From: pozar@kumr.lns.com (Tim Pozar)
Newsgroups: comp.org.fidonet
Subject: FidoNet Newsletter, Volume 10, # 2
Date: 11 Jan 93 07:13:36 GMT
Organization: Late Night Software (San Francisco)

F I D O  N E W S --         |         Vol. 10 No. 2 (11 January 1993)
  A newsletter of the       |
  FidoNet BBS community     |         Published by:
          _                 |
         /  \               |        "FidoNews" BBS
        /|oo \              |         +1-415-863-2739
       (_|  /_)             | NEW!--> 1:1/23@FidoNet
        _`@/_ \    _        |         editor@fidonews.fidonet.org
       |     | \   \\       |
       | (*) |  \   ))      |         Editors:
       |__U__| /  \//       |          Tom Jennings
        _//|| _\   /        |          Tim Pozar
       (_/(_|(____/         |
             (jm)           |         Newspapers should have no friends.
                            |                         -- JOSEPH PULITZER
----------------------------+---------------------------------------

/*********************************************************************
* IMPORTANT NOTE: The FidoNet address for FidoNews has been changed. *
* The new address is:                                                *
*                                                                    *
*                     FidoNews  =  1:1/23                            *
*                                                                    *
* Starting January 1993 email sent to the old address will not be    *
* forwarded! You were warned!                                        *
*********************************************************************/

For information, copyrights, article submissions, obtaining copies and
other boring but important details, please refer to the end of this
file.


                          Table of Contents
1. EDITORIAL  .....................................................  1
   Editorial: Cut down these trees; where's that blasted forest  ..  1
2. ARTICLES  ......................................................  3
   Nodelist comments from NODELIST.008  ...........................  3
   Playing the Phool  .............................................  3
   The great Z1C election debate  .................................  5
   Points should vote, too!  ......................................  6
   Users Voting for NC's?  ........................................  7
   Absurdity? In FidoNews?  .......................................  8
   More Democracy In FidoNet  .....................................  8
   Caller-Id Product - Special Sysop Offer  .......................  9
   ACCEPTANCE SPEECH  ............................................. 12
   A Plea for a Common Sense Solution  ............................ 15
   Regarding Those Flames  ........................................ 15
   I vote for Rich Wood, well, I would if I could!  ............... 18
   Big Mouth gets his butt kicked  ................................ 20
   ZEC Dispute Shows Flaws in Echo System  ........................ 21
   Why Not Just RCs Are Eligible for the Z1C Position  ............ 22
   AMATEUR_RADIO conference available  ............................ 24
   An Invitation to Visit The In_Country Echo  .................... 24
   Mail Manager +Plus+ v3.0 for RBBS-PC released!  ................ 25
   Midwest Genealogy Echo  ........................................ 26
And more!
FidoNews 10-02                 Page 1                      11 Jan 1993


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

Editorial: Cut down these trees; where's that blasted forest?

by Tom Jennings (1:1/23)


OK, so Mr. Motormouth here has to get in one last word... on the
nonsense I went on about last week? My alleged meddling with this ZC
selection process, "democracy", and all that popular rot? Well, I
forgot to say just one thing.

That: while I personally think the current good-ole-boy thing, the
don't-rock-the-boat-we-know-what's-best-for-you nonsense, is lousy
rotten terrible bad for you and me and all that, I never meant to
imply I want anything to do with actually picking a new process! Oh
no! I just want to see the old one go away! Not only that, I'm not
willing to lift a finger to do anything about it, except write cranky
editorials. This was the aforementioned forest, that was hidden in the
shrubbery and underbrush of last week's editorial.

So I look like an armchair emperor, so what. However, I do not want to
meddle; too many people take what I say far, far too seriously. I
don't really care what happens "next", because I truly believe FidoNet
will stay robust and reliable, not because of whatever system  or
people claim to be "running" it, but IN SPITE of them.


I say this about once a year and about three people hear it: a healthy
organism is ABSOLUTELY NOT A SMOOTH-RUNNING ONE. A robust beast has
dissent, trouble, rampant change, tension, growth, paradox,
redundancy; experiments come and go, some wither and die, some become
defacto standards (and drive us crazy LATER). Sorry for the
law'n'order fans, but this was built into FidoNet, intentionally,
right from the start, that time in Ken Kaplan's living room in '85.
Consciously. Local autonomy. The higher up the mathematical hierarchy
(ie. addresses) you go, the less actual control. FidoNet traffic and
routing was based upon my personal inverse square law of human
communications; the observation that most people you communicate with
most of the time are physically close to you, the more affect you have
on them/them on you; further away, less communication and effect. (I
never said this would hold true forever.)


As far as my behind the scenes meddling: just ask anyone who's working
on the latest final-solution-to-the-FidoNet-problem what kind of
response they got from me.  I'll save you the trouble: I say, PLEASE
STOP CC'ING ME YOUR INTIMATE CONVERSATIONS I AM NOT INTERESTED. THANK
YOU VERY MUCH GOODBYE.  So there.

FidoNews 10-02                 Page 2                      11 Jan 1993


(At this very moment I'm being CC'ed with messages from Big Wigs, who
seem to ignore my pleas to STOP! Stop, please!)




While I'm on the subject, woo-wee, we've got a big one! 15 articles
this week, mostly devoted to you-know-what. This *is* our process.
We're unfolding it as we go/grow.

Now can you imagine, those of you who've been around since the
under-1000 node days, of setting a "policy" (sic) that would survive
today's FidoNet, spread over the surface of the planet? Can you
imagine setting a single "policy" that will not only work in all
cultures and all legal systems, but in the technical environment we'll
have in another 5 years (if we still exist as we are today)?

This *is* our process. Anyone who believes it will ever run
"smoothly" is either naive or self-delusional.

There, I just editorialized excessively again...

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

FidoNews 10-02                 Page 3                      11 Jan 1993


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



                     - Nodelist Comments -


 NOTICE -- NOTICE -- NOTICE -- NOTICE -- NOTICE -- NOTICE -- NOTICE
          --------------------------------------------
 |
 | The Zone 1 Coordinator interim replacement election has ended.
 | The result is a 5-5 tie between Tim Pearson and Bob Satti after
 | 2 runoffs. Rather than proceed any farther with the runoff
 | process the election has been called off. The 10 region
 | coordinators are going to restart the election. The conditions
 | and procedure are still being hammered out but after listening
 | to early discussions I'm confident that "my" rules have been
 | appropriately discarded. We should expect something from the
 | RCs during January.
 |
 | Happy Holidays to you all! Please be careful out there.
 |
          --------------------------------------------

 You can request the most recent nodelist/nodediff from your Network
 or Region Coordinator. They are usually available with the "magic name"
 of NODELIST or NODEDIFF.

 Please check the END of the nodelist for additional technical
information.

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


by Rick Moen, Phido Phool (1:125/27)
The Phool File

FidoNews just cries out for a _court jester_, someone to comment on
the passing parade, offending everyone, and by convention protected
against strangulation as long as he's entertaining.  The job requires
someone with a well-developed sense of the ridiculous, gullible enough
to read and comment on practically anything, and dense enough not to
want to do something useful with his life.  Ahem . . . .  Let it never
be said that I shirked from an urgent public duty.

