HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: alt.bbs
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 23:42:14 -0400 
From: Kenton Shaver <ks3l+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Big Brother BBS policies
	<BuJ2JM.HBG@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>

hucke@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Matt Hucke) writes:
> In article <BuHwGC.CEF@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu>
> bjpocock@undergrad.math.wa
> terloo.edu (Beastor the Mad) writes:
> >
> >SO what do you do... put up an ELITE section then CALL THE COPS everytime 
> >someone downloads it?
> 
> Just like Fnord, you're trying to put words into someone else's mouth...
> no one here ever suggested calling the police.  Such a policy would be
> incredibly stupid, as you put yourself at risk also.  It should be
> fairly obvious to *most* people that the practice of collecting real
> names is so you can point the police at the real culprit when they are
> threatening you.  Not calling the police... but when they show up at
> your door (after finding out about the illegal activities through their
> own sources), you can at least give them the names of the true
> criminals.
> -- 
>   "It begins here--an army--to bring sense to a world plagued by worse than
>    thieves and murderers. This will be a good life... good enough."
>              Bruce Wayne, "Batman: The Dark Knight Returns"
> hucke@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu             _V_a_l_h_a_l_l_a BBS, 217-352-3682,\
>  WWIV4.21, 14.4k

Consider a hypothetical sysop who runs his or her bboard at two
levels.  One is the benign level that everyone sees.  The other
is the criminal level that only his/her partners in crime see.

As a back-up, this techno-criminal keeps a list of likely
users to frame, and all the forged evidence necessary.
Forged evidence?  Fake logs of use, fake logs of downloads,
fake messages, etc.  So now at the very least the sysop can
turn state's evidence against innocent people to get his/her
sentence reduced.

It is the same as letting police go through people's garbage.
Sure, these bags are on my curb, but who put them there?


KWS
Newsgroups: alt.bbs
From: bjpocock@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu (Beastor the Mad)
Subject: Sysop Modem Deal
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 04:08:17 GMT

Could someone give me the information on the sysop deal for modems.  I've run a
bbs for about 8 months and heard I'd be eligable.  I want to by a
V.32bis Supra modem.  Thanks for any information!

						-BEASTOR THE MAD-
From: aa713@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (John Brooking)
Newsgroups: alt.bbs
Subject: Re: Cleveland BBS Numbers wanted!
Date: 15 Sep 1992 05:04:41 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc12.ins.cwru.edu


Besides all the different Free-Net systems Mark mentioned, there is
also a list somewhere in the Cleveland system of Cleveland-area BBS's,
many of them free, I'm sure.  I don't remember off the top of my
head where to tell you to look, probably somewhere in the "Computer
Center" area.  (The menu system is set up to simulate familiar places
in a city - a "Community Center", "Library", etc.)

- JohnB
-- 
"If you want peace, work for justice." Pope Paul VI |    Don Cole       aa563
-----------------------------------------------------    Jim Laird      aa723
Cleveland Freenet Peace Network              |  Sysops:  Rich Ceaser    aa771
FN Community Center, or type "go peace"      |           John Brooking  aa713
Xref: sparky alt.bbs:5723 comp.bbs.misc:878
From: sac@Apple.COM (Steve Cisler)
Newsgroups: alt.bbs,comp.bbs.misc
Subject: Is BBS the correct name?
Keywords: BBS jargon, semantics, growth, info systems
Date: 6 Sep 92 13:37:59 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

I'd like to hear from BBS sysops and others about what
the limits are tothe definition or an electronic bulletin
board system.

Is there a size limit? I am aware of huge systems that still
call themselves a BBS, irrespective of disk space or number
of lines coming in.

Is it a state of mind? Some commercial and private systems
seem to shy away from the connotations of BBS and have
chosen other names like 'information support system' or
information network.

At ONE BBSCON I sensed that some commercial operators were
looking for a new sort of legitimacy, not linked to what I
think are the honorable amateur/hobbyist roots of the
BBS movement.

Steve Cisler
From: murph@buscard.fidonet.org (Brian Murphy)
Newsgroups: alt.bbs
Subject: Re: Fidonet sux, fee for access.
Keywords: Fidonet
Date: Tue, 08 Sep 92 18:28:26 EDT
Reply-To: murph@buscard.fidonet.org (Brian Murphy)
Organization: The Business Card (BBS), Lawrence, MA - Data: 508-682-5329

larry@gator.rn.com (Larry Snyder) writes:

> Too many politics -- ever notice that usenet offers a higher
> quality product without the politics?

So much easier to get along - of course, I pay money for this kind of
professionalism, so...

