     Volume 6, Number 24                                  12 June 1989
     +---------------------------------------------------------------+
     |                                                  _            |
     |                                                 /  \          |
     |                                                /|oo \         |
     |        - FidoNews -                           (_|  /_)        |
     |                                                _`@/_ \    _   |
     |        International                          |     | \   \\  |
     |     FidoNet Association                       | (*) |  \   )) |
     |         Newsletter               ______       |__U__| /  \//  |
     |                                 / FIDO \       _//|| _\   /   |
     |                                (________)     (_/(_|(____/    |
     |                                                     (jm)      |
     +---------------------------------------------------------------+
     Editor in Chief:                                  Vince Perriello
     Editors Emeritii:                                     Dale Lovell
                                                        Thom Henderson
     Chief Procrastinator Emeritus:                       Tom Jennings
     
     FidoNews  is  published  weekly  by  the  International   FidoNet
     Association  as  its  official newsletter.  You are encouraged to
     submit articles for publication in FidoNews.  Article  submission
     standards  are contained in the file ARTSPEC.DOC,  available from
     node 1:1/1.    1:1/1  is  a Continuous Mail system, available for
     network mail 24 hours a day.
     
     Copyright 1989 by  the  International  FidoNet  Association.  All
     rights  reserved.  Duplication  and/or distribution permitted for
     noncommercial purposes only.  For  use  in  other  circumstances,
     please contact IFNA at (314) 576-4067. IFNA may also be contacted
     at PO Box 41143, St. Louis, MO 63141.
     
     Fido  and FidoNet  are registered  trademarks of  Tom Jennings of
     Fido Software,  164 Shipley Avenue,  San Francisco, CA  94107 and
     are used with permission.
     
     We  don't necessarily agree with the contents  of  every  article
     published  here.  Most of these materials are  unsolicited.    No
     article will be rejected which is properly attributed and legally
     acceptable.    We   will  publish  every  responsible  submission
     received.


                        Table of Contents
     1. ARTICLES  .................................................  1
        Policy4 Passes  ...........................................  1
        Improve Your Programs with Default Parameters  ............  2
        Words from Under the Basement Steps  ......................  5
        Miscellaneous Musings  ....................................  9
        What is the spirit of UseNet?  ............................ 14
     2. LATEST VERSIONS  .......................................... 16
        Latest Software Versions  ................................. 16
     3. NOTICES  .................................................. 17
        The Interrupt Stack  ...................................... 17
     FidoNews 6-24                Page 1                   12 Jun 1989


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


     From NodeList.160:

     I am pleased to announce the passing of POLICY4.06
     as the new governing policy document for FidoNet.
     The vote was YES=152, NO=75.  POLICY4.06 will
     be known as POLICY4 and will be in effect immediately.


     -----------------------------------------------------------------
     FidoNews 6-24                Page 2                   12 Jun 1989


     John Herro
     1:363/6


               IMPROVE YOUR PROGRAMS WITH DEFAULT PARAMETERS


     In my previous article on improving your programs, we learned how
     Named Notation  (or Named Parameter Association)  in Ada can make
     your programs easier to read.  One reader asked me if Named Nota-
     tion can also be used with records.  The answer is yes.   For ex-
     ample, in Ada we can write

     type MONTH_TYPE is
         (JAN, FEB, MAR, APR, MAY, JUN, JUL, AUG, SEP, OCT, NOV, DEC);
     type DATE is
        record
           DAY   : INTEGER;
           MONTH : MONTH_TYPE;
           YEAR  : INTEGER;
        end record;
     USA : DATE;

     Since USA is declared to be of type DATE,  it has three "fields":
     USA.DAY,  USA.MONTH,  and USA.YEAR.  These fields can be referred
     to individually, as in USA.DAY := 4;  or the entire record can be
     referred to at once, as in

                           USA := (4, JUL, 1776);

     Here's where Named Notation comes in.  If  we prefer to write the
     month first, we can write

               USA := (MONTH => JUL, DAY => 4, YEAR => 1776);

     similar to the way we used  Named  Notation  in subprogram calls.
     Also,  having  the names of the fields right there in the assign-
     ment often makes the code easier to read.

     Closely associated with Named Notation  is the concept of Default
     Parameters.  They allow your Ada subprograms to be both  FLEXIBLE
     and  EASY  TO  USE,  where  in  other languages you would have to
     choose between these two features.