Mean old Tom Jennings just 'fessed up:  By actually daring to think
that an editor may editorialise, he has been "preventing other
opinions and statements from being expressed" about zone 1
administration.  Please join me in picturing these shell-shocked
partisans of the status quo (who meekly filed a protest to that
effect) cowering in dread of such cruel oppression, rendered helpless
to express their own views in a journal with no editorial policy.  The
Phool is moved by this piteous spectacle, and so awards these victims
the first-ever Digital Hanky Award, in consolation.  Awwwww.
FidoNews 10-02                 Page 4                      11 Jan 1993


Tom told FidoNet sysops world-wide all about the third annual
Computers, Freedom, and Privacy conference, for the benefit of the ten
or so FidoNet sysops out of 18,000 who can attend.  (I'm one of them.
Heh, heh.)  While you're stuck in the snow in South Succotash, wishing
you were here for this stellar event, you should consider reading
about the _first_ one, in Bruce Sterling's amazingly enlightening 1992
book, _The Hacker Crackdown_.  Highest Phoolish recommendation.

We have certain valued traditions here in FidoNet's Entertainment
Division:  Among the most important is ritual combat in this space
between the Jacobins and the Momarchists.

You know the Momarchy:  These are the people who run the joint, clean
up the messes, and tell us what's good for us to eat -- folks like
John Souvestre, George Peace, Marge Robbins, Dan Buda, Mark Stennett,
Dave James, Rick McWilliams, and Randy Bush. Their ritual opponents,
the Jacobins, are wild-eyed democrat types like Glen Johnson, Rich
Woods, Alan Boritz, Phillip Dampier, Mike Catchpole, Ira Davis, and
Bob Moravsik.

Jacobin Totem of the Month is said to be one Rich Wood, a New York
City NEC sysop apparently _named after_ net 2605, which (judging from
the nodelist) is a locale in northern New Jersey called "Rich Wood for
ZC!".  Imagine the real-estate developers, all those years ago when
Rich was born, being that far-sighted!  Rich's qualifications are said
to be his NEC work, plus (more important) having a NetPolitically
Correct attitude.

Now, Jacobins don't like Policy 4's procedures, but _seldom_ respond
by trying to amend it. Instead, they complain about it.  Somewhere in
Policy 4 is probably a rule about the loudest, most emotional,
name-calling complaint prevailing.  I just haven't found it yet.

Momarchs have a quieter approach, befitting their surrogate parenthood
status:  For the most part, they just try to make things go smoothly.
They don't have much to say to Jacobins, although their
camp-followers, what we might call "Expectant Momarchs", like Shawn
Quinn, sometimes fire off a few rounds.

Shawn wielded the bladeless sword without a hilt most recently at Glen
("Rich Woods WILL Be the Next ZC") Johnson, replying to Glen's
jeremiad on him and Moravsik being ejected from the Z1EC echo.  Shawn
claimed to answer all of Glen's points, but totally ignored the
central one about lack of required netmail notice making the act
"illegal".  This is typical of many Momarch-types, ignoring Policy in
defence of those whose function is to _administer_ Policy -- the
Central Paradox of Momarchy.

The Central Paradox of Jacobinism is, of course, in effect wanting to
modify Policy without really seeking to modify Policy.  You can
identify a Jacobin, before even puzzling out what he wants, by his
writing style:  Rant, complain bitterly, call names, leave the toilet
seat up.  Analogies to North Korea and Nazi Germany are always good
for bonus points.  Don't bother to simply cite damning facts, instead
of name-calling and making vague ideological appeals, for there's
always the danger that that might be _effective_.  Everywhere, there's
FidoNews 10-02                 Page 5                      11 Jan 1993


a sinister FidoGod conspiracy.  Jacobins must lead exciting lives,
don't you think?

There was a joker in the pack, though:  Remarkably, the craziest
Jacobin proposal of them all, Richard Ratledge's notion that BBS
_users_ have equal votes in FidoNet alongside sysops and FidoGods, was
contained in a piece that was concise, calm, cordial, lucid, and even
somewhat charming.  Go figure!

Doug Wilson wrote a piece in which he praised Roland Gautschi's
proposed short & sweet, two-page replacement Policy.  Doug, Doug,
Doug.  Don't you know that insane over-complication is a crucial part
of the game?  What would we do for entertainment if common sense were
to prevail?

Meanwhile, the universe continues its isotropic expansion, taking NO
notice whatsoever of shrill, tinny bickerings among small cliques of
electron-manipulating ape-descendants, on a minuscule ball of dirt,
orbiting a yellow dwarf star, out on the farther edge of the less
fashionable spiral arm of an obscure galaxy.  (Apologies to D.
Adams.)

Bernie Wilt tells us about the new RACISM forum.  What he left out,
though, is how he's convincing racists to read the echo.  That's the
crucial part, isn't it?  How's he doing it, then?  ;- >

Gary Gilmore (you mean the firing squad DIDN'T get him?), Tom
Jennings, and Nils Hammar reached down deep into the chthonic reaches
of the nodelist to glean the forbidden, hermetic wisdom of nodelist
flags.  It was such a terrifying quest that I don't dare comment
further.  Where's H.P. Lovecraft when you need him?

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

The great Z1C election debate

From: paul@frcs.alt.za

I am not (any longer) a Fidonetter, and don't even live in the great
United States of America, so I don't know whether I have a right to
comment on the great Z1C election debate.  If you feel that I don't,
just trash this.  However, I feel that some of my experiences, and the
reason that I am no longer part of Fidonet, may just be relevant to
the present debate.

I run a private Internet/Fidonet gateway, used to link an NGO network
(based on Fido software) to the Internet.  I put a vast amount of time
and effort into getting a _very_ early version of rfmail working,
making sure that mail was delivered correctly, and so on.  I offered
to make this gateway available to the local Fido community, and got a
node number from the local RC, who told me to talk to the ZC.  Our ZC,
unfortunately, seems similar to the picture painted by some of the
outgoing Z1C, and told me, in no uncertain terms, to stuff my gateway,
as _he_ was the only person on the entire continent allowed to run a
gateway.

FidoNews 10-02                 Page 6                      11 Jan 1993


My response was very simple -- I kept the gateway private, between my
machine and the NGO network, and stopped getting the normal Fido
echoes.  I make my living out of computer networking, and don't have
the time to persuade people to allow me to do them favours.  Since
then, about 10 Fido users in the area have approached me for UUCP
feeds of netnews and mail, as they cannot get the service that they
want from the zonegate.  The upshot of it all is that the ZC has his
power trip, but very few people left to have it with (or at?).

The lesson is clear (to me, at any rate):  if you grab power, and
retain it at all costs, you will find yourself with very little.  If,
however, you distribute the power, the network will grow, and the
individual's power will become greater.  If the *C people (NC, ZC,
ZEC, RC, ...) want to hang on to total and absolute control, they'll
end up without a net.  If they instead listen to others, allow free
voting, and cut some of the great secrecy that surrounds some echoes,
they might just find their net growing.  This does not necessarily
lead to total chaos -- the Internet's netnews is proof of this, far
bigger than Fidonet, with _no_ control whatsoever.  Compare this to
our local ZC's notion that any site that emitted two or more echomail
items that the ZC adjudged to be "flamish" would be cut off, and
removed from the public nodelist after a second "offense"!

OK, this has been terribly long-winded, and not totally on the
subject.  Nonetheless, I think that those currently "in control" of
Fidonet (in all its sections) could do worse than to mull over this.

        paul
--
 Paul Nash                                         paul@frcs.Alt.ZA
 Box 12475, Onderstepoort, 0110 South Africa


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

Points should vote, too!

Hello Fidonews.

In the recent debate over whether users should have the right to vote,
the issue of Points has been totally overlooked.

Points can Freq, send and receive Netmail, AreaFix echoes for
themselves, maintain a nodelist, and use the same mailer software as
nodes. The only difference is that instead of a BBS, Points run
software such as MsgEd or PPoint on top of their mailer.

