility of these newsgroups.

     FidoNews 6-25                Page 26                  19 Jun 1989


             comp.lang.forth.mac comp.lang.lisp.franz comp.os.aos
             comp.os.eunice comp.os.os9 comp.os.rsts comp.os.vms
             comp.sys.amiga comp.sys.amiga.tech comp.sys.apollo
             comp.sys.apple comp.sys.atari.8bit comp.sys.atari.st
             comp.sys.att comp.sys.cbm comp.sys.cdc comp.sys.celerity
             comp.sys.dec comp.sys.dec.micro comp.sys.encore
             comp.sys.hp comp.sys.ibm.pc comp.sys.ibm.pc.digest
             comp.sys.ibm.pc.rt comp.sys.intel comp.sys.intel.ipsc310
             comp.sys.m6809 comp.sys.m68k comp.sys.m68k.pc
             comp.sys.mac comp.sys.mac.digest comp.sys.mac.hypercard
             comp.sys.mac.programmer comp.sys.masscomp comp.sys.misc
             comp.sys.next comp.sys.northstar comp.sys.nsc.32k
             comp.sys.proteon comp.sys.pyramid comp.sys.ridge
             comp.sys.sequent comp.sys.sgi comp.sys.sun comp.sys.super
             comp.sys.tahoe comp.sys.tandy comp.sys.ti
             comp.sys.ti.explorer comp.sys.transputer
             comp.sys.workstations comp.sys.xerox comp.sys.zenith
             comp.sys.zenith.z100 comp.unix.aux comp.unix.cray
             comp.unix.i386 comp.unix.microport comp.unix.xenix

         o Finally, many newsgroups are indirectly  commercial.  These
           groups include postings that make product  recommendations,
           post  comparative  analysis material, book reviews and  the
           like.   Any posting that, directly or indirectly,  attempts
           to sway a reader into purchasing or avoiding a  product  is
           now  to  be  considered  commercial  and  will no longer be
           tolerated.

             comp.arch comp.bugs.4bsd comp.bugs.misc comp.bugs.sys5
             comp.compilers comp.databases comp.dcom.lans
             comp.dcom.lans.hyperchannel comp.dcom.modems
             comp.dcom.telecom comp.editors comp.emacs comp.fonts
             comp.laser-printers comp.lsi comp.lsi.cad comp.misc
             comp.os.misc comp.parallel comp.periphs
             comp.periphs.printers comp.sources.amiga
             comp.sources.atari.st comp.sources.bugs comp.sources.d
             comp.sources.games comp.sources.games.bugs
             comp.sources.mac comp.sources.misc
             comp.sources.unix comp.sources.x comp.terminals
             comp.terminals.bitgraph comp.terminals.tty5620 comp.text
             comp.text.desktop comp.unix comp.unix.questions
             comp.unix.ultrix comp.unix.wizards comp.windows.misc
             comp.windows.ms comp.windows.news comp.windows.x
             misc.consumers misc.consumers.house misc.invest misc.misc
             misc.taxes rec.arts.anime rec.arts.books rec.arts.comics
             rec.arts.drwho rec.arts.int-fiction rec.arts.misc
             rec.arts.movies rec.arts.movies.reviews
             rec.arts.sf-lovers rec.arts.startrek rec.arts.tv
             rec.audio rec.autos rec.autos.sport rec.autos.tech
             rec.aviation rec.backcountry rec.bicycles rec.birds
             rec.boats rec.equestrian rec.food.cooking rec.food.drink
             rec.food.veg rec.games.vectrex rec.games.video
             rec.gardens rec.guns rec.ham-radio rec.ham-radio.packet
             rec.misc rec.models.rc rec.motorcycles rec.music.beatles
             rec.music.bluenote rec.music.cd rec.music.classical
             rec.music.dementia rec.music.folk rec.music.gaffa
     FidoNews 6-25                Page 27                  19 Jun 1989


             rec.music.gdead rec.music.makers rec.music.misc
             rec.music.reviews rec.music.synth rec.pets
             rec.photo rec.scuba rec.skiing rec.skydiving rec.travel
             rec.video sci.electronics


     Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.

     Greg Woods, Gene Spafford and Rick Adams, official shills.
     The Usenet Community Trust, Inc. (A non-profit organization)


     Chuq Von Rospach   -*-   Editor,OtherRealms   -*-     Member SFWA
     chuq@apple.com -*-  CI$:73317,635  Delphi:CHUQ -*- Applelink:CHUQ
       [This is myself speaking. No company can control my thoughts.]

     USENET:   N.    A  self-replicating phage engineered by the phone
     company to cause computers to spend large amounts of their owners
     budget on modem charges.

     -----------------------------------------------------------------
     FidoNews 6-25                Page 28                  19 Jun 1989


     142/158 28 May 89 19:05:00
     From:   Stuart Henderson of 2:255/13.0
     To:     Vince Perriello of 1/1.0
     Files:  Uk-Modem.Art

     As you  may  or  may  not know, in the UK a Conservative MP, Emma
     Nicholson, is trying  to  outlaw hacking and it looks very likely
     as if she will  get a Private Members Bill passed, as she as much
     support.  However, it appears  very  much  from  a re-type that I
     have of this that it will  completely  outlaw bulletin boards and
     the like.  I do not know  the  source  of  the  re-type, but I am
     enclosing it because I feel that this is  one  of  the  types  of
     thing that FidoNews is for.  Although some may know of this, I am
     certain  that  exposure  in FidoNews will strengthen the cause of
     English  bulletin  boards.    It  would  appear  that if this was
     passed, and it looks increasingly likely that it will, the entire
     structure of bulletin  boards over here will break down.  Looking
     at the file, it  appears  that anyone having a modem is liable to
     having  it confiscated and so  on,  as  although  its  owner  may
     currently have no intent of using it to gain illegal access, they
     have the means and could subsequently have the intent.

