     Volume 8, Number 13                                  1 April 1991
     +---------------------------------------------------------------+
     |                                                  _            |
     |                                                 /  \          |
     |                                                /|oo \         |
     |        - FidoNews -                           (_|  /_)        |
     |                                                _`@/_ \    _   |
     |         FidoNet (r)                           |     | \   \\  |
     |  International BBS Network                    | (*) |  \   )) |
     |         Newsletter               ______       |__U__| /  \//  |
     |                                 / FIDO \       _//|| _\   /   |
     |                                (________)     (_/(_|(____/    |
     |                                                     (jm)      |
     +---------------------------------------------------------------+
     Editor in Chief:                                  Vince Perriello
     Editors Emeritii:                    Thom Henderson,  Dale Lovell
     Chief Procrastinator Emeritus:                       Tom Jennings
     
     Copyright 1991, Fido Software.  All rights reserved.  Duplication
     and/or distribution permitted  for  noncommercial  purposes only.
     For use in other circumstances, please  contact  Fido Software.
     
     FidoNews  is  published  weekly by and for  the  Members  of  the
     FidoNet (r) International Amateur Electronic Mail System.   It is
     a compilation of individual articles contributed by their authors
     or authorized agents of the authors. The contribution of articles
     to this compilation does not diminish the rights of the authors.
     
     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.
     
     Fido and  FidoNet  are  registered  trademarks of Tom Jennings of
     Fido Software, Box  77731,  San  Francisco  CA 94107, USA and are
     used with permission.
     
     Opinions expressed in  FidoNews articles are those of the authors
     and are not necessarily  those of the Editor or of Fido Software.
     Most articles are unsolicited.   Our  policy  is to publish every
     responsible submission received.


                        Table of Contents
     1. ARTICLES  .................................................  1
        WorldPol Sucks  ...........................................  1
        An Experimental Election in Region 18  .................... 10
        Sister Nets - A proposal  ................................. 13
        A Few Comments on WorldPol  ............................... 15
        Another Top Ten List  ..................................... 18
        More Comments  ............................................ 19
     2. COLUMNS  .................................................. 22
        Talk Me Through It, Honey  ................................ 22
     3. LATEST VERSIONS  .......................................... 24
        Latest Software Versions  ................................. 24
     And more!
     FidoNews 8-13                Page 1                    1 Apr 1991


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


     WorldPol Sucks
     Harry Lee 1:321/202

     Yeah, it's just another of those old-timers grousing about
     things.  What do they know, anyway?  They're just a bunch of
     dinosaurs.

     Further, this particular old-timer might be accused of having a
     vested interest in P4.  Perhaps so, but I was schooled in egoless
     programming.  That means you accept the FACT that you are going
     to make mistakes, learn from them, and move on.  Chairman Len
     says it well: "A baseball player who hits .500 is considered to
     be doing amazingly well, but if you think about it, that means
     he's screwing up half the time."

     Whether or not you choose to believe how seriously I take all
     that is your problem, not mine.

     I'd LIKE to see a Policy5, since one of the main design goals of
     P4 was to provide a path to get from the IFNA environment to a
     Policy (or, more properly, FidoNet) driven environment, to define
     the mechanism needed to change Policy, to make that mechanism
     answerable to the net.  We KNEW we weren't solving all the
     existing problems.  That wasn't the goal.  The goal was to make
     it POSSIBLE to solve those problems, in the absence of IFNA.

     A radical restructuring of Policy makes a lot of sense  While
     Policy3 and Policy4 both served their purposes, P4 at least is
     "spaghetti code", a set of patches to address the vacuum caused
     by the debacle known as (the implementation of) IFNA.

     However, a radical restructuring does not necessarily imply
     radical changes in the effects.  WorldPol seems to want to do
     both.  In programming school, I was taught this was insanity.
     Too many variables are being changed at one time.  It's as if a
     mailer author not only changed the code, but also the protocols.
     What are you left to test against?

     One of the primary design rules of P4 (at least while I was
     involved) was "very small delta from P3".  (The logic was the
     more things you changed, the more things you gave people to vote
     against - one lesson of Western Democracy the authors seem not to
     recognize is that for better or for worse, people don't vote for
     things, they vote against them.)  If radical restructuring is the
     goal of WorldPol, I submit it makes sense to attempt to keep the
     FUNCTION as close to P4 as possible.

     FidoNews 8-13                Page 2                    1 Apr 1991


     Ignorance of History

     The problems with WorldPol are rooted in an absolute lack of
     understanding of history.  Correct that - it's not that it
     doesn't understand it - it doesn't even consider it.

     A simple, objective example of this is the list of credits.
     Whether or not the authors like it, my words, and Thom
     Henderson's words have been used, with absolutely no credit
     given.  I'm not seeking any glory by pointing this out - although
     I do find irony in the fact that as bad as the authors seem to
     feel Pol4 was, they seem to have used a lot of the language I
     wrote into it in their efforts.  It can't be said they are
     ignorant of this fact, unless the authors don't read FidoNews, as
     I've pointed it out here before.

     On the other hand, I should be thankful I don't have to go to the
     lengths Bill Bolton has to distance himself from it, so I guess
     overall, it's a wash at a personal level.

     More to the point, many of the problems that exist in WorldPol
     are problems that occurred to earlier developers of Policy.
     Clearly, we did not have all the answers.  But we understood some
     of the questions.  To the best of my knowledge, no effort was
     made to exploit those resources.

     Policy4 development didn't start out with "Policy3 sucks" as a
     basis.  In fact, I was impressed with the document called
     Policy3, and that only increased as I worked on P4.  Further,
     part of what we did as a part of P4 development was to talk to
     the P3 developers about what we were trying to do.  Anyone who's
     been in FidoNet for a while knows there is no love lost between
     Thom Henderson and myself, but I've nothing but respect and
     praise for his work in the form of P3.  I wasn't a real fan of
     Thom's at the time I was working on P4, but we still managed to
     talk about it, because we both cared about FidoNet more than our
     personal differences.

     As I've said elsewhere, FidoNet seems to have a very retarded
     institutional memory.  I won't quote Santayana here, but his
     words apply in spades.


     Different Social Orientation

     WorldPol was written by people from a fundamentally different
     society.  No, I'm not referring to their national origin, or
     language differences (although those cause some very real
     problems.)  Zone 4 is a VERY small zone.  It's smaller than any
     REGION in Zone 1.  It's smaller than a number of NETS in Zone 1.
     It's about the size of FidoNet in the time of Policy 1.

     FidoNews 8-13                Page 3                    1 Apr 1991


     There are a lot of implications to be derived from this.  When
     FidoNet was that small, things were a lot easier.  Everyone knew
     each other, or knew each other one person removed.  The people
     who were involved had to be very motivated to be involved,
     because being in FidoNet then was much more of a technical pain
     in the ass then it is now.  The membership was more cooperative.
     Interpersonal differences were more easily resolved, because we'd
     all been through a common trial by fire, and we were all there
     for mostly the same reason - the sheer joy of playing with the
     technology.

