     Volume 6, Number 27                                   3 July 1989
     +---------------------------------------------------------------+
     |                                                  _            |
     |                                                 /  \          |
     |                                                /|oo \         |
     |        - FidoNews -                           (_|  /_)        |
     |                                                _`@/_ \    _   |
     |        International                          |     | \   \\  |
     |     FidoNet Association                       | (*) |  \   )) |
     |         Newsletter               ______       |__U__| /  \//  |
     |                                 / FIDO \       _//|| _\   /   |
     |                                (________)     (_/(_|(____/    |
     |                                                     (jm)      |
     +---------------------------------------------------------------+
     Editor in Chief:                                  Vince Perriello
     Editors Emeritii:                                     Dale Lovell
                                                        Thom Henderson
     Chief Procrastinator Emeritus:                       Tom Jennings
     
     FidoNews  is  published  weekly  by  the  International   FidoNet
     Association  as  its  official newsletter.  You are encouraged to
     submit articles for publication in FidoNews.  Article  submission
     standards  are contained in the file ARTSPEC.DOC,  available from
     node 1:1/1.    1:1/1  is  a Continuous Mail system, available for
     network mail 24 hours a day.
     
     Copyright 1989 by  the  International  FidoNet  Association.  All
     rights  reserved.  Duplication  and/or distribution permitted for
     noncommercial purposes only.  For  use  in  other  circumstances,
     please contact IFNA at (314) 576-4067. IFNA may also be contacted
     at PO Box 41143, St. Louis, MO 63141.
     
     Fido  and FidoNet  are registered  trademarks of  Tom Jennings of
     Fido Software,  164 Shipley Avenue,  San Francisco, CA  94107 and
     are used with permission.
     
     We  don't necessarily agree with the contents  of  every  article
     published  here.  Most of these materials are  unsolicited.    No
     article will be rejected which is properly attributed and legally
     acceptable.    We   will  publish  every  responsible  submission
     received.


                        Table of Contents
     1. EDITORIAL  ................................................  1
     2. ARTICLES  .................................................  3
        Computer Literacy  ........................................  3
        FidoCon '89 Update  .......................................  6
        A network constitution?  ..................................  8
        Thoughts on the Nodelist (Revisited)  ..................... 11
        Multiple Nets in a Single Geographic Area  ................ 18
        More of My Opinions if Anyone Cares  ...................... 21
        SDNet/Works! UPDATE  ...................................... 25
        And we thought the mud-slinging presidential campaign w  .. 28
        A Short Story, With a Moral  .............................. 29
     And more!
     FidoNews 6-27                Page 1                    3 Jul 1989


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

     This is getting ridiculous.

     Frankly, at  this  point  I could care less who the good guys and
     bad guys are.  My suspicion is that both sides are at fault.  But
     this apparent  attempt  to  bury FidoNews in POLICY squabbles has
     gone far enough.

     To date I have printed  nearly  everything  that has been sent on
     the topic(s) in question, because of  our  open policy.  The only
     items I haven't printed were sent to the  Publications  committee
     for  review  in  one  case,  and exceeding the  MAKENEWS limit in
     another.  (The long article will be published after PubComm looks
     at it)

     The result:  some very HEAVY FidoNews editions.

     Has anyone benefitted from this?  Answer:  No.

     Is this serving the public interest? Answer: No.

     So what  can be done about this?  Change the Editorial Policy?  I
     think not.   I've  spent  some time thinking about it and I don't
     believe that any policy  can  be  drafted that will properly curb
     abuse of the FidoNews forum  without causing severe damage to the
     usefulness of FidoNews to the community at large.  And I'm not so
     certain  that  devising long-winded policy documents accomplishes
     much  more  in  this  network than usurping the  normal  role  of
     everyone's manners and good judgement, and putting all that  into
     the hands of others (however well-intentioned they might be).

     So we're down to ASKING.   PLEASE, DON'T SEND US SO MUCH MATERIAL
     ABOUT POLICY SQUABBLES.  If you feel  strongly  about  publishing
     something about some local issue, try to keep  it  down to one or
     two concise articles.  The current ratio of anywhere  from 4 to 6
     articles or more  per  dispute is just too much.  If there really
     are issues that we  can  all see, one well-written article should
     be able to make them  apparent.  All you accomplish by sending in
     20K of text a week is getting everyone pissed off at YOU.

     I  still  intend  to  print  what  I receive as long as it passes
     scrutiny for possible  legal problems by me or the Pubs committee
     (this isn't new, this is the policy we have been operating under)
     but I would like some  cooperation  from  certain  combatants  in
     America's Heartland and elsewhere to help keep FidoNews on track.

     There are important political issues facing the network.  We need
     a  forum that enjoys wide readership in order  to  discuss  them.
     Spending  too much time in a local Wisconsin dispute  will  drive
     the  Louisiana  or Luxembourg reader away.  I'm not taking  sides
     here.   I'm just telling it like it is.  PLEASE  give  this  some
     consideration.

     FidoNews 6-27                Page 2                    3 Jul 1989


     As always, thanks for shopping K-Mart, er, reading FidoNews ...

     -----------------------------------------------------------------
     FidoNews 6-27                Page 3                    3 Jul 1989


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

     Claude F. Witherspoon
     Fido 1:288/525
     Home of KidsNews

               Computer Literacy to be Top National Priority

     Its that time of year again. Computer Learning Month will be upon
     us before we know it. With that in mind,  we  at  KidsNews  would
     like  to  share  the  following information in hopes to make this
     year even better than last year:

     COMPUTER  LITERACY  TO  BE  TOP   NATIONAL   PRIORITY   FOR   NEW
     INDUSTRY-SUPPORTED FOUNDATION

     PALO  ALTO,  Calif. (Feb. 13, 1989) -- In a bi-partisan effort to
     address the nation's eroding  educational  levels,  the  Computer
     Learning  Foundation (CLF) today announced plans for a year round
     campaign to promote computer literacy in North America. Supported
     by major software publishing companies, as well as Apple and IBM,
     CLF expects to recieve up to $1 million in funding this year.

     The  announcement  coincides  with  predictions  of  a   national
     technologigal  decline  touched  off by last week's release of an
     Educational Testing Service study that  showed  13-year-old  U.S.
     students  scoring  the  lowest  in an international comparison of
     mathmatics and  science  skills.  Earlier,  a  National  Research
     Council  study  reported  that American students were being *left
     behind*  by  a  mathematics  teaching   system   that   set   its
     expectations too low.

     The  establishment of the non-profit Computer Learning Foundation
     will extend the annual industry-sponsored Computer Learning Month
     (CLM) public  education  campaign  in  October  to  a  year-round
     initiative.  Last  year's  program  reached  more than 60 million
     people and was the catalyst for nearly  3,000  computer  literacy
     events in schools and cities throughout the U.S. and Canada.


     "With increasing concern over the high school drop-out rate, poor
     student performance levels  and  the  erosion  of  the  country's
     competitive  edge,  the  importance  of  having  an  educated and
     computer-literate  population  has  emerged  as  a  top  national
     priority  as  we  experience  a  quantum  leap  in  technological
     development," said Sally Bowman, director of CLF.

     Predictions by Forcasting International indicate that by the year
     2010  every  job in America will require some form of information
     technology skills.

     "Our number one goal  os  to  motivate  more  effective  uses  of
     technology  in  schools,  homes  and businesses by raising public
     recognition of what is really possible with computers.  In  1989,
     FidoNews 6-27                Page 4                    3 Jul 1989


     we  are  building a broader coalition of partners to reach out to
     children, adults and teachers from every socioeconomic background
     and help to increase computer compfort and confidence around  the
     country. Computer literacy goes well beyond Silicon Valley: is is
     the nation's future."

     In  1989,  for  the  first time, sponsorship of Computer Learning
     Foundation activities will be open to organizations  outside  the
     computer   industry.   Through  joint  promotional  tie-ins  with
     mass-marketers of consumer products, CLF expects  to  extend  its
     "You Won't Believe What You'll Achieve!" message nationwide.

     Industry  sponsorship  of CLM activities reached an all-time high
     in 1988, up 300 percent from 1987. The 1988 coalition of  support
     included 61 software and computer industry members, 52 U.S. State
     Departments  of  Education  and Canadian Ministries of Education,
     and 21 national non-profit organizations.