     For example,  suppose you want to write a  procedure  DISPLAY  to
     display an integer on some  special  device,  perhaps an array of
     lights.  To make  DISPLAY  as easy to use as possible,  you might
     give it only one argument: the integer being displayed.  However,
     to make it flexible, you might want to give it two additional ar-
     guments: the base and the width, so that the user can specify any
     reasonable base,  and allow extra space for  the  integer  if  he
     wants  to.  The  problem  is that in most languages the procedure
     would no longer be easy to use,  because  the  base and the width
     would have to be specified in every call.  For example,  in  For-
     tran we could write

     FidoNews 6-24                Page 3                   12 Jun 1989


                          SUBROUTINE DISPLA (ITEM)

     which would be easy to use but not flexible, or we could write

                  SUBROUTINE DISPLA (ITEM, IBASE, IWIDTH)

     which would be flexible but clumsy to  use,  because the base and
     width would have to be specified in every call.  However,  in Ada
     we can write

       procedure DISPLAY(ITEM : in INTEGER; BASE : in INTEGER := 10;
                         WIDTH : in INTEGER := 6);

     If the BASE isn't specified in a call to DISPLAY, it's assumed to
     be 10,  and if the WIDTH isn't specified,  it's  assumed to be 6.
     (We chose  6  because the longest integer in 16-bit two's comple-
     ment representation is -32768.)  If the BASE and WIDTH are speci-
     fied, they overwrite the default values in the procedure specifi-
     cation.  ITEM must be specified in every call, because there's no
     default value for that parameter.

     We now have a procedure that's both  flexible  and  easy  to use.
     With most calls to DISPLAY,  we need specify only the integer be-
     ing displayed.  For example, if N is an integer, we could write

                                DISPLAY(N);

     If we need to display N in hex, we could write

                          DISPLAY(N, BASE => 16);

     If we want to display N with extra space, we could write, for ex-
     ample,

                          DISPLAY(N, WIDTH => 9);

     Finally,  if we want to specify both the  BASE and the WIDTH,  we
     can do so, and we don't need to remember which of these two argu-
     ments came first in the procedure specification:

                    DISPLAY(N, WIDTH => 9, BASE => 16);

     In these examples,  we could have written ITEM => N in place of N
     if we wanted to use Named Notation even with the first argument.

     Ada comes with a procedure PUT that's very similar to the DISPLAY
     procedure we've been  discussing,  writing integers to the screen
     rather than to an array of lights.  However,  before  we can make
     use of that procedure, we have to learn a little about  Generics,
     and that's a topic for a future article.

     Default values can be assigned in  records  as well as subprogram
     specifications.  For example, if we write



     FidoNews 6-24                Page 4                   12 Jun 1989


                       type DATE is
                          record
                             DAY   : INTEGER;
                             MONTH : MONTH_TYPE;
                             YEAR  : INTEGER := 1776;
                          end record;

     then every object that we create of type DATE  will automatically
     have its YEAR field initialized to 1776  when it's created.  How-
     ever, the similarity to default parameters in subprogram specifi-
     cations is limited.  Although subprogram calls can omit arguments
     that have default  values,  we must specify all three fields when
     we assign objects of type  DATE.  For example,  if we declare USA
     to be of type DATE, we may NOT write USA := (4, JUL); because all
     three fields must be specified.  We'll show the  real  usefulness
     of default values in record types when we discuss Ada STRINGs and
     type TEXT in a later article.

     As you can see from this and earlier articles,  Ada  has many ad-
     vantages over earlier programming languages,  that make your pro-
     grams easier to read and easier to  maintain.  Ada  is  no longer
     for large programs only;  it's an ideal language for general pur-
     pose programming on a PC.  (There are now several inexpensive Ada
     compilers available for the PC.)   You can find my shareware pro-
     gram  "ADA-TUTR, the Interactive Ada Tutor"  as  ADA-TUTR.ARC (or
     .ZIP, etc.) on many boards, but 1:363/6 (407-773-2831) always has
     the  latest  version.  ADA-TUTR  doesn't require an Ada compiler,
     but a list of Ada compilers  available for the PC  is included in
     the documentation.  If you have an Ada compiler, ADA-TUTR can au-
     tomatically check your "homework."

     Since my last article on Ada,  ADA-TUTR  has been updated to ver-
     sion 1.21.  This version  automatically  remembers your place be-
     tween  learning  sessions,  without your having to write anything
     down.  It lets you choose colors while still remaining compatible
     with monochrome machines.  At any time,  it can tell you how  far
     you are through the course, and let you go back to the last ques-
     tion or to the last  "homework" assignment.  The documentation on
     how to install the program on  mainframes  and  workstations  has
     been expanded.

