     Volume 6, Number 20                                   15 May 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
     Contributing Editors:                                   Al Arango
     
     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
        FidoNews Editorial Policy  ................................  2
        Palindrome Archives -- A Product review  ..................  7
        FidoNet and Policy4  ...................................... 14
        No-Code Packet Radio? (reprint)  .......................... 23
        What DOES a "reasonable sysop" do?  ....................... 26
        Wilderness Echo  .......................................... 31
     3. COLUMNS  .................................................. 32
        The Veterinarian's Corner: Feline Skin Diseases  .......... 32
     And more!
     FidoNews 6-20                Page 1                   15 May 1989


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

     This is  turning  into  a  narcotic.    Now  that I have written
     something up here  and people are sending me mail and responses,
     I am really getting INTO it.

     Last week you might  have  noticed  that  I  was concerned about
     whether the *C's were going to take any concrete actions to deal
     with  their  perceived  FidoNews  problem.  Since  writing  that
     editorial I have received sufficient information to believe that
     they  ARE going to take action:   they  are  going  to  help  me
     increase  the  "signal"  content  of FidoNews.  In  fact,  Steve
     Bonine was kind enough to compose and submit a  response  to  my
     editorial, which I am printing this week (along with one other).

     Since much of  the  controversy  seems  to  have  centered  on a
     particular column, it probably would be worthwhile at this point
     for me to state my intentions towards this column.   I intend to
     run the remaining submissions.  Unless I then receive some  very
     strong indication  that  this column has enjoyed wide readership
     and interest, I  will  print  no  further  submissions  for this
     column.  So it's  up  to  YOU  to  determine if you want to read
     ANIMED excerpts in FidoNews, or  if  you'd rather just subscribe
     to  the  Echomail  conference  from  which  all  this  data  was
     extracted.

     In  future weeks I expect to have assembled a series on  FidoNet
     history, using  materials  I've  solicited from Ken Kaplan and a
     few others.   In many cases, some of you "old-timers" might have
     seen  the  material  I'll    be   printing,  but  you're  vastly
     outnumbered by those members of  FidoNet  who  have not had this
     opportunity.

     As always, this is YOUR newsletter.    It's  only as good as YOU
     make it. Let's make it GREAT.

     -----------------------------------------------------------------
     FidoNews 6-20                Page 2                   15 May 1989


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

     Steve Bonine
     115/777

                  My Opinion on FidoNews Editorial Policy


     I feel compelled to respond to Vince's recent editorial on
     FidoNews editorial policy, since I was (and still am) one of the
     RC's who raised questions concerning the content of FidoNews.

     Why do I care?  There are two reasons.  First, I spend my own
     money to distribute FidoNews to NC's in region 11.  Second, I
     feel that FidoNet needs a means of distributing information to
     the sysops throughout the network, and that FidoNews has pretty
     much lost its effectiveness as that vehicle because of a lack of
     a reasonable editorial policy.  (I'm not criticizing Vince; his
     hands are tied.)

     Vince left the impression in his editorial that the RC's are
     trying to restrict free speech.  I'm a firm believer in free
     speech, but I'm not particularly eager to spend my own money
     shipping data around that no one is going to read.  What is Fido-
     News, anyway?  Is it an important forum -- the last bastion of
     available distribution mechanisms for opinion?  No.  FidoNews is
     the newsletter of the FidoNet BBS network.  It's actually the
     newsletter of an organization called the IFNA, but that
     organization seldom graces its pages with any IFNA-related
     information, and rumor has it that IFNA is trying its best to
     divorce itself from FidoNet.

     The print-anything policy is an idea whose time is past.  There
     are probably a hundred echomail conferences which have higher
     readership than FidoNews.  If I want to find out about fleas, I
     am perfectly capable of getting the ANIMED conference myself.
     Why should the RC's and NC's have to spend their money
     distributing articles on fleas to an audience which contains only
     a miniscule number of people who want to read that information?
     If I want to exercise my freedom of speech, I'll do it where
     someone might read what I write -- in a forum of people with
     similar interests.  It's not like we are short of echomail
     conferences!

     The fact that there are probably a hundred echomail conferences
     with higher readership than FidoNews is an indication of how bad
     the problem is.  Before echomail, most sysops read FidoNews
     because that's all there was.  Now it has competition, and it's
     not doing well against that competition.

     All of which brings us to the question of what to do now.
     Actually, I agree with much of what Vince says in his editorial.
     He points out that there is a low signal-to-noise ratio, and that
     we need more good articles.  That's true.  But there are two ways
     FidoNews 6-20                Page 3                   15 May 1989


     to improve the signal-to-noise ratio:  increase the signal, or
     reduce the noise.  I feel that FidoNews needs both.  Not only do
     we need more good articles, but we need a responsible editorial
     policy to reduce the extraneous junk.  I would rather have a
     FidoNews with one good article, and that's all, than have the
     same article plus five fillers.  It's less for me to distribute,
     and it's more likely that the sysops of FidoNet will read it.  If
     FidoNews were judged on bulk, then we would have no problem.

     I think that FidoNews could be improved by the simple application
     of a common-sense editorial policy to restrict the content to
     FidoNet-related material.  No one is going to have their freedom
     of speech abridged -- I bet the ANIMED conference will survive
     just fine without a weekly column in FidoNews.  Readership would
     improve, and subsequently more articles would be submitted.  But
     I recognize that I'm in the minority, so I will content myself
     with living with the situation, and hoping that eventually the
     problem improves.  In the meantime, I've done my part.  Where's
     YOUR FidoNews article?

     -----------------------------------------------------------------
     FidoNews 6-20                Page 4                   15 May 1989


     Freedom of the Press:  An opposing viewpoint
     Jack Decker
     1:154/8


     Freedom of the Press:  An opposing viewpoint

     In FidoNews Volume 6, Number 19, our esteemed Editor in Chief
     (Vince Perriello) editoralized on Freedom of the Press.  I am
     not being sarcastic when I use the word "esteemed" in reference
     to Vince, since he has probably done more to help Fidonet than
     at least 95% of the people in the net.  Vince has made some
     major contributions to our hobby, and I value his opinions
     highly, even if I don't always agree.

     Vince basically espoused the viewpoint that FidoNews should
     remain "a free and open public forum in which any of us can
     share anything we consider important with anyone else."  As
     Vince points out, the present content of FidoNews "often has
     little or nothing to do with the day-in, day-out nonsense
     involved in being a member of Fidonet."

     Let's take a moment to consider what "Freedom of the Press"
     really means.  If we can, let's take a look at the real world,
     outside of Fidonet.  If I submit an article on raising African
     Violets to the editor of Radio-Electronics magazine, is he
     under any obligation to print it?  Of course not!  All right,
     let's suppose I send the editor of that publication an article
     that IS somehow related to Radio or Electronics?  Is he then
     under any obligation to print it?  The answer is still NO!  As
     a matter of fact, "Freedom of the Press" does not require ANY
     publication to print ANY article they receive (even if they
     print a correction or retraction to a previous story, it's not
     because of "Freedom of the Press", it's because they don't want
     to be sued for things like libel or slander!).

     Similarly, FidoNews is under no legal obligation to print
     everything received.  That's an editorial decision.  What
     "freedom of the Press" really means is that if you don't like
     the way a particular publication is doing things, you have the
     freedom to start your own, competing publication.  In theory,
     the government is not allowed to shut you down because they
     don't happen to agree with the contents of your publication.
     In fact, the scope of "Freedom of the Press" is pretty much
     limited to government interference with private publications
     (some of you may recall when the old Bell System was able to
     legally suppress nearly the entire distribution of one issue of
     "Ramparts" magazine back in the 60's, because Bell objected to
     an article in that issue detailing how to build a "black box."
     The comment was made that had Ramparts similarly figured out
     through their own efforts how a top secret Navy submarine
     works, the government would have been quite powerless to stop
     them from publishing those details, unless they could somehow
     prove that the information had been stolen from government
     files).

     FidoNews 6-20                Page 5                   15 May 1989


     The problem with a "print everything received" policy is that
     it leaves the door wide open for any particular group to usurp
     FidoNews as their soapbox.  Now, I happen to feel that such a
     policy is very valuable when the article has something to do
     with Fidonet, computers, or communications.  But there are lots
     of other subjects that folks might write on, and that sysops
     (even at the *C level) might object to.  A few examples, just
     to get you thinking:

     * An article extolling the benefits of being a member of the Ku
     Klux Klan (if you were a black sysop, would you really want to
     carry that?)

     * An article soliciting members for a worldwide neo-Nazi party,
     and promoting a private echo called "NAZI" for the
     dissemination of information on that movement (if you were
     Jewish, would you feel comfortable with this?)

     * An article describing the joys of sex with animals in the
     most graphic terms possible (with extremely foul language), and
     inviting everyone to try it (If you have kids and/or pets,
     would you be comfortable with such an article?  Would you want
     your children to read it on your BBS?).