     CLF 1989 programs, using the theme "You Won't Believe What You'll
     Achieve!,"  will  offer  a  variety  of  programs  and  materials
     designed  to  reach millions of children, adults and educators in
     the U.S. and Canada. Books that address  computers  and  careers,
     school  lesson  plans  for all age ranges and educational levels,
     and more will be published and distributed by CLF in  the  coming
     year. Last year alone, CLM distributed millions of books, posters
     and  materials  as  part  of  its  efforts  to increase "computer
     confidence" amoung all age groups. This year, in addition to  its
     books,  CLF  will  also  distribute posters and Computer Learning
     Month event kits to schools and community groups to support their
     efforts in increasing computer literacy.

     CLF contest for individuals  and  educators  prompted  more  than
     100,000  entries last year during CLM. In 1989, CLF contests will
     focus on effective uses of the computer at school  and  home,  as
     well  as development of teacher training materials. Traveling art
     exhibits featuring creative work  done  by  school-aged  children
     using  computers  will be displayed at metropolitan libraries and
     airports throughout the country. And, for  the  first  time,  CLF
     will  communicate its computer literacy messages via a nationally
     syndicated television series entitled SOFTVIEW. The  CLF  series,
     which  begins  airing  in  late  February,  will  be  produced in
     conjunction with the Central Education Network (CEN) and is aimed
     at  increasing  elementary  and   secondary   school   educators'
     understanding  and  use of computers in the classroom. The weekly
     programs  will  feature  "hands-on"  lesson   plans   that   have
     effectively  incorporated computers and traditional materials, as
     well as creative computing ideas for the classroom.

     Published  with  permission  of  the Computer Learning Foundation
     (CLF), Palo Alto, Calif.

     I  have  initiated  a  National  Computer  Learning  Month   echo
     available  on Fido 1:288/525 by request. If you are interested in
     carrying the echo which uses the name NCLM, please send a request
     to Butch Witherspoon, Fido 1:288/525 (Continuous Mail (CM)),  and
     I  will  be  happy  to  tie you into the echo and send it to your
     FidoNews 6-27                Page 5                    3 Jul 1989


     system. You must be able  to  accept  continuous  Mail  for  this
     request.  This  offer  is  good  for  the U.S. only until someone
     offeres to gateway the echo to other regions. I would like to see
     the echo carried on the Backbone if folks are interested enough.



     -----------------------------------------------------------------
     FidoNews 6-27                Page 6                    3 Jul 1989


     Les Kooyman
     FidoCon Program Chairperson
     1:204/501

                FidoCon '89 Update: Dateline Silicon Valley

     Planning for FidoCon continues at what is beginning to seem  like
     a hectic pace. As we get closer and closer to the actual date  of
     the  convention, I'm sure we'll look back on this as our  relaxed
     time!

     We've been successful enough at attracting speakers that current-
     ly we're planning on 12 rather than 8 sessions. The conference is
     still  single-track, that is, only one session will be  going  on
     att a time.

     The current program listing for Fidocon '89 is as follows:

     1: Tim Pozar on UFGATE
     2: Vince Perriello and Bob Hartman on BinkleyTerm
     3: Bob Hartman on Bix processing of FidoNet echomail
     4: Phil Becker on TBBS
     5: Tom Jennings on Fido
     6: Chuck Forsberg on Zmodem and protocols
     7: Mort Sternheim on FidoNet and IFNA
     8: Chris Irwin/Joaquim Homrighausen on D'Bridge/Front Door
     9: Rick Heming on Wildcat BBS software
     10: OPEN
     11: OPEN
     12: OPEN

     We'll be announcing the times and dates of the sessions in  July,
     in  case you want to plan on attending a subset of the full  con-
     ference.

     I  would be remiss if I did not emphasize that the  deadline  for
     discount  registration is quickly approaching (July  15th).  Both
     the  registration  fee for the Convention itself  and  the  hotel
     discount  rate  increase on that date. The  FidoCon  registration
     will  increase from $60 to $75, and the discount hotel  registra-
     tion  will  END, meaning that you will pay full  price  for  your
     hotel room. So get those registrations in, folks! Please see  the
     registration  form in this issue of FidoNews for details  on  the
     way  to proceed to take advantage of our discount  offers.  We'll
     accept  your  registration for FidoCon after July 15 at  the  $60
     rate  if you netmail your registration form to 1:1/89 (the  offi-
     cial  FidoCon '89 node) by midnight Pacific Time on July 15,  and
     (this is IMPORTANT) your hard copy confirmation and fees reach us
     within  72 hours of that netmail reservation. This  is  important
     both  for payments by credit card or check. You cannot,  however,
     guarantee the discount hotel rate through netmail to 1/1:89, this
     must be done as described in the registration form.

     We've also arranged for discount automobile rentals through Alamo
     Rent-a-Car. To take advantage of this discount, you need to  call
     Alamo at 1-800-327-9633 and request an automobile at the  conven-
     FidoNews 6-27                Page 7                    3 Jul 1989


     tion rate. Mention FidoCon '89 and the dates of the conference at
     the  time  you request the convention rate. You  must  make  your
     reservation no later than 30 days prior to the event, which means
     you  would  need  to reserve your car by July 24th.  All  of  the
     following rates include automatic transmission, air  conditioning
     and  radio.  All  of the discount rates  include  unlimited  free
     mileage.

     Economy car (example: Geo Metro)  $32 day/$109 week.
     Compact car (example: Chevy Cavalier) $34 day/$120 week.
     Midsize car (example: Pontiac Grand Am) $36 day/$135 week.
     Standard car (example: Buick Regal) $38 day/$165 week.
     Luxury car (example: Buick LeSabre) $40 day/$239 week.

     Remember  that  you really don't have to rent a car  in  the  San
     Francisco Bay area if you don't want to, public transportation is
     quite  good. However, if you are interested in seeing as much  as
     possible of the area and making a real vacation of it, you should
     consider a car, and these rates strike me as being very good.

     That's all for the moment... see you in San Jose!



     -----------------------------------------------------------------
     FidoNews 6-27                Page 8                    3 Jul 1989


                        A network constitution?

       I know it may sound kinda funny...but do we need such a
     thing? I'm beginning to think that it might not be such a bad
     idea to help us improve and expand our network. I have been
     reading some of the echos floating around and the FIDOnet news
     letters and it is beginning to get pretty hostile. Anyway after
     some thought and discussion with other sysops I drafted the
     following document as a proposed "constitution" for a logical
     network called FREEnet. Such a net would include all sysops
     whether they are in a organized network or not.
       Now you are probably saying why? What good would this do
     me the regular BBS sysop? Wouldn't this just be another layer
     of stuff I would have to put up with! Well here in short and
     sweet are some of the reasons that such a collective body can
     be a benefit to you.
         1) It would allow each member more democratic input into
            the hows, whys, and whats of how the networks are run.
         2) A collective body could exert influence on the
            legislative bodies of state and federal governments.
            Issues like the FCC's rate setting for long distance
            telecommunication products/services.
         3) Representation in national/international standards
            meetings. Where things like X.400 are right now being
            put on paper. The future of ISDN and how that will
            impact Email and networking.
         4) A collective force that can influence the computer
            equipment producers and software vendors.

       There are a lot more reasons than I have listed above and
     I'm sure there are some that may or may not agree with the
     ones I've listed. But I hope that we can somehow get together
     as a group and tap some of the great potential we already have
     as sysops. To get this thing started we need people willing
     to function as a "constitutional congress" and designate
     a legislative working group for each of the 50 states and
     each over-seas country.
       I hope I have sparked some interest in this idea....
     Please contact me with your comments, thoughts, suggestions...
     anything that you feel like saying on this constitutional
     organization.

     David Winters
     The "Drifting Sysop"

     MCImail:  328-8890
     Telex:    6503288890
     CIS:      73327,1075
     Fido:     281/10 (route to 777/1)
     DDN/Arpa: sac.23bms-do@e.isi.edu






     FidoNews 6-27                Page 9                    3 Jul 1989


                           FREEnet Constitution
                             9 June 1989


     PREAMBLE:

             The rights and interests of computer hobbyists around the
     world are diverse and ever changing. As each ventures to learn
     and grow the need to communicate with their peers is a necessity
     that fosters this expanding interest in the field.  This
     communication should be easy and agreeable with minimal
     interference from outside organizations. The RIGHT of these
     individuals to explore as they will must be protected and
     nurtured as a fundamental goal. To this end the following
     constitution is dedicated and drafted for those who hold to this
     basic purpose.

     ARTICLES of CONSTITUTION:

     1. This constitution shall be a document used as a foundation for
     all members participating in FREEnet and as a guide for
     operations. It is ratified by each individual member's decision
     to participate. As a guide it is not the absolute...but a living
     changing document.

     2. Each member of the network has the right to one vote on any
     issue that concerns this network, its operation, or this
     constitution and amendments. A member is an individual that has
     identified themselves as a willing participant to FREEnet and
     this constitution.