Further, Points poll for mail every day, and generally will
participate in echomail more than the average user.  Obviously, Points
are much closer to nodes than users. In fact, the only difference
between a Point and a Private Node is the assignment of a formal node
number.

FidoNews 10-02                 Page 7                      11 Jan 1993


Now that a distinction between Points and users has been made, it
should be noted that any voting should be conducted by Netmail, which
users do not generally have access to.  Most users would have to have
their sysop forward their vote.  Points, on the other hand, have
independent access to Netmail, making their inclusion in voting simply
a matter of allowing them to vote.

Points, unlike users, are primarily concerned with mail, and thus have
as much of a reason to vote as a BBS sysop.

Why, then, are Points not allowed to vote?

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

                        Users Voting for NC's?
                        ======================

Bruce Bowman
1:231/710@fidonet.org

Recently we've seen some discussions regarding having BBS users vote
to select the NCs of a given network. People in favor of this have
argued that if the current RC<>ZC handshaking is unfair (and it is),
then callers should be allowed to vote for NCs, since they constitute
the major portion of people affected by any change (93.4%, by one
estimate -- remarkable that they were able to pin it down to 1 part in
1000). Some have even gone so far as to suggest that the current
exclusion of callers from the voting process is akin to Nazi
practices. I couldn't just sit back and let this go by.

How do we propose to keep a given node from over-reporting the number
of callers they have, or fabricating the actual votes received, and
thus end up stuffing the ballot box? It would become impossible to
monitor the integrity of such a process.

I suppose that there's a lot of points that could benefit by some
change in policy. Perhaps a mechanism can be devised whereby that
would have a say in how their host node votes in elections. I'm sure
your host can work this out in some manner. Other than that, however,
any such suggestion is half-baked at best. No mechanism has been
suggested for making this a reality on a network-wide basis; only a
bunch of complaining that to do otherwise is unfair. I find it very
tiresome to listen to people complain about a situation when they have
no viable alternative in hand.

In my experience 99% of the "93.4%" that are not being represented are
so buffered from the effects of a change in the hierarchy that they
really don't give a damn who the NC is -- indeed, they would have no
idea of who the current one is or what they do. There will, of course,
be exceptions to this; but opening ourselves up to these other
concerns seems a high price to pay just to allow masses of oblivious
callers access to the voting process.

FidoNews 10-02                 Page 8                      11 Jan 1993


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

By Robert Adams, Sysop, The Kalamazoo Review 1:2201/38

                       Absurdity? In FidoNews?


In "Hypocrites? In Fidonet?", Mike Catchpole (1:267/113.15) entertains
us by elevating hysteron proteron to an artform. Starting with a
fanci- ful and exaggerated "conservative estimate of 15 Users per
system" and replete with the dire and foreboding references to "Nazi
Germany" pre- requisite to soap-box oration, and of course, the
assertion of assumed "rights" to the property of another, we are led
to the conclusion that Sysops are incompetant to deal with their own
affairs, and insidiously conspire to suppress the some hitherto
unknown "Rights of Users". Self servingly overlooked and ignored are
the basic facts that those 10,106 Sysops ARE FidoNet, that Users are
simply Users along for a free ride.

If a User wishes to join in our ranks, they meed only to meet the same
requirements as the rest of us, not demand something for nothing. That
old adage goes, "If you want to have a say, pay your dues". When first
going online in March 1982, Users left epistle after epistle demanding
this, that, or, the other thing be done. In response I posted a notice
stating that anyone who wanted to buy that system could run it however
they pleased. And it is as true today as it was ten years ago. If some
one is subsidising my operation (and no one is) I would listen to what
ever they have to say. But when freebies start looking a gift horse in
the mouth, let alone have the effrontery to demand parity, forget it!

But then, every absurdity will find a fervent champion to defend it.

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


by Steve Mulligan, 1:163/307.30

I have come to tell you something that will be a big shock.  There are
too many politics in FidoNet.  Wow!  Never would have guessed that,
eh!? Let's pause to let our heart rates come down to a reasonable
level.  Better?  Well, get ready for another shock.  FidoNet is not
quite a democracy.  Big surprise right?  Wrong.

I'm just a lowly little point in a small town.  I don't do much for a
living.  I just read mail.  Suddenly, I catch wind of an election for
the Z1C.  Seeing as how I'm not 18 and I haven't had a chance to vote
in any of Canada's Federal elections I thought this would be great.  I
can finally exercise some democratic rights!

So, I get some more information.  Only RC's can run for this election.
That's strange I thought to myself.  There are probably lot's of other
people better suited to be Z1C.  Turns out that Rich Wood would be a
great Z1C.  I think to myself 'Strange that FidoNet, such a great
place, would exclude someone because they're not an RC even though
they could do the job just as well.  That doesn't sound very
democratic'.  I shrugged it off...
FidoNews 10-02                 Page 9                      11 Jan 1993


Then, I find out that only RC's can vote.  So I blew my top.  After
half a pack of smokes, ten phone calls to my FidoBud's to cry on their
shoulder, talking to all the people I could to voice my opinion to
without being kicked out of the net, changing my Origin Line to read:

Rich Wood for ZC = Democracy in FidoNet

and writing an article for the FidoNews, I had calmed down a bit.

So there you have it.  Just my opinion.  I think FidoNet is great but
this Z1C election just sucks CA-CA!

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


by Darin Cowan (1:163/444) & Eric Jacksch (1:250/218)
CallSecurId - Special Sysop Offer Announced


Are you tired of people calling your BBS and abusing your system?
Tired of call back verification programs that just don't work
satisfactorily and create a hassle for your user community? Would you
like to be able to have your BBS share a phone line with a fax and a
VOICE phone?

If you answered yes to any of the questions above, Call SecurID may be
able to help you.


WHAT IS Call SecurID ?

Call SecurID is a telephone line management system.  It is a versatile
product that allows you to control how the telephone services you pay
for are used.

Call SecurID has a number of features that make it ideally suited to
the bulletin-board system operator:

1)  Control access to your system by the caller's number:  With Call
SecurID you eliminate the need for call-back verifiers, or "manual"
call back verification of users on your BBS.  You can tell in an
instant if the information new users give is true or not.  Call
SecurID allows you to lock out callers whom you have determined are
more trouble than they are worth. "Per Call Blocking" cannot be used
by people to circumvent CallSecurID - YOU have control over what to do
with "blocked" calls, as well as Long Distance calls and others.

2)  Share your BBS line with a voice phone, a fax or other device Call
SecurID allows you to redirect calls to various devices based on the
caller's number.  You could, for example, share a phone, a modem and a
fax on the same line.  This can result in reduced costs for the system
operator.
FidoNews 10-02                 Page 10                     11 Jan 1993


3)  Maintain accurate logs of system usage:  CallSecurID maintains
accurate, readable logs of system usage.  This information can allow
the system operator to determine the total use of his system for
expansion planning.  Call SecurID logs can also provide supporting
evidence in the event of a "crack" attempt on a BBS.

4)  Share information with others:  Your Call SecurID database is
easily merged with the databases of other Call SecurID users.  This
feature allows for an ever expanding knowledge base that can help keep
your system secure. The sysop version of Call SecurID has all these
features to help you manage the use of your phone line:

-   caller identification for each call received
-   attach a name and information screen to each number
-   records the date, time, and optionally the duration of each
    call
-   records the historical total number of calls for each number
-   call management in 10 groups, and 5 categories.
-   call management by time of day/week/year
-   answer management by redirection to 1 of 3 answering devices
-   on-line information editing
-   manual call re-direction for on-line changes
-   database merging and a complete caller database managing
    system
-   sysop selectable history logs in human readable format


ALL THOSE FEATURES ARE INTERESTING, BUT I HAVE CALLER-IDENT ROMS IN MY
MODEM SO WHY WOULD I WANT CALL SecurID?