     I submit these qualities must exist to no small degree in Zone
     4.  While the software technology is much more mature, they have
     to deal with phone systems that make mine look good.  In some
     ways, I'm envious of them, as in many ways, FidoNet was much more
     fun when it was smaller.

     But now it's big.  It's not just big here - Zones 2 and 3 are
     pretty hefty, too.  Many nodes (if not most) are run by people of
     far less technical competence than in "the old days".  They are
     operated, in many cases, so people can consume their echomail.
     There is no common "trial by fire", at least, not here in Zone 1.

     Some might say it would be great to get back to those times.  But
     that's impractical.  The evolution of Policy has been necessary
     because what seems like common sense in a small group of
     similarly motivated individuals breaks down rapidly in larger
     group dynamics.  Common sense, unfortunately, is not all that
     common.

     I'm often called a jingoist.  This is about as off base as a
     statement can get.  Further, I believe the majority is not always
     right, and in any case, the rights of the minority must be
     protected.  However, WorldPol is a serious case of the tail
     wagging the dog.  It is a minority, and in many ways, an
     adolescent minority, telling the majority that everything it's
     done is wrong.  It's a generation gap.  What I'm trying to say
     here is we were teenagers once, too.  Give us some credit for
     that, and for having grown through that.  With luck, Zone 4 will
     eventually face the same problems of scale we've had to deal with
     for YEARS now.  Certainly, we made mistakes in dealing with them,
     but WorldPol is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.


     Western Style Democracy or Democracy in General

     WorldPol uses the nebulous phrase "democratic by western
     standards" to describe its political intent.

     I don't have any argument with that at a philosophical level.
     It's at a practical level it falls to pieces.

     FidoNews 8-13                Page 4                    1 Apr 1991


     I can't find a good definition of "democratic by Western
     Standards" anywhere.  For instance, if you consider WorldPol
     analogous to the US Constitution (that's as standard a western
     democratic document I know), ratification of changes requires a
     two thirds vote of all the states.  It's not clear to me if
     WorldPol needs a plurality, a majority of those voting, an
     absolute majority, or what.


     Defining the Problem

     One of the things I found ironic was that a lot of the language I
     wrote that appears in P4 (and WorldPol) is of the form:

       "Here's the problem.  Here's how we're trying to address that
        problem."

     Or the reverse:

       "Here's a rule.  Here's why this rule exists."

     For the life of me, I can't see where WorldPol defines what
     problems existing in P4 it wants to solve.  I'm not (by any
     means) saying there are no problems in P4.  But in programming
     school, they always taught me to carefully define the problem
     before trying to solve it, or, dollars to donuts, you will end up
     solving the wrong problem, not solving any problem, or creating
     new ones.  WorldPol is an object lesson on this point.

     All I see WorldPol say is something nebulous like there are local
     problems that P4 doesn't address.  What problems?  If it's
     possible to solve them at a high level, rather than implementing
     hundreds of different solutions to the same problem at lower
     levels, doesn't that make more sense?


     Geography

     Geography is a very big part of my objections to WorldPol.
     FidoNet was not designed as an "I Me Mine" network.  Networks
     exist to minimize the costs of the WHOLE, not as social clubs.
     Networks exist to minimize the cost of sending mail to a
     locality.  If I have five messages to send to LA, but one of the
     nodes there belongs to a net in NJ, I'm going to make two LD
     calls instead of one to deliver those messages.  That's stupid.
     That's more than stupid.  That's annoying.

     I've never understood the "oppression" people seem to believe
     geography imposes.  I get angry when people say it's done to give
     the coordinators power.  A statement like that couldn't be
     further from the truth.  It's actually exactly the opposite -
     geography constrains the coordinators from making arbitrary
     decisions about who may or may not be in "their" networks.  This
     constraint seems totally removed.

     FidoNews 8-13                Page 5                    1 Apr 1991


     Geography is simply an objective technical standard.  Since
     WorldPol eliminates geography, without providing an objective
     technical standard, and it defines objectivity as its driving
     logic, I find it illogical, and oxymoronic.

     There already are provisions for exceptions to geography in P4.
     They state that the "next level up" and all coordinators involved
     have to agree to the exception.

     If geography is removed as a criterion for membership, the
     overall costs to the network as a whole will be increased.  How?
     Simple - every time someone has a spat with their NC, they will
     move to another net.  For a period, they will be dual
     nodelisted.  The diffs will be that much bigger to move around.
     Extra calls will be made to deliver mail.  Dup loops will be
     created up the gazoo.

     If, at any given time, 1% of the network is unhappy with their
     coordinators, in a net of 10,000, this means 100 nodes in some
     weird state of flux.  Offhand, I'd say that if ONLY 1% of the net
     is unhappy about something, we're getting off easy.

     Even if some relaxation of geography is to be put in place, it
     should be specified.  As it stands, it's been removed with an
     implication there are restrictions, but they are completely
     unspecified.  I-Me-Mine types will press this to the limits.

     By eliminating geography, and not putting any other standard in
     place, WorldPol makes it legal to be a member of more than one
     local net, even outside of transitional periods.

     I used to raise the analogy that you don't get to pick your phone
     exchange.  WorldPol provides an even better one: you don't get to
     pick your voting district in a western democracy (other than by
     moving).  WorldPol makes gerrymandering an individual right
     rather than an abuse by the government.  It makes (EASILY)
     possible the old Chicago standard of democracy - vote early, and
     often.  Once again, WorldPol is oxymoronic by its own standards.

     WorldPol is fundamentally dangerous on this point.  Given local
     Policy, and non-geographic nets, it is entirely possible to
     create special interest nets.  This was tried years ago (Jr-Net)
     and found to be counterproductive.  Echomail and file
     distribution networks are the answer to special interests, not
     the elimination of geography.  In this I-Me-Mine age, these
     special interest nets easily can take on a positively evil tinge
     - the jumps between "CM only systems" and "9600 CM only" and
     "9600 CM systems with BBS' only" and "9600 CM systems with free
     access BBS' only" and "<your favorite mailer here> only" and
     "women sysops only" and "no blacks or gays or women or Hispanics
     or Jews need apply" aren't all that big.  (After all, race and
     sex are objective facts, and therefore legal criteria for
     decision making under WorldPol.)

     FidoNews 8-13                Page 6                    1 Apr 1991


     Bill of Rights versus Rules of Conduct

     Policy has always had a dualistic function.  At one level, it is
     a code of conduct - the laws of the land.  At another, it is a
     bill of rights.

     I believe WorldPol dilutes - actually destroys might be more
     accurate - the latter function.  Further, I believe that if we're
     going to start splitting things up, it makes MUCH more sense to
     split them along the "bill of rights/laws of the land" division
     than the "global/local" one.