     I welcome your  comments  and  suggestions,  and wish you success
     with Ada!

     -----------------------------------------------------------------
     FidoNews 6-24                Page 5                   12 Jun 1989


     Bob Rudolph, 261/628
     President, IFNA

          A good number of folks have taken me to task recently, both
     publicly and privately for hiding here under the steps in my
     basement, where my PC's live, and not "communicating" with the
     general public.

          There may be some justification for the castigation I have
     received. In any event, it is long past time that I said a few
     words about IFNA, and the relationship of IFNA to FidoNet -
     and, incidentally, why IFNA should not be buried prematurely.

          By way of a little background, IFNA was started (perhaps
     formed is a little imprecise) to assist in the management of
     FidoNet and the nodelist, and to make it possible to get some
     of the volunteer expenses reduced or funded. That particular
     aspiration has not changed, although everything else (not only
     in IFNA but in FidoNet at large) has changed.

          Nobody ever anticipated that FidoNet would grow so fast.

          Nobody ever anticipated the coming of EchoMail and what
     effects it would have on what appears to be our (OUR is used
     rather loosely to reflect everything associated with any
     FidoNet-compliant network) world and mission.

          Nobody anticipated the paranoia and acrimony that would
     result from the attempt to found IFNA.

          Nobody (myself included) anticipated the great personal
     time and sacrifice that an organization such as IFNA would
     demand of its people.

          Nobody had the vaguest notion how thankless and demanding
     the tasks to be done would grow to be.

          And NOBODY anticipated that the great network of FidoNet
     would so soon become populated by non-technical folks.

          However, IFNA still manages to do a few things, and to do
     at least some of them somewhat well.

          IFNA maintains a telephone and U.S. Mail address for the
     sole purpose of answering questions about FidoNet technology
     and its uses, for folks that have no way otherwise to find out
     about it. The DAK catalog supplied us with literally thousands
     of phone calls, many of which I personally answered (to the tune
     of more than $1000 in long distance charges from my personal
     pocket, not reimbursed).

          IFNA sponsors the FTSC. Please note sponsors - IFNA does not
     "run" the FTSC - it isn't necessary that IFNA run it, and it
     seems to work better when not interfered with.

          IFNA helps allay some of the international costs of the
     FidoNews 6-24                Page 6                   12 Jun 1989


     FidoNet International Coordinator.

          IFNA represents FidoNet in the Electronic Mail Association
     which is an organization of professionals involved with the
     various types of electronic mail mechanisms.

          IFNA supplies seed money for FidoCon, if asked. IFNA also
     through Membership Services attempts to find areas of need and
     bring either resources to bear, or to direct to appropriate
     places the people or organizations in need.

          IFNA DOES NOT RUN FIDONET. IFNA never DID run FidoNet -
     and couldn't if it wanted to, which it does not. IFNA does not
     meddle in FidoNet day-to-day operations, in spite of what some
     folks would have you to believe. FidoNet does pretty well on
     its own without our interference.

          I can hear the questions forming now - "Why do we need an
     organization like IFNA anyhow?"  If you'll bear with me a few
     more minutes, I'll try to tell you from my perspective why we
     need IFNA.

          As an information source IFNA is needed - a central place
     to go to get information for those not already affiliated with
     some network or another. If you heard about FidoNet, who would
     you call to find out about it? If you read about it in the
     paper or in a catalog, you'd probably see our P.O. Box. We
     have the information, and would supply it.

          The proliferation of networks, and the flame wars that have
     raged have pointed out the need for some "United Nations" sort
     of body to hear disputes and to work out agreements between the
     OtherNets and FidoNet. The players in both places at the upper
     levels are very close the the frictions - an arbitration group
     could help there.

          FidoNet is an organization that functions but has no legal
     existence. IFNA supplies that legitimacy, by supplying the
     information clearinghouse and a corporate existence with some
     responsibility. IFNA, through the work of some concerned members
     of various committees has been active with telephone company
     concerns, and with several social projects. Maybe they're not
     important to the Average Sysop, but they're important to someone
     somewhere, or these hard working folks would not be taking their
     time and resources to involve themselves in these projects. IFNA
     supplies a FidoNet-wide view, as opposed to a local-net view -
     something that is occasionally badly needed.