     I hope that you decide to publish the re-type.

     Stuart


     Here is a complete retype of Emma Nicholsons Private Members bill
     that will be in force by th end of this year  Please note it is
     retrospective!!!! and outlaws hackers, BBS's and conferences!

     -----

     The Bill.

     Offences

      1.1(a) A person who effects unauthorized access to a computer or
     computer system either

             (i) to his own or another's advantage; or
             (ii) to another's prejudice;
             or

         (b) being reckless as to whether his actions would result in

             (i) his own or another's advantage; or
            (ii) another's prejudice;

     shall be guilty of an offence.

     1.2 A person who without lawful authority or reasonable excuse
     has in his custody or under his control anything with the
     intention of effecting unauthorized access to a computer or
     computer system to enable some act or acts to his own or
     another's advantage or to another's prejudice, shall be guilty of
     FidoNews 6-25                Page 29                  19 Jun 1989


     an offence.

     1.3 A person who, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse,
     transmits, receives, or causes to be transmitted or received by
     means of wire, radio, or television communications including
     electro-magnetic waves, any writing, signals, signs, pictures or
     sound

         (a) with the intention of committing an act

              (i) to his own or another's advantage; or
             (ii) to another's prejudice;
             or

         (b) being reckless as to whether his actions would result in

             (i) his own or another's advantage; or
            (ii) another's prejudice;

     shall be guilty of an offence.

     1.4 A person commits an offence if he effects unauthorized access
     ot the computer of another for an unauthorized purpose.

     Penalties.

     2.1 A person guilty of an offence under section 1.1 above shall
     be liable -

         (a) on conviction on indictment, to a fine, or to
         imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or to both; or

         (b) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding level 5 on
         the standard scale.

     2.2 A person guilty of an offence under subsection 2 or 3 of
     section 1 above shall be liable -

         (a) on conviction on indictment, to a fine, or to
         imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or to both; or

         (b) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding level 5 on
         the standard scale.

     2.3 A person guilty of an offence under section 1.4 above shall
     be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5
     on the standard scale

     Powers of search and seizure.

     3.1 if it appears to a Justice of the Peace, from information
     given on oath, that there is reasonable cause to believe that a
     person has in his custody or under his control -

         (a) anything which he or another has used, whether before or
             after the coming to force of this act, or intends to use,
     FidoNews 6-25                Page 30                  19 Jun 1989


             for the making of anything contravention of section 1.2
             above; or

         (b) any unauthorized documentation obtained by the un-
             authorized accessing of a computer of another, whether
             before of after the coming to force of this act; or

         (c) anything, custody or control of which, an offence under
             section 1.2 of above; he may issue a warrant authorising
             a constable to enter and search the premises.

     3.2 If it appears to a Judge of the Crown Court from the
     information given to him on oath that there is reasonable cause
     to believe an electronic device os being used to unlawfully
     access the computer of another, he may authorize monitoring of
     such a device, by the police, by electronic means, in order to
     intercept the transmitted data and to produce evidence of
     unauthorized access.

     3.3 A constable may at any time after seizure of anything
     suspected of falling within paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection 1
     of this section (whether the seizure was effected by virtue of a
     warrant under that section or otherwise) apply to a magistrates'
     court for an order under this subsection with respect to object
     t; and the court, if it is satisfied both that the object falls
     within any of those paragraphs and that it is conductive of the
     public interest to do so, may make such order as it thinks fit of
     the forfeiture of the object and its subsequent destruction or
     disposal.

     3.4 Subject to subsection (5) below the court by, or before,
     which a person is convicted of an offence under this Act may
     order anything shown to the satisfaction of the court to relate
     to the offence to be forfeited and either destroyed or dealt
     with in such other manner as the court may order.

     3.5 The court shall not order anything to be forfeited under
     subsection (4) above where a person claiming to be the owner of,
     or otherwise interested in it, applies to be heard by the court
     unless an opportunity has been given to him to show cause why
     the order should not be made.


     -----------------------------------------------------------------
     FidoNews 6-25                Page 31                  19 Jun 1989


     Tom Jennings, 1:125/111

     Since I see my name is getting dragged into this, I thought I'd
     respond on the subject of Zone 2's autonomy, which is really an
     issue of control.

     First of all, no one need worry about trademark abuse; I am in
     contact with all parties involved, and there is nothing to worry
     about. Things will be settled to everyones benefit and
     satisfaction. No further discussion is needed on this matter.

     It is none of our business how Zone 2 (or any other zone) runs
     their network(s), other than how they interface to us, just as it
     is no business to net 125 how net XYZ runs theirs, unless it
     somehow physically affects our operation. If they have different
     criteria for joining a network, what business is it of ours? To
     meddle ahead of time "in case they do something awful", is silly;
     they are no more (or less) likely to do something stupid than we
     in Zone 1 are. Europe is not just the U.S.-only-different; it is
     a totally different environment, socially, technically, legally
     and politically. Europe is none of our damn business.

     Zone 1 is not the police force of the world. Have we not learned
     our lessons from other arenas? We do not "have" a unified world-
     wide network, nor is such a thing even desirable. What we do have
     is a number of cooperative networks, that can cooperate in a
     world-wide networking effort. This is a critical difference.