     This may well have been the intent of the authors.  However, it
     is not reflected in work.


     Mediator Insanity

     By altering the complaint process, WorldPol dramatically
     increases the workload of upper levels of the *C structure.  In
     many ways, this is "anti-democratic".

     Simple statistics make it obvious that given there are maybe 30
     people in my net, and 10,000 in all the others, that it's far
     more likely a complaint involving a person in my net will have to
     be handled at the RC or higher level than at the NC.  Given there
     are perhaps 500 people in my region (just a guess), and 10,000 in
     all the rest, it's fairly likely that a complaint involving one
     party from my region will have to be resolved at the ZC level.

     Further, this varies the number of levels of appeal, depending on
     where your complaint is initially made.  Depending on who is
     complaining about your actions, you might have one or two or
     three levels at which to make your argument.  Doesn't justice
     imply equal treatment under the law?  Not under WorldPol.

     I actually like George Peace.  I don't have anything against him,
     or my RC, Don Dawson.  I can't imagine why I'd want to make their
     lives miserable by handing them complaints that can and should be
     handled at the NC to NC level.


     Coordinator Requirements

     Local Policies may increase the service requirements of local
     coordinators.  A local policy may be put into place that requires
     the local host to provide OUTBOUND services, by its own example.

     This creates Gordian knots that are too convoluted for me to even
     think about.  It sounds to me like only rich white men might be
     allowed to be coordinators.

     FidoNews 8-13                Page 7                    1 Apr 1991


     What happens if a net sets up requirements that cannot be
     attained or sustained?


     Elimination of FidoNews Requirement

     The tyranny of the majority strikes again.

     While diffs may be all we need to technically operate, FidoNews
     conveys the spirit.  Or it did, until WorldPol made it optional.

     Further, since the "eliminate FidoNews" option seems to run up
     the chain, it appears to me that 51% of a ZONE could decide the
     other 49% are on their own with regards to FidoNews.

     If FidoNews is the official newsletter of FidoNet, how are
     official notices to be made to those areas that decide they don't
     need FidoNews?  Is Policy6 going to be distributed in the
     nodediff?  And are the coordinators going to distribute a
     discussion about Policy6 in the diffs?  Or are we going to create
     mandatory echomail conferences?  And if we do the latter, what
     happens to those folk that want to use GroupMail?  Or those folk
     who are in the net for their own reasons, and neither support nor
     desire echomail?


     Unanimous Election of IC

     The IC must be selected unanimously by the ZC's and is removed by
     a majority.  Once again, what means majority - majority of those
     voting, or absolute majority?  And what happens when (not if) the
     ZC's can't come to unanimous agreement on an IC?


     Changing the Defaults

     WorldPol changes the defaults wholesale.  While this may or may
     not be a good idea, it has to be carefully considered.

     The main example of this is the selection of *C's.  Where before
     the default was by appointment, now it is by election.


     Transitional Problems

     WorldPol declares existing Policy to be in effect where WorldPol
     is not specific and local policy has not yet evolved.  Granted,
     the problem of transition will be encountered with any drastic
     restructuring of Policy.  However, this water seems awfully cold
     and deep to me.

     FidoNews 8-13                Page 8                    1 Apr 1991


     Let's use geography as an example.  I would guess the authors
     might argue that the "geography exception rules" of P4 are still
     in effect under WorldPol.  From my perspective, that's not how it
     reads, and given some experience with Policy complaints, I know
     MANY will argue the other side.  WorldPol states that geography
     is no longer a criteria, therefore, clauses relating to it in
     subordinate Policies are invalid.


     Not Final And Yet We're Voting On It

     This is the most amusing statement in the whole document.  It
     goes well out of its way to say "This isn't the real thing" and
     yet we are voting on it.

     There appears to be one whole line missing from the version in
     FidoNews, as well as numerous syntactic problems.  Are we voting
     on what was in FidoNews, or what the authors intend?  Excuse me,
     but I'd rather vote on something concrete, not intentions.  It's
     not that I question the intentions of the authors - it's that
     I've learned how the best intentions can be abused by others.


     Answers

     I don't claim to have all (or even any) of the answers to these
     problems.

     During the last great IFNA election, there was some development
     of a Policy structure, I believe by John Roberts and others, that
     made a lot of sense to me.

     Rather than dividing Policy along geographic lines, it was
     structured along functional lines.  Sub-Policies related to
     specific problems, not localities.

     As I said earlier, the most important suggestion I can make is to
     carefully define the problems people feel need solving, determine
     which ones really are problems, and pick a very small number of
     them to try to solve.  To me, it seems the most fundamental
     problem is the structure of Policy as opposed to the Policy
     itself.

     Finally, the authors of WorldPol, after spending some time
     studying history, should follow the basic rules of Boston driving
     while developing Policy.  When you drive in Boston, you look at a
     situation, and determine what is in the selfish interest of each
     of the drivers in that situation.  It doesn't matter if the light
     is red for the other guy, or if you have the right of way, or
     that it doesn't make sense to pull into the oncoming lane to make
     a turn.  If it makes sense for that selfish SOB to do any of
     those things to get where he's going quickly, he will do them.
     So long as you drive with that in mind, you'll avoid a great
     number of accidents.  (Note carefully I didn't say all, because
     it's impossible for a logical mind to comprehend just how
     illogical some people can be.)
     FidoNews 8-13                Page 9                    1 Apr 1991


     In the case of Policy, what makes sense to the authors CANNOT
     merely be assumed or implied, because if there's any nebulous
     wording, it can, and will be used against all of us in a Policy
     dispute.

     -----------------------------------------------------------------
     FidoNews 8-13                Page 10                   1 Apr 1991


     Fred Niemczenia
     Fidonet 1:371/7

                   An Experimental Election in Region 18

     It is hard to believe that it was barely a month ago when Region
     18 elected a new Regional EchoMail Coordinator.  I've delayed
     publishing, so as not to interfere with the recent ZEC 1
     election.  Amnon Nissan is a candidate.

     The last year has been exciting for the democracy proponents in
     FidoNet.  I think we all agree that elected coordinators command
     more respect than anointees.  February 1990 was a significant
     month in Region 18.  Our REC decided to step down after doing a
     fantastic job for three years.  He was unfortunately anointed to
     the position after a previous election had been invalidated by
     the zone coordinating structure.  I won't mention names!  That
     is in the past.  Amnon Nissan wanted a fair election for his
     replacement.  He kept his word.

     The election was defined as all current NEC's having one vote for
     two willing and able candidates:  Steve Cross and Dave Corthell.
     Some of us questioned the process whereby only the NEC's could
     vote.  I argued that a popular vote would represent the
     individual SysOps' wishes AND would eliminate the unfair
     advantage that a small net has over a large net in voting.  The
     cry was One NODE, One Vote vs. One NET, One Vote.