     * Articles promoting various religions (not yours) promising
     anything from bad luck to eternal damnation to those who do not
     follow the tenets of that religion (an interesting side note to
     this:  After the Tom Jennings article that started much of the
     present controversy, I suggested to previous FidoNews editor
     Dale Lovell that now someone might write a "hell fire and
     brimstone" article giving the Biblical injunctions against
     homosexuality (yes, there are some verses that condemn the
     practice).  Dale replied that an article like that would
     probably NOT be published in FidoNews.  This makes me wonder if
     the "print everything" policy really translates to "print
     everything that the FidoNews editor doesn't find repugnant."
     The problem there is that if the FidoNews editor can censor
     articles that he personally finds objectionable, why can't the
     *C's that are forced to distribute FidoNews do the same?
     Either we have a true "print everything received" policy or we
     don't...  and if we don't, we should stop pretending we do, and
     get on with defining just where the limits are!).

     The major problem I see with a "print everything" policy is
     that *C's are forced by Policy to distribute FidoNews to the
     nodes underneath them.  This would make sense IF FidoNews was
     primarily a technical journal dealing with things relating to
     Fidonet.  The problem occurs when we force sysops to distribute
     material that is objectionable to their standard of ethics or
     sense of decency.  Even newstand owners have the right to not
     carry magazines that they personally find objectionable (how
     many religious magazines do you find in adult bookstores, or
     vise versa?).  But, in effect, Policy states that "we don't
     care if there's an article in FidoNews from a group advocating
     the death of you and your family... if the article gets into
     FidoNews, you HAVE to carry it, or step down as *C.  Meanwhile,
     FidoNews 6-20                Page 6                   15 May 1989


     as I pointed out earlier, the FidoNews editor apparently has
     the discretion to omit articles that he personally finds
     objectionable (I do not know whether Vince uses this
     prerogative or not).  If the editor's world view lines up with
     yours, you may not be uncomfortable with letting him have all
     the discretion over what YOU must pass out (if you're a *C),
     but otherwise, you may find that you're forced to pass along
     articles that are personally repugnant to you (or perhaps even
     dangerous to the health and well being of you and/or your
     family).

     Now, if the editor replies to this by saying he wouldn't print
     these types of truly objectionable articles, we still have a
     few problems.  One is, what if he passes on an article that a
     *C finds truly awful?  Is the editor's judgement better than
     that of the *C?  Second, doesn't this give the editor the power
     to discriminate against certain articles and/or people that he
     doesn't happen to approve of (I'm just throwing that out for
     discussion, the truth is that EVERY "editor" has that power.
     The "print everything" policy really makes the FidoNews
     "editor's" job more that of a "compiler" of articles than a
     true "editor").  Third, if the editor really does delete
     objectionable articles, then we DON'T really have a "print
     everything" policy, in which case I would like to see some
     published guidelines, rather than just leaving everything to
     the personal preferences of the editor (if for no other reason
     than the fact that I don't want to waste the time and effort to
     write an article that will be rejected out of hand).

     I would suggest that at the very least, we modify the "print
     everything received" policy to say that we will "print
     everything received" AS LONG AS it has at least something to do
     with Fidonet, computers, or communications.  Perhaps all the
     other types of articles should go into a separate, Fidonet
     "literary" publication that would be offered to the *C's
     (through the same distribution channels as FidoNews), but that
     the *C's would not be REQUIRED to carry (I suppose that idea is
     much too democratic for this net!).

     In any case, if the "print everything received" policy is NOT
     modified, then I feel that those *C's who object should not be
     forced to carry it.  I would invite anyone who disagrees to
     show how "Freedom of the Press" REQUIRES someone to distribute
     literature that they are morally opposed to.  Why should we
     require this of VOLUNTEER sysops in Fidonet?  Here again, it
     seems that a few people are under the impression that Fidonet
     sysops are somehow their "employees" (that's being charitable,
     some might say "slaves") that can be dictated to by the
     higher-ups.  The sooner we realize that Fidonet is a volunteer
     organization, and that you don't make unreasonable demands of
     volunteers, the better off we're all going to be.


     -----------------------------------------------------------------
     FidoNews 6-20                Page 7                   15 May 1989


                  Palindrome Archives -- A Product review
                          by Ben Baker -- 7:44/76


          We have  all heard the litany many times, "Back up your hard
     disk, or you'll regret it!"  One of our favorite New Year's reso-
     lutions is "Do more back-ups!"

          The trouble  is that  backing up is such a painful exercise,
     we would much prefer to do something else!  I know owners of tape
     systems (I  was one  of them) who do not perform back-ups as fre-
     quently as  they should.  True, you don't have to shuffle a stack
     of diskettes, and then keep track of them, but even backing up to
     tape is still largely a manual process, right?  Wrong!

          Palindrome Corporation,  a new  company based  in a  Chicago
     suburb, saw  a need  and filled  it.  They market a line of "Tape
     Archiving Systems,"  as opposed to a tape back-up system.  If you
     have experience  in the main-frame world, you have probably heard
     the expression "tape archiving" before, but it's a new concept to
     PCs.   Tape archiving  is a strategy for backing up disk files in
     such a  way as  to provide  maximum protection  with minimum  re-
     sources.  It is a strategy you could employ with any back-up sys-
     tem --  disk or  tape --  but it requires careful record keeping,
     and 'till now, you were the bookkeeper!

          Palindrome OEM's  the tape  drives.   The key is their soft-
     ware, collectively  called "The PERSONAL ARCHIVIST" or TPA, which
     fully understands tape archiving strategy.  Believe me, it is so-
     phisticated stuff.   Before I can explain how it works, I need to
     define some terms.

          A "tape  set" is  a coordinated  set of  tapes, treated as a
     unit by  TPA.   A "tape  volume" is  a single tape.  For a system
     with one  20-meg disk,  tape sets  will all be single volume sets
     for some time, but for larger systems, a tape set might be two or
     more volumes.

          A "file  set" is  a collection  of files written from a disk
     drive to  tape in  a single  archiving operation.   There are two
     kinds of  file sets.  A "save set" is a permanent file set, and a
     "checkpoint set"  is a  temporary file  set.  As you might guess,
     "saving a  file" means  including that  file in  a save  set, and
     "checkpointing a file" means including it in a checkpoint set.  A
     file is  "fully protected" if the current version appears in save
     sets in three different tape sets.  (This number is configurable,
     but three is recommended, and certainly adequate for most circum-
     stances.)

          A "tape  rotation" is  the changing from one tape set to an-
     other.   This is usually done once a week.  With the usual number
     of five  tape sets, call them A, B, C, D and E, the tape rotation
     schedule for a 16-week period would look like this:

          E  D  E  C  E  D  E  B  E  D  E  C  E  D  E  A

     FidoNews 6-20                Page 8                   15 May 1989


          The schedule  then repeats indefinitely.  Remember I said it
     requires careful  record keeping?   The  beauty is that TPA keeps
     track of it all -- painlessly.  Notice from the schedule:

          Tape Set       Frequency of use

              A          once in 16 weeks
              B          once in 16 weeks
              C          once in  8 weeks
              D          once in  4 weeks
              E          every other week

          This means  that if  you muff  things horribly, you have not
     only current  checkpoints, and  week-old checkpoints,  but others
     dating back  at least eight weeks and up to 16 weeks!  And, using
     TPA's menu  system, recovering  an older  version of a particular
     file is  merely a  matter of  "point and  shoot!"  Now that's not
     merely back-up  -- that's true archiving!  What's more, save sets
     are never forgotten.  Eventually you would have the capability of
     going back  years into your save sets.  Have you ever installed a
     new version  of a program over the old, only to find out that the
     new version  is very  buggy?   Or how  about this.  You wrote a C
     program a long time ago and someone has asked you to recompile it
     to use  the math  coprocessor.   It should  only take a couple of
     minutes.  The trouble is that it was written for Lattice C, 2.47.
     Since then  you converted  to Lattice  3.0,  then  3.1,  then  to
     Microsoft C  4.0 to  5.0 to 5.1.  If you can find the old source,
     it won't  be a trivial task just getting it to compile under your
     present compiler!

          Had you  been using  TPA, the old version of the program you
     lost might be on the tape in the tape drive.  If not, it's surely
     right in  front in  your desk  drawer.   In two or three minutes,
     you've got  it back.  The old source file as well as version 2.47
     of the  Lattice compiler,  with all  its  libraries  and  include
     files, are is save sets on older tapes -- you haven't the fogiest
     which ones.   Run  the TPA  menu.   They all  show up as migrated
     files in  the database.   Select  the ones  you need -- oops, not
     enough space.  Delete some files you don't need right this minute
     to make  space, then have TPA restore the old files and their old
     directories.  It will tell you what tape or tapes it needs.  Then
     compile and  test the  program with  the right compiler switch to
     generate coprocessor code.  Finally delete the Lattice stuff, re-
     store your disk the way it was 45 minutes ago and press on!

          So what's all this about "saving" and "checkpointing?"

          Here's the  philosophy.  Stable files should be saved perma-
     nently.  Volatile files should be written to temporary tape sets,
     or "checkpointed,"  but permanent saving might well consume enor-
     mous amounts of tape.  How does TPA tell the difference?  It uses
     file date and time stamps and the "archive bit" as any sane back-
     up system would.  And it uses rules.  Enter configuration.