Recently, a number of modem companies have been offering Caller Ident
ROM upgrades.  This is a good technology, and the popularity of the
upgrades indicates a willingness on the part of the consumer for the
type of information and security that Caller Ident provides.  Call
SecurID is superior to those modem upgrades in a number of areas:

1)  Call SecurID is an established product:  Call SecurID has been on
the market, installed and WORKING for over 18 months.  The design has
matured and expanded to incorporate features most demanded by the
Sysop community.

2)  Modem ROMs do not offer the flexibility of Call SecurID: While a
ROM upgrade may be cheaper, it does not off the range of options that
Call SecurID does.  The whole technology of caller ident in a modem is
developmental - Call SecurID is a proven technology that works TODAY.

3)  Security:  A ROM upgrade in your modem may give you the number of
the caller, but knowing that number doesn't do much good unless you
can act on the information.  Call SecurID allows you to set and
ENFORCE a security policy for your system.

FidoNews 10-02                 Page 11                     11 Jan 1993


4)  Switching:  Modems do not provide the ability to switch between
one of three output ports.  This is a very powerful feature of Call
SecurID that permits changing how you manage callers depending on the
day of the week and the time of the day.

5)  Interfaces:  Several interface options provide near universal
means to interface with BBS software or almost any other database type
software, voice mail and all popular BBS mailers.  A support echo in
FidoNet is available.

6)  Groups:  All callers are not equal.  There are family members,
workmates, BBS callers and telephone solicitors to suggest a few.
Call SecurID provides for 10 such groups that can be managed
differently.

7)  Power, speed, capacity:  The Call SecurID can run in Windows 3.1,
Desqview or DOS.  It can operate as a TSR activated system.  The
system makes full use of all the speed, storage capacity and
input/output provided by the PC.  The full power of the PC is used for
4 seconds when the phone first rings.  After that, the system goes
into idle until the next time the phone rings.


WHAT DO I NEED TO RUN CALL SecurID ?

Aside from the Call SecurID board and software, you will also need:

- A PC/MS-DOS type computer with an 8 or 16 bit expansion slot
 (286 or higher recommended)

- CGA, EGA, VGA, or Hercules display system

- A hard disk drive

- PC/MS-DOS 3.3 or higher  (DOS 5.0 recommended)

- A phone line with Call ID features activated by your telephone
  company.



SYSOP OFFER:

ICON CS Canada Inc. is offering the CallSecurId to non-commercial
sysops for $249 (Canadian) provided that they agree to post a notice
on their BBS and not sell the unit for one year.  Complete information
can be obtained by file requesting CSID (magic name) from 1:250/218 or
1:163/444.



FidoNews 10-02                 Page 12                     11 Jan 1993


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION :

         Internet:  cowan@cerianthus.pinetree.org
                    jacksch@insom.eastern.com


         Fidonet:   Darin Cowan, 1:163/444
                    Eric Jacksch, 1:250/218



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

Alan Gilbertson
1:3603/230

The following has no relation to any current events; none whatsoever.
It is quite unconnected to anything that is happening. Really. It
hasn't anything to do with me, either.  I just wrote it, and sent it
in -- nothing more, I swear.


         ACCEPTANCE SPEECH

      I am a bold ideologue;
      My companions are true blue.
      We will tell you how your life should run
      And what is good for you.

      And, as your Chosen Leader,
      I say: "New ideas are fine!"
      I shall follow every one of them
      So long as they are mine.

      In our Council, there are high ideals
      (We're truehearts, one and all).
      We would not have you hurt yourselves;
      We will not let you fall

      Into habits, dark and treacherous,
      Like listening to the voice
      Of your conscience should it murmur:
      "There may be another choice."

      No!  Choice is for the weakling!
      It is only loved by fools
      Who cannot take directions from
      Those who make the rules.

      But the throes of life are ugly;
      There are those who must insist
FidoNews 10-02                 Page 13                     11 Jan 1993


      On having feelings and ideas
      Of their own. They won't desist

      Even when it's been explained to them
      (In simple words, and few)
      The rigid line that they must toe;
      The strait to which they'll hew

      If they know what's good for them.
      (But, then, the problem here is clear:
      They DON'T know what is good for them,
      Else why would we be here?)

      Such wretched, mindless ingrates
      Never give a word of praise
      To we, who must take care of them
      From cradle to the grave.

      So we'll do their thinking for them
      And we'll see the mail gets through.
      But, by God, we won't let riff-raff
      Try to tell us what to do.

      And, as your Glorious Leader,
      I say: "New ideas are fine!"
      I shall follow every one of them
      So long as they are mine.

      Thank you.

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

Jay Stidolph
1:153/233@FIDO
                     An Open Letter to All:
                    From a 'Do Nothing Sysop!'
                     ======================

For Rick Richards and anyone still actually reading all of this...

        This is sort of an open letter, if you will, mainly for Rick
Richards, though he's already gotten a copy, but also for the rest of
you.
        To be perfectly honest with you all, this is the first time
I've ever decided to write to the FIDONews, but since everyone else
with a keyboard is, I figured what the heck!  Besides, Rick pegged me
pretty good when he put out his call to all the 'Do nothing Sysops out
there', so I'm standing up.

        When I think about what Fidonet has accomplished in it's time,
I am truly amazed that such a level of co-operation was ever
achievable for so long a time, as to actually create such a huge
network.  However, since I joined FIDO, I've also been amazed at how
fast the whole thing has degenerated into nothing more than pointing
fingers and calling each other names.

FidoNews 10-02                 Page 14                     11 Jan 1993


        Like you Rick, I don't really care who runs the whole thing,
rarely does any decision from that high up the chain really effect
myself or those around me.  Occasionally something will tick off the
people on our level, but usually we're quite content to be left alone.
  What's happened recently though is that those very few people, who
call all of the shots, have discovered a little power vacuum upstairs,
and they've decided to hold us all hostage with their endless rantings
about each other's crimes against Fido.  Ask the average Sysop what he
or she really thinks about their crisis, and you usually (at least
around these parts) get an answer like, "Who cares, I can't stand to
listen to all that whining anyhow....", or some other such apathetic
statement.
        Now you, Rick, speak of the Fido news and talk about the good
old days when the news was actually a pleasant experience to read, I
only wish that I'd been here to see it.  I'd much rather hear about
your daughter learning to use the computer for more than video games.
  I'd like to see more software updates talked about, hey, we might
even find that the 'Do Nothing Sysop's' that actually form the largest
group of Fido Sysop's might actually get involved again.  Let's face
it, Fido's not fun anymore if all anyone does is scream at everyone
else.  We're like the world's biggest dysfunctional family :)
        For what it's worth Rick, one of my nicest memories was
introducing my Girlfriend to Fido.  Ang has made many friends in lots
of different places and races.  She herself will tell you that it has
opened up a whole world of interests that she never knew existed, and
isn't that the point?  How often do you come across a snowbound Swede
in Texas?  I think we met one in the last Fido News, right?
        Since these personality conflicts appear so unavoidable, maybe
the time has come to create a second FIDO News, one designed strictly
for the RC's, NEC's, ZC's and whatever other combination of letters
you want to string together and call a position, to hold their
philisofical debates on the Evils of the Elite, or how all of us in
Zone 1 are cultural barbarians, and how this Sysop or that Sysop has
trampled the rights of everyone in their paths.  We could call it the
FIDONEGNews, and it could have nothing but the worst of Fido for those
few who apparently thrive upon that garbage.
        The other could FIDOPOSNews, for those of us who want to keep
this monster in it's place, as a hobby.  A way to have fun.  Something
we might enjoy.  What do you think, Rick, will the powers that be let
that small and apparently alien concept fly?  Or are we stuck
listening to the same old retoric forever (Or whenever we get so sick
of it we just give up, whichever comes first).