     Well, the decision had already been made.  I offered a
     compromise.  Why not conduct an experimental popular election as
     well?  For the first time we could all see if it really makes a
     difference.  Amnon thought it a fantastic idea.  It would need
     two separate impartial vote counters.  Ben Mann (RC18) would
     collect the One NET, One Vote and I would collect the popular
     vote.  The individual NEC's would collect SysOp votes, and
     forward copies to Ben and myself.  The following ballot went out
     via NetMail and EchoMail:

       Dear Network Echomail Coordinator,

       Our REC, Amnon Nissan has endorsed an experiment to allow the
       tabulating of the raw node votes in the Region 18 REC
       elections.  This has the approval of the Zone and Region
       Coordinators.  The intent is to demonstrate if any difference
       exists between the following methods:

       (a) A network tabulation where a network has ONE vote.  This is
           referred to as ONE NET, ONE VOTE.
       (b) A network tabulation where the raw vote is counted and
           processed.  This is called ONE NODE, ONE VOTE.

     FidoNews 8-13                Page 11                   1 Apr 1991


       Only method (a) is binding.  Method (b) is experimental.  An
       additional comment is required.  If you not wish to have your
       net's vote published, your report will be tabulated in a LUMP
       count with other nets not wishing to be individually listed.  I
       do need your response for method (b).  Send (a) to Ben Mann.
       The findings will be published in FidoNews.
       --------------------------------------------------------------
       Region 18 experimental REC election.  Password:______
       NET:______  Dave Corthell:_____  Steve Cross: _____
       Abstain:_____ Fill in the actual numbers of raw votes.  e.g.
       17, 15,  3.     I   do [ ]   don't [ ]   want the raw vote
       published.
       --------------------------------------------------------------

     The following is a list of Nets responding to the Region 18
     Experimental Ballot.  Where a DON'T PUBLISH request was made,
     the NET is identified by the password.  Where no preference is
     indicated, I publish it.  I hope we will generate some meaningful
     statistics for FidoNews.  Special thanks to those responding!

     NET or    No. of    Dave       Steve
     PASSWORD  NODES   CORTHELL     CROSS     ABSTAIN   PUBLISH

      Shorty     15       7           0          1         N
      bihs       13       2           0         12         N +
      Albhosmor   8       4           1          2         N
      DHARMA     41       9           1          1         N
      112        22       3           7          0         Y
      123        47       1          27          0         NP &
      151        83      10           3          -         NP
      360         9       6           0          4         Y +
      361        15       7           1          5         Y
      362        35       6           1          0         NP
      363        64       7           7          -         Y
      369        35       7           3         23         Y
      371        20      11           0          4         Y
      372        37       4           0         28         Y
      376        23       1           0         21         NP +
      3600        4       3           0          1         Y
      3601       12       9           1          0         NP
      3602        8       4           0          4         Y
      3604       10       -           -          -         NP *
      3612       11       9           0          2         Y
      3615        8       3           0          0         NP &
      3617        7       4           0          1         Y
      3620        4       5           0          0         NP +
     ======    =====   =====       =====      =====
     23 Nets    531     122          52        109

     Miscellany:  28 of 48 NECs reported OFFICIAL results to Ben Mann.
     OFFICIAL results were 24 (86%) Corthell and 4 (14%) for Cross.
     Popular results were 70% Corthell and 30% Cross.  There are 942
     eligible nodes in Region 18.  It would appear 44% were denied
     participation by their coordinators.
     FidoNews 8-13                Page 12                   1 Apr 1991


      *  Refused to participate in experiment, but returned ONE NET,
           ONE VOTE preference.
      +  Denotes anomaly, but the vote was counted.  My baseline was
           the nodelist before elections.  Host and Hub entries were
           not entitled dual voting.
      &  Denotes last minute update.

     What did this experiment prove?  I noted 2 significant items.
     Perhaps you will note other items from the raw data above?

      (1) Apathy is as much a problem in FidoNet as in the real world.
          It seems that once the battle for democracy is over, folks
          just don't care to participate.
      (2) The coordinating structure can't be relied on to collect
          votes.  Only 58 percent reported official results to Ben
          Mann and 48 percent reported experimental data to me.  How
          can a SysOp participate if a mechanism isn't in place for
          them to learn of the issues or respond to.

     I think it is imperative that the candidates themselves poll
     nodes and encourage participation.  No one else will do it.  That
     was been proved again and again and again...

     Amnon Nissan, Ben Mann, and myself had one heck of a time trying
     to figure out who the actual NEC's were.  Many Region 18 Net
     Coordinators aren't putting in the UNEC flags.  Come on guys!
     Get it right!  I think all coordinators need to review their
     segments manually at least 6 times a year.  An NEC from a
     different region may want to establish a non-backbone echo.  The
     U flags are important.

     We need to establish a realistic vote counting mechanism.  Too
     many things are getting lost between the Region Coordinator and
     the individual SysOp.  I know the guys at the top are interested,
     but middle management is not participating in many cases.  Let's
     fix another cause of apathy.

     Feel free to respond to Fred Niemczenia at 1:371/7.

     -----------------------------------------------------------------
     FidoNews 8-13                Page 13                   1 Apr 1991


     Volker Manns
     FidoNet 1:358/0

       +---------------------------------------------------+
       I  Sister Nets - EchoMail with a different flavor!  I
       +---------------------------------------------------+

     Ever since joining FidoNet, I have been fascinated with the
     concept of EchoMail. It is a truly universal medium to
     exchange ideas, meet and get to know different people and
     cultures with all their ideals and beliefs.

     It does not matter whether you're black or white, male or
     female, handicapped or not. EchoMail does not discriminate.

     I went back to Germany last fall (born and raised there),
     and met with people who had never seen me before, yet were
     willing to treat me with friendship and hospitality because
     we wrote some messages back and forth, enjoying each others
     company from afar.
     You have to experience this to truly appreciate it.

     Every Net has their own Echo areas, some as a pre-determined
     minimum requirement in joining the Net (designed to act as
     an info-pool for the Net), others optional as SIGs for
     particular areas of interest within their area. Some of the
     latter may then grow into nationally or internationally
     distributed echoes. The system works well.

     I would like to take the local Echo area idea a bit further:

     By mutual choice of two reasonably compatible cities (or
     Nets), mostly determined by their size (userbase), I suggest
     a shared Echo area for the sole use of these two cities
     (Nets). This would be on an intercontinental (inter-zonal?)
     basis, not national or state to state. (After all, national
     stuff is covered to exhaustion by the news media...)

     Yes, there are MAJOR logistical problems:

     1. Language.

     However, as I read the international Echoes, English seems
     to prevail anyhow, everyone seems to adopt and overcome this
     obstacle in some form.

     2. Cost.

     Can a Net containing 10 nodes afford to send messages across
     the pond via modem? High speed modems seem a must, but two
     minutes of connect from Canada to Europe are still in the
     $3.00 plus range. Considering 30 days to a month, Nets and
     users splitting costs, that would come to $2.25 per sysop
     (using the above hypothetical example).
     Would this be acceptable? You tell me.