          When you  install TPA,  it is  pre-configured for  one  hard
     disk, your boot disk, three saves to fully protect a file, weekly
     FidoNews 6-20                Page 9                   15 May 1989


     rotations each Monday, and a default set of archiving rules.  All
     of this  may be changed through TPA's menu system.  The following
     is a  facsimile of TPA's configuration screen, published courtesy
     of Palindrome:

     -----------------------------------------------------------------
     THE PERSONAL ARCHIVIST            (c) Palindrome Corporation 1989
     -----------------------------------------------------------------

                           Archive Configuration

               Schedule                           Archive Storage
        ---------------------                  ---------------------
             Archive ID: BAKER                     Save Copies: 3
       Archive Rotation: SATURDAY                   Verify ECC: NO
        Automatic Start: 6:30a                     Auto Format: NO
          Automatic End: 7:00a                    Auto Migrate: NO
         Auto Intervals: 0                       Leave Phantom: NO
           Auto Command: tpa2tape /a /q             Media Type: QIC 40
              Error Log: C:\tpa_log             Concurrent DMA: NO
                                                   Split Saves: NO

           Protected Drives                      Archive Retrieval
        ---------------------                  ---------------------
         Disk 1: C: (no label)                  Overwrite File: PROMPT
         Disk 2: D: (no label)                  Allow Redirect: YES
         Disk 3: E: (no label)                  ChkPt Password: NO
         Disk 4: F: (no label)                   Save Password: NO

     Tab to select.   Enter to edit.   F1 for help.     Esc to return.
     -----------------------------------------------------------------

          (Note that  a fair  amount of editing has been done to these
     screens to  eliminate line-drawing characters, and to fit the 65-
     column format.  Nevertheless, they are reasonably faithful.)

          All of  the parameters  in the  above screen,  except  Media
     Type, are user configurable.

          TPA associates  a "rule"  with each  and every  file on your
     hard disk.   The rules answer the questions "When should I check-
     point this  file, when  should I save it, and when is it eligible
     for migration?"  (More on this in a bit.)  There are two kinds of
     rules -- specific and generic.  A specific rule applies to a par-
     ticular file.   A generic rule applies to a class of files in the
     directory in  which the rule is defined, and all its sub-directo-
     ries.

          Initially there  is a  rule for  "*.*" in the root directory
     which says  "checkpoint a file when it changes, save it if it has
     not changed  in six  weeks, and make it eligible for migration if
     it has  not been  used in  12 weeks.  When more than one rule ap-
     plies to a file, the most specific rule is used.  Any rule may be
     edited and new rules may be defined.  For example, I use the edi-
     tor Brief,  which places back-up copies of edited files in a spe-
     cial sub-directory.   I  have a  rule for  that subdirectory  for
     FidoNews 6-20                Page 10                  15 May 1989


     "*.*" which  says "Never  checkpoint, never  save and  never  mi-
     grate."  TPA dutifully ignores any files in that subdirectory.  I
     have a  similar rule  for "*.MSG"  in the root of the drive which
     contains my  BBS message base (these files are not only volatile,
     they change  names frequently,  and I  have no desire to preserve
     them for posterity).

          The following screen facsimile shows a few of my rules and a
     few files with rules applied to them:

     -----------------------------------------------------------------
     THE PERSONAL ARCHIVIST            (c) Palindrome Corporation 1989
     -----------------------------------------------------------------
       Directory Tree       Files in: \
       for Drive C:
                                         Check Pt     Save    Migrate
      >\                    LIST1        On Change After 6w  After12w
       |-123                LIST2        On Change After 6w  After12w
       |-BACKUP             TPA_LOG         Never     Never     Never
       |-BRIEF              *       .*   On Change After 6w  After12w
       | |-BACKUP           JUNK*   .*      Never     Never     Never
       | |-HELP             RUN     .ARC On Change After 6w  After12w
       | |-MACROS           SYSTEMS .ARC On Change After 6w  After12w
       |                    WIN2    .ARC On Change After 6w  After12w
     -----------------------------------------------------------------

          The left  side of  the display shows the directory tree with
     the root  currently selected.  Files and rules in the root direc-
     tory are listed on the right.

          What's all this about "migrating?"

          An optional, but very powerful feature of TPA, allows you to
     identify the files you don't use, and get them off your disk once
     they are  fully protected!   How?  TPAWATCH, a TSR furnished with
     the TPA software watches file opens.  It uses about 24K of memory
     and imposes very little overhead on normal operations.  If a file
     hasn't been  opened for  the prescribed  amount of  time,  it  is
     deemed eligible for migration.  Migration may be done at your di-
     rection, or TPA may be configured to do it automatically.

          TPAWATCH has  a second optional function useful in many sys-
     tems (but  not mine).  It can schedule automatic archiving opera-
     tions at a pre-determined time of day.  This is not terribly use-
     ful in  a BBS  environment, so I use SEAdog's event scheduler for
     this purpose.

          The  following  screen  shows  the  current  status  of  the
     archives as TPA sees it:

     -----------------------------------------------------------------
     THE PERSONAL ARCHIVIST            (c) Palindrome Corporation 1989
     -----------------------------------------------------------------
                  Last Archive update:  Checkpoint modified files.
                           Using tape:  BAKER_E1.
                           Updated on:  Mon Apr 10 05:34:41 1989
     FidoNews 6-20                Page 11                  15 May 1989


                     BAKER_E1 Summary:  Percent     Bytes
                      Permanent saves:     0%              0
                 Reusable checkpoints:    24%      9,740,288
                               Unused:    71%     28,745,728

                Next scheduled update:  Modified checkpoint.
                   Continue with tape:  BAKER_E1.

          For next scheduled rotation:  Sat Apr 15.
                   You will need tape:  BAKER_D1.

                        Tapes on hand:  BAKER_D1  BAKER_E1
             You should have in vault:  BAKER_A1  BAKER_A2
                                     :  BAKER_B1  BAKER_B2
                                     :  BAKER_C1  BAKER_C2
     -----------------------------------------------------------------

          You can tell from the information reported, that TPA is well
     aware of  the situation.   It  tells me  that I am doing modified
     checkpoints to  the "E"  tape set,  and that I will rotate to the
     "D" set  on Saturday.  It even suggests which tape sets should be
     stored in  a vault or at some off-site location.  (I use off-site
     storage, and  I don't agree with TPA's suggestion, since it would
     put all  my save  sets off-site, making a full restore impossible
     until I  retrieve some  tapes.   But its  heart is  in the  right
     place.)

          "So, how well does it work?"
          Installing the tape drive isn't difficult at all.  There are
     two versions in the 40- and 80-meg capacities -- internal and ex-
     ternal --  and both  go in according to the documentation without
     surprises.

          The software  installation procedure  is simple enough.  You
     just insert  the diskette  and type  "INSTALL."  It asks which is
     your boot  HD (you  need a meg of space there), then it creates a
     TPA subdirectory,  copies the files and initializes its database.
     It even  offers to  create a  bootable recovery diskette for you.
     This is a good idea, since it isn't at all obvious how to do this
     later, but you need a pre-formatted, bootable diskette or a blank
     diskette ahead  of time.   The install program offers to format a
     bootable diskette  for you, but if you decline, it won't copy the
     system files  for you,  and after  it has copied its own files to
     the diskette, it's too late!

          The archiving  rules can  only be  configured through  TPA's
     menu system.   For  a four-partition disk system it's repetitive,
     time-consuming, and boring.  They really need a method of editing
     the rules  off-line with your favorite text editor.  But you nor-
     mally only  need to  do it  once.   The menu approach is fine for
     later tweaking the rules as conditions change.

          Finally you're  ready to  start actually  using the  system.
     That's when I ran into serious problems.  TPA had no end of trou-
     ble reading  and writing  my tapes.  I spent several hours on the
     phone with Jim Gast of Palindrome (they are not shy about provid-
     FidoNews 6-20                Page 12                  15 May 1989


     ing customer  support --  they're young  and want  satisfied cus-
     tomers), and more hours than I care to think about exercising the
     system.  Once I had accumulated sufficient evidence, Palindrome,s
     engineers decided  I must  have received a "marginal" tape drive,
     and sent  me a replacement.  It appears they were right because I
     have had no problems with the new drive.

          The menu system is designed for easy use.  For the most part
     it is, and should present no problem for the casual user.  At the
     same time,  it permits the more experienced user to get well down
     into the  details.   It is  a little clunky in spots (like super-
     fluous "Strike  any key  to continue"  messages in a few places),
     but I have no serious complaints with it.

          Most (but  not all)  functions may also be operated in batch
     mode without operator intervention.  Day-to-day operations can be
     scheduled either by TPAWATCH, or in my case, by a SEAdog external
     event.  I run checkpoints three times a week on Monday, Wednesday
     and Friday,  and it  seems to take five to ten minutes.  Creating
     the A,  B and C sets took about 80 minutes each because it had to
     create my  initial save sets, and copied every file I had to tape
     each time.   After that, files more that six weeks old are "fully
     protected" and  won't be  written any more unless they change, so
     my Saturday  rotation takes 20 to 30 minutes.  I schedule archiv-
     ing operations  right after  net mail,  and they happen while I'm
     sleeping.  All I have to do is check the status and make sure TPA
     has the  tape it needs for the next run.  It's an idea whose time
     is long over due.