                                        Yours Hopefully,
                                          Jay Stidolph
                                           1:153/233




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

FidoNews 10-02                 Page 15                     11 Jan 1993


A Plea for a Common Sense Solution
By: Paul Harney @ 1:107/579
Dated: January 7th, 1993

Greetings Fellow Members of FidoNet,

Much screaming and kavetching has been done of late regarding the
election of a new Z1C.  Frankly I am not surprised.  I would have been
if there hadn't been.  That is to say, when electing individuals to
high office within an organization that has no clear set rules as to
how to go about doing so, yelling and screaming is to be expected.

What to do.  Well in one very humble man's opinion, first things
first.  We need a Z1C and Mr Peace is not sticking around.  He's made
that clear enough.  Let the RC's get the job done for now.  Fighting
the issue out with current policy limited to the "RC's select the ZC"
isn't going to solve much.

What next.  The obvious.  We need to address the issue where it
belongs.  In our charter.  The document governing the way we do
business here in FidoNet.  That means a rewrite of Policy 4.

Folks its finally time for P5, and I don't mean some new chip from the
folks at Intel.  We need to formally address the method for electing
our leaders.  We further need to have the grievance procedure, the
Policy Complaint, at least looked at.  We further need the document
acknowledge the *EC chain and their proper place in the FidoNet
hierarchy.

It wouldn't be bad if it were to address ECHOPOL issues, or at least
refer to the formation of such a document.  Echomail having, for
better or worse, become such a large part of FidoNet.

In short, get ourselves a Z1C to replace the one we are losing.  Then
a grass roots movement, at the SysOp level, to call for new policy and
have a say in writing it so we don't ever have to go though this
again.

One man's opinion.

Be well and pax,
Paul Harney
1:107/579 @FidoNet

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


by  Mike Mast - 1:270/415
    FidoNet, Elections, and Agreements


FidoNews 10-02                 Page 16                     11 Jan 1993


Hello FidoNews Readers!

There have been repeated articles regarding "democracy" within FidoNet
lately.  I don't intend to bore you with sensationalistic viewpoints
and "rally with us" themes.  These have been covered in depth by other
authors contributing to Fidonews.

This is the first time I've felt compelled to express a viewpoint in
this forum, so please bear with me.  I'd like to point out a couple of
facts, that I believe other Fidonews contributors have over looked.
Please evaluate them as you see fit.


Point 1:
--------
All sysops joining FidoNet must agree with POLICY4.

This sounds obvious, but to join this interesting group/organization
you have to analyze the policy statement.  You then decide whether the
organization is "for you" and "suits" you, before you join.

Point 2:
--------
FidoNet's policy, if you read it, clearly outlines a non-democratic
control structure.

Quotes from POLICY4.ARC:

"The Network Coordinator is appointed by the Regional Coordinator."
"Regional Coordinators are appointed by the Zone Coordinator." "Zone
Coordinators are selected by the Regional Coordinators in that zone."
"The International Coordinator is selected by the Zone Coordinators."



Point 3:
--------
Democratic nations, like the U.S., freely allow non- democratic
organizations to exist.  That's one beauty about democracy.  People
are free to chose and participate in such organizations.

There are thousands of organizations which are not truely democratic,
churches included.  That fact does not make the illegal, immoral or
otherwise wrong.  Members of them don't vote to change the basic
policies and beliefs of that institution, they embrace them, find an
organization which better aligns with their views, or create their own
organization.


Having stated these points, I'll offer the following for your
consideration:

FidoNews 10-02                 Page 17                     11 Jan 1993


Opinion 1:
----------
To those people who are really "upset" about how the ZC attains that
position, IT WAS IN THE POLICY YOU AGREED TO! I certainly don't
begrudge any of these people for wanting or requesting a change.  But,
some of the more "vocal" people have reduced themselves to sarcasm and
poison memos.  These few seem to believe they have a right to force
their "new views" upon an established organization.  I say "new
views", because these same people originally AGREED to this
organization's policy (or they just said that they agreed with it).

Opinion 2:
----------
To these vocal few that maintain a "I have a right to change any
organization" attitude, please consider a more positive approach to
your goals.  I for one, favor a more democratic system within FidoNet.
But consider that you have:
  a)  agreed to an organization's policy, which is not
      democratic
  b)  apparently have since changed your agreement
  c)  resorted to negative, "spear-throwing" at people
  d)  appeared to have thrown verbal temper tantrums, because
      you are not "getting your way"


Opinion 3:
----------
Please consider providing a positive and constructive alternative.
You agreed to not have a "say" in appointing the *C structure when you
joined this organization.  Spearhead and create an organization which
is fully to your wishes.  People will decide what organizations they
continue to support.  If FidoNet fails to meet people's needs/desires,
they can CHOOSE to make another "better" organization.

       THAT'S DEMOCRACY AND FREEDOM IN ACTION!


Opinion 4:
----------
Oh yes!  One other thing...  I have seen people making verbal attacks
on the current ZC.  I must say, if you had ever met this person, I
truely believe you would never have made such comments.  This man is
not just friendly and intelligent, but gives a great deal of his time
and resources to this hobby of ours.  I have not yet met another, that
does so much for FidoNet, for so little reward.

Have these people considered that the ZC is soley charged with
upholding POLICY4, and POLICY4 states the new ZC will be selected by
the RCs?  Maybe he did or didn't fully agree with that policy, but he
made a commitment to uphold it.  I wonder how these people fail to
respect a person that lives up to their commitments?

FidoNews 10-02                 Page 18                     11 Jan 1993


END OF ARTICLE - Replies welcome


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



I vote for Rich Wood, well, I would if I could!
==============================================
By Ron Dwight, ZC/2  (2:220/22)


             You have undoubtedly been reading about the "Rich Wood
for ZC/1" campaign which has been going on on zone 1 recently.  From
messages from zone 1 SysOps and from Rich himself, it appears that he
is more than qualified for the post of ZC/1, yet it also appears that
he will not even be allowed to stand for the post.  Let's look at a
little bit of the history of this subject...

...  In late august of 1992, the then ZC/1 started discussions
     concerning his replacement.

...  The rules concerning the selection of candidates for the ZC/1
     position were made up by the outgoing ZC/1.  Policy 4 was used as a
     basis for this decision.  Here's the reasoning:

a)  There is nothing in Policy which directly stipulates the ZC
    selection procedure.

b)  Policy offers no guide as to how candidates are selected or how the
    RCs are polled for their votes.

c)  No mention is made as to whether the process is open or closed.

d)  Elsewhere in policy is the section covering the IC selection, which
    states that the IC is selected "from amongst his peers."

e)  It states there that the IC must be a ZC.  This was interpreted to
    indicate that if the IC is selected from amongst the ZCs, the ZC
    should be selected from amongst the RCs.

              It would also seem logical that if this extrapolation
can be made, so can the one that insists that RCs can only be selected
from amongst the ranks of NCs.  The logic starts to get very "Chicken
and Egg" about this point and is perhaps best left to the philosphers.


NOTE:  It seems to ignore the fact that the current IC is NOT a ZC but
       that's another story!