     Unfortunately, meddlers and control freaks will not give up until
     everything not exactly like themselves is squashed or controlled.
     Or they are in turn removed. We have a growing bureaucracy in our
     Zone 1 that wants to reorganize us from being a bottom-up
     network, where sysops choose their net hosts and other /0's, and
     determine how to run their own BBS, nets and lives, to one
     (according to POLICY4) where the existing bureaucracy picks their
     own region and net hosts. Bureaucrats always tell us, if they can
     control this one more thing, then all the problems will be
     solved.

     Our network has never run smoothly, and I propose that it will
     *never* run smoothly; this is good, not bad. It means we're
     alive, only dead rigid bureaucracies are pure order. (Or pretend
     they are.) Excessive order is not good for any organism. It
     stifles creativity and free expression. Let's take a hint from
     history, OK?

     -----------------------------------------------------------------
     FidoNews 6-25                Page 32                  19 Jun 1989


     =================================================================
                                  COLUMNS
     =================================================================


                         THE LOST FIDONET ARCHIVES
                               VOLUME THREE

                  Compiled by various members of FidoNet
                         Edited by Vince Perriello


     This is the third article in a series which reprints documents of
     historical significance  to  FidoNet.    This week we feature Tom
     Jennings' original FidoNet History document from February 1985.

     Please note that most  if  not all of the FidoNet addresses, data
     line phone numbers, and company  names and/or addresses mentioned
     in this or any of the  other  articles  in this series are not to
     be considered reliable for current use in  locating  something or
     someone  mentioned here.  Refer to the current  nodelist  if  you
     want to try to find any of the above.

     Following is the contents of FIDONET.DC1:

     FidoNet History and Operation    8 Feb 85


     This is  a  long  and  convoluted  document;   it has been sorely
     needed for months  now,  and  it  finally  got  done.  FidoNet is
     growing at a tremendous  rate,  and  newer  sysops don't have the
     information that us oldies (pre  Sept  84 sysops) assume everyone
     knows;  hence the history section  here.    There  is  a  lot  of
     extremely important material covered here that was  assumed to be
     known by all;  we are finding out otherwise.

     This also covers some of the dark mysterious  secrets  about  the
     magical node numbers, and how the magical node lists  appear from
     nowhere.    Those of you that have been FidoNet nodes  since  way
     back  when,  spring  and  summer  of  1984,  and watched all this
     develop  (such  as it was) in full Technicolor, will know most of
     this;   if you are a relatively new sysop, much of this may  come
     as a suprise.  Everyone should read this, experienced sysops, new
     sysops, and all Fido and FidoNet users.

     FidoNet is no longer just  a  piece  of  software;  it has become
     complex organism.  There are about  160  Fidos  in  FidoNet right
     now;  this does not include Fidos  being  run  as  Bulletin Board
     only systems, just ones that you can converse  with over the net.
     If the average number of users on each system  is 300 people, you
     can start to guess at the scale of things today.

     HISTORY:

     When FidoNet was first tested, there were two nodes:  myself here
     at  Fido  #1  in  San  Francisco, and John Madill at Fido  #2  in
     FidoNews 6-25                Page 33                  19 Jun 1989


     Baltimore.  John and I did all of the testing and development for
     the first pass at FidoNet.  Its purpose:  to see if it  could  be
     done, merely  for  the  fun  of  it,  like ham radio.  It quickly
     became useful;   instead of trying to call each others' boards up
     to  leave  messages, or  expensive  voice  phone  calls,  Fidonet
     messages became more or less routine.

     This was version 7 of Fido sometime in June 84 or so;  it did not
     have routing, file attach, retry control,  error  handling,  cost
     accounting, log files, or any of the  niceties  since  added.   A
     packet was made, a call placed, the packet  transferred, that was
     it.  This was adequate for a month or  two,  when there were less
     than 20 nodes.

     In August of 84, the number of nodes was approaching 30;  the net
     was  becoming  clogged,  believe  it  or not.  FidoNet wasn't too
     smart about  making  calls  then.   With 30 systems, coordination
     became difficult;   instead  of  a simple voice phone call to the
     (very few!) sysops to  straighten  out  problems  like modems not
     answering, wrong numbers, clock problems,  etc,  it  took days to
     get the slightest problem repaired.   There were by now six nodes
     in St.  Louis, and Fido #1  was  making  seperate phone calls for
     each, when obviously one could be made.   Enter the beginnings of
     routing.

     The "original" FidoNet was very simple and friendly;  you told me
     at Fido #1 that you had a FidoNet node ready,  I  put  you in the
     list, with your phone number, and people called up and downloaded
     the list;  done!

     Well ...  at first, "everyone knew each other";  we were  in more
     or less constant  contact.    However,  when the node numbers got
     into the twenties, there  were  people  bringing up FidoNodes who
     none of us knew.   This  was  good,  but  it meant we were not in
     close contact anymore.

     The Net started to deteriorate;   every  single week without fail
     there was at least one wrong number,  usually two.  To impress on
     you the seriousness of wrong numbers in the  node  list,  imagine
     you are a poor old lady, who every single  night is getting phone
     calls  EVERY  TWO  MINUTES AT 4:00AM, no one says anything,  then
     hangs up.  This actually happened;  I would sit up and watch when
     there was mail that didn't go out for a week or two, and I'd pick
     up the  phone  after  dialing,  and  was  left in the embarrasing
     position of having  to  explain  bulletin  boards to an extremely
     tired, extremely annoyed person.