     FidoNews 8-13                Page 14                   1 Apr 1991


     3. Interest.

     It's tough enough getting an entire Net to agree on
     something as silly as a poll schedule, let alone an
     international Echo connect. Can a majority vote decide on
     this? That hardly seems fair. But I think if everyone
     understands the concept, it'd be a worthwhile effort for all
     involved and will therefore find acceptance in a lot of
     Nets. The fewer the number of nodes, the easier the decision
     I guess...

     So where do I start?

     Well, I decided that the Snooze would be as good a place as
     any. I'd like to organize a pool of interested Nets in Zone
     1 and at the same time encourage the formation of similar
     pools in the other Zones. From there we could play
     matchmaker and interested Nets could figure out their
     individual details from there.

     I do not know what looms on the WORLDPOL or ECHOPOL horizon,
     or how new policies may affect, hinder or prohibit such an
     undertaking. I just happen to think that it's a good idea
     that should be pursued.

     Your comments and ideas on this are welcome and appreciated,
     I would like to hear from all interested Nets and Zones.

     Kind regards,

     Volker Manns
     NC - 1:358/0


     -----------------------------------------------------------------
     FidoNews 8-13                Page 15                   1 Apr 1991


     Jack Decker
     1:154/8 Fidonet

                       A Few Comments on WorldPol

     Past issues of Fidonews have contained a lot of carping about
     WorldPol.  What I'd like to know is, where were all the
     complainers during the formulation of WorldPol?  I recall
     comments on WorldPol being solicited on several occasions, and
     apparently most of the complainers weren't interested enough to
     send their comments in to the group working on WorldPol.  This,
     of course, is the great Fidonet tradition... let someone else
     do all the work and then flame the **** (insert expletive of
     choice here) out of them when the final proposal is presented.

     I had some reservations about earlier versions, too, but I sent
     a netmail message containing some of my problems with the
     document.  I got a rather thoughtful response from Pablo which
     indicated that my comments had at least been considered.  No, I
     didn't get everything I asked for, but at least you and I was
     given the opportunity to help shape this document, which is
     more than we can say about a lot of previous efforts.

     Now to the bottom line:  Maybe it's not perfect, but is it
     better than Policy 4?  This sort of reminds me of the old
     backhanded insult: "You're smarter than you look, but then
     you'd have to be!"  Almost anything written by reasonable
     people would have to be better than Policy 4, in my opinion.
     In particular, WorldPol does two things that are long needed:

     1) It extends the right to vote on later versions of Policy
     down to the average sysop.  Now, I've heard a lot of people
     complain that the logistics of such a vote would be a
     nightmare.  When someone says that, I have to wonder what their
     real motives for opposing it are.  C'mon, people, if you're in
     Fidonet you have a computer, and computers are real good at
     counting things.  Consider a municipal election in a city that
     has maybe 10,000 voters (this would be a small city by American
     standards).  Usually what happens is that each precinct tallies
     up the votes for their precinct, then sends the results to a
     central place that receives and tallies the vote counts from
     each precinct.  We do the same thing in Fidonet, except we
     subdivide the work even further - the NC counts the votes from
     his net and forwards them to the RC, which takes the vote
     totals from his region and forwards them to the ZC, and so on.
     We've conducted several elections this way in Zone 1, and apart
     from those few die-hards who've never liked the idea of giving
     the average sysop any say in how Fidonet is run, I've heard few
     complaints about the election process.

     2) It puts an end to certain geographic restrictions in
     Fidonet.  Unfortunately, this is the one thing that may kill
     it, since only NC's (and above) are allowed to vote on it, and
     there are still many NC's out there who, in their own little
     black hearts, like the idea of being able to force sysops (and
     potential sysops) in a given geographic area to deal with them
     FidoNews 8-13                Page 16                   1 Apr 1991


     and them alone.  One of the key features of a democratic
     organization is that you are free to join any branch of the
     organization that you wish.  I know of no organization in the
     "real world" (other than those connected with various levels of
     government, and Fidonet certainly isn't part of the
     government!) that require people to deal only with one
     particular branch or office based solely on their place of
     residence (I DO know of one religious organization that
     insisted that members attend only the group "serving" their
     particular neighborhood, but this group also tried to control
     many other aspects of their members' lives, including where
     they should live and whether or not they should date or
     marry!).

     We need only look to UseNet, which is MUCH larger than Fidonet,
     to prove that an electronic mail and conference network can be
     fully functional without giving considerations to geography.
     Geographic restrictions are particularly inappropriate in the
     United States, where differing tariffs for intrastate and
     interstate calls can cause toll calls within one's home state
     to be priced at a much higher rate than calls to a neighboring
     state (it costs more to call a place 200 miles away in my home
     state than to call a place 2,000 mile away elsewhere in the
     U.S.).

     It is my hope that *C's will ask themselves, if I were a sysop,
     would I want a vote on policies that will affect my hobby?
     Would I want the freedom to associate (or to NOT associate)
     with whomever I please, or would I want to be forced to be part
     of a particular group based solely on the place I happen to
     live at?

     When we were being asked to vote for Policy 4, we were told
     "it's not perfect but it least it has some mechanism to allow a
     vote on future policies, and it can be changed later."  Well,
     later is now.  Policy 5 isn't perfect (and if you are waiting
     for a perfect policy, it may be a long time in coming) but it
     IS better than Policy 4.  Yes, it's a bit vague in spots but so
     are present policies.  Yes, it should be modified to give more
     consideration for points and point-ops, but when the average
     sysop is allowed to vote on future policies, I think you will
     see policies that give more consideration to points.

     If we are waiting for the PERFECT policy document, we may have
     a long wait!  But, we should ask ourselves whether the proposed
     document is better than what we have now.  The main effect of
     the proposed policy is to bring more democracy to Fidonet and
     to lessen the adverse impact that the few in *C positions can
     have on the many who are in Fidonet, which still maintaining
     enough control to keep the mail flowing smoothly, and allowing
     for local policies that might be needed to address unusual
     local conditions.

     FidoNews 8-13                Page 17                   1 Apr 1991


     Let's look upon WorldPol not as the final document with which
     we'll have to live for the next 20 years, but as one more step
     along the road to a fully democratic Fidonet.  It's not
     perfect, but it's a good policy and one that we can build upon
     in the future.


     -----------------------------------------------------------------
     FidoNews 8-13                Page 18                   1 Apr 1991


     Holdyer Horses
     e:pi/lambda.nu
                              Another Top Ten List

     The Category

     Given WorldPol, it's possible to have your own little social
     clubs for nets.  Here's a list of new nets just waiting for
     WorldPol's adoption so they can rise phoenix like from the ashes
     of that awful, mean, nasty, old Policy4.

     From the Home Office in Wausau, Wisconsin:

     Top 10 New Local Networks Possible Under WorldPol
     (Anton, a drum roll please!)

