F I D O N E W S -- Vol.10 No.10 (07-Mar-1992) ----------------------------+----------------------------------------- A newsletter of the | FidoNet BBS community | Published by: _ | / \ | "FidoNews" BBS /|oo \ | +1-519-570-4176 (_| /_) | NEW!--> 1:1/23@FidoNet _`@/_ \ _ | | | \ \\ | Editors: | (*) | \ )) | Sylvia Maxwell |__U__| / \// | Donald Tees _//|| _\ / | 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 * * * * Internet addresses: * * * * Sylvia -- max@exlibris.tdkcs.waterloo.on.ca * * Donald -- donald@exlibris.tdkcs.waterloo.on.ca * * Tim -- pozar@kumr.lns.com * * Both Don & Sylvia (submission address) * * editor@exlibris.tdkcs.waterloo.on.ca * * * ********************************************************************** 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..................................................... 2 2. Articles...................................................... 2 Vervans Gaming Network...................................... 2 Performance Test: Zyxel 1496E vs. USR Courier............... 4 RE: The Caller-ID Question.................................. 8 Interfacing FidoNet with the Internet....................... 9 Another reply to "The Youth of FidoNet"..................... 11 3. Fidonews Information.......................................... 12 FidoNews 10-10 Page: 2 07 Mar 1992 ======================================================================== Editorial ======================================================================== Hello World. Brand new green editors here. No editorial policy at all... just anarchy. I used to have a dream about how network communications would free people from visually, geographically and aurally enforced stereotypes like age, gender, nationality, class... but upon reflection of mail this dream seems tame and lame. The image of "everyone in the room, more or less armed to the teeth, and no casualties" (thank you Tom Jennings) seems more generative and fun. Electronic word travel enables a grand experiment in reductio ad absurdum of normal human contact that might fly anywhere willed by any one of us. It has been a hectic week. Getting software to generate the news set up, arranging passwords and paths for distribution, and setting up an internet gateway so that we can get flames from all directions. I think that everything is ready to go, but will apologize in advance for the inevitable teething pains. Please note the new addresses. Last but not least, we would like to thank Tom Jennings for his immense contribution to this medium, and say "well done". We hope, Tom, that we will be seeing contributions in the future (after a well deserved rest, of course ). ======================================================================== Articles ======================================================================== Vervans Gaming Network Vervans Gaming Network by Rob "Lord" Richter, 1:292/49 I have been an avid RPG gamer for many years, a lot longer than I have been a Sysop. When I set up my BBS, back before Fidonet even offered echomail, I set it up as a haven for the local gamers, complete with a fantasy atmosphere. A local scope for gaming, especially in a medium sized city like Cedar Rapids, Iowa, is very limiting. I did the best I could, and ran one of the more popular boards in the area. It was not enough. Fidonet offered me the expansion I was looking for. It has since offered me the AD&D echo, which provides for echomail gaming, and RECFRP and DND for discussions. This satisfied me for quite a while, but there were still problems. The AD&D echo is just too crowded. There is too large of a line waiting to play and run games and discussions in the echo get lost amongst all the noise. RECFRP, a much more reasonable echo, doesn't allow gaming, and neither does DND. Clearly, these were not the answers I was looking for. FidoNews 10-10 Page: 3 07 Mar 1992 It was about that time that I first heard about Vervans Gaming Network. It was in its infancy and terribly disorganized but it offered a hint at what I was looking for. V-NET had one favorable feature. It assigned each game to its own echo, eliminating the clutter that disgusted me with the