     3. All operations of FREEnet will be in accordance with the laws
     of the sovereign state in which the member resides. Any actions
     which conflict with these local laws...the local law will take
     precedence over the network constitution and amendments.

     4. Any operations or subjects not addressed in these articles or
     amendments are retained to the members and shall not be abridged
     without their consent and approval.

     5. There will be elected by simple majority a president and vice-
     president, who shall function as the executives for FREEnet. They
     retain the office for one year and have the power to appoint
     individuals as assistants as needed. All assistants will be
     confirmed by the legislative congress. The president will
     represent the FREEnet and its members on all matters not retained
     to the members or the congress. The vice-president will perform
     tasks assigned by the president.  The president also retains the
     right of the VETO on legislation written by the congress.

     6. The congress shall consist of members elected by majority in
     their area of operation. Each 50 members shall have one
     representative in the FREEnet congress. The area should consist
     of members who are closely located geographically. In remote
     areas of 5 or more there may be elected a representative upon
     approval of the judicial council. The representatives will retain
     FidoNews 6-27                Page 10                   3 Jul 1989


     office for one year. The congress has the power to put forth new
     legislation that effects the operation of FREEnet.

     7. The judicial council will consist of 12 members selected by
     the president and approved by the congress. Each judge will
     retain their office for two years. The judicial council will
     arbitrate questions about operations with reference to this
     constitution. The council has the power of REVISION for all
     legislation where conflicts arise with this constitution and
     amendments. The council will rule on matters between members,
     members and the FREEnet organization, and non-member
     organizations and FREEnet. The council may appoint sub-councils
     to performs judicial tasks as assigned.

     8. No member may hold more than one office in FREEnet.

     9. Amendments to this constitution may be enacted by: a 3/4
     majority of congress or by vote of 90 percent of the members.
     Legislation may be introduced by any congress representative or
     by a petition of 500 members. Introduced legislation must be
     approved by a 3/4 majority of congress

     10. The act of impeachment for any member, congress
     representative, or president requires the vote of 90 percent of
     congress and a majority of the judicial council.


     WE THE FOLLOWING SIGN THIS DOCUMENT IN GOOD FAITH AND WITH THE
     HOPE THAT IT WILL FOSTER EACH MEMBERS BEST INTEREST.


     -----------------------------------------------------------------
     FidoNews 6-27                Page 11                   3 Jul 1989


     Jack Decker
     (Formerly?) Fidonet 1:154/8
     LCRnet 77:1011/8

                  THOUGHTS ON THE NODELIST (REVISITED)

     This may well be my last Fidonews article as a member of
     Fidonet. In a scant few hours, the new Fidonet nodelist will be
     issued, and our Net will no longer exist as far as Fidonet is
     concerned (although we are still quite alive and well, thank
     you).

     This particular cloud may indeed have a golden lining, however.
     It has caused us to give some really serious thought to the
     matter of the nodelist, and as a result, the "Official Public
     Computer Network" Nodelist is now in production.  The current
     OPCNLIST and OPCNDIFF are requestable from 154/970, and that's
     also where you can send your Net's nodelist segment if you'd
     like to be included in the OPCN nodelist.  The only problem, of
     course, is that by the time you read this, 154/970 will no
     longer be in the Fidonet nodelist, unless something pretty
     miraculous happens between now and then.  Never fear, at the
     end of this article I'll give you enough information to
     temporarily plug a subset of Net 154 into your private nodelist
     long enough to file request a copy of the OPCN nodelist
     (assuming you can't find a distribution point nearer to you).

     I think the nicest compliment that we've received so far came,
     believe it or not, from an RC (not ours!), who said "Nice idea
     - perhaps what FidoNet was SUPPOSED to have been....."  This
     is, in fact, exactly what we're hoping for... to cut away all
     the political crap and return Fidonet (or at least, computer
     networking) to what it was originally intended to be.

     We have made one change in the way we're doing things.  We now
     support the Fidonet style usage of the CM flag, that is, CM is
     no longer assumed to be the default condition.  While we still
     feel that it would make more sense for CM to be the default
     (since the majority of nodes are now CM), we also recognize
     that it creates a hardship for NC's to have to make two
     separate nodelists (one for Fidonet, and the other for the OPCN
     nodelist).  So, you can now send the same Net nodelist to both.
     You still have the option of creating a nodelist just for the
     OPCN nodelist (since we do support some additional nodelist
     flags that Fidonet doesn't), but you don't HAVE to if you don't
     want to.

     Another reason you may wish to create a separate nodelist for
     the OPCN nodelist is that the OPCN nodelist allows you a lot
     more freedom to list all the nodes in your net.  If you have
     private nodes, or nodes that are outside your local calling
     area that you haven't been listing for fear of bringing down
     the wrath of the Fidonet *C's upon you, feel free to list these
     nodes in the OPCN nodelist.  The OPCN nodelist is in no way
     affiliated with Fidonet.  When you list your Net in the OPCN
     nodelist, think of it as though you're actually listing a
     FidoNews 6-27                Page 12                   3 Jul 1989


     private Net that just happens to use the same Net number as
     your Fidonet Net, but that need not contain exactly the same
     list of nodes as your net in Fidonet.

     If you're an NC, we would like to invite you to have your Net
     listed in the OPCN nodelist.  You may use the same Net number
     that you are now using in Fidonet (or in any other Network, so
     long as it does not conflict with an existing Fidonet Net
     number), so you need not alter your system's control files.
     Send your net's nodelist updates (under the filename NET.xxx,
     where the "xxx" is your net number) to George Kasica (the OPCN
     nodelist compiler) at 154/970.  (NOTE:  Should you have a four
     digit Net number, please use the filename xxxx.NET when you
     send your nodelist segment in to 154/970).  For those who'd
     like more involvement in this project, we'll be forming a
     "Nodelist Distribution Network" to assist in the distribution
     of the OPCN nodelist, and to assist in the gathering of
     nodelist segments from individual Nets.  For more information
     on the OPCN nodelist and/or the Nodelist Distribution Network,
     please send netmail to George.

     You might be asking why you would want your net listed in the
     OPCN nodelist.  There are several reasons, but here are a few
     of the main points:

     1)  We've deliberately tried to make the OPCN nodelist as
     non-political as possible.  You do not have to agree with
     anyone else's philosophy as to how a network should be operated
     in order to be in the OPCN nodelist.  Nor do you have to give
     up any existing affiliation with Fidonet or AnyOtherNet in
     order to be listed in the OPCN nodelist.  You should consider
     listing your net with us, if for no other reason than that we
     could be a valuable "second source" listing of Fidonet
     compatible nodes in the event that anything ever happens to
     disrupt publication of the Fidonet nodelist.

     2) We allow you to list ALL the nodes in your Net.  No need to
     "hide" certain nodes for fear that someone might complain that
     they're on the wrong side of a geographic boundary.

     3) If you are now listing certain nodes that are really full,
     operational BBS's in a Point Net because they don't quite meet
     certain technical standards, they can be listed as private,
     unlisted nodes in the OPCN nodelist.  We don't get our noses
     out of joint because you have private, unlisted nodes in your
     net.  And as long as the Net's NC can connect with the private,
     unlisted node to exchange mail, it's nobody's business if
     anyone else can (since all inbound mail to such nodes will be
     host-routed anyway).

     4) If you're now listing certain nodes as "private, unlisted"
     because you don't want your RC to know where they're really
     located, you can list the phone number and location in the OPCN
     nodelist (as far as the Fidonet people are concerned, these
     nodes don't exist, because they're not in their nodelist!).  We
     don't care where your nodes are located.  If you or they are
     FidoNews 6-27                Page 13                   3 Jul 1989


     willing to bear the expense to connect with each other, it's
     none of our business.

     At this point, I can just hear some folks screaming that we
     will increase the size of our nodelist by allowing private
     nodes to be listed indiscriminately.  Well, in the first place,
     we don't have a size problem yet!  But in the second place,
     part of the blame for that problem can be laid on the shoulders
     of the original designers of Fidonet software.

     You see, the original designers opted to go with what might be
     termed a "fully coupled" nodelist.  Simply speaking, this means
     that some pieces of software (Opus, for example) will not allow
     you to send netmail to a net/node that is not listed in the
     nodelist.  This prevents a user from sending mail to a
     non-existent node, BUT, it also means that all private nodes
     must be listed in the nodelist, or users of software that
     checks the nodelist for a valid address will not be able to
     send mail to such private nodes.