          If the hardware and software are quality stuff, the documen-
     tation is  an afterthought!   The  information contained  in  the
     software manual is well written and reasonably clear.  The cover-
     age of  the archiving  strategy and  of day-to-day operations are
     adequate, but  there are  whole sections missing.  TPA appears to
     have a  large repertoire of error messages.  Each message is num-
     bered for  easy look-up.   Trouble  is, there's  no place to look
     them up,  and it's not always clear what induced an error message
     in the  first place!   Two weeks ago TPA stopped backing up my D:
     drive and  began complaining  about the "undefined drive D."  The
     manual should  have told  me how  to resolve this problem, but it
     has no  sections on  error messages  or error recovery.  I had to
     call Palindrome  to find out that TPA supports drives with remov-
     able media,  and the volume label is a key part of a "drive defi-
     nition."   Sure enough,  I had  apparently run a (still unidenti-
     fied) program  which changed  the volume label on the D drive.  I
     corrected the  label and  TPA was  happy again.   The  phone call
     should not have been necessary.

          Palindrome acknowledges  the shortcomings  of the documenta-
     tion, and  I would  expect future  releases to  improve.   When I
     voiced this thought to a Company spokesman, his response was "You
     can bet  on it!  The company is growing fast, and a new manual is
     one of our highest priorities.  New sections will include 'How to
     recover (single  files to  whole disks).'  'Troubleshooting,' and
     'Error Messages (and their likely causes).'"

     FidoNews 6-20                Page 13                  15 May 1989


          Now that  I have  good hardware, I am beginning to trust the
     system, and  have joined  the ranks of "satisfied customers."  If
     you are  in the  market for  tape backup  capability, you  really
     should take  a look at this one.  If you already have a QIC-40 or
     QIC-80 tape  system, you might check with Palindrome for compati-
     bility.  They market the software separately at $195.

          System prices vary from $695 for the 40 Mb internal Personal
     Archivist for XT or AT (and near clones), to $6,995 for the 2 Gi-
     gabyte Network Archivist system.

          For more information, contact:

          Palindrome Corporation
          710 E. Ogden, Suite 208
          Naperville, IL 60540

          (312) 357-4600

     -----------------------------------------------------------------
     FidoNews 6-20                Page 14                  15 May 1989


     Randall Greylock, 1:321/202

     A Relatively Classless Organization

     FidoNet started  as  a relatively egalitarian place.  I think it
     was  Harv Neghila  who  described  it  as  equals  participating
     equally.

     Unfortunately, FidoNet seems to  be  changing  from  a classless
     organization to an organization that has no class.


     The Original Deal

     Send A Message To Your NC

     All the information originally required by Policy was needed for
     equals to participate equally.  It  was stored in a public place
     (the  nodelist)  and  was equally accessable to  all.    It  was
     equally verifiable by all.


     Operate In Accordance To Policy

     From there, all you had to do was  what  it  said  in  this  one
     document  you could pick up anywhere:  Policy.   Basically,  you
     had  to run ZMH, and try to be a reasonable  human  being.    It
     didn't matter if you had stumbled into FidoNet on some board  in
     CA, even if you were in MA.  All the information you  needed was
     there:  the rules and the phone numbers.


     You Are Now In Fidonet - No Further Costs Need Be Incurred


     Policy4: Changing The Ante: Haves Vs Have Nots

     Information Haves And Have Nots (And How To's)

     Voice Phones Are Valuable Information

     Like everyone else in FidoNet, there are one or two points about
     Policy4 I  don't  like.    The big one to me is this Voice Phone
     number crap.

     I've heard all  the arguments - I still don't buy them.  We have
     crossed a significant line - now we need to provide not only the
     information  required  for  the  technical  maintenance  of  the
     network, but more.

     I'm  not against the use of  telephones.    All  levels  of  the
     coordinator chain above me have a number for me, and vice versa.
     What I object to is REQUIRING this.   Also,  I  am  ONLY talking
     about the simple case of network membership.  I can see merit in
     requiring them between NEC's and nodes.

     FidoNews 6-20                Page 15                  15 May 1989


     Who Has Access To Them

     I  have  many  questions  about this.  Who has access  to  those
     numbers?  It's not spelled out by Policy.

     If  I am involved in a Policy dispute, will the other  party  be
     given  my  number  and  told to talk it out?  (Note there  is  a
     section  in  Policy that mentions voice as a step in the dispute
     resolution process.)


     What Responsibility Exists To Use Them

     If you  have these numbers, doesn't it imply some responsibility
     to use them?    This  is a many bladed juggernaut of a question.
     Does an NC or  RC  or  ZC or IC have a responsibility to talk to
     nodes  involved  in  a  Policy    dispute?     Do  they  have  a
     responsibility to call first if they  cannot get in touch with a
     system and are about to mark it  down?    If  these  things  are
     implied  (and  I  believe they will be -  lame  logic  tends  to
     reinforce itself), the cost of being a *C goes up dramatically.

     What if I don't WANT to talk to a boneheaded RC?  If I refuse to
     do so, is that grounds for excommunication?  What if I refuse to
     talk  to  the  dolt  I'm in a dispute with?  Does  that  mean  I
     automatically  lose my complaint?  (There is at least one RC who
     is more or less doing this now;  he's affectionately referred to
     as Adolf by those in his region.)

     And isn't it  only  fair if they have our numbers we should have
     the *C's?  And  if they won't talk to us, should that be grounds
     for excommunication or at least removal from position?


     Not Verifiable Information

     The  information  is  not  technically    verifiable,    and  is
     discriminatory against those with hearing or speech impediments.
     I don't HAVE a voice phone number,  and  when  officially asked,
     that will be my response.

     I really don't!  My business does, I  can be reached there.  But
     it's not fair to impose FidoNet calls on my  business.   More to
     the  point,  if I had an unlisted phone number, I  could  simply
     tell my NC I had no number.  He might suspect  I  was lying, but
     he would have no way to verify it.  Should I be  denied  a  node
     number?


     Discriminatory

     And  what about those  with  physical  difficulties  with  voice
     communications?  There was a  very  active person in the network
     who is deaf.  He did  not want that known, and did a good job of
     keeping it that way.  I don't  know  his  reasons  -  I  suspect
     because he had found an environment where he  was  treated as an
     FidoNews 6-20                Page 16                  15 May 1989


     equal.    This  requirement  would  destroy  all  hope  of  such
     equality.    When I found out about this person's condition,  it
     colored  my  opinion  of  him  - originally, I thought he was  a
     scumsucker;   after I found out he was a more sympathetic figure
     due to his handicap.


     Local Policy - Fiefdoms And Other Problems

     Added Burden To The Coordinator Structure

     Local Policy  is  a paradox.  It is an attempt to solve problems
     by adding to them.  The real problem is simple:  the coordinator
     structure has not done  a very good job of identifying problems,
     communicating with the body sysop, and attempting solutions.  In
     other words, the coordinator structure has  not  discharged well
     its    responsibilities.      Local  Policy  will  simply    add
     responsibility to be ill-discharged.

     Local Policy must be written by someone.   That's work.  And one
     way or the other, Local Policy will be challenged up the chain -
     even if you don't explicitly provide for review, somewhere along
     the  line just the creation of bad Policy will be challenged  as
     annoying.

     We already have  people  playing  Policy Games.  "Policy doesn't
     SAY  you have to  run  mail  only  during  ZMH"  is  one  of  my
     favorites.  What do you  think will happen when we have hundreds
     of Policies, all with their potential games?


     Examples

     I'm  about  to  list  a  series  of  examples  of  local  policy
     fragments,  each  stated  in the vernacular with  the  reasoning
     behind them.  In some cases, I'll explain  exactly  what I think
     is wrong with each.

     The important test is this:  get a number  of  sysop  friends to
     read  this  article,  and  have them mark Valid or Invalid  each
     example.  I'd be willing to bet that nearly all items  will have
     both  a  valid  and an invalid, and, unless you marked all items
     one  way  or  the other, no one else will agree with you on  all
     cases.


     Under A Local Policy, Could A Node Be Required To:

     Attend Network Meetings

     It is much  simpler  to  resolve  many  problems - technical and
     social - via more  direct  communication  than FidoNet provides.
     Therefore, doesn't it make sense  to  have  a local policy which
     FORCES the members to attend local network meetings?

     (BTW - the first person who  ever  presented this argument to me
     FidoNews 6-20                Page 17                  15 May 1989


     was Mikey.)


     Obey Local User And Point Policies

     We are having problems with some users  and some points that are
     causing  great havoc throughout our network.  For  instance,  we
     have one malicious user who logs onto Sysop B's  board using the
     name  of  Sysop  A  (or a close derivative) and leaves  annoying
     messages.    By the time Sysop B gets wise and tightens  up  his
     access rules,  new  Sysop C gets the same treatment.  Therefore,
     doesn't it make  sense  to  require  all  sysops  to  abide by a
     standard set of rules  for  granting  user  access?  No handles,
     voice numbers and addresses must  be  obtained and verified, and
     God help you if you don't.

     I mean, who cares about that  "A  sysop  may run his board as he
     pleases" crap.


     Participate

     One of the biggest problems in FidoNet is one of Apathy.  We are
     continually arguing over which side the silent majority  is  on.
     If  one  cares  enough  to  join,  one  should  care  enough  to
     participate  in  the  decision making process - if one does  not
     participate, one relinquishes his access.