> >these "old boys" raised a "Policy Complaint" that I wouldn't drop the subjec
> 
> Policy Complaint -- gosh -- we don't have those here 

Yeah, Fidonet people have this document that even states is intentionally
written to be vague but they worship that stupid thing like it's some sort of
bible or something.

Did you notice the tone of Randy Bush's last posting?  He's a big-wig in
Fidonet.  You can be sure Mr. Murphy won't be getting back into that network
anytime soon.  <grin>  If you cross one of Fidonet's administrator's you're
history.  In America, we can say what we want and in Usenet, we do.  Can't do
it in Fidonet, though.  Imagine if that policy followed in American politics?
Call George Bush a wimp and his armies swoop down to take your address.  Blah!
Criticize a Fidonet administrator and you're excommunicated.  Same thing.

                         Your friend in Lawrence, Massachusetts...
                                      - - - Murph

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
   The Business Card (BBS), Lawrence, Massachusetts - Data: (508) 682-5329
   SysAdmin:  murph@buscard.fidonet.org / ...!ulowell!wizvax!buscard!murph
Newsgroups: alt.bbs
From: 11458747@eng2.eng.monash.edu.au (CHRISTIAN WILSON)
Subject: Re: TBBS limitations
Organization: Faculty of Engineering, Monash University 
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 05:37:52 GMT

In article <rdippold.715626839@cancun> rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes:

>>>Is it possible to run TBBS under OS/2 ? If so, this would be quite handy 
>>>wouldn't it?
>
>>Nope.  TBBS Is to limited - and only supports DOS..
>
>Geez, you've just been just a fount of wrong information about TBBS.
>No editor, no quoting, and now this.  It does run under OS/2, I've
>done it.  There's no native OS/2 version, obviously, but TBBS most
>certainly runs under OS/2, meaning it doesn't monopolize the machine.

So does it really behave itself? i.e. can you give any sort of performance 
examples? I think that that would be a definite plus because you obviously 
don't have to run a copy of tbbs for every line and if it does behave itself 
that's excellent!

Christian.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Christian Wilson            (Fidonet - 3:635/550.2) | Relax.......
BCSE (Bachelor of Computer Science and Engineering) |            TM
MONASH University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.  | Its a Gin-su
Internet Address : wally@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au OR   |
Internet Address : 11458747@eng2.eng.monash.edu.au  | (c) 1992
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Newsgroups: alt.bbs
From: rice@ttd.teradyne.com
Subject: Re: Nixpub meaning
Organization: Teradyne Inc., Telecommunications Division
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 92 19:51:14 GMT

In article <Btz935.1Cv@gator.rn.com>, larry@gator.rn.com (Larry Snyder) writes:
> kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.risc.net (Michael P. Deignan) writes:
> 
>>"Open Access UNIX (*NIX) Sites [ Fee/No Fee] for mapped sites only"
> 
> Right there answers the question --
> 
> it doesn't say Minix
> it doesn't say Lunix
> it doesn't say Linux
> it doesn't say QNX
> it doesn't say Coherent
> it doesn't say DOS
> 
> It says UNIX.  If it doesn't say UNIX, it should not be included
> in the list.   Real UNIX is UNIX, not some variation.  If it doesn't
> have the AT&T/USL Copyright, then I guess it isn't UNIX.

Then what is (*NIX) ?   I thought that "*" was the "wildcard" character, thus
*NIX could apply to part of that list. (Minix, Linix, Linux). And If I put
up a SPARC running SUNos and make it public access, does it, then not qualify ?



-- 
   John Rice        K9IJ     |  "Did I say that ?" I must have, but It was
                             |   MY opinion only, no one else's...Especially
                             |   Not my Employer's....
   rice@ttd.teradyne.com     |   Purveyor of Miracles,Magic and Sleight-of-hand
Newsgroups: alt.bbs
From: larry@gator.rn.com (Larry Snyder)
Subject: Re: TBBS is very limited
Organization: The Gator Public Access Unix Site - 219-289-3745
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 12:46:50 GMT

rdippold@qualcom.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes:

>larry@gator.rn.com (Larry Snyder) writes:
>>rjus@uonline.com (ren_just) writes:
>>>bulletin board systems for corporations and TBBS with TDBS packs a powerful
>>>punch.  These corporations could care less about usenet, fidonet and what

>>At an expensive price it is a very limited option with no support
>>for external third party non eSoft approved applications

>More fabricated facts from you on TBBS.  Look, I can understand your

it's not fabricated,  TBBS requires eSoft approved modules which
link into TBBS.  TBBS multiline users can not spawn external DOS
applications - period.  It is also limited with the number of messages
which can be kept on-line, and doesn't allow for external protocols -
since they are hard coded in.  