     Unfortunately, it soon got to the point where SOME people
     started screaming about the size of the nodelist, and decided
     that most private nodes had to go.  But to where?  That's about
     the time the whole concept of "points" and "point nets" were
     developed.  So now, users of systems that check the nodelist
     can now send messages to non-existent points.  What have we
     gained?  The net is no longer "fully coupled", since point
     addresses cannot be checked for validity, but we have added an
     extra layer of complexity.

     The Fidonet philosophy in cases like this seems to be to add
     more software complexity.  We in effect took a system that was
     functioning very well using only nets and nodes, and added
     "Points" and "Zones" which are essentially KLUDGES.  To fully
     support either of these extensions adds additional complexity
     and software problems that can reach out to bite sysops in the
     most unexpected ways.  I feel it would have been much better,
     and much simpler from a technical standpoint, to abandon the
     idea of the "fully coupled" nodelist and to simply route any
     traffic for "unknown" nodes to the appropriate net host.  In
     this way, "private, unlisted" nodes would not have to be in the
     nodelist, and we could have done without the "Point" kludge.

     To give you just one example of how these kludges can really
     screw up a system... I have a point off of my system, so I run
     ReMapper to remap netmail to his system.  I also have a node
     number in LCRnet, which uses Zone 77.  Just today, I discovered
     that if anyone sent me netmail at 77:1011/8, and the sender was
     running a fully "zone aware" system that put in the ^AINTL
     kludge line, ReMapper would happily readdress such messages and
     send them off to non-existent node 1/77!

     If those systems now operating as "Points" instead had "real"
     net node numbers (albeit private, unlisted ones), netmail and
     echomail routing to those systems would be a snap.
     Unfortunately, because there's still some "fully coupled"
     FidoNews 6-27                Page 14                   3 Jul 1989


     software out there, such private, unlisted nodes would have to
     be listed in the international nodelist to be accessible to
     everyone in the net.  If we could move away from the idea of
     the "fully coupled" network (which no longer exists anyway,
     when points are considered), then such private, unlisted nodes
     would only have to appear in the NC's nodelist, not the big one
     that gets sent around to everyone.

     Zones used as gateways to "other" nets are also a kludge, and
     you can blame the Fidonet *C structure for that one.  When
     Alternet first started out, they asked that a group of Net
     numbers be reserved for Alternet nodes.  This would have made
     things much simpler for everyone,  Unfortunately, small minds
     decreed that Fidonet had a God-given right to all possible net
     number combinations, so Alternet was forced to resort to the
     Zone kludge.  The small minds are still at work... Alternet
     first used Zone 4, and the *C's said they needed that for South
     America (they wouldn't have DREAMED of just skipping Zone 4 and
     using Zone 5).  So then Alternet changed over to using Zone 7.
     Now the Fidonet nodelist lists nodes 1/5, 1/6, and 1/7 as
     "future Zonegates", effectively telling the Alternet folks that
     they aren't authorized to use Zone 7, either.  But when
     penguins and polar bears start using computers, Fidonet will be
     ready for them!

     Now the Fidonet hierarchy wants other networks to use something
     called "domains", the implementation of which will require
     additional software and will make life that much harder for
     sysops, as well as making it totally impossible for users of
     most older software to send messages to those in other
     networks.  My guess is that most sysops will NOT run "domain"
     software.  The idea of adding yet another layer of complexity
     onto Zones, Nets, Nodes, and Points is probably just too much
     for the "average sysop" to stomach.

     (By the way, when you dial a 1-800- call, do you know how the
     phone company knows which long distance carrier to route it to?
     Simple... they look at the first three digits of the exchange,
     that is, the three digits following the "1-800-".  For example,
     if you dial "1-800-222-xxxx", the call is handled by AT&T.  If
     you dial "1-800-950-xxxx", it goes via MCI.  And if it's
     "1-800-877-xxxx", it goes by U.S. Sprint.  Aren't you glad the
     folks who are making decrees on how "alternate' networks must
     interface with Fidonet aren't working for the phone company?)

     We refuse to play these sort of politically-motivated games
     with the OPCN nodelist, and intend to just list nets in North
     America under Zone 11, nets in Europe under Zone 12, and so on,
     regardless of what "network" the net is affiliated with.  So,
     sysops who use the OPCN nodelist won't have to try to figure
     out if someone is in Fidonet, Alternet, Eggnet, LCRnet or
     WhatEverNet.  If they have the net/node number, and if the NC
     of that net has permitted it to be listed in the OPCN nodelist,
     they just type it in as if it were in their own net.  No
     Zonegating to "other" nets, no multiple outbound areas to
     maintain, no worries about whether all your software is "fully
     FidoNews 6-27                Page 15                   3 Jul 1989


     Zone-Aware" (it most likely isn't), and much less complexity
     all around.

     Before I close, I'd like to share with you part of a netmail
     message I received from Carl Linden in response to my first
     nodelist article.  It makes some very interesting observations,
     I think:

          I read your article with interest, Jack, and couldn't
          agree more.

          However: . . .

          The IFNA Nodelist already provides what you are
          advocating.  Following is an excerpt from the latest
          Nodelist:

     [Note that this is the text that appears at the front of the
     Fidonet nodelist, reformatted to fit Fidonews:]

          FidoNet Nodelist for Friday, June 16, 1989 -- Day
          number 167 : 04941

          Copyright 1989, International FidoNet Association
          (IFNA), Missouri Corporation.  All rights reserved.

          NOTICE:  This compilation is the property of IFNA as
          its created work.  This work includes certain
          individual portions provided to IFNA by operators of
          Fido and FidoNet Bulletin Boards.  IFNA has the right
          to create and distribute these Nodelists based, in
          part, on rights granted to it by those originating
          such portions.  Other than the rights granted IFNA,
          those creating and maintaining the portions retain
          all residual rights in and to each's individual
          portion.

          IFNA grants unlimited duplication and/or distribution
          for noncommercial purposes only and reserves all
          other rights, including, but not limited to, any
          commercial publication, distribution, republication
          or redistribution in any way of all or any part of
          the NodeList, except those nodes that are now or
          hereafter registered in this NodeList shall be and
          hereby are licensed to utilize this NodeList only in
          the technical operation of those nodes.  Any
          distribution authorized herein may include recovery
          of reasonable, actual costs of duplication and/or
          dissemination.

          No one is granted any other right to any use, sale,
          duplication or distribution of this compilation for
          any commercial purpose.....

     [Mr. Linden continues:]

     FidoNews 6-27                Page 16                   3 Jul 1989


          IFNA enjoys special tax status by being a corporation
          for the good of the general public.  IFNA cannot
          restrict its services to only its own members,
          members of FIDOnet, or any other organization.  If
          they do their preferred tax status is in jeopardy.

          So, the bottom line is that we already have a public
          nodelist.  Being listed in the nodelist is not at the
          pleasure of the *C's, or anyone else, it is required
          for IFNA to keep its preferred tax status.

          Ex-communication is currently used as a disciplinary
          measure by the *C structure if the *C does not like
          the views expressed by the "offender".  This is a
          violation of our right to Free Speech.  But,
          enforcing that is at best expensive & time consuming.
          A much better approach would be to challenge IFNA's
          preferred tax status if IFNA does live up to its
          purpose to serve the general public.

          For now I am not going to publicize this message in
          any of the echoes, but you are free to do so as a
          comment on your FIDOnews article.

     Now, I'm not holding my breath until the IFNA nodelist begins
     to fulfill its role as a truly "public" nodelist.  We'll be
     happy to do it if the IFNA doesn't want to.  But, there are a
     couple of points worthy of notice here.  First, the Fidonet
     copyright notice grants specific permission for others to use
     it for non-commercial purposes.  So, we COULD take the Fidonet
     nodelist and merge it into the OPCN nodelist (which could
     probably be described as "militantly non-commercial", to
     paraphrase Wynn Wagner) and issue a truly combined nodelist if
     we wanted to.  I would personally prefer not to do things that
     way, but apparently we wouldn't be violating anyone's copyright
     if we did!

     Second, regarding the recent expulsion of Net 154 from the
     nodelist by a Fidonet RC... the NC of Net 154 happens to be a
     member of the IFNA Board of Directors.  The IFNA claims
     ownership of the nodelist in the prologue to the nodelist.
     Doesn't it seem a bit ironic that a member of the IFNA Board of
     Directors (and his entire net) can be kicked out of the IFNA's
     nodelist by an RC who is not (to my knowledge) even in the
     IFNA, or at least not on the IFNA's Board of Directors?

     But the real question is, does the IFNA have the right, as a
     tax-exempt organization that is supposed to be serving the
     public, to ONLY accept nodelist segments provided to them by
     Fidonet *C's?