AD&D echo. However, I was unable to join at this time because, as a poor college student, I could not afford the long distance charges to connect with it. When I was finally able to get back to them, they were a going concern, still perserving the idea of keeping the number of games per echo low enough to prevent clutter. I've been with V-Net for 2 years now, and I can't help but wonder if there aren't other Sysops running RPG boards, or RPG sections, that are looking for something a little more serious than the AD&D echo in Fidonet. This thought has prompted me to write this article. YES! There is life beyond the AD&D echo! Vervans Gaming Network offers echos for playing and discussing many of the major RPG games, including AD&D, GURPS, and more. There have been games of Chess, Traveller, Ars Magica, Vampire, Shadow Run, Car Wars, Hero, BattleTech, Star Trek, and Twilight: 2000. Naturally, this is not a list of every game system that has seen V-Net, just the major ones that I can remember of the top of my head! There are echos where gamers can gather and discuss gaming, game masters can gather and discuss running games, and game designers can gather and discuss rules systems. If you are a gamer running a BBS, or a sysop who has a gaming section or would like to start one, this network is the network for you! You can do exactly like I do and offer the Fidonet gaming echos as a supplement to the V-NET echos! For an information packet and membership kit, you can request VNETKIT from my BBS. I'd be more than happy to answer any questions you might have if you drop me a netmail message! Rob Richter V-NET Region 355 Coordinator (IL, IN, WI, IA, MN, MI, OH) The North Castle BBS Fidonet 1:292/49 You can also contact the following people for additional information regarding membership or the location of the nearest V-NET node to you: 45:45/0 JOHN BOYDSTON - V-NET IC E-SPACE BBS 1-601-226-2066 FIDONET: 1:361/302 45:45/500 TERRY MARRS - V-NET GAMING COORDINATOR OFF-ROAD BBS 1-918-445-0454 FIDONET: 1:170/203 46:46/0 VESA PAJULA - V-NET EUROPE PAJUBOX SUPERBBS 358-0-367462 FIDONET: 2:220/290 FidoNews 10-10 Page: 4 07 Mar 1992 Performance Test: Zyxel 1496E vs. USR Courier Performance Test: Zyxel 1496E vs. USR Courier by Tim Pozar FidoNet: 1:125/555 Internet: pozar@kumr.lns.com Tom Jennings wrote an excellent article describing modem throughput and turnaround time for the Zyxel 1496E modem and some background on why these tests are important for those (of us) using v.32bis/v.42bis modems for SLIP connections. I will not go over the needs here, but I will compare his results for the Zyxel 1496E with a USRobotics Courier v.32bis modem. I approached USR asking if they would like to participate in a comparison modem evaluation test with a number of other manufactures. The Zyxel was first modem of the series, and the USR is the second. We have a couple of other manufactures lending us their modems, and in fact, the next one will will look at will be the MultTech MultiModem II. In this test of the Courier we used the same test equipment and software. Tom has created some great modem thrashing and reporting software in his FidoTerm terminal program. TEST #1: direct modem-to-modem, unidirectional pure ASCII. DTE speed locked at 57600 baud. This is the Courier's performance for a short, repeated string of ascii going one direction only. The serial ports were locked at 57,600Kb/s. +MODE: Receive-only +DURATION: 60:00 +LOG INTERVAL: 5:00 ---------- Errors ----------- Time Bits Rec'd Bits Blocks Seconds Resyncs =15:03:50 0 0 0 0:00 0 =15:08:56 12,454,664 0 0 0:00 0 =15:14:00 24,916,728 0 0 0:00 0 =15:19:06 37,382,704 0 0 0:00 0 ... =15:54:42 124,625,000 0 0 0:00 0 =15:59:46 137,087,280 0 0 0:00 0 -16:03:50 146,981,648 0 0 0:00 0 -END: 16:03:50 -RECEIVE BYTES/SEC: 5103 -BER: <1.00*10E-07 Compared to the Zyxel we were able to obtain a little more than 1KBytes better throughput with the USR. +MODE: Receive-only +DURATION: 60:10 +LOG INTERVAL: 5:00 ---------- Errors ----------- FidoNews 10-10 Page: 5 07 Mar 1992 Time Bits Rec'd Bits Blocks Seconds Resyncs =13:34:22 0 0 0 0:00 0 =13:39:26 12,369,312 0 0 0:00 0 =13:44:30 24,722,112 0 0 0:00 