>on it isn't going to help your case.  Note the operative words up
>there: "TBBS with TDBS."  TDBS gives you support for external third
>party non eSoft approved applications, of which there are quite a
>selection.  

dBase applications wasn't what we were referring to.  How about DOS
applications -- Doors, etc?  No need to answer, we all are aware that
TBBS ML doesn't support the chaining of external applications - since
that would require the machine being brought down -- likewise, for example,
if a TBBS ML sysop wanted to run netnews, he would have to bring the 
BBS down to gate/toss/scan using ufgate on a regular basis -- making
TBBS a cludge of a solution.

A better solution would be to run real UNIX - which was (is) intended
for this type of work.  TBBS can't handle the large jobs requiring 
complex operations and networking.

-- 
Larry Snyder                                    internet: larry@gator.rn.com
keeper of the Gator                                  uucp: uunet!gator!larry
Newsgroups: alt.bbs
From: ST21519@VM.CC.LATECH.EDU
Subject: Re: Sad to say...
Organization: LOUISIANA TECH UNIVERSITY
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 92 23:29:50 CST

>Read what I posted.  I was talking about *coordinators*.  I know how Souvestre
>got to where he is, because I was in Net 396 as the whole thing evolved.  NECs
>got their positions because, like John, they had the bigger systems and faster
>modems.  That's how John became a backbone hub.  He assumed a national role,
>then someone else in the net assumed the local hub role.
 
My mistake...I misread your note.
 
>My point is that these guys get these jobs because they can put out the time
>and money to run the systems that can handle the volume.  Of course, regional
>and zone echomail coordinators are normally net coordinators before they get
>the higher jobs.  And they got the jobs because they had more bucks than
>others.
 
There was a big discussion regarding who should hub and who should feed a net
echomail.  The "Sugar Daddy" approach was at the bottom of the list since it
does not ensure a feed over the long haul.  The coop and voluntary contribution
systems for echomail were at the top of the list.  Shame Fidonet has not
operated like this all along....shame also that other Regions do not enjoy a
 
>You'd be better off not speculating, since I wasn't making any 'charges.'  I
>was pointing out that in Fidonet, a moderator of an echo has to get permission
>from two RECs to get it on the backbone.  If two politicians don't approve of
>an echo, it doesn't happen.  This is in stark contrast to the Usenet, where
>someone can issue a Call-For-Discussion/Call-For-Votes on creating a new
>newsgroup, and the readership of the net then decides what gets carried.  This
>doesn't mean that the system is necessarily bad in Fidonet, it's just not very
>responsive to the users.  Of course, the sysops are the ones footing the bill,
>so whether or not it *should* be responsive to users is another story.
 
Well you know what they say about those who assume eh?  Oh well....I thought I
was on the same wave pattern with you.
 
Backbone echomail requirements have become a bit more hairy with minimum node
and traffic requirements.  I have been reading in the newsgroups about how
USENET does it....I don't know enough yet to have an opinion.
 
Eddie Rowe Fidonet#1:19/124.0
Newsgroups: alt.bbs
From: randy@psg.com (Randy Bush)
Subject: Re: Fidonet sux, fee for access.
Keywords: Fidonet
Organization: Pacific Systems Group, Portland Oregon, US
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 06:28:45 GMT

larry@gator.rn.com (Larry Snyder) writes:

> Policy is more BS.  We don't have it here, and we communicate and pass
> traffic with corporate america (and the world) along with the universities
> without the headaches.

If 'here' involves the NSFNET, many regionals, ..., there is indeed written
policy.  And if you are sending non-R&E traffic to "corporate america," you
are violating it!

And it is amusing to compare the Subject: of this thread with your position
regarding charging for mail and newsfeeds.  Hypocrisy and greaseburgers,
the last American exports.

randy
-- 
randy@psg.com   ...!uunet!m2xenix!randy
From: davidg@aegis.or.jp (Dave McLane)
Newsgroups: alt.bbs
Subject: Re: TBBS is very limited
Date: 7 Sep 92 07:09:59 GMT
Organization: Aegis Society, Kyoto Japan

rjus@uonline.com (ren_just) writes:

>larry@gator.rn.com (Larry Snyder) writes:
...
>: A better solution would be to run real UNIX - which was (is) intended
>: for this type of work.  TBBS can't handle the large jobs requiring 
>: complex operations and networking.
...