     In our net, we have a node that is VERY active  in the Veteran's
     Affairs.    The  sysop  is not very active in either our net  or
     regional conferences, although  he  does attend the face to face
     meetings we occaisionally have.    Should he HAVE to invest time
     at the local level when  he  makes  a  great contribution at the
     national level?

     In many ways, his situation exemplifies  the  worst of the flaws
     in  a  local  policy.  He was  working  at  putting  together  a
     standard kit for other Veteran's groups to get  online  quickly.
     It's tough enough to do the technical work of  bringing up a new
     node;   local  policy  could  increase  that exponentially.  For
     instance, suppose the  local policy mandated CM operation - that
     would exclude any Vet  Center wanting to do "split use" on their
     phone lines.  Strict network rules regarding user identification
     and registration contradict the need for confidentiality in many
     "social service" forums.


     Pick Up Echoconferences (At Your Expense?)

     Echomail is the main mechanism for communication in FidoNet.  In
     order to ensure that everyone gets the information,  doesn't  it
     make sense that everyone should be required to get some base set
     of echo conferences?

     Not to me, it doesn't.  Let me count the ways.

     FidoNews 6-20                Page 18                  15 May 1989


     In the old days, there was one, and only one thing one had to do
     to join FidoNet that overtly cost money:  send a message  to  an
     NC requesting a node number.  Once you had your node number, you
     could easily exist  with  nearly no contact with the coordinator
     structure.

     The logic presented for  mandated echomail sounds like requiring
     that I buy a TV  and  leave  it  on  CNN all the time, even if I
     could care less.

     Further, the question is where does  it  stop?    Can we mandate
     regional,  zonal, and FidoNet wide conferences as  well  as  our
     little local one?  (What, this is unreasonable?    Hmmmm  - that
     doesn't sound consistent to me ...) And while we  are at it, can
     we mandate more than one per level - say one for sysops, and one
     for  general chatter?  (Oh, you say this is unreasonable?  Hmmmm
     ...  but what you suggest sounds unreasonable to me!)


     Pick Up Groupmail

     If we assume it's ok to mandate echomail, why not groupmail?  In
     fact, in this  net,  we are right thinking sorts of people - you
     not  only  have  to    get  our  net  conferences  grouped,  but
     EVERYTHING.


     Provide Credit References

     Before you get into this net, we are going  to make sure you are
     a right thinking  upstanding individual.   Our NC, S. Daddy, has
     access  to TRW, and checks your credit with them before granting
     a  node  number.    If  you  are  unwilling  to  provide  enough
     information for same, no node number.


     Mandated Routing

     Since we have mandated conferences here, we don't really want to
     impose too much long  distance.    Therefore,  you MUST make any
     conferences you have available to other net members.


     Minimum Baud Rate

     Since we require you to pick up all this crud, and since I don't
     want my Glorious NC System tied  up  for  excessive  periods  of
     time, all nodes in My Most Perfect Network must run 2400 baud or
     better.  If you run less than that,  you  should  be a point, as
     you are not real serious.


     Run A BBS

     This network exists to serve users.  Therefore, to  be  a member
     of  this  network, you must provide direct services to users  by
     FidoNews 6-20                Page 19                  15 May 1989


     operating  a BBS.  Mail Only and Private systems are simply  not
     allowed.


     Run CM

     In this day and age, there is just no reason not to run CM.

     And who cares about Fido11w anyway?


     Run Session Protected

     We have a lot of problems with nodes imitating nodes.  In  order
     to  eliminate  this problem  locally,  all  nodes  must  operate
     session protected.

     We don't care about Fido11w either.


     Run Wazoo

     In this day and age,  it's damned annoying to have to restart an
     echomail or other file transfer.   Since  WaZoo  was  the  first
     restartable session technology, we require all nodes in this net
     to operate WaZoo capable.


     Impact of Stupidity

     Let's consider the impact of this stupidity.   First  off, we'll
     probably  have to establish that local Policy itself is  subject
     to  challenge up the chain.  This will probably take  a  few  of
     months of arguing.  Let's assume it takes the nets a  couple  of
     months  of  squabbling  to arrive at a local policy.  Then there
     will be  a  month  or so of intense local argument before things
     get into complaints or challenges.  From there, we have a couple
     of weeks of per  level  of  fact  gathering and decision making.
     And if the policy is  overturned,  we  are faced with other ugly
     questions:    is  the whole local  policy  invalid?    Will  the
     creators follow the dim logic of "There's  more  than one way to
     skin a cat" and come up with some new policy that does about the
     same thing but avoids the points of the decision.

     It's Sysiphian.


     Stupidity Is Uniformly Distributed

     When  I  was  younger,  I  spent long hours trying  to  convince
     Chairman  Len  that  my  generation  had a unique perspective on
     reality, and  was  therefore  smarter.    Len  would  argue that
     stupidity  is  evenly    distributed.      I  still  believe  my
     generation's perspective is quite  different  from his, but long
     ago, I conceded his point on stupidity.

     FidoNews 6-20                Page 20                  15 May 1989


     Many people, myself included, have  been  critical  of the upper
     level  coordinator  structure.   In my  opinion,  a  significant
     percentage of the RC structure could be used as lab animals in a
     brain death demonstration.  However, this is not to say the NC's
     and NEC's are perfect.  Far from it -  I  have  seen  MANY  more
     misstatements  of  Policy  from  the  NC level than from the  RC
     level.    This  is  to  be  expected:    if stupidity is equally
     distributed on  a  percentage  basis, there are bound to be more
     stupid NC's than RC's.

     Also, in very  few  cases  do  I believe Malice is the operating
     emotion.  To quote Chairman Len:  "When presented with stupidity
     or malice as explanations for  incomprehensible  behaviour,  the
     smart money is always on stupid."

     A Policy is only as good  as  the  people that bring it to life.
     At  this  point, we have one single  Policy  which  is  unevenly
     interpreted and implemented - a direct comment on the quality of
     the people doing the implementation.  Policy3 (or 4)  may or may
     not be badly written, but if you allow full local  policies, you
     will  SURELY  end up with a zillion Policies, some of which  are
     badly written, most being  unevenly interpreted and implemented.
     You considerably increase the amount of stupid arguing that goes
     on about Policy - instead of  pointless  bickering  (and  little
     action)  on  one Policy, you'll have three  or  four  times  the
     pointless bickering, as you add Zonal, Regional, and  Net  Level
     hassles.

     I  recently saw a message characterizing the various operational
     entities in FidoNet as gangs.  What leads anyone to believe that
     local Policy would not lead to local gangs?


     Policy Process

     Comparisons To US Governmental Organization

     Paradox: A Node Number Is Not A Right

     One  of the biggest pieces of garbage I've heard lately is  that
     FidoNet  is  a right.  Freedom of speech in FidoNet is a  right,
     not a privilege.

     Membership in FidoNet is not a right.  It is a privilege.  It is
     earned.   Unfortunately, many in FidoNet  (particularly  in  the
     SouthEast) seem to have lost sight of  this.  We do not have the
     right to defame, to make racist remarks, to  shout  Theatre in a
     crowded Fire.

     What  I find most amusing about all this is it  comes  from  the
     hotbed of  EggNet - a network based on all these fine principles
     which does not work.  Since it's screwed up on its own, it seems
     now to want to  try  the  same  experiments  in  FidoNet,  which
     largely DOES work.


     FidoNews 6-20                Page 21                  15 May 1989


     Policy Is More A Bill of Rights Than A Set Of Laws

     A fundamental problem is that people look on Policy as the rules
     of FidoNet.  This is only  partially  correct.  If you come back
     to the analogy of US Government, Policy  is  both  the "US Code"
     AND The Bill of Rights.

     Those basic rights are as follows:

     A Sysop May Run His Board Pretty Much As He Pleases

     So long as he meets the basic technical and social norms, he may
     participate in the network

     Along with these rights are responsibilities:

     Thou shalt not excessively annoy
     Thou shalt not be excessively annoyed


     Voting Against As Opposed To Voting For

     Perhaps  the biggest problem with something like Policy is  that
     too  many  are  willing  to  be  one-issue  people.   All  their
     decisions  are  based  on  that  one  issue.    For some, it  is
     democracy.   For  others, it is local Policy.  For still others,
     it's commercialization.

     It's simply not possible to write a policy document that doesn't
     offend someone.  But in our "I"-centered network,  the  things I
     object  to are far more important than the good  of  the  whole.
     More  than  anything,  this  typifies  what  is  wrong  with the
     network.


     How Do You Expect A New Policy To Be Put In Place?

     Personally,  I  think  a big mistake was made in using Policy4's
     own processes to bootstrap it.  I am at least partially to blame
     for  this.    It  should  simply  have  been put in place by the
     IC/RC's, and subsequent changes made by the mechanisms therein.

     Let's assume  P4  is  voted  down.  What next?  Do you think the
     RC's will want  to  go  through this again?  For that matter, if
     David were as power  hungry  as  he  is depicted, what reason is
     there for him to ALLOW a policy that erodes that (as P4 does.)

     One way or the other,  a Policy change must be acceptable to the
     *C  structure at all levels.   It  cannot  be  imposed  on  that
     structure, at least not given Policy3.


     How Do You Expect To Get A New IC?