     There were also cases  where  the  new node really wasn't up yet,
     and the number given was a home phone to be used temporarily, but
     I'd forget that, and include it  in the list anyways.  Or the new
     node wasn't really up yet, and we'd  all  make calls to it and it
     would  not  answer,  or  worse, the modem would  answer  but  the
     software wasn't running, and we'd get charged for the call.

     This obviously could not go on.  We had  to have some way to make
     sure that at least the phone numbers were correct!   I  started a
     FidoNews 6-25                Page 34                  19 Jun 1989


     new  policy;  before giving out a node number and putting  it  in
     the  list, I had to receive a FidoNet message from the new  node,
     directly.   This verified that at least the new Fido was half way
     running.  At the time, Fido had a provision whereby Fido #1 could
     set the node  number  remotely;    I'd  send  a message back, and
     presto!  a new node was up.

     Well, this didn't work  properly  either;   at the same time, the
     Fido software was changing so  rapidly,  to  accomodate  all  the
     changes (literally a version a day  for a few weeks there) that I
     was losing new node requests, wrong numbers  caused  by illegible
     handwriting,  all  sorts of problems.  Out of  laziness  I  would
     still assign nodes "word of mouth", and got in  the  same trouble
     as before.

     The people in St.  Louis (Tony Clark, Ben Baker,  Ken Kaplan, Jon
     Wichman,  Mike Mellinger) had their local Fidos going strong, and
     understood what  FidoNet  did,  how  it  worked,  and what it was
     about.  They  volunteered  to take over the node list, handle new
     node requests, and leave me with the software.  They tightened up
     on the FidoNet message requirement,  and in a few months, had the
     "error rate" (wrong numbers, etc) down to practically zero, where
     it is today.

     Though  I did the programming, Ken Kaplan,  Ben  Baker,  and  the
     crowd  in St.  Louis did much of  the  design  and  most  of  the
     testing  of  routing,  forwarding,  and  local nets.  They  still
     remain the experts on the intricacies of routing, and help sysops
     set up local nets.

     Please  keep  in mind the entire process, from two nodes to  over
     50, took only three months!  Fifty nodes is more than it  sounds;
     at that  level  it  becomes  a large scale project.  FidoNet went
     from about 50  nodes  in  Sept  84  or so, to the current 160+ in
     Jan/Feb of 85.

     FidoNet today is a  network  quickly  approaching  the  levels of
     complexity of commercial networks, and has many more capabilities
     than many "mini" networks, such as  USENET,  which has no routing
     or hosts.  Only ARPAnet has some of the features of FidoNet.  The
     southern  California  local  network  is three levels deep,  with
     hosts in Orange, LA, Ventura, San Berdino and San Diego counties.

     FidoNet is just too large today to run as  an informal club.  The
     potential for error is just too high to include numbers at random
     within  the node list.  I imagine we are in a  predicament  today
     what the radio ameteur operators had a number of years ago.

     The requirements  for  new  FidoNet nodes are pretty minimal, and
     they appear to  be  arbitrary  and  harsh  if you aren't aware of
     what's going on.   This  is  to  spell  them  out  in  detail, so
     everyone will understand the process.

     FidoNet'S PURPOSE:

     Very simple;  it is a hobby, a non-commercial network of computer
     FidoNews 6-25                Page 35                  19 Jun 1989


     hobbiests ("hackers", in the older, original meaning) who want to
     play with, and find uses for, packet  switch  networking.   It is
     not  a  commercial  venture  in  any  way;   FidoNet  is  totally
     supported by it's users and sysops, and in many  ways  is similar
     to ham radio, in that other than a few "stiff"  rules, each sysop
     runs  their  system  in any way they please, for any reason  they
     want.

     THE STIFF RULES:

     Actually,  not  as  bad as it sounds;  basically, politeness as a
     rule:

     1.      New nodes, see below.

     2.      If your  system is  going to be  down for a week or more,
             please let Fido 51  know.    They can take you out of the
             list while you are gone, so other FidoNet sysops won't be
             wasting phone calls.

     3.      If  you  change  your  phone  number,  or  decide to stop
             running  Fido,  let  them know,  so other  FidoNet sysops
             won't be wasting phone calls.

     The thing to keep  in  mind  is that FidoNet's telephone calls to
     send mail are costing someone  money;  if you are down just for a
     night or so, don't worry about  it,  just  make  sure  your modem
     doesn't answer.

     THE NODE LIST

     Obviously (if you are a FidoNet sysop that is) the node list is a
     text  file  containing  all  the names, phone numbers  and  other
     things  on  each  node,  and as distributed by Fido  51,  routing
     information  for the many local networks.  It is a  very  compact
     list, and so there is no clue as to how that list is made.

     Here  is  the  current  process  for  new nodes to obtain a  node
     number, and get into the node list.  This assumes you want to run
     a  public  access  Fido;      specialized   systems  are  covered
     seperately, below.


     SET UP FIDO

     Of course, you should get your  Fido  running first;  no sense in
     trying to run mail if your Fido  doesn't  run!    In your FidoNet
     area,  enter a message for Fido #51, and  include  the  following
     information:

     1.      Your boards name
     2.      City and state
     3.      Sysops name
     4.      Board phone number
     5.      Maximum baud rate; 1200 assumed otherwise
     6.      Hours of operation; 24 hrs assumed otherwise
     FidoNews 6-25                Page 36                  19 Jun 1989


     7.      Way to contact the sysop during the day. This is
             not absolutely necessary, but it makes it easier
             if there is some problem.