     10 FastNet       - 9600 Only


      9 NeXTNet       - Only REAL Computers, not clowns (er-clones)


      8 NerdNet       - Show your pocket protector at the door


      7 WitchNet      - Applications accepted only via crystal ball.


      6 ScumbagNet    - Only Barristers Need Apply


      5 NumerologyNet - Phone numbers must sum to 3


      4 BeerNet       - Usually served at bars (sorry, that's beer nuts)


      3 SkateboardNet - Long Green Hair De Rigeur


      2 GeezerNet     - Pre-Multinet Nodes Only


      1 HoundNet      - No Fat Chicks

     -----------------------------------------------------------------
     FidoNews 8-13                Page 19                   1 Apr 1991


     Aaron Goldblatt
     1:130/20.1102 FidoNet
     20:491/223.0  MailNet


                       More Comments on WorldPol

     I've been hearing a lot about WorldPol v1H recently.  In
     FidoNews, in local echos, in other networks, everywhere.
     WorldPol is causing a lot of discussion in my BBS world.  And, it
     seems, a lot of apprehension.  In FidoNews 811 I brought out my
     problems as related to WorldPol's treatment of pointops, so I
     won't do that again in the detail I have previously.

     With the realization that I may soon have to live under POLICY5
     I feel it's my responsability to air my views or give up the
     right to complain about the results (I hold that those who do
     not vote in civil elections have no right to gripe about those
     elected . . . in this instance I'm not allowed to vote but I feel
     I still have to air my views).

     I printed hard copies of FidoNews 810, 811, and 812 to take a
     look.  So here we go.  :-)

     ---
     There is no clause in WorldPol requiring geographic/technical
     networks, which is what we have now.  Upon the adoption of
     WorldPol that clause will be grandfathered into the Zone
     policies.  But when the grandfathering is defeated by the
     adoption of Zone policies (and it will happen, I assure you) we
     will really have a mess on our hands.  Here's one likely
     scenario.

        A pointop sets up his own BBS.  While he was a pointop he
        established a reputation of being a nasty twit.  He applies to
        his local network and is denied for whatever reason.  But he
        DOES meet the FTSC requirements for holding a node address and
        has not previously engaged in any Annoying or Excessively
        Annoying Behavior.  He can't afford the long distance charges
        to join another network and so is denied access to FidoNet,
        not because he is incapable of running a reliable system or
        engaged in EAB, but because the NC (or whomever) doesn't like
        him.

     In the above scenario the NC doesn't issue an address because
     s/he knows that the pointop can apply to another network where
     his reputation isn't known.  But he also knows that the pointop
     can't afford the LD charges of communicating with his network,
     and so is denied complete access to FidoNet.

     But with geographic/technical-only networks there is no reason
     for the NC not to issue an address - the sysop is just obnoxious
     but hasn't been declared EA by anybody (including the NC).  The
     variations on this theme are almost infinate.  So much for that.
     ---

     FidoNews 8-13                Page 20                   1 Apr 1991


     ---
     There is much hubbub about the new rights of "grunt sysops" to
     vote.  Giving the normal sysops the vote is great and wonderful.
     But it presents some logistical problems to those counting votes.

     The vagueness with which WorldPol 1H speaks of elections and
     procedures can lead to the idea that, without an election policy
     at the Zone level (and there is no gurantee that one will come
     about), the ZC will be left counting votes and doing verification
     of eligibility.  And in the unlikely event that each voting
     sysop carries the election echo vote verification could take
     forever.

     WorldPol's refrence to "western standards" is really strange,
     because the "western standard" by which you judge elections is
     different depending on what country you're in.  According to many
     in the United States, the system of elections used in Israel
     (generally regarded as a democratic country) is crazy.

     An ideal system for system of Zone-wide elections (that is, where
     every sysop in a Zone gets a vote) works like this:

        The sysop at 1:130/2991 sends his vote to 1:130/0.  1:130/0
        counts and verifies all votes he received, and then sends the
        totals to 1:19/0, the RC.

        The RC totals and verifies the numbers from each net, and
        verifies the votes of any regional independants who choose to
        vote.  He then sends the totals to the ZC.

        The ZC totals and verifies the numbers from each region, and
        then announces the results.

     With this system electorial advantage of large networks is
     retained while still giving representation to small networks.  In
     Zone-level elections the advantage of large networks is minimized
     anyway since the likelyhood of every member of the largest
     networks in a Zone all voting the same way is somewhere between
     zero and nil.

     But who knows what could come out in election procedures adopted
     after WorldPol.  Suppose, for instance, that Zone 1's policy does
     not set up election procedures.  Each of the 10 Regions in Zone 1
     then must come up with an election policy, and there is no
     telling what they might be.  And then what about that Zone-wide
     election for which there is no procedure?  And how about the
     idea that Region 1:19 doesn't come up with an election policy,
     either, then each of the 32 networks has to come up with one, and
     given the way in which each net does its business, there's no
     telling what might happen.

     FidoNews 8-13                Page 21                   1 Apr 1991


     The solution?  How about a policy that spells out exactly what
     happens during an election?  Simple enough...
     ---

     ---
     Those are my biggest gripes.  There are others, such as language,
     or I've already covered them in my article in FidoNews 811.

     This is just an effort to influence the voting on a policy over
     which I have no control or say and had no input in writing.

     Take this and other articles, posts, and converstaions into
     consideration when you vote.  If you vote.

     -----------------------------------------------------------------
     FidoNews 8-13                Page 22                   1 Apr 1991


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

     Henry Clark
     1:124/6120


     Interactive Video -

     I just got back from Supercomm '91 in Houston.  It's an
     exhibition of TelCo products ranging from line splicing tools
     to SONET cross connects.   I saw very little ISDN and quite a
     lot of 'fiber to the home'.  I think you might be interested.

     You use a modem, and you have an analog phone system in your
     house. Down at your neighborhood switch box, these analog
     signals are converted to digital signals.  This bit rate is
     called the T0 rate; it's about 64 Kbps ( bits per second ).
     ISDN proposes to connect you with 2 T0 digital links plus a 16
     Kbps data link ( the 2T Plus D ).

     After adding some overhead to a T0 signal for diagnostic and
     management purposes, a DS0 format is generated, and this is the
     basic rate for most transmission systems used today.  For
     transport purposes, 24 DS0 signals are bundled together to form
     a DS1 signal format.  This is the signal passed between your
     neighborhood box to the TelCo Central Office ( that big
     building with no windows ! ).

     Bundling 28 DS1s together ( with more overhead channels ) gives
     you a DS3 rate, and that is trunk level signal that is passed
     between major switching stations, large corporations and long
     distance phone companies.