>Larry, you continue to make the assumption that all BBS operators want to 
>run netnews and doors.  As I pointed out earlier, I work with corporations
>in the installation of customer support systems and so far not a single 
>client has asked for something that was outside of the TBBS plus TDBS
>combination's capabilities.  
...

>Software should be chosen to provide a solution for a particular problem
>and not a consultant's OS religion.  Time and time again, TBBS/TDBS has
>provided this solution for my customers.

I think this is the point that's been left out of both sides of this
discussion: people keep saying how wondeful TBBS is without
specifying for what. Likewise, Larry et al. keep saying that it
won't do xxxx which is true enough but maybe not relevant to the
problem at hand. 
 
>And in case you are wondering...  I run a UNIX BBS at home using AT&T UNIX
>to pull in my feeds because of the same reasons you stated that it does a
>good job of doing that sort of thing.  But once again, review the 
>paragraph above.  "Software should be chosen to provide a solution for a
>particular problem".

Well said and I hope people will begin include what the problem is
when they start saying how great/terrible a piece of software is.

IMHO, part of the confusion arises over the definition of what a BBS
is. And while you can certainly say a customer support system is a
BBS, I don't think that's the general meaning in the world at large
and especially in the networked world which is where we are talking. 

Maybe we could start qualifying what kind of BBS solutions are
proposed for:

   Dedicated BBS: What I would call an "original BBS". 
      One machine, one line, that's what it does.

   Dual-use BBS: Same as dedicated BBS but sysops 
      want to use for their own use at the same time. 

   Multiple use BBS: sysop and users can run various programs, 
      but perhaps limited by the design of the OS/BBS software.

   Multi-tasking BBS: Same as multiple use BBS but users/sysops 
      get to run/compile various programs of their choice.

   Multi-tasking/Multiple-OS BBS: Multi-tasking but LANed to
      various OS such as DOS, Mac, VAX, etc.

All of these can be networked or stand-alone; they can be run as a
hobby, as a small business, as corporate support for larger
organizations, etc., etc. 

Only some ideas...

Dave

--
Dave McLane 
JUNET: davidg@aegis.or.jp (ONLY within Japan: post otherwise)
Nagaokakyoshi, Kyoto Japan Tel: +81-75-951-1168 Fax: +81-75-957-1087
From: Robert.Presland@helldisk.helldisk.helldisk (Robert Presland)
Newsgroups: alt.bbs
Subject: Re: Big Brother BBS policies
Date: 13 Sep 92 00:04:48 GMT

> I've noticed that on a lot of BBS's, the sysops tend to go through a
> lot of effort to identify users.  Things like auto-callback, extremely
> limited access, requiring real names, etc. all strike me as overly
> nosy.

 KS> I could not agree with you more.
 KS> I've always assumed that this info was sold to mail-order companies,
 KS> but who really gets it?  Why on earth is it needed?  

Many insist on knowing the colour of the caller's eyes :-)  All I ask is a real (sounding) name (after all, I don't try and verify it) and a phone number.  Usually this is enough for most people.
Newsgroups: alt.bbs
From: cn451156@LANCE.ColoState.Edu (Christopher Norman)
Subject: Re: TBBS limitations
Date: Sat, 05 Sep 1992 02:08:25 GMT
Organization: Colorado State U. Engineering College

In article <Bu1xvp.IJG@gator.rn.com> larry@gator.rn.com (Larry Snyder) writes:
>11458747@eng2.eng.monash.edu.au (CHRISTIAN WILSON) writes:
>
>>Is it possible to run TBBS under OS/2 ? If so, this would be quite handy 
>>wouldn't it?
>Nope.  TBBS Is to limited - and only supports DOS..


You can run a Dos BBS under OS/2 although the comm routines for Dos windows
in OS/2 are screwed up and everything is VERY slow if using a high speed 
modem. 

Chris

Newsgroups: alt.bbs
From: larry@gator.rn.com (Larry Snyder)
Subject: Re: Usenet
Keywords: Fidonet
Organization: The Gator Public Access Unix Site - 219-289-3745
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 11:48:10 GMT

sjsobol@wariat.org (Steven J. Sobol) writes:

>UUNET and PSI are commercial connectivity providers. Of course they charge.
>That's one of the ways they make money. There are other places to look besides
>the commercial outfits.

but typically, commercial provider are the most reliable
verses those who run machines in the spare bedroom..