     Most of this is pretty obvious.  The sysops  voice  phone  number
     will be kept secret;  it will not be given  out.  It is only used
     if there is some problem, and a FidoNet message can't be sent for
     some reason.

     For  Fidos that want to run with an unlisted phone number, a  few
     other things are needed:

     8.      A public FidoNet to act as mail host
     9.      The systems actual phone number

     A  host  is  required  for  an  unlisted  number, so that you can
     receive mail.   (If you don't want to receive mail, then there is
     no reason for  you  to  be part of FidoNet!) The host system will
     have to have the unlisted phone number, of course.

     Fido 51 needs to  have the phone number also, but it will be kept
     secret.  This is so  that  they can contact you directly if there
     is any problem, such as a  known  bug  or  a question, or if your
     host drops out of the network, so  there  is  some way to contact
     the local nodes.

     GETTING A NODE NUMBER

     This is the part that seems so arbitrary  if  you aren't aware of
     what's happening.  What happens is:  you send Fido 51 the message
     described above.  When they receive it, they put the  stuff  into
     the node list and fido list, pick you a node number,  and  mail a
     copy of it to you the next weekend.

     This tests your system at the same time;  you have to  be able to
     sucessfully send  and  receive  mail  in  order  to  get the node
     number.  Out of it, you get a copy of the latest lists.

     NOTE:  Fido  51 does not mail out copies of the lists to everyone
     on a regular basis;    it  would  mean  too many phone calls ($$$
     ...).  You can get  the  new node list Friday evening at Fidos 10
     and 51, or Fidos 1 and  2  later  that  weekend or early the next
     week, and usually most any other busy Fido.

     If it all works, then 1) you  know your system is working 2) Fido
     51, the node list keepers, knows it's working 3) the other 160 or
     so  Fido  sysops know that your system was working  at  least  as
     recently  as the last node list.  Print out the  last  few  weeks
     nodelists;  compare all the changes, not just the additions.

     This is why node numbers aren't given out "word of mouth",  or at
     other sysops request.  It has to be done directly, as a test.


     WHAT FIDO 51 REALLY DOES

     FidoNews 6-25                Page 37                  19 Jun 1989


     Making the node list is more than just typing in the information;
     they  make  sure  that the information in the list is accurate as
     possible.   This  frequently  means  voice  phone calls to double
     check, or calls  to  the  new  system to see what the problem is;
     sometimes it is as  simple as the wrong baud rate, the time wrong
     on the new system, so that it is not running FidoNet at the right
     time.

     Ken Kaplan and Ben Baker do  the  node  list  work when they have
     "spare time";  please be patient!   As  the  number  of new nodes
     increases every week, response time goes up.  Currently, the node
     list is done once a week;  new node  requests must be received in
     Wednesday nights mail (by Thursday morning) so that they can work
     on  it Thursday night, and send it out on Friday night,  so  that
     you  will have it over the weekend.  The volume of mail  is  such
     that it may take a few days to get out.

     (Please note that Fido 51 is an unattended node;  there is no one
     there to answer  Y)ells  unless  someone happens to walk by.  The
     machine  is  located at  Data  Research  Associates,  who  kindly
     donated the phone line, and  runs  on a DEC Rainbow 100+, donated
     by Digital Equipment Corp.)

     Fido 51 is an extremely busy system;  they receive 125 messages a
     week through FidoNet alone, so please be patient.

     CHANGES, MISTAKES AND UPDATES

     If you ever find wrong information in  the node list, please send
     the information to Fido 51;  they will  include  it  in  the next
     list.

     If you become part of a local net, ie.    you  have  an  incoming
     host, notify them, and it will be included in the node list also.
     Other  changes  might  be  baud rate (got a new modem!) hours  of
     operation, board name or sysop, etc.


     SOME OTHER THINGS ...

     If  you  have  questions  or  problems  with  any part of Fido or
     FidoNet, please ask.  Here's where to go for problems:

     HARDWARE, SOFTWARE, PERFORMANCE OR INSTALLATION TROUBLES

     Call  or  FidoNet to Fido #1, me, Tom Jennings.  FidoNet is best,
     if possible;    that  way, I have your "address and phone" handy.
     If not, then  call  Fido #1 and leave a message.  If you leave it
     at G)oodbye, when you  call back looking for a reply, remember to
     check in the ANSWERS area;    Fido  will NOT tell you if there is
     mail for you, you have to search for it.

     Fido #1 always has the latest  versions  of Fido for all hardware
     supported,  available  for  download.  Fido #1  ALWAYS  runs  one
     revision later than the released version;  it is used to test new
     features  or  bug  fixes,  so  that  when released they  will  be
     FidoNews 6-25                Page 38                  19 Jun 1989


     working.    Check  the  FIDO  download area for the current  Fido
     version.

     I have nothing to do anymore with maintaining the node list,  nor
     do I hand out node numbers.


     ROUTING, NODE LIST, LOCAL NET QUESTIONS AND PROBLEMS

     Fido  51.  Since they keep the list, they're the ones to  contact
     for  node list problems.  If you want advice on how to set  up  a
     local net in your area, they can offer help and advice.