          IFNA, because it is classified as a charitable organization
     COULD (capitalized because MakeNews doesn't like italics) be
     used as a source for operational funds for various areas in both
     FidoNet and the OtherNets - much as it currently funds part of
     the IC's phone costs. It puts IFNA in a position to solicit
     funds for operations from commercial organizations, provided
     that some common good benefit accrues.

     FidoNews 6-24                Page 7                   12 Jun 1989


          Difficult as it may be to believe, the continued operation
     of FidoNet is all the common good that is needed - FidoNet,
     through its sysops is supplying to the modem-owning public all
     kinds of useful information, programs, files, and conversation.
     FidoNet-technology users, regardless of net affiliation perform
     a public service by permitting access to their systems.

          The spread of FidoNet Technology and assistance where
     needed or asked in the implementation, organization, operation,
     and education as regards the uses of this technology is the
     reason for IFNA to continue to exist. IFNA supplies the
     "figurehead" (I don't like that term, but no better term comes
     to mind at present) upon which questions may be focussed, and
     through which funding may be attained, resources brought to
     bear, and agreements brought to fruition.

          These things may be done without interference in day-to-day
     operations of the various networks.

          IFNA is also charged to protect the trademarks of Tom
     Jennings and Fido Software. The license to do so is part of our
     responsibility. IFNA could be the arbiter that resulted in more
     peace and quiet between or among the various networks. IFNA
     should be the source of funding and hardware for the FTSC to let
     realistic software test suites be developed to assure that the
     standards promulgated by that organization were adhered to in a
     meaningful and reasonable manner.

          IFNA was formed for a lot of reasons. Along the way, most
     of them got to be obsolete or less interesting. Along the way,
     lots of us buried friends. After several years of struggle, IFNA
     has the coveted 501(c)(3) from the IRS which permits us to seek
     funding of industry. This funding could help FidoNet and all the
     OtherNets - if we were to go after it - if we were convinced
     that it was wanted.

          I don't know why so many FidoNet folks feel that IFNA wants
     to RUN FidoNet on a day-to-day basis - I sure don't want to do
     that, and as IFNA President I can state that that is not the
     aim, wish, or intent of the organization.

          IFNA has the potential to do a lot of good - to remove
     some of the costs of doing business that currently plague
     FidoNet, to act as a dispute resolver, to assist in the formation
     of policy, to assist in the definition and testing of standards,
     and to operate for the benefit of the public at large whilst
     doing these things.

          So someone please tell me why these are "bad" ideals? Why
     is there rampant paranoia in FidoNet and other places? What have
     I done to any of you to deserve the vilification that is being
     heaped on the corporate head of IFNA?

          IFNA is not perfect. I can assure you that I am likewise
     not perfect. IFNA is, however, the one small voice that has the
     potential to "bring the word" about FidoNet technology to the
     FidoNews 6-24                Page 8                   12 Jun 1989


     balance of the known universe in a coordinated and global manner
     as is needed, and it is the one organization in the realm of
     FidoNet that has the corporate recognition and the tax exempt
     status that will be so valuable as a source of funding, provided
     the organization is not summarily executed.

          Lots of good people have worked within IFNA, burned out and
     dropped out. Lots more have stood on the outside throwing rocks.
     Personalities have played a major role where they should have
     had no role whatever to play. We are FINALLY rising above some
     of that. We aren't perfect, but we do try - and we still have
     the potential to be the seed of democracy for FidoNet.

          I am not asking you to LET us do these things. I am asking
     you to put aside paranoia and bad feelings and HELP us to do
     these things. IFNA isn't Bob Rudolph and the rest of the guys
     on the BoD, regardless how capable they may be on selected days.
     IFNA should be all of the world of FidoNet technology, and it
     isn't - and one of the reasons it isn't is that in the process
     of listening to everyone, we ended up not able to do much of
     anything without getting shot at - and getting shot at is not
     much fun. A plea for a little reserve here - help educate us;
     don't tell us we're wrong all the time, for we already KNOW it -
     instead, help us to do it right.

          But I'm warning you - it takes commitment.

     -----------------------------------------------------------------
     FidoNews 6-24                Page 9                   12 Jun 1989


                         Miscellaneous Musings
                 about FidoNet policy and other things

                           by Daniel Tobias
                                1:380/7

     Much discussion about the proposed (and maybe enacted by the
     time this sees print) POLICY4, and other ramifications of
     FidoNet policy, has been going on in recent FidoNews issues.
     I put in my own two cents in FidoNews 623, regarding the
     European rejection of POLICY3 and POLICY4 in favor of their
     own policy which they claim supersedes the overall net
     policy.