       It should be noted that George Peace, although stating that
this was his INITIAL proposal for the ZC/1 election procedure, later
decided it was not as reasonable as he had originally believed.  He
has stated that he has tried, unsuccesfully, to convince the
collective RCs to open up the ZC/1 election, so don't blame George!

FidoNews 10-02                 Page 19                     11 Jan 1993


              Let's take a look at another zone, not the largest in
Fidonet, but significant nevertheless, I speak of the most diverse zone
in FidoNet, zone 2.

              Zone 2 has had 4 zone coordinators, from three people,
since zones were first dreamed up.  Three of those four ZC terms were
(are being) served by ELECTED ZCs.  The last three terms have been (are
being) served by people who were "simply" SysOps.  Not RCs or even ex-
RCs, in fact (horror of horrors) not even NCs! ! !

              The zone coordinator, in zone 2, is chosen from a list of
volunteers.  The ONLY qualifications for becoming a volunteer are:-

1)  The post of ZC is open.

2)  You are listed in the current zone 2 nodelist.

              You don't have to be "CM", you don't have to run an HST
modem and you don't have to have held office before, IN ANY CAPACITY
(apart from SysOp).  You DO have to convince the rest of the zone that
you are capable and willing to do the job.  Now, which system strikes
YOU as being the most reasonable?

              Ok, now having gone this far and stuck my nose in another
zone's affairs, while you are writing those red-hot flame replies and
telling me where to stick my opinions, here's how I think the ZC/1
election should be handled:

(So you thought I'd get into trouble with THAT, just watch this!)


1)  Select a returning officer.  This is a vote counter and should be
trustworthy and widely accepted.  (Take a bow Bob!)

2)  Announce, in a zone-wide SysOp conference and/or FidoNews, candidate
nominations.  Candidates should be nominated by anyone, including
themselves.  Any zone 1 SysOp can be a candidate.  Nomination period, 14
days.

3)  Publish the list of candidates and allow a 14 day platform
presentation period.  Presentations to be made in the zone wide SysOp
conference and/or FidoNews.  Limit of one presentation per candidate,
Questions and Answers only, following that.

4)  Voting period.  Voting is carried out by the RCs, according to
policy, but a period of 14 days is allowed for consultation with the
region and the votes should (must?) be cast in agreement with the
majority wishes of the SysOps in the region.

5)  At the end of the voting period, the results are published (votes +
passwords) with 7 days for discussion if any discrepancies are found.

FidoNews 10-02                 Page 20                     11 Jan 1993


              Now, it may be argued (and probably will be) that this
method of selection is not in accordance with policy either!  I agree,
but this is the method which has been used in zone 2 for the last three
ZC/2 elections and it has WORKED.  It is also a method which is
reasonable, open and acceptable to the vast majority.

              I guess I'll sit back now and wait for the deluge of hate-
mail to arrive from across the pond.  While I'm waiting, perhaps you'd
like to ponder this:-

1)  If I were a zone 1 SysOp I'd file a policy complaint for excessively
annoying behaviour against ANY RC who supported the (idiotic) notion
that only RCs or ex-RCs are capable of holding down the post of ZC/1.

2)  If I were a zone 1 SysOp I'd INSIST that ANY zone 1 SysOp be allowed
to stand for the vacant ZC/1 position.

3)  If I were a zone 1 SysOp, I'd nominate Rich Wood as a candidate for
ZC/1 and INSIST that my RC listen to the voice of the region's SysOps in
casting his own vote for ZC/1.

4)  If the above didn't happen, I'd work to kick the B********S out and
get people with more self-respect into office.


'Scuse me now, I think I see the first of today's hate-mail coming in.


Ron Dwight, Elected ZC/2, previously a SysOp.

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


by Glen Johnson 1:2605/269

Before I get into again, I just wanted to say bravo to Tom Jennings
for his last editorial. I for one, never thought that he was biased, I
always thought he just made sense.  But anyway, its been clear for
quite some time that Tom doesn't support the status quo, so I guess
he's made his point, and will now move on to editorializing about
OTHER STUFF.

Ok... here we go ...

In last week's SCHNOOZE, One Shawn K. Quinn decided to rise up from
the muck and mire and kick my butt. This is GOOD.  My intention has
always been to get people to pay attention to what's going on; you
don't necessarily have to agree with me.

Doesn't matter that his article was almost totally devoid of the
facts, and that he wasn't party to what was happening, so something as
inaccurate as what he wrote is to be expected, I suppose. That's ok,
Shawn, I won't hold it against you. Better that he said SOMETHING than
nothing at all, I say.

FidoNews 10-02                 Page 21                     11 Jan 1993


Another article basically supported what I've been spouting for the
last 4 years, but the author wasn't too impressed with my delivery.
Well, that's ok too. Can't please EVERYBODY! Boy would I be boring if
I did...

But let's not forget the crux of the biscuit. That being that every
sysop in Fidonet should have the right to run for ZC, and have the
right to VOTE for ZC. *WE* make this hobby exist, and WE didn't grant
anyone the right to run our hobby FOR us, while making up rules to
keep us OUT of the process. Let those people go form their own
network; all coordinators, no sysops.  Then let them claw each other
to death and have gang wars over electronic turf.

Rich Wood has the support of over a hundred sysops in Region 13 ALONE.
Maybe because if we let grunt sysops (like Rich) RUN, and let grunt
sysops (like Rich, like you, like the node next door) VOTE, we just
MIGHT elect one of our own! We just MIGHT vote for someone OTHER than
a professional Fidopolitician. We just MIGHT take the network where WE
want it to go. Boy, that sure would spoil the power freak party,
wouldn't it? And methinks THAT'S why such a radical idea like letting
SYSOPS HAVE A SAY, will be fought against bitterly.

Thanks for all the letters, folks, keep 'em coming. I'll address
future ones here. And don't forget to write to your own RC, write to
your NC, the IC, and post in the echos. Speak UP! *OPEN YOUR MOUTHS* .
Remember, the squeaky wheel gets the grease.  Say I WANNA VOTE!!! And
KEEP saying it until you GET a vote.

Cheers!

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


by Alisanne Fleitman
(FidoNet 1:2605/709  ADANet 94:9080/1  GlobalNet 51:1100/7)

ZEC Dispute Shows Flaws in Echo System

I realize a lot of you are getting very bored by the ongoing dispute
regarding the ZEC echo rulers and Nets 2604/5/6.  But I think that
being in Fidonet for only six months gives me a somewhat different
view of the situation.  The facts from my vantage point are as
follows:  There was a topic being discussed in ZEC about the Z1C
election controversy.  At the same time the Temporary-Co-Moderator was
participating in that thread he posted a message saying it was
off-topic. Then he got mad and soon ended up cutting off 88+ nodes to
cut two of the individuals who participated in that same thread.  One
got fewer netmail warnings than required by the rules and the other
got none.

I am one of the bystanders who got cut. I had been minding my own
business trying to find out what the ZEC echo was about (to which I
was connected for about a week) when it was gone. I didn't do anything
and have received no notification or apology for the disruption.

FidoNews 10-02                 Page 22                     11 Jan 1993


Anyway, the point I want to make is that this situation only brings
attention to the fact that there is a vital flaw in the system.  When
a non-Elisted person temporarily replacing a non-Elisted Co-moderator
can get away with violating their own echo rules and demanding links
to be cut while refusing to produce any justification or proof that he
has the authority to demand such severe actions - there is a flaw in
the system.