     Backtracking a little, DS0 is 64 Kbps, DS1 is 1.5 Mbps ( million
     bits per second ) and DS3 is 45 Mbps.  A new international
     standard called SONET provides a basic signal level called
     STS-1 and this is a 50 Mbps.  While the DSx formats are
     asynchronous signals, the STS-1 is a synchronous signal.  Given
     the base of DS3 equipment, there are several vendors of DS3 to
     STS-1 conversion units.

     Continuing with ever faster rates, SONET defines the OC-3 rate
     ( 3 STS-1 signals ) for 150 Mbps.  OC stands for Optical
     Circuit.  And of course there is the OC-12, OC-24 and OC-48
     rates; OC-48 being 2.4 Gigabits per second.  Now lets put all
     this in perspective.

     The fiber optic cable being laid in the ground today will carry
     at a maximum ONE OC-48 signal.  For example, the entire Florida
     backbone is carried on 6 fibers.  The typical maximum for
     buried fiber is 40 strands.  These 40 OC-48s can represent
     almost 1.3 million active phone calls, or 1920 full motion
     digital video signals.  Clearly an insufficient amount of
     bandwidth to put two-way video into every home.  Not enough,
     FidoNews 8-13                Page 23                   1 Apr 1991


     even if the bandwidth is increased by 1000 times.

     There are currently three types of digital video transmission
     formats, with different compression algorithms, even at the
     same rate.  The most common, highest quality is the 45 Mbps or
     DS3 rate.  The coder/decoder ( codex is analogous to modem ) is
     the least expensive, but as we can see from the above DS3
     descriptions, the transport bandwidth is the most expensive.

     The least used is 1.5 Mbps.  Growing fast for commercial usage
     in video conferencing is the dual 56 kbps format.  While the
     codex units are very expensive, the transport media is simply
     two phone lines. The problem with this format is that it only
     operates at about 3 frames per second.  ( Broadcast quality is
     33 Fps. ) This low quality video is unsuitable for most uses.
     The accepted theory is that the codex for good quality dual T0
     video is five years away.

     Why do I mention video ?  Well, what else is there ?  We have
     voice and data.  You have probably transferred a GIF or a FLI,
     which are the still and animated equivalents of photographs.
     Video is the last frontier for image transmission for this
     decade, anyway.

     Another reason to mention video transmission is the television
     cable industry, which is now beginning to DIE.  You've heard of
     junk bonds. Cable companies were heavily financed by junk
     bonds, and now it's time for them to start paying up.  As a
     result, you see service prices rising, and growing complaints
     from consumers.  The accepted theory is that TelCos will have
     permission to offer video in five years.

     Given the current technology, this permission will prove nearly
     useless in the implementation of interactive video.  Broadcast
     video, maybe, but interactive only in local areas.  Any
     improvements in video compression will be too expensive for the
     home owner. Next time I'll outline the different methods in use
     today for interactive television.


     -----------------------------------------------------------------
     FidoNews 8-13                Page 24                   1 Apr 1991


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

                         Latest Software Versions

                              MS-DOS Systems
                              --------------

                           Bulletin Board Software
     Name        Version    Name        Version    Name       Version

     DMG            2.93    Phoenix         1.3    TAG           2.5g
     Fido            12s+   QuickBBS       2.66    TBBS           2.1
     GSBBS          3.02    RBBS          17.3B    TComm/TCommNet 3.4
     Lynx           1.30    RBBSmail      17.3B    Telegard       2.5
     Kitten         2.16    RemoteAccess   1.00*   TPBoard        6.1
     Maximus        1.02    SLBBS          1.77A   Wildcat!      2.55
     Opus           1.14+   Socrates       1.10    WWIV          4.12
     PCBoard        14.5                           XBBS          1.15

     Network                Node List              Other
     Mailers     Version    Utilities   Version    Utilities  Version

     BinkleyTerm    2.40    EditNL         4.00    ARC            7.0
     D'Bridge       1.30    MakeNL         2.31    ARCAsim       2.30
     Dutchie       2.90C    ParseList      1.30    ARCmail       2.07
     FrontDoor     1.99c    Prune          1.40    ConfMail      4.00
     PRENM          1.47    SysNL          3.14    Crossnet      v1.5
     SEAdog         4.60*   XlatList       2.90    DOMAIN        1.42
     TIMS      1.0(Mod8)    XlaxDiff       2.35    EMM           2.02
                            XlaxNode       2.35    4Dog/4DMatrix 1.18
                                                   Gmail         2.05
                                                   GROUP         2.16
                                                   GUS           1.30
                                                   HeadEdit      1.15
                                                   InterPCB      1.31
                                                   LHARC         2.10
                                                   MSG            4.1
                                                   MSGED         2.06
                                                   MSGTOSS        1.3
                                                   Oliver        1.0a
                                                   PK[UN]ZIP     1.20
                                                   QM             1.0
                                                   QSORT         4.03
                                                   Sirius        1.0x
                                                   SLMAIL        1.36
                                                   StarLink      1.01
                                                   TagMail       2.41
                                                   TCOMMail       2.2
                                                   Telemail      1.27
     FidoNews 8-13                Page 25                   1 Apr 1991


                                                   TMail         1.15
                                                   TPBNetEd       3.2
                                                   TosScan       1.00
                                                   UFGATE        1.03
                                                   XRS           4.10*
                                                   XST            2.2
                                                   ZmailH        1.14


                                OS/2 Systems
                                ------------

     Bulletin Board Software   Network Mailers     Other Utilities

     Name            Version   Name      Version   Name       Version

     Maximus-CBCS       1.02   BinkleyTerm  2.40   Parselst      1.32
                                                   ConfMail      4.00
                                                   EchoStat       6.0
                                                   oMMM          1.52
                                                   Omail          3.1
                                                   MsgEd         2.06
                                                   MsgLink       1.0C
                                                   MsgNum        4.14
                                                   LH2           0.50
                                                   PK[UN]ZIP     1.02
                                                   ARC2          6.00
                                                   PolyXARC      2.00
                                                   Qsort          2.1
                                                   Raid           1.0
                                                   Remapper       1.2
                                                   Tick           2.0
                                                   VPurge        2.07


                                 Xenix/Unix
                                 ----------

     BBS Software                  Mailers         Other Utilities
     Name             Version  Name      Version   Name       Version

                               BinkleyTerm 2.30b   Unzip         3.10
                                                   ARC           5.21
                                                   ParseLst     1.30b
                                                   ConfMail     3.31b
                                                   Ommm         1.40b
                                                   Msged        1.99b
                                                   Zoo           2.01
                                                   C-Lharc       1.00
                                                   Omail        1.00b

     FidoNews 8-13                Page 26                   1 Apr 1991


                                   Apple II
                                  ----------

     Bulletin Board Software   Network Mailers     Other Utilities

     Name            Version   Name      Version   Name       Version

     GBBS Pro            2.1   Fruity Dog    1.0   ShrinkIt       3.2
     DDBBS +             4.0                       ShrinkIt GS   1.04
                                                   deARC2e        2.1
                                                   ProSel        8.65