     (By the way, that article saw print just hours after I wrote
     and submitted it.  Has FidoNews eliminated the former three
     week lead time, or did the editor just consider my article
     to be sufficiently timely to suspend it?  Whatever, I like
     this timely publication, and hope it continues.  It's nice
     to carry on discussion about FidoNet issues before they
     become stale.)

     Here are a few more comments regarding directions in which
     FidoNet policy might evolve.

     First of all, let me state up front that I'm not a *C, *EC,
     IFNA BoD member, or any other elected or appointed position
     within FidoNet or any related organization.  For that
     matter, I have never had a major dispute or quarrel with any
     *C, *EC, IFNA BoD member, or other officer of FidoNet-
     related organizations.  I am not part of any faction,
     clique, in-group, good-old-boy-network, or power-seeking
     cabal.  Rather, I'm just a sysop who has been fascinated by
     the concept of FidoNet ever since I first discovered it in
     September, 1985.  All ideas expressed here are my own,
     presented in the spirit of seeking common-sense solutions to
     the various problems of net policy.  I have no axes to
     grind or vested interests to promote or tear down; I'm
     willing to change any opinions upon being presented with
     sufficient evidence to back opposing viewpoints.  All I ask
     in return is that whatever ideas I present be evaluated and
     allowed to stand or fall on their own merits rather than
     becoming the subject of personal attacks, innuendos, or
     accusations of power-monging.

     As I stated last time, I'm opposed to the European nodes
     claiming to be exempt from POLICYx.  This, however, does not
     mean I'm a centralist opposed to the devolution of power to
     more grass-roots levels.  Actually, I'm very much in favor
     of making FidoNet a grass-roots network with the ultimate
     power residing at the lowest level.  This, however, should
     be within a framework of overall POLICY applying to all and
     setting the very basic ground rules by which the network is
     to operate.  Much latitude should be given to local
     subsections of FidoNet to adjust to their own particular
     conditions, so long as the basic principles of FidoNet are
     FidoNews 6-24                Page 10                  12 Jun 1989


     not subverted.  Exactly what these basic principles are is
     something the whole net must somehow come to agreement on;
     this should preferably be a fairly minimal set of standards
     so that individual freedom is not stifled.

     Much in the European policy (which I haven't actually seen,
     so I just know what was written about it in FidoNews) would
     be reasonable to emulate in a new netwide policy.  For
     instance, a switch to a bottom-up system of selecting
     coordinators would be a practical way of introducing a
     measure of democracy.  NCs ought to be elected by their
     constituent sysops, RCs by their NCs, ZCs by their RCs, and
     the IC by the ZCs.  The latter two are done in POLICY4, but
     I think it would be reasonable to extend democracy all the
     way down.  (One reservation about this:  it could result in
     politicising coordinator positions which are really intended
     to be technical; however, this isn't really a significant
     objection given that these positions have already been
     irreversably politicized, and are granted legislative,
     executive, and judicial powers by POLICY and precedent;
     hence, making them subject to democratic election only
     provides the grunt sysops with some power over net politics
     that they don't presently have.)

     Other proposals for democracy are more problematic; any
     attempt to have the whole net vote on anyone or anything
     is a major logistical problem with the 5000+ nodes, added to
     the fact that most sysops don't seem to give a damn about
     net politics (and why should they?  If only the squabbles
     can stop, maybe all of us can turn our energies to
     productive labor enhancing the technical aspects of the net,
     and "politics" will be a forgotten vestige of the past), and
     hence all such votes (e.g., the vote to ratify the IFNA
     bylaws a few years ago) will end up with an underwhelming
     turnout, and any number of militant factions claiming to
     speak for the silent majority.  Hence, we may have to stick
     with the POLICY4 means of ratification of policy changes by
     *C voting.  Perhaps, though, the coordinators should be
     required to disclose their votes to their constituents
     rather than using a secret ballot, so any sysops who care to
     be involved in net policy can judge whether they are fairly
     represented.