     If the IFNA is obligated to serve the public interest, and to
     specifically avoid furthering the goals of one particular
     private organization, such as Fidonet (and particularly, the
     RC/ZC/IC structure of Fidonet), then can they legally allow a
     small group of individuals (the *C's) to decide who will and
     FidoNews 6-27                Page 17                   3 Jul 1989


     who will not be allowed to be in the Fidonet nodelist?  By
     giving the *C structure control of who can and cannot be in the
     IFNA nodelist (based entirely on their private interpretation
     of Fidonet Policy documents), isn't the IFNA nodelist is being
     used to further the goals of a specific parochial group,
     namely, the Fidonet Coordinators at and above the RC level?
     Doesn't this violate the provisions of the IFNA's tax-exempt
     status?

     These questions are ones that I'm sure we will be asking in the
     weeks ahead!

     I promised to provide an abbreviated Net 154 nodelist that you
     can plug into your private nodelist long enough to get a
     message to us.  This is it.  Just use a text editor or word
     processor to clean it up and connect the two halves of each
     line.  If you're an NC, I hope you'll use this to send your
     Net's nodelist to 154/970, for inclusion in the OPCN nodelist!

     Host,154,/\/\ilwaukee/\/\etro,Milwaukee_WI,
               Ted_Polczynski,1-414-282-4181,9600,CM,HST
     Pvt,8,Northern_Bytes,Sault_Ste_Marie_MI,
               Jack_Decker,-Unpublished-,2400,
     ,970,Forecast_Office,West_Allis_WI,
               George_Kasica,1-414-321-7872,9600,CM,HST

     -----------------------------------------------------------------
     FidoNews 6-27                Page 18                   3 Jul 1989


     Steve Palm
     Fidonet 1:154/8.2
     LCRnet 77:1011/8.2

               MULTIPLE NETS IN A SINGLE GEOGRAPHIC AREA

     After reading the policy documents that hold FidoNet together,
     and  listening to some of the bickering going on in the
     Echomail areas, I have come to some conclusions.  Please bear
     with me as I point out what I see as some obvious points, which
     may have been overlooked from time to time by those whom it
     might benefit the most at the time.

     Geography is quite an issue.  Yes, it affects just about every
     aspect of the way your system interacts with others in FidoNet.
     You cannot become part of a Net that is outside of your
     predetermined Geographic area, unless you can prove beyond a
     shadow of a doubt that it will be of benefit to *everyone* else
     in FidoNet.  Well, maybe it isn't that bad, but it sure seems
     like it sometimes, doesn't it?

     It appears that things have been set up so that a certain
     Geographic area is covered by a specific Net.  Indeed, this may
     be the best way to approach this situation.  However, is it
     necessarily the best way to handle it in *all* cases?  I would
     think not...

     Many people have been quick to point out different cases in
     favor of multiple nets in a Geographic area, if needed.  For
     example, one person has repeatedly mentioned that Cellular
     phone companies are allowed to co-exist in the same area.  Yet,
     that doesn't in any way shape or form make it any more
     difficult for you to get your call through to someone, now does
     it?

     I was thinking on this, and thought that perhaps only having
     one Net in an area *would* be ideal.  I mean, after all, then
     you know that everyone in that area is going to be going to
     THAT net.  If you needed to get ahold of them, you would know
     exactly where to go ahead of time. There would be *no*
     guesswork involved.  And forget about those costly connections
     too.  One phone call to each area, and you won't have to worry
     about some facet of that group not getting it.

     I think we should even extend this idea a little further,
     outside of FidoNet altogether.  What about our broadcasters?
     Surely you must realize what an awful tragedy we have fallen
     into here!  I mean, after all, the FCC will allow you to have
     more than one FM, one AM, and one TV station in the same area!
     That should be stopped immediately!

     Consider advertising costs!  A business will have to put
     his/her advertisement on how many stations to cover the wide
     range of people in their own area.  And if a news bulletin
     needs to be delivered, *all* of the stations must be notified
     lest someone not hear about it.  Can you see the terror that
     FidoNews 6-27                Page 19                   3 Jul 1989


     lurks here?  You might listen to station X, while station Y is
     broadcasting just what you needed to know.  You have just
     missed it, and it will not be repeated.  Wouldn't it be great
     if you only *had* station Y to listen to?  Then you wouldn't
     have to worry!

     I hope that by now you can see the stupidity of this argument.
     It in no way shape or form helps out the community by allowing
     only one station.  In fact, it hurts it.  There is no variety.
     No way for the people to have their choice of what to listen
     to.

     Do you think FidoNet should be different?  Sure it might make a
     slight bit of change necessary.  But, if FidoNet is for the
     people, why shouldn't they be allowed a choice?  I find it
     difficult to believe that it would make it impossible for mail
     to flow.  Nets will still exist, so you will still have focal
     points to send things to.  It will still be disseminated from
     there.  You just won't have these stupid restrictions on where
     a person must get their stuff from.

     I am not making references here to say that FidoNet is entirely
     bad.  Obviously there are folks out there that feel parts of it
     are in rough shape, but I don't think anyone thinks it is *ALL*
     bad.  If they did, they wouldn't bother to use compatible
     software, now would they?

     In just the same way that people are allowed to choose which
     magazines to read, which radio stations to listen to, which
     movies to see, and which television programs to watch, I think
     that they should also be allowed to choose which Net to belong
     to.  I think this could even go a bit further...  They should
     be allowed to chose which NETWORK to belong to, and *NOT* be
     penalized for it not being FidoNet.

     I don't think that the Nodelist should be used as some sort of
     tool that is held over your head.  "If you don't jump when I
     say so, you are CUT!"  I know that it isn't supposed to be used
     that way, but there are several instances where it is and has
     been.

     I ask you to seriously consider this.  POLICY4 is now in
     effect.  Many people have said that it gives the upper echelon
     more power than they previously had.  If you want to see things
     change in FidoNet, *NOW* is the time.  Don't wait for POLICY5
     to come out eliminating the common sysop's view altogether.

     If you think that you are not affected by a certain person's
     argument and/or troubles, then think again.  How long will it
     be before you are the one on the chopping block, but there will
     be no one around to help you because everyone who might have
     backed you up has already been killed?

     Please, I ask you to seriously consider taking a stand to make
     FidoNet not only a system *FOR* the people, but one that is run
     *BY* the people. Where the people have real input, and their
     FidoNews 6-27                Page 20                   3 Jul 1989


     concerns are carefully looked into.  If something isn't going
     to kill anyone, then why should you say "No." just because it
     hasn't been done before?

     I know that this will take a lot of hard work, and that a lot
     of people are going to get involved.  It will definitely get
     worse before it gets any better.  But, I think that it is
     needed, and the sooner it happens the better.

     Thank you for taking the time to listen to me.  I would really
     appreciate it if you would drop me a note letting me know how
     you feel about this and related issues.

                                               Steve Palm @ 154/8.2

     -----------------------------------------------------------------
     FidoNews 6-27                Page 21                   3 Jul 1989


                  More of My Opinions if Anyone Cares
                           by Daniel Tobias
                                1:380/7

     Gee, the opinions on FidoNet policy expressed in FidoNews
     are getting more and more vicious.  I entered the FidoNet
     policy debate in the hopes of trying to resolve some of the
     venomous squabbles, but if anything, what I've written has
     only excerbated them.

     Some of the things I've seen in FidoNews 6-26 bring me close
     to recanting some of my earlier opinions.  In some earlier
     articles, I've regarded the passage of POLICY4 as generally
     a positive step, dismissed the allegations that the policy
     document is illegitimate due to irregularities in its
     ratification procedure, and stated that it should be
     considered binding on all zones despite the apparent intent
     of the Europeans to override it.  I believe this in spite
     many disagreements with the specific tenets of POLICY4; I
     simply feel that members of a private, voluntary
     organization who disagree with elements of its rules should
     either work within the system to change the rules (while
     obeying them until they are changed), or leave the
     organization and join or start another that is more
     philosophically compatible.  While much in POLICY4 is not to
     my liking, I generally felt it was livable until a better
     POLICY5 can be devised.

     However, FidoNews 6-26 gives me some pause.  I see there
     that a node was excommunicated due to a good-faith
     disagreement as to the validity of POLICY4.  I think this is
     going overboard; so long as the node doesn't actually
     violate the policy document, it shouldn't be kicked out due
     to the philosophical opposition its sysop holds.  He should
     have been asked simply to apologize for the unintentional
     violation (the bombing run), and asked to promise not to do
     it again, but shouldn't have been excommunicated unless he
     actually committed further POLICY4 violations.  (And,
     despite the authoritarian elements of POLICY4, there still
     is very little that an individual node (other than a *C) can
     do which is excommunicatable; there is little change from
     POLICY3 in this regard.  Most of the changes, rather, deal
     with administrative things of little interest to the average
     sysop.)