                                 Apple CP/M
                                 ----------

     Bulletin Board Software   Network Mailers     Other Utilities

     Name            Version   Name      Version   Name       Version

     Daisy               v2j   Daisy Mailer 0.38   Nodecomp      0.37
                                                   MsgUtil        2.5
                                                   PackUser        v4
                                                   Filer         v2-D
                                                   UNARC.COM     1.20


                                 Macintosh
                                 ---------

     Bulletin Board Software   Network Mailers     Other Utilities

     Name            Version   Name      Version   Name       Version

     Red Ryder Host     2.1    Tabby         2.2   MacArc         0.04
     Mansion            7.15   Copernicus    1.0   ArcMac          1.3
     WWIV (Mac)         3.0                        LHArc          0.33
     Hermes             1.01                       StuffIt Classic 1.6
     FBBS               0.91                       Compactor      1.21
                                                   TImport        1.92
                                                   TExport        1.92
                                                   Timestamp       1.6
                                                   Tset            1.3
                                                   Import          3.2
                                                   Export         3.21
                                                   Sundial         3.2
                                                   PreStamp        3.2
                                                   OriginatorII    2.0
                                                   AreaFix         1.6
                                                   Mantissa       3.21
                                                   Zenith          1.5
     FidoNews 8-13                Page 27                   1 Apr 1991


                                                   Eventmeister    1.0
                                                   TSort           1.0
                                                   Mehitable       2.0
                                                   UNZIP         1.02c

                                   Amiga
                                   -----

     Bulletin Board Software   Network Mailers     Other Utilities

     Name            Version   Name      Version   Name       Version

     Paragon           2.082+  BinkleyTerm  1.00   AmigArc       0.23
     TransAmiga         1.05   TrapDoor     1.50   AReceipt       1.5
                               WelMat       0.42   booz          1.01
                                                   ConfMail      1.10
                                                   ChameleonEdit 0.10
                                                   ElectricHerald1.66
                                                   Lharc         1.30
                                                   MessageFilter 1.52
                                                   oMMM         1.49b
                                                   ParseLst      1.30
                                                   PkAX          1.00
                                                   PK[UN]ZIP     1.01
                                                   PolyxAmy      2.02
                                                   RMB           1.30
                                                   RoboWriter    1.02
                                                   Skyparse      2.30
                                                   TrapList      1.12
                                                   Yuck!         1.61
                                                   Zippy (Unzip) 1.25
                                                   Zoo           2.01



                                Atari ST/TT
                                -----------

     Bulletin Board         Network                Node List
     Software    Version    Mailer      Version    Utilities  Version

     FIDOdoor/ST    2.12*   BinkleyTerm   2.40l*   ParseList     1.30
     QuickBBS/ST    1.02    The BOX        1.20    Xlist         1.12
     Pandora BBS   2.41c                           EchoFix       1.20
     GS Point       0.61                           sTICk/Hatch   5.10*
     LED ST         1.00
     MSGED         1.96S

     Archiver               Msg Format             Other
     Utilities   Version    Converters  Version    Utilities  Version

     FidoNews 8-13                Page 28                   1 Apr 1991


     LHARC          0.60    TB2BINK        1.00    ConfMail      4.03
     ARC            6.02    BINK2TB        1.00    ComScan       1.02
     PKUNZIP        1.10    FiFo           2.1j*   Import        1.14
                                                   OMMM          1.40
                                                   Pack          1.00
                                                   FastPack      1.20
                                                   FDsysgen      2.16
                                                   FDrenum       2.10
                                                   Trenum        0.10



                                Archimedes
                                ----------

     BBS Software           Mailers                Utilities
     Name        Version    Name        Version    Name       Version

     ARCbbs         1.44    BinkleyTerm    2.03    Unzip        2.1TH
                                                   ARC           1.03
                                                   !Spark       2.00d

                                                   ParseLst      1.30
                                                   BatchPacker   1.00


     + Netmail capable (does not require additional mailer software)
     * 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 8-13                Page 29                   1 Apr 1991


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

                          The Interrupt Stack


     12 May 1991
        Fourth anniversary of FidoNet operations in Latin America and
        second anniversary of the creation of Zone-4.

     15 Aug 1991
        5th annual Z1 Fido Convention - FidoCon '91 "A New Beginning"
        Sheraton Denver West August 15 through August 18 1991.

      8 Sep 1991
        25th anniversary of first airing of Star Trek on NBC!

      7 Oct 1991
        Area code  415  fragments.   Alameda and Contra Costa Counties
        will  begin  using  area  code  510.   This includes  Oakland,
        Concord, Berkeley  and  Hayward.    San  Francisco, San Mateo,
        Marin, parts of  Santa Clara County, and the San Francisco Bay
        Islands will retain area code 415.

      1 Feb 1992
        Area  code 213 fragments.    Western,  coastal,  southern  and
        eastern portions of Los Angeles  County  will begin using area
        code 310.  This includes Los  Angeles  International  Airport,
        West  Los  Angeles,  San  Pedro and Whittier.    Downtown  Los
        Angeles  and  surrounding  communities  (such as Hollywood and
        Montebello) will retain area code 213.

      1 Dec 1993
        Tenth anniversary of Fido Version 1 release.

      5 Jun 1997
        David Dodell's 40th Birthday


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

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

     Michael Rapp
     FidoNet 1:106/12

                        NASA Space Shuttle Press Kit
                        ----------------------------

     FidoNews 8-13                Page 30                   1 Apr 1991


     This is just a notice to everyone and anyone that USS Vulcanix,
     a BBS specializing in Space & Astronomy, Star Trek, and Science
     Fiction has the latest NASA Shuttle Press Kit available for
     FREQ (File REQuest).

     What is the Shuttle Press Kit?  Well, it's a long ASCII text
     file containing almost anything you'd want to know about a
     shuttle flight.  Here's a portion of the table of contents for
     SPACE SHUTTLE MISSION STS-37 (April 1991):

     SUMMARY OF MAJOR ACTIVITIES
     VEHICLE AND PAYLOAD WEIGHTS
     TRAJECTORY SEQUENCE OF EVENTS
     GAMMA RAY OBSERVATORY
     GREAT OBSERVATORIES
     PROTEIN CRYSTAL GROWTH EXPERIMENT
     SHUTTLE AMATEUR RADIO EXPERIMENT
     ADVANCED SHUTTLE GENERAL PURPOSE COMPUTERS
     RADIATION MONITORING EQUIPMENT-III
     STS-37 CREW BIOGRAPHIES
     STS-37 MISSION MANAGEMENT

     The file contains some very interesting information, and anyone
     who likes the shuttle will love it.  Example:  It has a
     day-by-day listing of what happens each day.  The magic filename
     to FREQ from my system is STSKIT.  This will send you the file
     STS37KIT.ZIP, and it's about 25,000 bytes (zipped).

     Hope you like it!

     /*/-=[Michael Rapp]=-/*/

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