0 =13:49:36 37,150,616 0 0 0:00 0 ... =14:25:12 123,967,184 0 0 0:00 0 =14:30:16 136,319,880 0 0 0:00 0 -14:34:30 146,231,616 0 0 0:00 0 -END: 14:34:30 -RECEIVE BYTES/SEC: 4051 -BER: 1.00*10E-07 To repeat the disclaimer that Tom used in his article: This is NOT a real-life test; you will probably not get this downloading even a pure text file; telephone lines were not used. The modems were connected together with an RJ-11 cord, one was commanded "ATA" and the other "ATO". This is "flat out downhill with the wind"; you can however use it as a relative measure of telephone line quality. Tom noticed a drop of about 5 percent of the throughput when using real-live phone lines. TEST #2: BI-DIRECTIONAL PLAIN ASCII THROUGHPUT Dialup, bi-directional pure ASCII. DTE speed locked at 57600 baud. Courier: +MODE: Bi-directional +LOG INTERVAL: 5:00 ---------- Errored ---------- Time Sent Rec'd Bits Blocks Seconds Resyncs =21:14:16 184 0 0 0 0:00 0 =21:19:22 3,555,616 12,444,968 0 0 0:00 0 =21:24:26 7,090,808 24,910,384 0 0 0:00 0 =21:29:32 10,618,456 37,376,784 0 0 0:00 0 ... =22:00:02 31,801,456 112,168,720 0 0 0:00 0 =22:05:08 35,329,840 124,633,416 0 0 0:00 0 =22:10:12 38,860,064 137,095,416 0 0 0:00 0 -22:14:16 41,703,600 147,053,656 0 0 0:00 0 -END: 22:14:16 -REASON: NORMAL -DURATION: 60:00 -SEND BYTES/SEC: 1447 -RECEIVE BYTES/SEC: 5106 -BER: <1.00*10E-07 Zyxel: +MODE: Bi-directional +LOG INTERVAL: 3:00 ---------- Errors ----------- Time Bits Sent Bits Rec'd Bits Blocks Seconds Resyncs =20:47:54 184 3752 0 0 0:00 0 FidoNews 10-10 Page: 6 07 Mar 1992 =20:50:56 6,326,840 5,877,464 0 0 0:00 0 =20:54:00 12,512,552 12,095,040 0 0 0:00 0 =20:57:04 18,850,984 17,760,856 0 0 0:00 0 =21:00:10 25,479,032 22,622,432 0 0 0:00 0 ... =21:21:46 70,366,384 59,473,344 0 0 0:00 0 =21:23:58 OPERATOR INTERRUPTION START =21:23:58 OPERATOR INTERRUPTION END =21:25:00 76,999,584 60,747,280 23 1 0:01 1 -21:26:50 80,421,800 60,922,264 23 1 0:01 1 -END: 21:26:50 -REASON: OPERATOR ABORT -DURATION: 38:56 -SEND BYTES/SEC: 3443 -RECEIVE BYTES/SEC: 2608 -BER: 3.77*10E-07 We ended up not having quite the horsepower on the machines we were using to keep up with the modems. Servicing serial port interrupts can be a bit of a task for PC clones even with 16550 UARTS. This is why the Send Bytes per second is about 1447. The computer had such a hard time keeping up with getting the data off of the modem that it had little time to shove data back down the line. I was more curious on if the flooding the opposite direction would affect the performance of the other. I was able to get 5103 Bytes/Sec from the Unidirectional path and with data flowing bidirectionally, about 5106. I am assuming that this 3Bytes/Sec is showing more of the errors in the calculations. But it does show that the performance is not degraded. In fact, again we were able to get better performance than the Zyxel. TEST #3: Dialup, ZMODEM file transfer. DTE locked at 56700 baud. direct modem to mode at 57600 pre-compressed NODELIST file Courier: +FidoTerm file transfer started on +21 Feb 93 +14:07:04 File #001: C:FOO.1, 641,304 bytes, Zmodem -14:13:40 File complete (6:37, 1615 bytes/sec) Zyxel: +17:52:12 File #001: TESTFILE.1, 641,304 bytes, Zmodem -17:57:40 File complete (5:34, 1920 bytes/sec) +17:57:42 File #002: TESTFILE.1, 641,304 bytes, Zmodem -18:03:12 File complete (11:05, 1928 bytes/sec) Again, this was the same equipment and data. The files used for testing was NODELIST.015, a recent FidoNet nodelist, pre-compressed with LHARC 2.12, to somewhat foil V.42bis compression. It seems that the Courier can process and pump compressible data better than the Zyxel, but already compressed files, the Zyxel can do about 300 bytes/sec better performance. FidoNews 10-10 Page: 7 07 Mar 1992 TEST #4: TURNAROUND TIME TESTS This shows off how fast the modems can turn the link around. The test gives turnaround latency, i.e.. out and back, the latency times are for two modems in series. This test would be of particular interest to those that use modems in "ACKed" protocols like xmodem and SLIP. +14:19:04 File #001: C:FOO.1, Xmodem/CRC [641,304 bytes] -14:36:08 File complete (17:05, 625 bytes/sec) RESULTS: XMODEM ZMODEM difference bytes 641,304 641,304 secs 1025 397 628 blocks 5011 na 628 / 5011 = 125.3 mS/block TAT Zyxel: +17:38:58 File #001: TESTFILE.1, Xmodem/CRC [641,304 bytes] -17:58:10 File complete (19:13, 556 bytes/sec) +17:52:12 File #001: TESTFILE.1, 641,304 bytes, Zmodem -17:57:40 File complete (5:34, 1920 bytes/sec) The difference in time between these two is the turnaround latency. With 5011 blocks sent we can easily calculate the latency per block (remember two turnarounds per block): RESULTS: XMODEM ZMODEM difference bytes 641,304 641,304 secs 1153 334 819 blocks 5011 na 819 / 5011 = 163 mS/block TAT 19:13 - 05:34 = 13:39 time difference 5011 / 13:39 = .163 sec/block turnaround time Another surprise. The Courier could turn around packets by a little less than 40mS or 23 percent faster. Looking quickly over the data, it seems that the Couriers are better at text compression and turnaround time, but for compressed data with a ACKless protocol, the Zyxel seems win. If you are pushing compressed conferences around via Zmodem on FidoNet, I would look hard at the Zyxel 1496E modems. If you are installing SLIP connections and expect to be using it for interactive sessions like Telnet or shoving lots of uncompressed conferences via NNTP, I would plug the USR Courier in. Next time, MultiTech's MultiModem II... FidoNews 10-10 Page: 8 07 Mar 1992 RE: The Caller-ID Question. From: anton@hydra.unm.edu (Stanton McCandlish) Last FNews, an article appeared defending caller ID, and the practice of refusing calls that do not hand over the callers' phone numbers. I would like to respond with some criticism. Of course you are not obligated to accept ANY calls. No law says you have to. However, many people, myself included, got caller ID blocking the instant it became available, mostly because IT IS NO ONE'S BUSINESS WHAT THE HELL OUR PHONE NUMBER IS. If you need it, and we want to give it to you then you will get it. That is what the login questions asking for phone numbers are for. The idea that caller ID is necessary for a board's security is ludicrous. A much simpler, and cheaper, solution is to install a call-back door. If the phone number you are given is bogus, fine delete the user. Is this so difficult? I would also like to point out that, in my area at least, caller ID blocking cannot be turned on and off at whim as call waiting can. It is all or nothing. SO basically, you are demanding that users either stay the hell away, or that they give their phone number out to any place they happen to call, including places that may well put the phone number on mailing lists, and otherwise misuse it (this is the whole idea behind caller ID blocking in the first place.) If you wish to lose users, go right ahead. *I* certainly won't be calling your board! One final point, there has been some discussion of the "legality" of doing what you do, as far as Fido policy goes. If your refusal to take calls that do not bow down to your caller ID demand causes a mail transfer to fail, then guess what? It seems you are in violation of policy (particularly the part stating that you are not to incurr costs to other members; by answering the phone, then rejecting the call when no caller ID is forthcoming, you are wasting the caller's money). I would suggest holding off on caller ID, until a nodelist flag for it has been defined, and implemented by the major Fido mailers (FD, D'Bridge and Binkley at very least.) One other thing: You do not have a "right" to know who is calling. At least I have seen no such thing in the Bill of Rights, although there is that on part about the right to PRIVACY now isn't there? FidoNews 10-10 Page: 9 07 Mar 1992 Interfacing FidoNet with the Internet by Gavin Hurlbut Interfacing FidoNet with the Internet As a former sysop of a FidoNet BBS, I have followed as closely as possible the debates regarding a new nodelist format. In a recent FidoNews (last week, or the week before, I've forgotten which), there was a proposal to create Domain Name Servers (or DNS's) for FidoNet. I would like to bring forward my thoughts on the matter. 