     One democratic reform that should be adopted is a means for
     sysops to place POLICY amendments on the table for
     consideration, besides submission by a majority of RCs as
     provided in section 8.1 of the POLICY4 proposal.  Just as
     U.S. Constitutional amendments may be proposed either by
     Congress or by a convention called by state legislatures,
     there should be two alternate methods of proposing POLICY
     amendments, to prevent any one group from squelching all
     consideration of change.  A good second method would be by
     petition from at least n sysops, where n is set sufficiently
     large to discourage frivolous proposals, but small enough to
     allow for proposals emerging from a grass-roots level.
     Reasonable values might range from 50 to 250, or
     FidoNews 6-24                Page 11                  12 Jun 1989


     alternatively, a percentage of the nodelist size between 1%
     and 5%.

     Other matters:  At least one sysop is up in arms about all
     references to geography in the POLICY document.  He's got a
     point; some coordinators have been fairly tyrannical in
     their rigorous enforcement of net and region boundaries, in
     cases where there are rational reasons to disregard the
     arbitrary boundaries and place nodes where it makes the most
     sense to the sysops and NCs involved.  On the other hand, I
     can see the rationale behind the strict maintenance of
     geographical boundaries; it is intended to prevent nets
     being created and organized for political purposes, such as
     to include the friends and exclude the enemies of the local
     coordinator.  Much of this was alleged to be taking place in
     Australia at the time of the infamous Communet affair.  This
     situation can be very confusing to newcomers who are
     presented not with a simple hierarchical nodelist pointing
     them to their local coordinator, but a bizarre tangle of net
     interconnections based more on personal rivalries than
     technical sense.  Also, should any sort of bottom-up
     democracy be instituted as I advocate above, an incentive
     might arise for coordinators to pack their nodelist with
     supporters who can be counted on to maintain the
     coordinator's power, and exclude opponents, through
     judicious ignoring of geographic boundaries.

     Trying to balance these concerns is a feat of tightrope-
     walking, but perhaps the best way is to preserve most
     geographical language of POLICY4, but soften the strictness
     a little.  How about allowing a NC to admit a node even if
     it's out of its geographical region, without requiring
     explicit approval of any other coordinators.  Instead,
     others may challenge such non-geographical admission, but
     the burden of proof would be on the challenger to show that
     such a state of affairs lacks technical necessity and would
     be harmful in some way to FidoNet.   Blatant political
     tactics could be successfully challenged, but generally,
     exceptions to geography which have some justifiable
     technical reason should be allowed to stand unless direct
     harm can be proven.  Some time limit should be placed on
     challenges so that an excepted node is not constantly
     fearful of having its node number altered at the whim of
     future coordinators.  Later challenges would have the even
     more difficult burden of proving new harm as a result of the
     exception that didn't exist (or didn't come to light) at the
     time it was first granted.

     The converse situation, a NC refusing to admit a node in its
     geographical area, should be much more strictly regulated;
     the only justifiable reasons should be when the node engages
     in bulk commercial traffic (and hence should be an
     independent in its region) or when the node violates policy
     in some manner making it ineligible for admission to the
     nodelist.  Discrimination by political viewpoint, race,
     creed, nationality, or any other such criteria unrelated to
     FidoNews 6-24                Page 12                  12 Jun 1989


     technical necessity or POLICY violation, should be
     prohibited; all qualifying nodes have the right to be
     admitted to their geographically-appropriate network should
     they desire to do so.  Hence, the geographic boundaries
     would serve more as an entitlement of all systems in that
     area to be part of the given net, region, or zone, rather
     than an absolute requirement that they do so even if a
     different location would be advantageous for some reason.

     At any rate, in order to be constructive rather than
     destructive, I'm seriously thinking of putting together a
     proposed POLICY5 (assuming POLICY4 passes; POLICY4 if not)
     incorporating these ideas.  If any of you have any
     constructive suggestions (e.g., things in POLICY3 or 4 that
     you'd like to see changed, and what you want to change them
     to and why), I'll take them into account in writing my
     proposal.  When it's done, I'll circulate it for the rest of
     the net to read/ignore/adopt/reject/consider/amend/defeat/
     flame/line-their-birdcage-with/etc.  At least (I hope), I
     won't be accused of promoting some power structure or other,
     given that I'm not part of any such thing, and maybe
     whatever ideas are incorporated into the proposal will be
     given a fair hearing and make a start toward bringing to an
     end the disgusting factionalism that's paralyzed the net for
     the last few years.

     Send all comments by netmail to 1:380/2.  Try to give
     rational reasons for your ideas, rather than raving about
     evil conspiracies to undermine FidoNet.