     The same is true of the Europeans; I sincerely hope that my
     earlier comments about Zone 2 policy don't help cause the
     excommunication of any Zone 2 node for the "crime" of
     claiming that POLICY4 does not apply to them (as wrong as I
     feel this opinion to be); action, if any is taken at all,
     should be only in response to an actual policy complaint
     with regard to a specific violation (e.g., if a node is
     asked to pay a mandatory charge and refuses).  To the extent
     my previous comments may have disagreed with this position,
     I now recant them.  The EuroCon report in the current
     FidoNews seems to show the Europeans attempting to create
     FidoNews 6-27                Page 22                   3 Jul 1989


     constructive activity in their zone, and bring about grass-
     roots democracy, something which deserves commendation
     rather than condemnation; if elements of their plan conflict
     with POLICY4 I must regrettably opine that they are
     technically invalid and would not stand up upon appeal if
     challenged, but I hope the good elements of their plan can
     be adopted into a new POLICY5.

     Since the legitimacy of POLICY4 is under fire, I feel
     pressed to explain further why I accept its validity.  The
     main objection of those who deny its validity is that the
     sysops didn't get to vote on it; it was enacted unilaterally
     by the *C's.  The implication is that POLICY1 through
     POLICY3 were directly adopted by the sysops.  Actually, I
     was a sysop at the time (1986) that POLICY3 was enacted, and
     I don't recall getting a chance to vote on it.  I'm kind of
     vague by now as to just how it was adopted, but I think some
     high-placed *C's drafted it and nobody objected to its
     adoption (this being before the faction fights got going).
     No explicit vote was taken, though.  Regrettably, unanimous
     consent is now impossible given the size and diversity of
     the network.  As for a universal sysop vote, that has only
     been tried once, for the initial IFNA bylaws, and the result
     (a vote in which a tiny minority of the sysops participated,
     and numerous factions claimed to speak for the silent
     majority) led to the beginning of the horrible factionalism
     the net has had ever since, but didn't seem to have before
     that.  Given this, one can see some non-authoritarian
     reasons why this method was not used this time.  I think the
     *C vote was a reasonable compromise, and many NCs (including
     my own) took some effort to solicit net opinion on the
     policy and involve all of us in the decision.

     The "Lost Archives" section illustrates the decidedly non-
     democratic manner in which major policy change has been made
     in the past.  What is probably the biggest FidoNet change
     ever, the switch from a single node number to the net/node
     addressing system, was enacted by gathering together
     whichever FidoNet people happened to be in St. Louis at
     the time and having them hammer out a system.  Many of the
     nodes out in the far reaches of the net weren't even aware
     of the change until the last minute, let alone being allowed
     to vote on it.  However, it worked: the switch was made
     without major hassle or argument, due to the spirit of
     cooperation that pervaded FidoNet then.  Anyway, the trend
     was set that no democracy was explicitly needed to ensure
     the "legitimacy" of change.  To change this, a new POLICY
     document will have to be passed giving explicit sysop
     democracy; no such "voting rights" are expressed or implied
     in any current or prior document.   As it now stands, the
     *C's can be considered the "officers" of FidoNet, and are
     entitled to take whatever action they deem necessary in the
     absence of a "constitution" giving specific limits on their
     powers and granting specific political powers to the sysops
     as a whole.  To remedy this, policy change is needed, and
     POLICY4 at least gives a specific mechanism by which it can
     FidoNews 6-27                Page 23                   3 Jul 1989


     be amended, unlike the earlier policy documents.

     Jennings stated in that "lost" archive that the change back
     in 1985 was intended to promote "DECENTRALISM"; his (valid)
     objection to current policy decisions is that they instead
     promote centralism.  (And, it is my position that this is
     not new to POLICY4, but was implicit in all the POLICY
     documents beginning at the time that Jennings stopped
     writing them himself.)  It is incumbent on FidoNet to adopt
     a new policy more in line with the ideals of its founder,
     promoting more liberty, decentralism, and democracy.

     If this does not occur, I might find myself agreeing with
     Jack Decker's plan for a completely nonpolitical nodelist.

     Meanwhile, I hope the feuding factions can attempt to defuse
     their rivalries.  I really don't think many (if any) sysops
     or *C's can be fairly characterized as "Nazis", as somebody
     did in the last FidoNews.  The "Aryan Nation" NeoNazis run
     bulletin board systems, but none is in FidoNet.  Tossing
     around such names is demeaning.  In my opinion, while many
     sysops and *Cs have very strong opinions on net politics,
     they are generally sincerely-held beliefs about what is best
     for FidoNet, rather than a desire for tyrannical power over
     others.  Maybe a couple of real tyrants exist (and I'm not
     positive who they are; the issue is clouded by all the
     namecalling being flung back and forth), but they are vastly
     outnumbered by those who simply want to do what is right.
     Perhaps some of the well-meaning feuders can try to back off
     a little bit from one another's throats, and accept that
     there may be something to the other side's viewpoint.

     In the case of the node excommunicated for refusing to
     accept the validity of POLICY4, some give-and-take on the
     part of both antagonists could lead to this sysop making a
     productive contribution to future evolution of FidoNet
     policy from the inside, instead of sniping at FidoNet from
     the outside.  The excommunicated sysop might think of
     issuing a statement like:  "While I still question the
     validity of the POLICY4 document, and will use every legal
     means at my disposal to cause it to be replaced by a more
     desirable policy, I promise [under duress from threat of
     excommunication] to refrain from violating any terms of this
     POLICY document so long as I remain in the nodelist and
     POLICY4 has not been replaced or overturned."  And the *C's
     involved should accept such a statement and reinstate the
     node, despite the continuing disagreement as to the
     legitimacy of POLICY4.

     Regarding the case of the net refusing to abide by
     geographical rules, if no great harm is done from allowing
     out-of-area nodes in the net in question, the RC should
     consider using the powers granted him by POLICY4 to allow
     the exception to be made.  This would not be undermining
     POLICY in any way, since such exceptions are specifically
     provided for.   However, if he continues to refuse the
     FidoNews 6-27                Page 24                   3 Jul 1989


     exemption, the net in question should back down (again, this
     may be openly done under duress, with a clear indication
     that this action is not agreeable to the net; the NC
     shouldn't be forced to lose face by recanting his opinion
     on the issue, so long as he yields in action), and then
     begin working towards the loosening of the geographical
     restrictions in a POLICY5 document so that the nodes may
     legally be reinstated later.

     In general, *C's should be reasonably tolerant and easygoing
     befitting FidoNet's status as an amateur, hobbyist network.
     There's no need to go eagerly looking for violations of the
     letter of POLICY and come down hard on them, in the absence
     of any complaint from parties involved.  On the other hand,
     sysops should recognize that POLICY4 is in fact the "law of
     the land" in FidoNet, and should try to obey it, while
     working to change the parts of which they disagree.

     If the *C's wish to show that they are not really
     authoritarians, they must tolerate a wide range of opinions
     from the sysops and lower-level coordinators, including
     opinions to the effect that the present policy document is
     flawed and possibly illegitimate, so long as the ACTIONS of
     these people do not violate policy.  On their own part,
     dissident elements should not become martyrs to their cause
     by brazenly violating policy and inviting expulsion from the
     net; they can work more productively towards reform if they
     remain in FidoNet.  If they instead feel that FidoNet is
     beyond saving, they should quit it now and join a net they
     like better, rather than starting counterproductive battles
     and daring the *C structure to excommunicate them.  If you
     do leave, please don't use your position outside FidoNet as
     a platform from which to continue factional squabbles within
     FidoNet; leave the rest of us who have remained to try to
     work out our own affairs, and devote your efforts to the
     affairs of whatever network you have decided to join
     instead.  Maybe then we both can progress.

     Anyway, the above is just my opinion, not necessarily
     representative of anybody else's.  I sincerely hope that I
     have done more to ease the internal fights than to fan their
     flames, but one never knows.  Some of you may already be
     raging mad about something I've said here or in an earlier
     article.  If so, please send me a message, explaining as
     calmly as possible why you think I'm completely wrong; I'll
     try to listen, and if you convince me, I won't be ashamed to
     completely recant earlier positions which prove on second
     thought to be invalid.  Bye for now.

     -----------------------------------------------------------------
     FidoNews 6-27                Page 25                   3 Jul 1989


     Ray Kaliss
     The SDN Project
     Fido 1:141/840

                      SDNet/Works! UPDATE 07/01/89

     It  has  been  six  months   since  SDNet/Works!  launched  the
     Shareware Distribution Network.   In that time, even  under our
     limited plans for growth, SDN has gained over 130 participating
     hobby BBS systems in the U.S., Canada and in European Zone 2.