1: Ease of FidoNet <==> Internet mail gating If a DNS system were put in place, the problem of how to send mail between FidoNet and the Internet would be somewhat solved. At the moment, to send mail through the gateway, it requires a fair amount of inside knowledge (freely available to all those who REALLY search). To send mail from my account here at the University of Waterloo to my account on a local FidoNet BBS (Plexnet Systems, 1:221/210), I would have to send the article to Gavin.Hurlbut@f210.n221.z1.fidonet.org This really poses no problem for me other than having to remember a cryptic node number. However for me to send mail BACK to the WatStar system, I would have to follow this procedure: Send mail To: UUCP at 1:1/31 (fidonet.org) or another UFGATE site with the first line being To: gjhurlbut@1302.watstar.uwaterloo.ca with the message following. Many Fido Sysops (and other users with netmail access) if not most, do not know how to use the UFGATE system. With a DNS system in place, as all mail would use the same address format, for me to send mail to my WatStar account I would simply have to send mail to gjhurlbut@1302.watstar.uwaterloo.ca and the DNS system should take care of it for me by gating it directly to fidonet.org (or another UFGATE site) and then through the Internet. This would take less work (and thinking) on the part of the sender. The DNS server would not need to be very complex to perform this as if the address does not end with "fidonet.org", the mail should be sent to the local UFGATE site to go to the Internet. 2: Increased access to Internet facilities If the naming of FidoNet nodes followed the standard naming system in the Internet, as it would after implementing a DNS system, it would facilitate more interaction at all levels between FidoNet and the Internet. For instance, getting Usenet news on FidoNet news would be incredibly easier. The gating programs would no longer have to worry about gating between two different naming systems. The only thing that would be necessary would be to and distribute it. Much simpler than gating it into an echo first. This would, of course require a news gateway, but that would not be too hard to come by as there would likely be many FidoNews 10-10 Page: 10 07 Mar 1992 FidoNet systems that would be glad to have the honours. Another advantage is that if there were a FTP-to-FREQ gate in FidoNet, all FidoNet nodes could get access to all of the files available by FTP in the Internet (FTP is an acronym for File Transfer Protocol -- used on most IP-connected Internet sites). The server would get a request for a file, and at the next convenient time, FTP it for the node, and at a later time the node could repoll to get the file. The server would necessarily have to have a fair amount of temporary file space, and be connected directly to the Internet, but that would be all that would be required. 3: Slight (??) increase in cost ( :[ ) The only downfall to using Internet services and news is that there would necessarily need to be cost involved. The servers and gates would have to be directly connected to the Internet (as are most UFGATE sites). There is a price to getting such connections, but as many FidoNet BBSs are large pay systems, that could be covered with ease (assuming that it would be one of these boards that perform the gating). As the services would be used by the FidoNet community as a whole, the costs to the individual participating nets would rise also, causing nodes' costs to rise (possibly - depending on net & region policy). We all know that cost is not something many people want to hear about, but it is a necessary evil. Changing the naming system itself has no appreciable costs that I can forsee, but some of the future uses of a DNS-based nodelist structure would tend to raise the cost of use. Of course, the services would be used only by those who want them, so if a node does not wish to participate, there should be no appreciable cost increase for that node (depending on net and/or region policy again). 