                    - While I'm At It Department -

     A few more comments about FidoNews 623's articles:

     I think Jamie MacDonald doth protest too much when he
     laments all the "fake" users.  Sure, there are some abusive
     users; every sysop encounters them.  Other users are
     innocent but stupid; there's not much one can do about them;
     while I'd prefer smarter users, it's not really fair to
     punish people for an attribute they are born with.  Just
     grin and bear these people, and hope others of a higher
     caliber choose to grace your system with their presence as
     well.

     But you reserve the epithet "the worst class of users" to
     those who aren't really doing anything wrong: those who call
     from elsewhere than their own home for any of a number of
     reasons, such as their modem being broken, etc.  I've been
     in that category myself; for a while I didn't have a
     functional computer myself, and had to use computers at work
     to telecommunicate.  What's wrong with that, other than a
     little difficulty for the sysop to verify this status?  The
     user isn't trying to make things difficult for you; show
     some tolerance and understanding.

     FidoNews 6-24                Page 13                  12 Jun 1989


     Perhaps you prefer to impose strict control on your users,
     but I'm much more tolerant.  I'm willing to put up with
     occasional minor abuse in order to avoid the complications
     imposed on both sysop and user by complex validation
     procedures.  In three years of running BBSs with no pre-
     registration requirement (my previous board was wide open
     without even a mandatory questionnaire; my current board
     requires new users to fill out a questionnaire and read a
     policy document, but I don't voice-verify) I haven't had any
     major system abuse; I've had a few twits log in under
     multiple names to get more online time, but they generally
     stopped when I informed them I knew what they were doing.
     The vast majority of my users have been responsible, and
     they appreciate my tolerance of the wide variety of
     circumstances they are under (e.g., when line noise hampers
     their access at 1200 baud, they can step down to 300; I
     don't discriminate against 300 baud callers like some
     elitist sysops).  I'm not quick to judge a user as a "loser"
     because of his situation which he perhaps is unable to help.


     About the FidoNet archives:  That's very interesting
     reading, though I've seen most of these documents already in
     my copious perusal of FidoNet materials throughout my long
     involvement with the net.  Regarding Richard Wilkes'
     document, it is simultaneously overcritical and prophetic.
     He attempted to "rain on Fido's parade" by shooting down the
     idea of FidoNet as impractical given the level of PC
     technology of the day.  He had fairly elitist expectations
     due to his involvement in UUCP/UseNet, and didn't see much
     value in a BBS network of much lower functionality.
     Fortunately, others were willing to work with what they had,
     and accomplished a lot with a network at not quite as lofty
     a level as Wilkes would have liked.

     However, Wilkes' minimum standards for an ideal FidoNet
     system (e.g., a large hard drive, multiple lines, and a fast
     processor) have ultimately become a necessity for echomail
     hubs, so it seems the net has finally caught up to him.

     (I'd like to know what he means by XMODEM not being a "real"
     file transfer protocol, though.)


                        - That's all, folks! -


     -----------------------------------------------------------------
     FidoNews 6-24                Page 14                  12 Jun 1989


     What is the spirit of UseNet?
     From a posting in Usenet submitted by Randy Bush, 1:105/6

     From: brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton)
     Subject: What is the Spirit of Usenet?
     Date: 14 Mar 89 19:26:48 GMT

     (This discussion belongs in news.misc)

     Many people  recently  have  talked about something they call the
     "Spirit of Usenet."  What  does this mean, other than, "The way I
     think USENET should be run"?

     Some talk as though  there are some stone tablets in a golden ark
     that  describe  the  spirit  of  usenet.    Some  have  picked  a
     philosophical  principle which they feel should  guide  not  just
     their  own  actions, but the actions of  everybody  else  on  the
     network.

     But the Spirit of Usenet is not what  Denninger  says  it is, not
     what Crawford says it is and not even what  I  say  it  is.   The
     spirit  of usenet is, quite simply, what usenet readers and  site
     admins wish to read, transmit and pay for.

     How  do you learn just what that is?  You watch,  you  talk,  you
     survey.   If  there's  no  precedent,  you  *act* and see whether
     people like it  or  not.    This  is  how  the "spirit of usenet"
     develops.

     I have observed this net for a very long time.  I was on my first
     arpanet digest mailing list before  there  even  was a usenet.  I
     started reading news with A news  before there even was a B news.
     That experience tells me certain things, and they are my opinions
     of the spirit of usenet.