What does a poster do when they believe they have been treated
unfairly.  Appeal?  To whom?  There is no appeal possible beyond the
Moderator.  Both of the two individuals in this case have made what
appeal they are permitted.  From what I understand, the first, Glen
Johnson, has received a 3-6 month ban from ZEC for a first-offense of
posting an off-topic message.  The rules call for a minimum of 3
WEEKS.  He can get back in if he apologizes and swears allegiance to
BOP and ZEC.RUI. Why so severe?  The word is she didn't like his
article here in FidoNews! The second hasn't been able to get the
now-returned Co-Moderator (who is now Elisted) to hear his appeal.  I
have heard that she keeps insisting that he prove that he never
received the required netmail warnings.

This entire fiasco shows that there should be rules of conduct for
moderators that stand above the rules for each echo.  Not only that,
but there must be a means of appealing the decision of a moderator to
someone other than the moderator.  Reasonable moderators should have
no fears about such rules because they would not violate them.  It is
ego hungry people who need to have some private fiefdom to rule that
will object to this.  How can anyone expect a reasonable appeal to the
decision of an unreasonable Moderator when you have nowhere else to
send the appeal?

This situation is more than just a dispute between the immediate four
persons involved.  It could happen to ANYONE who angers an
unreasonable Moderator.  To prevent future disputes like this from
happening, rules and regulations need to be approved and put into
place that will give moderators rules to govern their behavior and
give posters a means to appeal the moderator's rulings.


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


by Rick Moen, 1:125/27
No, Virginia, There Is No Z1C Restriction

Imagine that!  I'm not Bob Satti, Tim Pearson, George Peace, Glen
Johnson, Rich Woods, Bob Moravsik, Marge Robbins, OR John Souvestre,
and yet I'm submitting a piece for Snooze about the Z1C election.
Now, why would I do such a silly thing?

I'm not out to call anybody names, hint at a dark FidoGod conspiracy,
push any ideology, or rant against anything.  I consider all of the
above-named people to be valuable, selfless volunteers, assets to this
hobby, and for that reason admire them all.  So why?

FidoNews 10-02                 Page 23                     11 Jan 1993


As good old Lieutenant Columbo always says, "There's just one thing
that keeps bothering me." In my case, it's outgoing Z1C George Peace's
edict that only current and former RCs are eligible to fill the
vacancy he left.

God only knows why, but I've spent time reading Policy4 carefully, and
it seems to me that George violated one of its fundamentals. "Oh no,"
you say, "another Policy jock trying to badger and manipulate sysops,
or else another democracy-or-bust type."  Not so -- relax.

Policy4 tries to render into nuts-and-bolts guidelines the
common-sense idea that a Z1C should be someone competent to ensure an
entire zone's smooth operation and maintain/send out its nodelist,
among other things.  So, he or she is chosen by an absolute majority
of RCs, probably the folks best able to judge who's fit for the task.

Now, George probably figured that only present or former RCs can do
the job, and he may be right.  The problem is that it's not his
decision:  It's entirely the RCs' choice, and if they DO want to
consider somebody else, he quite simply has zero authority to say no!

You see, there's a fundamental provision in Policy4 (sect. 1.2) that
NO extra restrictions, beyond those in P4, may be placed on sysops
(other than local mail periods), except by properly ratifying a patch
or add-on to it.  Telling sysops they can't run for ZC is exactly such
a restriction, and so is VOID.  George just can't do that.

What this means is that the RCs are free to choose whomever they think
fit, including but not limited to Rich Woods.  So, remind your RCs (if
you're Canadian or Yank) that they can pick whomever they damned well
please.  I certainly will.  Also, if YOU'D like to be Z1C, let your RC
know that, too.

Why should you care?  For one thing, volunteer efforts like FidoNet
continually need "new blood", or they die when the regulars burn out
from overwork and under-appreciation.  Letting RCs know about
activists, whether they become ZC immediately or not, widens the pool
of talent for the future.  For another, whatever you think of Policy
4 (and I dislike it, myself), it's a bad idea for our top
administrators to ignore the provisions they were picked specifically
to oversee.

I mean no criticism of George, whom I admire, who has worked very hard
for FidoNet, and who I imagine was just exercising his best judgement
for the network's benefit.  I'm talking only about that one RULING,
which was outside his authority and so has no force -- and so am
suggesting only that no one need be restricted by it.  Far from being
any cause for anger and recriminations, this just means that the pool
of "possibles" is far larger than we've been told, and I am -- purely
and simply -- advising both RCs and Z1C hopefuls to bear that in mind.

FidoNews 10-02                 Page 24                     11 Jan 1993


Now, that wasn't so painful, was it?


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


by Glen Johnson 1:2605/269

The AMATEUR_RADIO conference, distributed privately at the moment has
requested to be added to the backbone. If you're interested in amateur
radio, get in touch with your NEC and ask him/her to request it from
his REC.

The conference covers all facets of amateur radio, modes of operation,
packet, RTTY, AMTOR, SSB, whatever. Radio related for sale/want ads
are also welcome. New codeless Technician class licensees and persons
interested in becoming licensed are particularly welcome and
encouraged to pick up the conference! Citizen Band radio issues are
not covered however.

Join the fun, tell your NEC to request AMATEUR_RADIO from your REC
today! In the meantime, you can netmail 1:2605/269 for a direct link.
Ham it up!

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


An Invitation to Visit The In_Country Echo

Lefty Frizzell
Fidonet Node 106/449

We would like to take this opportunity to invite Desert Storm and any
other veteran holding a campaign ribbon to visit the In_Country Echo.
This echo is for veterans of any war, any conflict, any service and any
country.  We hope to be able to contact others whose experiences are
common to ours, but possibly from the otherside's viewpoint.  We are
all proud of our combat service and realize that it places us apart
from servicemen that may have served during our era; but whom may
have not earned a campaign ribbon.

We hope to make it a place that Combat Veterans can meet and maintain
that comeraderie that may be missing in civilian or military life.
Basically, to give us all a place where we can come to talk to people
that 95% of the time are going to understand exactly what we are trying
to say.  A place that is for the Combat Vet, not for his sister.

The Echo is moderated by Lefty Frizzell and Scott Summers.  Both of us
are veterans of the Vietnam Conflict.  Scott is one of the founders of
the Houston Foundation for Vietnam Veterans.  His son is a Saudi
veteran...a fact that Scott is doubly proud of.

FidoNews 10-02                 Page 25                     11 Jan 1993


The echo has been available regionally for quite awhile and on the back
bone for 9 months.  Come join us and talk over old times.  We may not
have all the answers to your problems either personal or with the VA.
However, we may know someone that does.

The echo is sponsored by the Houston Foundation for Vietnam Veterans in
Houston, Texas.  They have helped many veterans since their inception.
They may be able to help you if you have a problem.

Anyhow, welcome home guys.  Hope to see you In_Country.


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


By Chip Morrow - 1:226/1240, 1241

                        MAIL MANAGER +PLUS+
             A QWK mail door for RBBS-PC & Fido *.MSG
                      v3.00 - Released 1/6/93

MMGR for RBBS-PC has been around in some form or another since early
'91.  v3.00 is the first major update of the door since August '92.
Written specifically for RBBS-PC, it can also handle Fido-style *.MSG
areas, and can also run in a non-RBBS-PC environment with a proper
conversion utility.