     SPECIALIZED SYSTEMS

     If  you  are  setting up a private network, and it is to be truly
     private, what you  do with it is your own business.  If, however,
     there is any possiblility  that  members  of your private network
     may wish to communicate with  any  members of the public network,
     you should contact Fido 51 for  the allocation of a block of node
     numbers to be assigned by you to the nodes in your network.  This
     is to avoid node number conflicts upon receipt of FidoNet mail in
     the public network.

     LOCAL NETS

     Neither  I  nor Ken Kaplan nor Ben Baker "run"  FidoNet;    local
     networks such as the one in Southern California and Massachusetts
     are  entirely the responsibility of the sysops in the area;   the
     only thing we ask is that the designated "incoming host" for that
     area be somewhat reliable, for the obvious reason that it will be
     receiving lots of phone calls from across the country.

     As a  matter  of fact, you are encouraged to form local networks,
     or join one  that  exists locally.  IT makes it cheaper for other
     systems  to send you  mail,  and  generally  streamlines  FidoNet
     operation.

     Other than that, local nets are totally standalone;  that is what
     they are for!  For instance,  SoCal can run their net anyway they
     please;  it is their hardware, their phone lines, and their phone
     bills.  It is their investment in work,  and they should reap the
     benefits.  If there is a "FidoNet policy", this is it.

     AND SO ON ...

     I  hope  FidoNet  is  a  bit  clearer  now;    if  you  have  any
     suggestions,  or  want to volunteer to help, please let us  know.
     Our only interest is in keeping the node list correct and  up  to
     date;  this simple list is what ties the entire net together.



     Ken Kaplan              Fido #100/51        314/567-4067
     Tom Jennings            Fido #125/1         415/864-1418
     FidoNews 6-25                Page 39                  19 Jun 1989


     Ben Baker               Fido #100/10        314/234-1462


     -----------------------------------------------------------------
     FidoNews 6-25                Page 40                  19 Jun 1989


     =================================================================
                              LATEST VERSIONS
     =================================================================

                          Latest Software Versions

                           Bulletin Board Software
     Name        Version    Name        Version    Name       Version

     Fido            12m+*  Phoenix         1.3    TBBS           2.1
     Lynx           1.30    QuickBBS       2.03    TComm/TCommNet 3.4
     Opus          1.03b+   RBBS          17.2A*   TPBoard        5.2*

     + Netmail capable (does not require additional mailer software)


     Network                Node List              Other
     Mailers     Version    Utilities   Version    Utilities  Version

     BinkleyTerm    2.20    EditNL         4.00    ARC           6.02*
     D'Bridge       1.18    MakeNL         2.12    ARCmail        2.0
     Dutchie       2.90C    ParseList      1.30    ConfMail      4.00
     FrontDoor       2.0    Prune          1.40    EMM           2.02*
     PRENM          1.47*   XlatList       2.90    GROUP         2.10*
     SEAdog         4.51*   XlaxDiff       2.32    MSG            3.3*
                            XlaxNode       2.32    MSGED         1.99
                                                   TCOMMail       2.2*
                                                   TMail         1.11*
                                                   TPBNetEd       3.2*
                                                   UFGATE        1.03
                                                   XRS            2.2
     * Recently changed

     Utility authors:  Please help  keep  this  list  up  to  date  by
     reporting  new  versions  to 1:1/1.  It is not our intent to list
     all utilities here, only those which verge on necessity.

     -----------------------------------------------------------------
     FidoNews 6-25                Page 41                  19 Jun 1989


     =================================================================
                                  NOTICES
     =================================================================

                          The Interrupt Stack


      9 Jul 1989
        FidoNet's Zone 4 (Latin America)  adopts 0800 GMT as new Zone
        Mail Hour, replacing the North American 0900 GMT schedule.

     15 Jul 1989
        Start of the SAPMFC&LP (Second Annual Poor Man's FidoCon and
        Lake Party) to be held at Silver Lake Park on Grapevine Lake
        in Arlington, Texas.  This started as an R19-only thing last
        year, but we had so much fun, we decided to invite everybody!
        We'll have beer, food, beer, waterskiing, beer, horseshoes,
        beer, volleyball, and of course beer.  It's an  overnighter,
        so bring your sleeping bag and plan to camp out.  Contact one
        of the Furriers (Ron Bemis at 1:124/1113 or Dewey Thiessen at
        1:130/24) for details and a fantastic ASCII map.

      2 Aug 1989
        Start of Galactic Hacker Party in Amsterdam, Holland. Contact
        Rop Gonggrijp at 2:280/1 for details.

     24 Aug 1989
        Voyager 2 passes Neptune.

     24 Aug 1989
        FidoCon '89 starts at the Holiday Inn in San Jose,
        California.  Trade show, seminars, etc. Contact 1:1/89
        for info.

      5 Oct 1989
        20th Anniversary of "Monty Python's Flying Circus"

     11 Oct 1989
        First International Modula-2 Conference at Bled, Yugoslavia
        hosting Niklaus Wirth and the British Standards Institution.
        Contact 1:106/8422 for more information.

     11 Nov 1989
        A new area code forms in northern Illinois at 12:01 am.
        Chicago proper will remain area code 312; suburban areas
        formerly served with that code will become area code 708.


     -----------------------------------------------------------------

                         POLICY4 Vote Results
                  David Dodell, 1:1/0 (aka 1:114/15)
                   FidoNet International Coordinator



     FidoNews 6-25                Page 42                  19 Jun 1989


     I am pleased to announce the passing of  POLICY4.06  as  the
     new  governing  policy  document for FidoNet.  This document
     will be known as POLICY4 and has been placed into effect  on
     June 9, 1989.