4: Conclusion I think that all in all, a move to a DNS based nodelist architecture is a giant step in the right direction for FidoNet. The new available services (after appropriate program development, of course) far outweigh the drawbacks of changing the systems (at least as I see it). Of course, all FidoNet compatible BBSs would have to be modified if they are to use these nicities (more work -- ICK!) Here's to hoping that a DNS system is adopted in the relatively near future! Gavin Hurlbut Electrical Engineering Freshman, University of Waterloo (Canada) FidoNet: Gavin Hurlbut at 1:221/210 (NOTE: I am NOT the SysOp, just a user with Netmail access) Internet: gjhurlbut@1302.watstar.uwaterloo.ca (only until the end of April 93) gjhurlbut@electrical.watstar.uwaterloo.ca (only on academic terms after April 93 -- mail may bounce) FidoNews 10-10 Page: 11 07 Mar 1992 UUCP: ghurlbut@lotds.uucp SnailMail: Gavin Hurlbut (Permanent Home Address) Hamer Bay Rd MacTier, ON P0C 1H0 ===================================================================== Another reply to "The Youth of FidoNet" by Scott Miller, The Star Board BBS (1:123/416) The Rights of Teenagers and other "Non-Adults" in FidoNet I am a sysop in FidoNet and have been one since June of 1992. At the time I was 12 years old. And like some of the other replies to this very interesting topic, I was not treated as nicely as I believe I could have been, had I been an adult. Some SysOp's (to remain nameless) were not willing to provide help setting my system up for recieving FidoNet mail, which at the time I could not wait to get running simply because I was very interested in the field of BBS operation. I had a great time with people helping me set up the various functions, options, paths, and processors, considering that I was talking to the fellow SysOp via Chat conference online. Most people could not tell that I was only a 12 year old amateur Sysop, but I seemed rather, as a completely capable computer user that was "Mature" enough to be able to handle the aspects of network mail. But when I called someone voice, I was treated as if I was incapable of inserting the floppy in the A: drive. I am quite interested in how FidoNet has treated various young and very eager SysOps. My experience was not quite as unpleasent as others that I have heard of, but I too was rather unhappy that I was encouraged not to join FidoNet, but rather get practice on "Smaller" networks such as AlterNet and MagNet (a couple of local networks). I have since proved that I am completely capable of handling the aspects of mail networking, and have since started my own mail network called StarNet. HA! I am now MORE than capable of inserting disk 1 of 2 in drive A:, but also able to manage netmail routing, nodelist management, echo coordination, and file distribution! In conclusion, I would just like to say that all the "Adults" in FidoNet should assume that us "Kids" can handle the technical jargon, and let us remove the doubtsay that we would like you to explain the more difficult aspects. Besides, if we didn't think we could handle it, why would we start it in the first place! FidoNews 10-10 Page: 12 07 Mar 1992 ======================================================================== Fidonews Information ======================================================================== ------- FIDONEWS MASTHEAD AND CONTACT INFORMATION ---------------- Editors: Sylvia Maxwell, Donald Tees, Tim Pozar Editors Emeritii: Thom Henderson, Dale Lovell, Vince Perriello, Tom Jennings 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!!!! BBS +1-519-570-4176, 300/1200/2400/14200/V.32bis/HST(DS) Internet addresses: Don & Sylvia (submission address) editor@exlibris.tdkcs.waterloo.on.ca Sylvia -- max@exlibris.tdkcs.waterloo.on.ca Donald -- donald@exlibris.tdkcs.waterloo.on.ca Tim -- pozar@kumr.lns.com (Postal Service mailing address) (have extreme patience) FidoNews 172 Duke St. E. Kitchener, Ontario Canada N2H 1A7 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 1993 Sylvia Maxwell. 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, (and probably others), via filerequest or download FidoNews 10-10 Page: 13 07 Mar 1992 (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. 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 ----------------------------------------------------------------------