     If you vote down Policy 4, how  do  you  expect to get a new IC?
     One of the things that keeps David in  office  is the chaos that
     FidoNews 6-20                Page 22                  15 May 1989


     would    surely    ensue    if    he   left  given  the  current
     "non-succession".


     Who Do You Expect To Write Policy 4.07?

     At this point, at least a year and a half  of effort on the part
     of the RC's has gone into Policy 4.  Despite what many think, it
     was  not  the  work  of an obnoxious bunch of boors who want  to
     crush the sysops  under  their  boots.   The divisions among the
     RC's are as great as the divisions seen in the network.

     It is a particularly  gruelling process for the person doing the
     writing.  This person has  to  tread a fine line between his own
     opinions and the will of the  majority.  He is often placed in a
     position where he has to write language  he considers terminally
     flawed, and is met with abuse when he  finds it impossible to do
     so.  It's even tougher given that the RC's  are  as apathetic as
     the net as a whole - a minority of the  RC's  even  bothered  to
     participate while I was scribe - Zone 3 was marginally involved,
     Zone 2 not at all.  (Another farce that needs to be  addressed -
     Zone  2  isn't  a part of FidoNet.  They operate under their own
     Policy and we should give them what they want:  out.)


     Vote For Policy 4

     -----------------------------------------------------------------
     FidoNews 6-20                Page 23                  15 May 1989


     Re-typed and submitted by Jack Decker
     Fidonet 1:154/8  LCRnet 77:1011/8  NetWork 8:70/8


                         NO-CODE PACKET RADIO?

     [All of the following text (INCLUDING the note asking that the
     article be reprinted) is taken verbatim from April, 1989 issue
     of the Tandy User Group Newsletter (a NON-copyrighted
     publication of the Radio Shack Marketing Information Department
     of Tandy Corporation).  The author is Ed Juge, director of
     market planning, Radio Shack, 1700 One Tandy Center, Fort
     Worth, Texas  76102.]


     And, Speaking of Packet Radio...

     (Note to club newsletter editors - Even though this may seem a
     little bit off the subject, please try to find space in your
     newsletter to reprint it.  I think many of your members may
     find it of real interest.)

     In a column in PCM Magazine last Fall, I editorialized a bit
     about the large number of computer users who are sharing data,
     programs, electronic mail, and more... not just locally, but
     with others literally around the world... and not paying a dime
     in connect time charges.  That, and a follow-up column early
     this year, brought more mail than any topic I have ever written
     about.

     How are they doing this?  By way of Amateur Radio.  But, you
     say, "You gotta' learn that Morse Code stuff."  MAYBE NOT!
     Amateurs recently lost 2 MHz. of frequency spectrum to
     commercial services, and frankly, it had the effect of a major
     earthquake, measuring "10" on ham radio's Ricther scale!
     Immediately, one well-known Amateur launched a campaign to
     petition the Federal Communications Commission for a no-code
     VHF license.  Even the prestigious American Radio Relay League
     (ARRL), who had successfully and bitterly fought a previous
     attempt at such a license, appears to be taking a much more
     liberal stand.  They appointed and an ad-hoc committee to study
     the no-code issues and recommend a course of action to their
     board of directors.

     To make a long story as short as possible -- and to get to why
     I'm discussing all this in a computer newsletter -- the FCC has
     effectively told the Amateur community, if you want a no-code
     VHF license, and the ARRL doesn't fight it, it's yours.

     If the FCC receives a petition, it will issue a Notice of
     Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), and allow some period of time for
     replies... possibly as short as 30 days... before making their
     decision.  That's far too short a comment period for magazine
     lead times to pass the word, and IF YOU'RE INTERESTED, YOU
     SHOULD COMMENT TO THE FCC!

     FidoNews 6-20                Page 24                  15 May 1989


     Let me take a moment to explain to those who don't know, that
     Very High Frequency (VHF) refers to frequencies above 30 Mhz.
     In terms of the Amateur bands, this includes 50 Mhz (6 meters),
     which allows for some fairly long-distance work.  (Under
     international law, Morse code is a requirement for licensing
     below 30 Mhz.)

     =============================
     An Amateur Radio License
     WITHOUT LEARNING MORSE CODE!!
                          ...Maybe
     =============================

     Although there are several digital modes used below 30 Mhz,
     including PACKET, AMTOR, BAUDOT and ASCII teletype, and even
     keyboard sent/video received Morse code... most of the VHF
     digital operation is "Packet Radio."  Packet is literally
     computer-to-computer data transfer, using a slightly modified
     X.25 protocol.  There are bulletin boards, personal mailboxes,
     and many types of operation computer users would find exciting.
     There is even a nationwide traffic (messaging) system which
     allows me in Texas to address a message to someone in Maine,
     which will be automatically relayed across the country to its
     destination.  It could go through multiple VHF relays, or it
     might go through a "gateway" onto the long-haul HF bands, or
     even cross the country via satellite.  Widespread use of these
     exciting digital modes on Amateur Radio is less than five years
     old, so exciting advances in software and techniques are
     happening monthly if not weekly or daily.

     ==========================
     Transfer Data and Programs
        --Around the World--
        No Connect Charges!
     ==========================

     An Amateur VHF Packet station can be as simple as a Model 102
     laptop computer, a "Terminal Node Controller" (TNC) and a ham
     "walkie-talkie."  A small, battery-powered TNC costs about
     $160, and a used "talkie" another $150 or so.  So, as you can
     see, a complete station (you can even throw it in your
     briefcase) is quite inexpensive.

     Packet Radio has one interesting characteristic... if you are
     close enough to "connect" with ANY other station, you can use
     that station (even without his knowledge) to act as a repeater
     for your transmissions, and thereby extend your range
     considerably.  Many hams leave their VHF packet stations on 24
     hours per day, making packet operation about as easy from a
     walkie-talkie as it is from a base station with an antenna high
     in the air.

     Getting back to the original objective... the question of a
     codeless license takes on almost religious overtones among
     Amateurs.  Others feel it's stifling growth, and thereby
     endangering frequency allocations.  Those who favor a codeless
     FidoNews 6-20                Page 25                  15 May 1989


     license feel that many who could contribute greatly to the
     Amateur service are being kept out by what they view as an
     unreasonable and irrelevant restriction... code.  Because of
     the leading-edge technologies Amateurs have available today...
     satellite communications, "EME" ("Earth-Moon-Earth" or
     "moonbounce"), and digital communications, computer enthusiasts
     are probably at the top of the list of those who could derive
     the most enjoyment from, and make the greatest contribution to,
     Amateur Radio.

     So, my purpose in bringing you what I had hoped would be a
     short dissertation, is to encourage you to watch the news on
     this matter.  If a codeless Amateur Radio license appeals to
     you -- or if you feel strongly that it should NOT happen --
     then watch for an FCC NPRN, and send them your comments!!

     This newsletter appears in electronic form on several
     information services.  If you look around the service, you'll
     find a ham radio special interest group.  Watch their bulletin
     board for developments.

     ==============
     If YOU care...
       Comment!
     ==============

     If you're reading this in a club bulletin, and you're
     interested, send me an SASE, and I'll let you know if and when
     it's time to comment.  It is important to get input to the FCC
     from those who might benefit from such a change, rather than
     just from those who are already licensed.  The FCC sincerely
     wants opinions from all interested parties.  Let me know if you
     want to know when and how to comment.


     -----------------------------------------------------------------
     FidoNews 6-20                Page 26                  15 May 1989


     Bill Vanglahn
     FidoNet@1:107/557

          "...what a reasonable person would do......"

        Statements  like  this are seen throughout the law books  when
     referring  to  definition of negligence.  Legal  issues  are  are
     beginning  to crop up throughout the land of Sysops,  with Sysops
     suing  users,  users  suing Sysops....  The question of  what  an
     average,  reasonable Sysop would do in a given everyday situation
     has crossed my mind many times as of late. And so, the reason for
     this letter.

        As you are well aware of, YOU run your system the way YOU want
     to.  That's the way it should be.  The person 3 blocks away  from
     you  may run his system differently,  and I may do it a different
     way than either of you.  That's what makes BBS's so  interesting,
     the  diversity of the systems you can call,  and the way you  can
     make your system conform to what you like.

        But, as far as the law is concerned, a Sysop should be working
     within some set of boundaries,  which are mostly common sense. As
     of this moment, I know of no defined rules of What-a-Sysop-does-
     or-doesn't-do, because it has never been defined in any way. If a
     list  were  compiled  that  stated,  "Well,  given  this  similar
     situation,  an AVERAGE Sysop would have......", not only would we
     have a legal leg to stand on,  but we could help the courts get a
     view into our world of electronic communications.

        In  order  to  get  a  good concensus of  what  we  are  doing
     individually, I have compiled the following questionnaire. Please
     take the 2 minutes out to fill it out, and return it to me at the
     netmail  address below.  This is truly a case where you can  help
     define your own future!

        Please send your answers to:

                Bill Vanglahn
                              FidoNet 1:107/557
                             ALTERNet 7:520/557
                                P/Net 9:93/0
                           PhoenixNet 9:807/2

           Or, via US Mail to:
                              P.O. Box 73
                              Dumont, N.J. 07628








     Sysop Questionnaire
     ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
     FidoNews 6-20                Page 27                  15 May 1989


     *NOTICE*

     ALL INFORMATION ON THIS FORM IS HELD CONFIDENTIAL!