     The vote breakdown for all FidoNet Zones was:

     Yes -> 152
     No  ->  75

     -----------------------------------------------------------------

     FidoNews 6-25                Page 43                  19 Jun 1989


     =================================================================
                                  REPORTS
     =================================================================

     Nominations and Elections Committee
     1:107/233

              Report from Nominations and Elections Committee

     Well, to say the least, there have been a few problems with the
     Nominations process.  The biggest is that in the rules for this
     year posted in FidoNews, there was a statement that Nominees did
     not have to be IFNA members.  The problem is, that that is the
     way things were last year.  You see, it was the intention of the
     drafters of the Bylaws that a Director not have to be a member,
     and therefore nothing was put into the original Bylaws to this
     effect.

     However, the lack of a definitive statement led to considerable
     controversy in regard to interpretations of the Bylaws on this
     matter, with some people making the point that the Bylaws
     indicated that only Regular Members had the right to vote and
     that requirement was extended to include the voting of a
     Director.  In any event, in order to clear up this point there
     was a statement voted into the Bylaws in the last election to the
     effect that a Director must be a "member in good-standing."
     Unfortunately, this slipped past the committee and they left in
     last year's interpretation.  This has presented a problem in a
     specific instance where one individual did receive sufficient
     nominations but, when the Committee checked memberships, found
     that the individual had proceeded under the published
     instructions.  Due to this fact, the fact that the membership
     application from the individual is presently received and in
     processing, and that it appears that no one's interests would be
     served by ruling to the contrary, the committee has decided to
     validate the nomination.

     Accordingly, Kathi Crockett is hereby announced as being elected
     to the position of Director of Division 17, there being no one
     else who officially garnered a sufficient number of endorsements.
     This last point presents another problem.  The Committee, as part
     of its charge to see to the nominations of qualified candidates,
     had indicated in a couple cases that it would assist others in
     finding additional supporters, in those areas where there were
     not enough IFNA members.  However, despite attempts by the
     committee to get in both netmail and voice contact with the IFNA
     Secretary, no direct word was received by the Committee and
     indirect word did not arrive until well after the official
     cut-off date.

     The Committee is naturally upset about this situation and wishes
     to apologize to anyone who feels that they were affected.  We
     expect to make amends by assisting such individuals, as may be
     legally possible, during the remainder of the election process.
     In addition, the Committee is recommending that the Bylaws be
     changed to not divide the responsibilities of the nomination
     FidoNews 6-25                Page 44                  19 Jun 1989


     process across separate offices to prevent such reoccurrences in
     the future.

     As to the rest of the election, the Nominations and Election
     Committee, in order to provide access to as many individuals as
     possible, intends to provide notice of any candidate who may be
     interested in a Directorial position and applies to be a write-in
     candidate.  Eleven more positions are available, so if you are
     willing to join forces to work for the furtherance of the
     FidoNet technology, please express your interest by contacting
     the Committee via 1:107/233 or 1:107/210 prior to July 1.

     -----------------------------------------------------------------
     FidoNews 6-25                Page 45                  19 Jun 1989


            OFFICERS OF THE INTERNATIONAL FIDONET ASSOCIATION

     Mort Sternheim 1:321/109  Chairman of the Board
     Bob Rudolph    1:261/628  President
     Matt Whelan    3:3/1      Vice President
     Bill Bolton    3:711/403  Vice President-Technical Coordinator
     Linda Grennan  1:147/1    Secretary
     Kris Veitch    1:147/30   Treasurer


            IFNA COMMITTEE AND BOARD CHAIRS

     Administration and Finance     Mark Grennan    1:147/1
     Board of Directors             Mort Sternheim  1:321/109
     Bylaws                         Don Daniels     1:107/210
     Ethics                         Vic Hill        1:147/4
     Executive Committee            Bob Rudolph     1:261/628
     International Affairs          Rob Gonsalves   2:500/1
     Membership Services            David Drexler   1:147/47
     Nominations & Elections        David Melnick   1:107/233
     Public Affairs                 David Drexler   1:147/47
     Publications                   Rick Siegel     1:107/27
     Security & Individual Rights   Jim Cannell     1:143/21
     Technical Standards            Rick Moore      1:115/333


                      IFNA BOARD OF DIRECTORS

         DIVISION                               AT-LARGE

     10  Courtney Harris   1:102/732    Don Daniels     1:107/210
     11  Bill Allbritten   1:11/301     Mort Sternheim  1:321/109
     12  Bill Bolton       3:711/403    Mark Grennan    1:147/1
     13  Irene Henderson   1:107/9       (vacant)
     14  Ken Kaplan        1:100/22     Ted Polczyinski 1:154/5
     15  Scott Miller      1:128/12     Matt Whelan     3:3/1
     16  Ivan Schaffel     1:141/390    Robert Rudolph  1:261/628
     17  Neal Curtin       1:343/1      Steve Jordan    1:206/2871
     18  Andrew Adler      1:135/47     Kris Veitch     1:147/30
     19  David Drexler     1:147/47      (vacant)
      2  Henk Wevers       2:500/1      David Melnik    1:107/233

     -----------------------------------------------------------------
     FidoNews 6-25                Page 46                  19 Jun 1989


                                                        __
                                   The World's First   /  \
                                      BBS Network     /|oo \
                                      * FidoNet *    (_|  /_)
     FidoCon '89 in San Jose, California              _`@/_ \    _
       at The Holiday Inn Park Plaza                 |     | \   \\
            August 24-27, 1989                       | (*) |  \   ))
                                        ______       |__U__| /  \//
                                       / Fido \       _//|| _\   /
                                      (________)     (_/(_|(____/ (tm)