     First of all, the net is not a  commune.   People own and control
     property,  both  physical  and  intellectual.    This  comes from
     outside the  net,  not  within it.  Because the net is subject to
     outside rules it  is  also not an anarchy, not strictly speaking.
     It is a propertarian minarchy, to get technical.

     People often write that  commercial  use of usenet is against the
     spirit of usenet.  They  haven't watched the net.  The real rule,
     I think, is that commercial *abuse*  of  usenet  is  what  people
     don't want.

     In  general  what  this  means  is  that  commercial  traffic  is
     accepted, even encouraged, when it's a win/win situation -- where
     netters and vendors benefit.  There is nothing wrong  with mutual
     profit, and I'm surprised that I have to say this  in the western
     world.

     The proof of this is everwhere.  Comp.newprod is both advertising
     and news  --  win/win.    Software support from vendors like MKS,
     SCO, Microport, Telebit,  Telenet,  Microsoft, Sun, Apple, Atari,
     Commodore and many others  benefits  both those companies and the
     FidoNews 6-24                Page 15                  12 Jun 1989


     readers -- win/win.  The OtherRealms fanzine gets submissions and
     promotion and usenauts read it for  free.  A book of net material
     gets  announced  that netters clearly enjoy and  demand  --  they
     spent their money on it, not just their words.

     The examples are countless.  If net readers  want it, it's in the
     spirit  of  usenet.  To run a stream of  ads  for  something  net
     people aren't interested it -- that would be abuse.   To post a 1
     meg demo people aren't interested in, that would be abuse.

     Is shareware abuse?  Not if people want it.  People  can even FTP
     shareware  from  sites  on the highly regulated MILNET -- the net
     people take as their model of non-commercial operation.

     Usenet is  built  by  people  who  *do*,  not by people who argue
     endlessly about undoing.    In  this  case,  I  was  going  to do
     something fairly new.   So  I  asked  netters  to  give  me their
     opinions.  They did, and  they  were overwhelmingly in favour.  I
     tried to guage the spirit of usenet not by dictating what I think
     it is, but by trying to find  out  what it is.  Those who dictate
     what others should do are the ones violating the spirit of usenet
     -- that much I do know.

     Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd.  -  Waterloo, Ontario

     -----------------------------------------------------------------
     FidoNews 6-24                Page 16                  12 Jun 1989


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

                          Latest Software Versions

                           Bulletin Board Software
     Name        Version    Name        Version    Name       Version

     Fido            12m+*  Phoenix         1.3    TBBS           2.1
     Lynx           1.30    QuickBBS       2.03    TComm/TCommNet 3.4
     Opus          1.03b+   RBBS          17.1D    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 6-24                Page 17                  12 Jun 1989


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

                          The Interrupt Stack


     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 6-24                Page 18                  12 Jun 1989


            OFFICERS OF THE INTERNATIONAL FIDONET ASSOCIATION

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


            IFNA COMMITTEE AND BOARD CHAIRS

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


                      IFNA BOARD OF DIRECTORS

         DIVISION                               AT-LARGE

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

     -----------------------------------------------------------------
     FidoNews 6-24                Page 19                  12 Jun 1989


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


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


     Name:    _______________________________________________________

     Address:    ____________________________________________________

     City:    _______________________ State: ____ Zip: ______________

     Country:    ____________________________________________________


     Phone Numbers:

     Day:    ________________________________________________________

     Evening:    ____________________________________________________

     Data:    _______________________________________________________


     Zone:Net/
     Node.Point:  ___________________________________________________

     Your BBS Name:  ________________________________________________


     BBS Software:  _____________________ Mailer: ___________________

     Modem Brand:  _____________________ Speed:  ____________________

     What Hotel will you be Staying at:  ____________________________

     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 6-24                Page 20                  12 Jun 1989


               ______________________________________________________


     Comments: ______________________________________________________

               ______________________________________________________

               ______________________________________________________


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

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

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

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

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

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


     This form should be completed and mailed to:

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


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

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


     Master Card _______     Visa ________


     Credit Card Number _____________________________________________


     Expiration Date ________________________________________________


     Signature ______________________________________________________

     FidoNews 6-24                Page 21                  12 Jun 1989


     No  credit  card registrations will be accepted without  a  valid
     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.


     -----------------------------------------------------------------
     FidoNews 6-24                Page 22                  12 Jun 1989


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

            Membership for the International FidoNet Association

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

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

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

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

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

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

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