The door is capable of BPS rates to 115K, and has a long list of
features.  Some of the more important supported stuff:

  o  Com ports 1-4
  o  Non-standard port configurations
  o  FOSSIL drivers
  o  DESQview
  o  NetBIOS networks (including Novell)
  o  Up to 36 nodes in a single configuration
  o  QWK networking
  o  Online read/reply/post from within the door, as well as offline
     message handling via QWK/REP
  o  Up to 1,000 messages in any one mail packet
  o  Up to 500 conferences in a single configuration
  o  Support for the recent release of RBBS-PC 17.4
  o  *FAST* message extracting in RBBS-PC message areas

  o  Fido *.MSG netmail areas
  o  CRASH outbound file attach/request capabilities
  o  Multiple zones (Othernets)
  o  AKA addresses for netmail

The door carries a $25-30 Shareware registration fee for continued
use.  File requestable under the magic name "PLUS", or under the
exact filename "MPLUS300.ZIP" (about 362K) from either of the
following nodes:
FidoNews 10-02                 Page 26                     11 Jan 1993


    1:226/1240 v.32bis
    1:226/1241 HST

A FREE version of the door (for RBBS-PC *M.DEF message areas only,
and carrying a much smaller feature list) is also available from the
above nodes under the magic name "MAILMGR", or the exact filename
MMGR135.ZIP.  This version won't tax your connect time quite as
much; about 191K.

Both doors are also available on Compuserve in the IBMBBS forum, in
library 3, as MM135.ZIP and MM300.ZIP.  I can be reached there via
EasyPlex as Chip Morrow, at 72677,502.


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


By Brian Murrey 1:231/30

A new echo has been started to aid in the distribution of information
relating to genealogists with midwest roots and queries.

Cyndi Pote of 1:231/30 will be the moderator, and you can obtain a
feed from 1:231/30 by addressing your request to Brian Murrey.  Cyndi
Pote is an expert in the field of genealogy research and many of you
already know her from the GENEALOGY echo.  This echo has been
submitted to the the ELIST and we have requested that the REC11 and
RHUB11 carry this echo.  We hope to have this echo on the backbone
within a few weeks.

I will supply feeds to any North American node that requests it until
we get this echo on the backbone.


AREA   MW_GENE
TITLE  Midwest Genealogy Conference
DESC   This conference is for the distribution of Mid Western
       Genealogical information.  This echo will cover what is now
       known as Region 11 of the Fidonet.  This includes IN, IL, OH
       KY, MI, and WI.  This echo will debut in January of 1993 and
       is moderated by Cyndi Pote, an expert in genealogy research.
       Contact Brian Murrey at 1:231/30 for a feed. This echo
       should be available on the REG 11 REC system by the time you
       read this in the Elist.  Ask your REC for a feed, this
       should become a backbone echo soon.
DIST   FIDONET-MIDWEST, REGION 11, 231/30
MOD    Cyndi Pote 1:231/30.0

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

FidoNews 10-02                 Page 27                     11 Jan 1993


======================================================================
                         FIDONEWS INFORMATION
======================================================================

------- FIDONEWS MASTHEAD AND CONTACT INFORMATION ----------------

Editors: Tom Jennings, Tim Pozar
Editors Emeritii: Thom Henderson, Dale Lovell, Vince Perriello

IMPORTANT NOTE: The FidoNet address of the FidoNews BBS has been
changed!!! Please make a note of this.

"FidoNews" BBS
    FidoNet  1:1/23                     <---- NEW ADDRESS!!!!
    Internet  fidonews@fidosw.fidonet.org
    BBS  +1-415-863-2739,  300/1200/2400/16800/V.32bis/Zyxel

(Postal Service mailing address) (have extreme patience)
    FidoNews
    c/o World Power Systems             <---- don't forget this
    Box 77731
    San Francisco
    CA 94107 USA

Published weekly by and for the members of the FidoNet international
amateur electronic mail system. It is a compilation of individual
articles contributed by their authors or their authorized agents. The
contribution of articles to this compilation does not diminish the
rights of the authors. Opinions expressed in these articles are those
of the authors and not necessarily those of FidoNews.

Authors retain copyright on individual works; otherwise FidoNews is
copyright 1992 Tom Jennings. All rights reserved.  Duplication and/or
distribution permitted for noncommercial purposes only. For use in
other circumstances, please contact the original authors, or FidoNews
(we're easy).


OBTAINING COPIES: The-most-recent-issue-ONLY of FidoNews in electronic
form may be obtained from the FidoNews BBS via manual download or
Wazoo FileRequest, or from various sites in the FidoNet and Internet.
PRINTED COPIES may be obtained from Fido Software for $10.00US each
PostPaid First Class within North America, or $13.00US elsewhere,
mailed Air Mail. (US funds drawn upon a US bank only.)

BACK ISSUES: Available from FidoNet nodes 1:102/138, 1:216/21,
1:125/1212, 1:107/519.1 (and probably others), via filerequest or
download (consult a recent nodelist for phone numbers).

A very nice index to the Tables of Contents to all FidoNews volumes
can be filerequested from 1:396/1 or 1:216/21. The name(s) to request
are FNEWSxTC.ZIP, where 'x' is the volume number; 1=1984, 2=1985...
through 8=1991.

FidoNews 10-02                 Page 28                     11 Jan 1993


INTERNET USERS: FidoNews is available via FTP from ftp.ieee.org, in
directory ~ftp/pub/fidonet/fidonews. If you have questions regarding
FidoNet, please direct them to deitch@gisatl.fidonet.org, not the
FidoNews BBS. (Be kind and patient; David Deitch is generously
volunteering to handle FidoNet/Internet questions.)

SUBMISSIONS: You are encouraged to submit articles for publication in
FidoNews. Article submission requirements are contained in the file
ARTSPEC.DOC, available from the FidoNews BBS, or Wazoo filerequestable
from 1:1/23 as file "ARTSPEC.DOC". Please read it.



"Fido", "FidoNet" and the dog-with-diskette are U.S. registered
trademarks of Tom Jennings, Box 77731, San Francisco CA 94107, USA and
are used with permission.



    Asked what he thought of Western civilization,
    M.K. Gandhi said, "I think it would be an excellent idea".

-- END

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

---
Remember Campers!!!

To send mail from an Internet site or smart UUCP Site TO a user 
            	  that calls a Fido-Net system.

  You need to know the name of the person and node number of the 
  Fido-Net system that the person uses.
     
  The address of a FidoNode looks like this: 1:105/302.0. Usually
  the 1: and .0 are left off, but they are there by default. (In
  Europe it is 2: and in the Pacific Basin it is 3:.) That
  address can be translated as "Zone 1, Net 105, FidoNode 302,
  Point 0." or p0.f302.n105.z1. Add the FidoNet domain of
  .fidonet.org to the end of that, chop off the p0 (it is again,
  a default) and you have f302.n105.z1.fidonet.org - the "Fully
  Qualified Domain Name" of a FidoNode. Another example is
  1:105/4.3 which would be written as p3.f4.n105.z1.fidonet.org
  (since there is a point number other than 0, we have to specify
  it). Note also that we are only using zone 1.  This will also
  work for zones 2 and 3, just use z2 or z3 as appropriate.

  FidoNet uses full names of the callers.  Multi-part name folks
  (eg. First Last, ie. "Dale Weber") will have a period '.'
  seperating their names.  So, lets say you wanted to send mail 
  to Dale Weber at 1:105/55.0, you would address your letter to:
        Dale.Weber@f55.n105.z1.fidonet.org.

************************************************************************
	 Submissions to comp.org.fidonet should be addressed to 
			   pozar@kumr.lns.com
************************************************************************


-- 
    Internet: pozar@kumr.lns.com     FidoNet: Tim Pozar @ 1:125/555
Snail: Tim Pozar / KKSF / 77 Maiden Lane / San Francisco CA 94108 / USA
                        Voice: +1 415 788 2022