                     R E G I S T R A T I O N   F O R M


     Name:    _______________________________________________________

     Address:    ____________________________________________________

     City:    _______________________ State: ____ Zip: ______________

     Country:    ____________________________________________________


     Phone Numbers:

     Day:    ________________________________________________________

     Evening:    ____________________________________________________

     Data:    _______________________________________________________


     Zone:Net/
     Node.Point:  ___________________________________________________

     Your BBS Name:  ________________________________________________


     BBS Software:  _____________________ Mailer: ___________________

     Modem Brand:  _____________________ Speed:  ____________________

     At what hotel will you be staying:  ____________________________

     Do you want an in room point?  (Holiday Inn only) ______________

     Are you a Sysop?  _____________

     Are you an IFNA Member?  ______

     Additional Guests:  __________
     (not attending conferences)

     Do you have any special requirements? (Sign Language translation,
     handicapped, etc.)
     FidoNews 6-25                Page 47                  19 Jun 1989


               ______________________________________________________


     Comments: ______________________________________________________

               ______________________________________________________

               ______________________________________________________


     Costs                                   How Many?   Cost
     ---------------------------             --------    -------

     Conference fee $60 .................... ________    _______
        ($75.00 after July 15)

     Friday Banquet  $30.00 ................ ________    _______

                                             ========    =======

     Totals ................................ ________    _______

     You may pay by Check,  Money Order,  or Credit Card.  Please send
     no  cash.   All monies must be in U.S.  Funds.   Checks should be
     made out to: "FidoCon '89"


     This form should be completed and mailed to:

                         Silicon Valley FidoCon '89
                         PO Box 390770
                         Mountain View, CA 94039


     You may register by Netmailing this completed form to 1:1/89  for
     processing.   Rename  it  to  ZNNNXXXX.REG where Z is  your  Zone
     number, N is your Net number, and X is your Node number.  US Mail
     confirmation  is  required  within  72  hours  to  confirm   your
     registration.

     If  you are paying by credit card,  please include the  following
     information.   For  your own security,  do not route any  message
     with your credit card number on it.  Crash it directly to 1:1/89.


     Master Card _______     Visa ________


     Credit Card Number _____________________________________________


     Expiration Date ________________________________________________

     Signature ______________________________________________________

     No  credit  card registrations will be accepted without  a  valid
     FidoNews 6-25                Page 48                  19 Jun 1989


     signature.


     Rooms  at the Holiday Inn may be reserved by calling the Hotel at
     408-998-0400,  and mentioning that you are with  FidoCon.   Rooms
     are $60.00 per night double occupancy.   Additional rollaways are
     available  for $10.00 per night.   To obtain these rates you must
     register before July 15.

     The official FidoCon '89 airline is American Airlines.   You  can
     receive  either  a  5%  reduction in supersaver fares  or  a  40%
     reduction in the regular day coach fare.  San Jose is an American
     Airlines  hub  with direct flights to most  major  cities.   When
     making reservations, you must call American's reservation number,
     800-433-1790, and reference Star number S0289VM.

     The official FidoCon '89 automobile rental agency is Alamo Rent a
     Car.  Rates are as described below. All rates  include  automatic
     transmission, air conditioning, radio, and unlimited 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.

     To take advantage of this rate, call Alamo at 1-800-327-9633  and
     request  the convention rate. Mention FidoCon '89,  the  location
     and dates.


     -----------------------------------------------------------------
     FidoNews 6-25                Page 49                  19 Jun 1989


                                      __
                 The World's First   /  \
                    BBS Network     /|oo \
                    * FidoNet *    (_|  /_)
                                    _`@/_ \    _
                                   |     | \   \\
                                   | (*) |  \   ))
                      ______       |__U__| /  \//
                     / Fido \       _//|| _\   /
                    (________)     (_/(_|(____/ (tm)

            Membership for the International FidoNet Association

     Membership in IFNA is open to any individual or organization that
     pays  a  specified  annual   membership  fee.   IFNA  serves  the
     international  FidoNet-compatible  electronic  mail  community to
     increase worldwide communications.

     Member Name _______________________________  Date _______________
     Address _________________________________________________________
     City ____________________________________________________________
     State ________________________________  Zip _____________________
     Country _________________________________________________________
     Home Phone (Voice) ______________________________________________
     Work Phone (Voice) ______________________________________________

     Zone:Net/Node Number ____________________________________________
     BBS Name ________________________________________________________
     BBS Phone Number ________________________________________________
     Baud Rates Supported ____________________________________________
     Board Restrictions ______________________________________________

     Your Special Interests __________________________________________
     _________________________________________________________________
     _________________________________________________________________
     In what areas would you be willing to help in FidoNet? __________
     _________________________________________________________________
     _________________________________________________________________
     Send this membership form and a check or money order for $25 in
     US Funds to:
                   International FidoNet Association
                   PO Box 41143
                   St Louis, Missouri 63141
                   USA

     Thank you for your membership!  Your participation will help to
     insure the future of FidoNet.

     Please NOTE that IFNA is a general not-for-profit organization
     and Articles of Association and By-Laws were adopted by the
     membership in January 1987.  The second elected Board of Directors
     was filled in August 1988.  The IFNA Echomail Conference has been
     established on FidoNet to assist the Board.  We welcome your
     input to this Conference.

     -----------------------------------------------------------------