     Starting out  and remaining a  non-profit and  hobby adventure,
     SDNet/Works! has attracted quality shareware authors to send in
     disks for distribution.  There are no fees of any kind involved
     for authors or sysops.

     Oopps,   you   missed   something   you   say?   ...   "What is
     SDNet/Works!?"

     SDNet/Works!  is  a  participation  of  hobby  BBS  sysops  and
     Shareware  authors.   Shareware  programs  are  received clean,
     complete  and  up  to  date,  directly  from  the  authors  and
     distributed to  the participating  sysop members  by routing in
     netmail.   The  transfers  are  done  automatically  by  simple
     utilities.  Once at the participating system, it is held for 30
     days in a special download only file area - there for users and
     other sysops alike to grab.  SDNet/Works! distribution is a way
     of removing the sometimes hazards of the user uploads.  It is a
     way to keep up to date on shareware versions and releases.

     SDNet/Works!  participating   BBS  systems   are  "distribution
     points"   for   the   shareware   programs.    Because   we use
     distribution points, the network and membership is limited  but
     the "points"  are available  for other  sysops to  File-Request
     from - or download.

     Net members run  a conglomeration or OPUS,  Binkley, FrontDoor,
     Dutchie, RBBS, Quickbbs, Wildcat!...  you name it!

           There are two reasons I write this short notice...

     1.  To  get  more  systems  interested  in  SDNet/Works!  as  a
     continuation of the  hobby adventure and  spread SDNet/Works!'s
     coverage by adding more distribution points.

     2.  To  let  sysops   know  there  are  official   SDNet/Works!
     participating BBSs nation wide in the U.S. - some in Canada and
     a few in Europe... these systems are for you, all sysops.   You
     can log on to the nearest one and make arrangements to find out
     what comes down  the SDN pike  every week, and  arrange to make
     File-Requests of SDN distributed software.

     Along with every shareware program shipped out by SDNet/Works!,
     there is an accompanying .SDA (Shareware Distribution Abstract)
     file.  The SDA is usually a two screen text description of  the
     program,  sometime  written  for  SDNet/Works!  by  the author,
     FidoNews 6-27                Page 26                   3 Jul 1989


     sometime by net members.

     All  SDNet/Works!  files,  recognized  by  the   (filename).SDN
     extension, are compressed with NoGates PAK format.  As soon  as
     PAK version 2.0  comes out, SDNet/Works!  will be the  first to
     compress BBS posted programs in a "security envelope" that  can
     be verified  as unchanged  from its  original packaging  at the
     SDNet/Works!   Distribution   Center  BBS.    Essentially  this
     "hacker proof seal" will be verifiable on SDNet/Works! files no
     matter  how  far  they  are  further  spread  from SDNet/Works!
     distribution points.  Our contribution  in a further effort  to
     preserve safety and the clean hobby spirit in BBSland.

     At  every  participating BBS  there  is  usually posted  a  net
     listing of  the locations and  numbers of  distribution points,
     with a file name of SDN_NET.xxx (xxx=update version).

     It's about  time you  contacted an  SDNet/Works! site  and took
     advantage of  the newest  service and  adventure the  hobby BBS
     world has to offer.

     * Project Management *
     SYSOP/CONN! - The SDN Project - Information and Publications
                 - Ray Kaliss
                 FidoNet 1:/141/840  203-634-0370 (2400 Baud)
                 South Meriden, Connecticut USA

     SDN Central Distribution - System Coordinator
                 - Charlie Smith
                 FidoNet 1:141/880   203-628-4644 (9600 HST)
                 Compu$erve 72417,375
                 Milldale, Connecticut USA

                        * Regional Management *
                         ZONE 1 - North America
     Penguin Place    Hanford, CA          Don Barnes    1:205/2
     Innovations BBS  Chicago, IL          Peter Hur     1:115:736
     Channel 23       Orleans, ON, Canada, Chris Weisner 1:163/223
     Dog's Breakfast  Tom's River, NJ      Mike Fuchs    1:266/71
     Towne Crier Sys  Alliance, NE         Tony Mace 308-762-3360
     The Hour Glass   Tucson, AZ           Lyn Borchert  1:300/12
     Wilton Woods     Wilton, CT           John Alton    1:141/250
     Hotline Data     Langley, BC, Canada, Bryan Bucci   1:153/133
     StarScan         Montgomery, AL       Tom Jones     1:375/1
     American Fido    Oklahoma City, OK    John Knox     1:147/7
     Total Chaos      Jonesboro, AR        Dave Mingus   1:389/1

                   ZONE 2 - Europe/Africa/Middle East
     Zone Manager: Ernesto Hagmann  PC-Info <SFNA>
                   Titterten, Switzerland                2:300/51

     Clones Best Frd  Dortmund, W Germany,    T. Zumbrock 2:509/6
     Quick BBS AXE    Hilversum, Netherlands, V. Verhagen 2:512/27
     OS-68K Gepard Bx Zuerich, Switzerland,   A. Wyss     2:302/801

                           ZONE 7 - ALTERNET
     FidoNews 6-27                Page 27                   3 Jul 1989


     Zone Manager: Ivan Schaffel
                   The Library - New Haven, CT, USA,      7:640/390

                            ZONE 8 - RBBSNet
     Zone Manager: Terri Rossi
                   RTC BBS - Medford, NJ, USA             8:950/1

                            ZONE 9 - EGGNET
     Zone Manager: Ken Shackelford
                   AtlGate - Woodstack, GA, USA,         99:9000/1



     Please  don't  ask   a  distribution  point,   an  SDNet/Works!
     participant, to automatically send you new SDNet/Works!  files,
     he  or  she  has  enough  to  do  and  automatic  forwarding to
     non-SDNet/Works!  participants  is  against  our  policy... but
     distribution points  that have  File-Request capable  software,
     should have  it set  so you  can either  request a weekly FILES
     listing or a local  SDNet/Works! information echo in  the local
     nets it has been set up in.  Then you can File-Request, or  log
     on and download clean hazard free shareware for your own board.


     Ray Kaliss
     Project Manager
     SDNet/Works!



     -----------------------------------------------------------------
     FidoNews 6-27                Page 28                   3 Jul 1989


     Eric Asberry
     The Outpost, 1:236/2   (219) 486-8208

                            "Us" versus "Them"?

        Recently we have been inundated with numerous articles about
     the slobbering hell-hound RC's we have, and the near martial law
     status that our network is being run under.  These have
     inevitably been countered with articles portraying the "other"
     side as hell raising rebels who simply want to upset the balance
     and bring our net crumbling down to little more than chaos.

        Enough, already.  Which side am I on?  Neither.  POLICY4
     definitely has its problem areas.  We humans tend to be less
     than perfect, so it is not surprising that a policy document
     created by humans will probably be less than perfect, too.
     However, generally speaking, POLICY4 is a pretty reasonable set
     of guidelines for the net to follow.  It DOES need some change;
     for instance, the current system of selecting the *C structure is
     pretty ridiculous.

        But before classifying the entire *C structure as a bunch of
     ruthless villians, I think that people should give a little more
     thought as to all the things the *C structure is responsible for.
     They really are not a bunch of power hungry "dictators" in my
     experience.  I just recently became NC for our small net, and our
     RC (who has been called names aplenty) has been very helpful in
     setting things up for the transition.  If you think about it, the
     *C's really do quite a bit for us.  I tend to think some of them
     are a little nuts, but I suppose they are no more nuts for doing
     what they do than the average SYSOP is for using thousands of
     dollars worth of equipment to entertain total strangers!

        I think that the net's biggest problem is not POLICY4, not
     the *C structure, and not even those "rebellious fools" who want
     to "upset the balance" of things.  No, the REAL problem we face
     is the network's increasing failure to achieve its primary goal:
     communication.  Conversations can get pretty heated in echomail;
     tempers flare, egos bulge and for the most part, nothing gets
     solved.  We need to remember that the guy sitting at the
     computer hundreds of miles away is just as human as we are, and
     deserves the same consideration we desire for ourselves.  I
     think it would do us a great deal of good to just remember the
     "golden rule".  It would solve a lot of our problems, or at
     least make them easier to solve.  Perhaps it's just wishful
     thinking, but I for one am ready for the day when we can
     concentrate on improving the net's technical operation instead
     of bickering amongst each other.  The "lost Fidonet archives"
     have left me longing for the past...