>Wrong. I have a reliable AND timely newsfeed and mail feed which I don't
>pay for. There are several public access systems in Northeast Ohio alone which
>offer free feeds. Donations are not mandatory although they are welcome. 

this varies region by region

-- 
Larry Snyder                                    internet: larry@gator.rn.com
keeper of the Gator                                  uucp: uunet!gator!larry
Xref: sparky alt.bbs:5966 comp.dcom.modems:13339
From: naddy@mips.ruessel.sub.org (Christian Weisgerber)
Newsgroups: alt.bbs,comp.dcom.modems
Subject: Re: RE-USRobotics SysOp deal
Organization: My Individual Private Site
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 17:55:02 CET
Reply-To: naddy@mips.ruessel.sub.org

In <r-vn!5f.wolfgang@netcom.com>, Wolfgang Henke writes:

> There are some manufacturers who where before USR in introducing V.32bis
> modems to market.        

Are you willing to name them?

-- 
Christian "naddy" Weisgerber, Germany           naddy@mips.ruessel.sub.org
From: v120qldp@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (PATRICK FERREL)
Newsgroups: alt.bbs
Subject: Re: WWIV..HA!
Date: 12 Sep 92 23:01:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <Steven_P._Oliver.038y@bearsden.UUCP>, Steven_P._Oliver@bearsden.UUCP (Steven P. Oliver) writes...
>WWIV may not be cripple ware, but trying to get doors to run with it is
>next to impossible.  

Really?  Amazing.  Someone wrote a mod to increase the number of chains from 50
to 99.  I guess they must be running 99 Tradewars games, right?

>Using the Chain.txt file for a user information file,
>WWIV has locked itself into a groove where you MUST use software made JUST
>for WWIV or not use it at all.  

This is bullshit.  There are plenty of conversion programs.

>I speak from having run WWIV, and the related problems.  

So you ran WWIV.  Big deal!  You obviously don't know shit.  It is hardly
difficult to install chains.  All you have to do is tell the board the path and
the file to execute.  Very few take actual parameters.

>IT is an easy to set up Software for BBS, but is very limited.

The only limits put on WWIV are those of the SysOp himself.


Patrick A. Ferrel - ferrel@acsu.buffalo.edu | WWIVLink 1@17659 | Disaster Area
v120qldp@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu | WWIVnet 1@7659 | IceNET 1@7659 | (716)683-6657
"Look, would it save you a lot of time if I just gave up and went mad now?"
Newsgroups: alt.bbs
From: fsspr@acad3.alaska.edu (Sean P. Ryan, Hardcore Alaskan)
Subject: Re: Sad to say...
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41.UAC
Organization: University of Fairbanks, Alaska...no wait, that's not right...
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 23:33:00 GMT

Before I begin here, just a question.  Why did you attribute the entire
previous message in your follow-up when your points only pertained to a 
very small portion of the previous message?  Don't you realize that 
people out there do pay real money to transmit this stuff to and fro?

In article <85moqB1w164w@mintir.new-orleans.la.us>, elendil@mintir.new-orleans.la.us (Edward J. Branley) writes...
> 
>Hmmm...dunno about other parts of the country, but here in New Orleans, fido
>sysops are required to pay for echomail feeds.  Anyone can be part of fido for
>netmail, but echomail requires that you support the NEC's phone bill.  

Hmmm...from what I gather calling the local Fido boards, they like to
put forth the notion that EchoMail is cheaper for all involved than
NetMail (i.e. let thousands of boards all around the country/world pay
the cost of moving your personal messages to everyone through an echo 
rather than just the few boards involved in the transfer of NetMail).

For instance, the Fido board I usually call had a note about NetMail
last month.  I can't recall exactly what it said, but I believe it made
mention that users who wanted to make use of it had to pay for the
service.

>The times of free fidonet feeds are disappearing fast, mainly because 
>of the volume of echomail that is moving through that net.

And never mind the fact that in many echoes, 75-90% of what goes through
there are personal messages that could be and should be sent through
NetMail, saving me the time of having to read it, and I'm sure saving
the board the cost of having to move it as well.

************************************************************************
Sean Patrick Ryan, Hardcore Alaskan*****Internet: fsspr@acad3.alaska.edu
WWIVnet: 220@9704*CFN: au414*IRC: RadioKAOS, Aoxomoxoa*Ph: (907)488-8365
BITnet: FSSPR@ALASKA****Snail: P.O. Box 83381, Fairbanks, AK  99708-3381
***"I'm gonna Kentucky Fried Chickenize your prostate surgery." - Oswald
Bates, In Living Color***Disclaimer?  BWAH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!***
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 09:28:14 EDT
From: <JWZ105@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.bbs
Subject: games

someone get me out of here!!!!!