      Please answer these questions with the one MOST correct answer.

     1) Do you run your BBS as a......

                A) Hobby
                B) Support Board for PD/Shareware Products
                C) Support Board for Commercial Products
                D) Other, please specify _____________________

     2) When new users log on, what kind of registration system do you
     use?
               A) On-Line Registration
               B) Mail Registration
               C) No Registration
               D) Call-Back Verification
               E) Questionnaires On-Line
               F) Other, please specify ___________________________

     3) No matter which method of regitration you use,  do you  voice-
     verify new users?

               A) Always
               B) Occassional Spot-Checks
               C) Very Seldom
               D) Never

     4) Do you have material that can be considered of an adult nature
     available for reading/downloading on your board?

              A) Yes
              B) No

     (If the answer to #4 is No, please skip to question #9)

     5) Do you restrict access to adult material on your system?

             A) Yes
             B) No

     6) How do you determine access rights to the adult material?

             A) On-line Verification
             B) Mail-in Disclaimer Form, Notarized
             C) Mail-in Disclosure Form, with Copy of Proof of Age
                                 (Driver's License, Passport, etc.)
             D) Voice Verification
             E) Other, please specify ______________________________

     7)  Do you have any limits set on the degree of adult material
     present on your system?
     FidoNews 6-20                Page 28                  15 May 1989


             A) Yes
             B) No

     8) The following is a set of True/False questions.

        I  would  allow  adult  material  on  my  system  that   dealt
     with.......
                                                  T      F

             A) Nude photographs
             B) Masturbation
             C) Explicit sexual acts
             D) Homosexuality-male
             E) Homosexuality-female
             F) Group Sex (more than 2 people)
             G) Sex with animals
             H) Pedophilia (sex with minors)

     (Back to the multiple choice)

     File Area Questions

     9)  A  user  uploads a program that is  protected  by  copyright,
     either  as  the whole program,  a hacked version,  or  a  pirated
     version. I would

             A) Warn the user that he will be locked out next time.
             B) Lock the user out of your BBS.
             C) Permit the file to be downloaded by others.
             D) Inform the company that wrote the software.
             E) Other, please specify _______________________

     10)  A user uploads a program that is a trojan/virus  program.  I
     would.......

             A) Do nothing.
             B) Take no action against the user, but erase the file.
             C) Warn the user, and erase the file.
             D) Lock the user out of the BBS, and erase the file.
             E) Lock the user out, and seek legal action.

     11)  Do  you have a separate file directory  for  newly  uploaded
     programs?

             A) Yes
             B) No





     12)  Do  you  check  new uploads before they  are  available  for
     downloading?

             A) Yes
             B) No
     FidoNews 6-20                Page 29                  15 May 1989


     13) How often do you perform checks on newly uploaded files?

             A) Daily.
             B) Once a week or more.
             C) Once a month or more.
             D) Every other month or more.
             E) New uploads are not checked.


     Message Area Questions

     14) Do you proof messages before they can be read by the  general
     public?

            A) Yes
            B) No

     15)  How  often  do  you check your  message  base  for  improper
     messages?

            A) More than once a day.
            B) Daily
            C) Every other day.
            D) Weekly
            E) Every other week.
            F) Monthly.

     16) Is your system capable of running in a network (communicating
     with other BBS's)?
            A) Yes
            B) No

     17)  Does your system share messages with other systems (Echomail
     /Groupmail conferences)?
            A) Yes
            B) No

     18) Do you routinely run any utility that deletes messages from  a
     particular user or network address?
            A) Yes
            B) No








     19)  A user enters a message which is considered offensive to
     other users. I would.....

            A) Warn the user, and lock him out if it happens again.
            B) Deny the user access to the message conference.
            C) Deny the user access to the entire message system.
            D) Lock the user out.
     FidoNews 6-20                Page 30                  15 May 1989


            E) Do nothing. The user is stating his/her opinion.
            F) Other, please specify _____________________________

     20)  A  user enters information in a message about  some  illegal
     activity. This could include phreaking, hacking (in the bad sense
     of the word), construction of bombs, etc. I would......

             A) Warn the user that he will be locked out next time.
             B) Lock the user out of your BBS.
             C) Permit the message to be read by others.
             D) Inform the proper authorities.
             E) Other, please specify _______________________

     General Information

     (We will attempt to correlate answers based on these)


     21) How many users are currently listed on your system?

             A) 1-50
             B) 51-100
             C) 101-200
             D) 201-500
             E) 501-1000
             F) >1000

     22) Which BBS Package are you using?

             A) Fido                  H) Phoenix
             B) QBBS                  I) PCBoard
             C) TBBS                  J) RBBS
             D) Kitten                K) TComm/TCommNet
             E) Opus                  L) Lynx
             F) WWIV BBS              M) Spitfire
             G) Wildcat!              N) Other _____________________

     Optional Information

            Your Name: ______________________________________

       Street Address: ______________________________________

       City,State,Zip: ______________________________________

       Network Address Zone:___ Net:_____ Node:_____


       When  you  include your mailing address,  I will send  you  the
     hard-copy results of this survey!


        Thank you for helping support the future of your hobby!


     -----------------------------------------------------------------
     FidoNews 6-20                Page 31                  15 May 1989


     John Perkins
     The Engine House,  1:260/315
     (315) 451-7148
     Syracuse_NY

                         The Wilderness Echo


     The Wilderness Echo, WILDRNSS, is a non-backbone Echo that has
     recently been created in response to a perceived need.  Any and
     all discussions related to wilderness camping, hiking, canoeing,
     and related fields are welcome and encouraged.  Discussions
     include, but are not limited to, 'Places To Go' , recently
     acquired wilderness and canoe areas, as well as new equipment
     reviews.

     There currently are nodes receiving this Echo in various parts of
     the USA.  I would like to have many more nodes as there are many
     fine wilderness areas that are not represented.

     If you enjoy the great outdoors or would like to find out more
     about the wilderness and related fields give us a try!

     If you would like to carry this echo please send netmail to me at
     the ENGINE HOUSE , 1:260/315.

     -----------------------------------------------------------------
     FidoNews 6-20                Page 32                  15 May 1989


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

     The Veterinarian's Corner
     Excerpts from the ANIMED GroupMail Conference

     by Don Thomson, 1:102/1005

     (From the ANIMED conference):

       Hi Doc.  How's business?

       I have to report that Ranger's chin has been clear for a long
       time now, or at least it sure seems long.  Thanks. I think he
       feels a lot better  because of it.  He is more social and
       playful with G.P. than he had been while his chin hurt.
       However, this brings with it another new problem.  (If it ain't
       one thing it's another...)  The little #@$@@ G.P. chews on
       Rangers ears as they do battle all over he apartment.  Ranger's
       ears are pink and, I'd dare guess, a bit sore.  Is there a
       recommended ointment or treatment, other than seperation of the
       two monsters we call cats?

       Nice to have a doc in the bbs community.  Thanks again...

                  Robert, Jeanne, Ranger and G.P.

     ----------

     Glad to hear it, Robert!  The eosinophilic-granuloma complex is a
     skin disease unique to cats.  We can get into that topic at a
     later date. Suffice to say, great that he feels better all
     around!

     > The little #@$@@ G.P. chews on Rangers ears as they do battle
     > all over the apartment. Ranger's ears are pink and, I'd dare
     > guess, a bit sore. Is there a recommended ointment or
     > treatment, other than seperation...

     I assume we are only talking about irritated skin, not severly
     inflammed or infected. Mild 0.5% hydocortisone cream applied on a
     occasional basis would be the most I would reccomend without an
     examination. As long as there is no foul odor and discharge that
     would indicate an outer ear infection or earmites this would be
     safe. Cats are extremely resistant to c.steriod side effects.
     Some of the base carriers of ointments can be irritating to cats,
     so stick to a cream. If the inflammation worsens, he should be
     seen....

     DB Thomson, DVM
     1:102/1005
     9:871/16

     -----------------------------------------------------------------
     FidoNews 6-20                Page 33                  15 May 1989


     The following  is  the last in a series of four columns Fred Grosby
     (a federal government  employee, and a user on "The Falcon's Rock")
     has written.  He  deserves  all  the  credit  for  writing them.  I
     suggested that he upload them  to  my  system,  because  I  enjoyed
     reading them in our local Mensa  newsletter, Capital M.  I hope you
     enjoy reading them, too.  The archive  of all four is available for
     file request from 1:109/501 as BSOUTH.ZIP.

     Notes From Bureaucracy South (Part 4)
     By Fred Grosby, a user on 1:109/501

     What a mess.  Sprinkler head blew on  the  eighth floor, and by the
     time they figured out how to shut the system  off,  three floors of
     our building had been inundated with several inches of water.  Five
     hundred  thousand  dollars    in  computer  equipment  was  ruined.
     Documents that I had  worked  on for months now have water and rust
     spots on them.  And  the whole damn thing wouldn't have happened if
     it hadn't been for SMART.