     -----------------------------------------------------------------
     FidoNews 6-27                Page 29                   3 Jul 1989


     Steve Palm
     Fidonet 1:154/8.2
     LCRnet 77:1011/8.2

                      A SHORT STORY, WITH A MORAL

     Many years ago, Indian braves would go away in solitude to
     prepare for manhood.  One hiked into a beautiful valley, green
     with trees, bright with flowers.  There, as he looked up at the
     surrounding mountains, he noticed one rugged peak, capped with
     dazzling snow.

     "I will test myself against that mountain," he thought.  He put
     on his buffalo hide shirt, threw his blanket over his
     shoulders, and set off to climb the pinnacle.

     When he reached the top, he stood on the rim of the world.  He
     could see forever, and his heart swelled with pride.  Then he
     heard a rustle at his feet.  Looking down, he saw a snake.
     Before he could move, the snake spoke.

     "I am about to die," said the snake.  "It is too cold for me up
     here, and there is no food.  Put me under your shirt and take
     me down to the valley."

     "No," said the youth.  "I know your kind.  You are a
     rattlesnake.  If I pick you up, you will bite and your bite
     will kill me."

     "Not so," said the snake.  "I will treat you differently.  If
     you do this for me, I will not harm you."

     The youth resisted a while, but this was a very persuasive
     snake.  At last the youth tucked it under his shirt and carried
     it down to the valley.  There he laid it down gently.
     Suddenly, the snake coiled, rattled and leaped, biting him on
     the leg.

     "But you promised ---" cried the youth.

     "You knew what I was when you picked me up," said the snake as
     it slithered away.

     ------------------------ end of story ------------------------

     Moral(s):

     To people who might be tempted by things (i.e. drugs...),
     remember the words of the snake:  "You knew what I was when you
     picked me up"

     To those sysops of FidoNet:  You knew what it was when you
     agreed by policy to be in the NodeList.

     I just wish those nasty (UPPER) *C people didn't have to be
     such snakes...
     FidoNews 6-27                Page 30                   3 Jul 1989


     -----------------------------------------------------------------
     FidoNews 6-27                Page 31                   3 Jul 1989


     Steve Bonine
     115/777

                     The Facts Ma'am.  Only the Facts.

     Here are the simple facts concerning two current issues in
     FidoNet.  A great deal of smoke has been blown, in FidoNews and
     other forums, in an attempt to "blow up" issues which are really
     quite simple.

     Net 154
     --- ---

     As Regional Coordinator, I received a netmail message from a
     Network Coordinator pointing out that a system in net 154 was in
     the geographic area covered by his net.  Examination of the
     nodelist segment for net 154 disclosed three systems which were
     not within "Milwaukee Metro".

     I sent netmail to Ted Polczynski, the NC of net 154, asking him
     to arrange to move the affected systems to the correct net.  This
     is a routine matter which occurs from time to time; the message I
     sent was worded the same as previous messages to other NC's.

     Ted responded that he had the right to place any system in net
     154, regardless of its geographic location.  He explained that if
     a sysop did not wish to be in the local net, then it was in the
     best interest of FidoNet for that system to be listed in net 154.
     My response was that this did not solve the problem -- why could
     not the sysop obtain a listing in the correct net -- and thus was
     not in the best interest of FidoNet.

     Our opinions are moot, as Policy states "You may not assign a
     node number to a node in an area covered by an existing network."
     Repeated attempts by myself and David Dodell to obtain assurance
     from Ted that he would abide by Policy resulted in responses
     which did not address the question.  Four words would have taken
     care of this entire situation:  "I will observe Policy."


     Jim Grubs
     --- -----

     During the weekend of June 17, Jim Grubs conducted a bombing run.
     When confronted by formal policy complaints, Jim's response was
     that Policy4 did not apply to him, since he did not vote for it.
     He made the same statement in the national SYSOP conference.

     I sent Jim a netmail message, asking him to reconsider.  He
     refused.  I then removed his nodelist entry.

     The reason that I removed the entry, instead of letting the
     Network Coordinator do it, was because of Mr. Grubs' threat to
     use US Federal courts to protect his right to an entry in the
     FidoNet nodelist.  Although I feel that there is no grounds for
     such a lawsuit, I did not wish to place Jim's NC in the position
     FidoNews 6-27                Page 32                   3 Jul 1989


     of having to defend himself.  Under normal circumstances, I would
     not infringe upon the right of an NC to run the net, within the
     bounds of Policy.

     -----------------------------------------------------------------
     FidoNews 6-27                Page 33                   3 Jul 1989


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

                          Latest Software Versions

                           Bulletin Board Software
     Name        Version    Name        Version    Name       Version

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

     + Netmail capable (does not require additional mailer software)


     Network                Node List              Other
     Mailers     Version    Utilities   Version    Utilities  Version

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

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

     -----------------------------------------------------------------
     FidoNews 6-27                Page 34                   3 Jul 1989


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

                          The Interrupt Stack


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

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

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

     24 Aug 1989
        Voyager 2 passes Neptune.

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

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

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

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


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

     FidoNews 6-27                Page 35                   3 Jul 1989


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

     Nominations and Elections Committee
     1:107/233 1:107/210

           LAST CHANCE TO VOLUNTEER TO BE AN IFNA DIRECTOR!

     Time is running out to send notice of your willingness to serve
     the FidoNet community as a Director of IFNA.  The Nominations and
     Elections Committee will indicate the names of all members who
     wish to appear on the upcoming ballot.  Please send notice of
     your interest immediately to the Committee at 1:107/210.

     Some thoughts to consider relative to this follow.


     WHAT IS IFNA NOW?

     IFNA, now, is what you have made it.  If that is not exactly what
     you expect, then perhaps you should consider how much you have
     done to make that happen.  IFNA is staffed solely by volunteer
     sysops.  As such, all of them already are very busy trying to
     maintain their systems, and meet the more pressing demands of
     everyday life.  The lack of extra time available to them shows in
     the lack of results seen around the Net.  But don't be fooled -
     just because YOU may not see evidence of IFNA at work first-hand,
     does not mean that it is not accomplishing things nor that others
     are not being benefitted.  Lots of behind-the-scenes work is
     being done, information and services are being provided to many,
     and plans - and dreams - are being formed for the future of
     FidoNet.

     If you believe in the future of FidoNet, and expect IFNA to do
     more things to promote it, then perhaps you shouldn't sit there
     expecting that someone else does it.  This is your chance to
     really see that it gets done the way you believe it should.


     WHAT WILL IFNA BE IN THE FUTURE?

     What you make it.

     -----------------------------------------------------------------
     FidoNews 6-27                Page 36                   3 Jul 1989


            OFFICERS OF THE INTERNATIONAL FIDONET ASSOCIATION

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


            IFNA COMMITTEE AND BOARD CHAIRS

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


                      IFNA BOARD OF DIRECTORS

         DIVISION                               AT-LARGE

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

     -----------------------------------------------------------------
     FidoNews 6-27                Page 37                   3 Jul 1989


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


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


     Name:    _______________________________________________________

     Address:    ____________________________________________________

     City:    _______________________ State: ____ Zip: ______________

     Country:    ____________________________________________________


     Phone Numbers:

     Day:    ________________________________________________________

     Evening:    ____________________________________________________

     Data:    _______________________________________________________


     Zone:Net/
     Node.Point:  ___________________________________________________

     Your BBS Name:  ________________________________________________


     BBS Software:  _____________________ Mailer: ___________________

     Modem Brand:  _____________________ Speed:  ____________________

     At what hotel will you be staying:  ____________________________

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

     Are you a Sysop?  _____________

     Are you an IFNA Member?  ______

     Additional Guests:  __________
     (not attending conferences)

     Do you have any special requirements? (Sign Language translation,
     handicapped, etc.)
     FidoNews 6-27                Page 38                   3 Jul 1989


               ______________________________________________________


     Comments: ______________________________________________________

               ______________________________________________________

               ______________________________________________________


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

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

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

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

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

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


     This form should be completed and mailed to:

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


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

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


     Master Card _______     Visa ________


     Credit Card Number _____________________________________________


     Expiration Date ________________________________________________

     Signature ______________________________________________________

     No  credit  card registrations will be accepted without  a  valid
     FidoNews 6-27                Page 39                   3 Jul 1989


     signature.


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

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

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

     Economy car (example: Geo Metro)  $32 day/$109 week.
     Compact car (example: Chevy Cavalier) $34 day/$120 week.
     Midsize car (example: Pontiac Grand Am) $36 day/$135 week.
     Standard car (example: Buick Regal) $38 day/$165 week.
     Luxury car (example: Buick LeSabre) $40 day/$239 week.

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


     -----------------------------------------------------------------
     FidoNews 6-27                Page 40                   3 Jul 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.

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