     SMART stands for Space Management And  Reduction  Task,  and like a
     lot of things here at Bureaucracy South  it started out as a pretty
     good idea.  We've reduced staff over the last few years, so it only
     made sense to reduce our office space as well.  Sure, it would cost
     something to renovate the remaining space to better accommodate us,
     but the savings in rent was supposed to more than make up for that.
     Seemed like a smart idea at the time.

     So we hired a Contractor to draw up some plans.  We  used  to  do a
     lot  of  this sort of thing ourselves, but that's not what one does
     nowadays.  Today, you  hire  a  Contractor, often because the staff
     reductions have hit the people who used to do whatever sort of work
     is being contracted.  This is  called Privatization.  There may not
     be  money  for  anything  else,  but  there  is  always  money  for
     Privatization.

     Anyway, the Contractor In Charge Of Planning drew  up  a  stack  of
     plans, which were duly approved by the building management  and the
     Bureaucracy  In  Charge Of Buildings, a moving schedule was issued,
     and people started to pack up their stuff.  And then...    nothing.
     SMART  slammed  to a screeching halt.  For months we heard nothing.
     I mean,  people  were  working  out of cardboard boxes and we heard
     nothing!

     Just about the  time  I had figured that the whole thing was a dead
     issue, we found out  what  the  delay was about.  Seems that in his
     zeal to get the building  management  and the Bureaucracy In Charge
     Of Buildings to approve the plans,  the  Contractor  In  Charge  Of
     Planning had forgotten to get the plans  approved by The City.  Now
     The City did not like the idea of  us renovating a building without
     the required permits, and clapped a lid on the  whole  thing.  What
     we had been waiting for was for The City to  review and approve the
     inch-thick stack of plans and issue the permits.

     Anyway,  once  all  the building permits were in order, an army  of
     employees hired by the Contractor In Charge Of Renovation showed up
     and got  right  to  it.    Only  thing  was,  the  plans called for
     FidoNews 6-20                Page 34                  15 May 1989


     renovating areas of  the  building  that  still had people in them.
     This, folks, was not  a  very  smart idea.  I walked into the first
     office being renovated just in  time to see somebody trying to work
     while a contractor employee stood on her desk rewiring the ceiling,
     as dust and pieces of ceiling tile  drifted  down  over everything.
     It came to a head when the next  scheduled  office  demanded  to be
     moved to safe quarters while their space was being  renovated,  and
     invoked the threat of a complaint to The Union.   Faced  with  this
     threat  (nothing  intimidates us like a threatened complaint to The
     Union), the  Contractor  In  Charge Of Renovation was instructed to
     revise the whole work plan that had been drawn up by the Contractor
     In Charge Of Planning.  More delays.

     Finally, the Contractor In  Charge Of Renovation started working on
     the space into which my  group  would  be  moving.    Boy,  were we
     excited!  We used to go down to our new space and try to figure out
     what was going to go where.   Well,  guess  what.   Just as we were
     getting ready to pack up, the workers disappeared.    Just  dropped
     their  tools and split.  Seems that the Bureaucracy  In  Charge  Of
     Buildings forgot to pay the Contractor In Charge Of Renovation, who
     then could not afford to pay his workers.  The workers, being good,
     smart  union  people,  did what all good smart union people do when
     they don't get paid:  they went on strike.  Took three weeks to get
     the whole mess straightened out.  Then we had to wait while another
     office was moved  into  our  new  space  so  their  space  could be
     renovated.

     Our actual move was  to  take  place  over  a  weekend.  The Friday
     before moving day, I helped  the  people  from  our  administrative
     services office mark all of our  stuff.   Every item, right down to
     the  trash  cans,  was  marked with a  number  corresponding  to  a
     location on the blueprint of our new space.    This  is supposed to
     insure that the right stuff gets put in the  right  space  for  the
     right  person.    We'd  used this system before, and it  had  never
     failed us.  Until this time.  This time, the Bureaucracy  In Charge
     Of  Buildings  forgot to pay the Contractor In Charge Of Moving, so
     the  entire  office  was  moved  from the eighth floor to the sixth
     floor  by  two  administrative  services  people  working  overtime
     throughout the weekend.    Under  the  circumstances,  they  did an
     absolutely wonderful job, but  you  wouldn't  have known it to have
     walked into our brand new office on Monday morning.

     It was a disaster.  The marked floor plan had been abandoned.  File
     cabinets, shelving, and boxes were heaped  everywhere.   Desks were
     shoved into the strangest places;  one woman had to literally climb
     over the top of her desk to get to her chair.  By some miracle, the
     only thing that I lost was my phone.   I  was  lucky;  it took some
     people  hours to find the boxes holding their work.   None  of  the
     computers  were  hooked up;  three of them, including the one  that
     houses our  logging  and  tracking  systems, didn't even get moved.
     Nobody told the  cable pullers to drop new cables for our mainframe
     terminals, so we didn't  have access to the payroll computer.  Ever
     tried working in a payroll  office  where  you don't have access to
     the payroll computer?

     And if that wasn't bad enough,  they  decided  that  since  we were
     FidoNews 6-20                Page 35                  15 May 1989


     moving anyway, it would be a good  time  to give our clerical staff
     their brand new Workstations.  For those of you who have never seen
     one, a Workstation has less storage space and takes  up  twice  the
     floor area of the desk that it replaces.  Ours  have  the  optional
     computer  keyboard  trays that mangle the connecting cables and are
     perfectly placed to smash your knees if you move too fast.  Anyway,
     here came the  Contractor  In  Charge Of Workstations with all this
     furniture, which was then crammed into areas intended for plain old
     desks.  On top of  the  mess  from  the move, this was more than we
     could handle.  By Tuesday afternoon, we just threw up our hands and
     decided to live with it as it was.  And still is, for that matter.

     Well, time went by, and even though  we  still did not love our new
     work environment, we managed to come to terms  with  it.   And then
     came The Flood.  All of that renovation required relocation of many
     of  the  nozzles for the building's sprinkler system.  About  three
     weeks after we moved, just as things were starting to settle  down,
     the  nozzle  located  in  the public affairs office, right by their
     brand-new desktop publishing equipment, decided to pretend that the
     building was on  fire.   This in itself was a catastrophe, but what
     really made it bad  was that nobody knew how to turn the thing off.
     Do you believe it?   Here  we  are,  in a building with a full-time
     maintenance    staff,   equipped  with  a  state-of-the-art    fire
     suppression system, and nobody knows how to  shut  the damned thing
     off!  ARRRRGH!!!  Finally, somebody came up  with  the  smart  idea
     that, well, since it is a fire suppression system,  maybe we should
     get the fire department to turn it off.  That  worked just fine, of
     course, but by that time the water had seeped down two  floors, and
     the plaster was falling off the walls in our office.  But  you know
     what?    We didn't have to pay for the damage!  Seems that although
     we paid for the renovation, the building management was responsible
     for seeing that it was done correctly.  Your tax money is safe this
     time;  the building management's insurance paid the bill.

     So they fixed the walls, and dried out the carpet, and replaced all
     that ruined computer equipment, and  except  for the rust and water
     stains on about 200 pay documents life here at Bureaucracy South is
     pretty much as it was before.  I'm told that with all of the delays
     and changes of plans, SMART will end up  costing  a  good  bit more
     than it was supposed to save, but that's not  what's  important  to
     those of us who work here.  What's important to us is that SMART is
     finished.

     -----------------------------------------------------------------
     FidoNews 6-20                Page 36                  15 May 1989


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

                          Latest Software Versions

                           Bulletin Board Software
     Name        Version    Name        Version    Name       Version

     Fido            12k    Opus          1.03b    TBBS           2.1
     QuickBBS       2.03    TPBoard         5.0    TComm/TCommNet 3.4
     Lynx           1.30*   Phoenix         1.3    RBBS         17.1D


     Network                Node List              Other
     Mailers     Version    Utilities   Version    Utilities  Version

     Dutchie       2.90C*   EditNL         4.00    ARC           6.01
     SEAdog         4.50    MakeNL         2.12    ARCmail        2.0
     BinkleyTerm    2.20*   Prune          1.40    ConfMail      4.00
     D'Bridge       1.18*   XlatList       2.90    TPB Editor    1.21
     FrontDoor       2.0    XlaxNode       2.32    TCOMMail       2.2*
     PRENM          1.40    XlaxDiff       2.32    TMail         8901
                            ParseList      1.30    UFGATE        1.03
                                                   GROUP         2.07*
                                                   EMM           1.40
                                                   MSGED         1.99
                                                   XRS            2.0*

     * 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 6-20                Page 37                  15 May 1989


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

                          The Interrupt Stack


     19 May 1989
        Start of EuroCon III at Eindhoven, The Netherlands. Contact
        Hans Ligthelm of 2:500/3 for details.

      5 Jun 1989
        David Dodell's 32nd Birthday

      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 1/89
        for info.

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

     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.

     If you have something which you would like to see on this
     calendar, please send a message to FidoNet node 1:1/1.

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

     FidoNews 6-20                Page 38                  15 May 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   1:147/1
     Nominations & Elections        David Melnick   1:107/233
     Public Affairs                 David Drexler   1:147/1
     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     1:147/1       (vacant)
      2  Henk Wevers       2:500/1      David Melnik    1:107/233

     -----------------------------------------------------------------
     FidoNews 6-20                Page 39                  15 May 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.

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