F I D O N E W S -- Vol.10 No.31 (02-Aug-1993) +----------------------------+-----------------------------------------+ | A newsletter of the | | | FidoNet BBS community | Published by: | | _ | | | / \ | "FidoNews" BBS | | /|oo \ | +1-519-570-4176 1:1/23 | | (_| /_) | | | _`@/_ \ _ | Editors: | | | | \ \\ | Sylvia Maxwell 1:221/194 | | | (*) | \ )) | Donald Tees 1:221/192 | | |__U__| / \// | Tim Pozar 1:125/555 | | _//|| _\ / | | | (_/(_|(____/ | | | (jm) | Newspapers should have no friends. | | | -- JOSEPH PULITZER | +----------------------------+-----------------------------------------+ | Submission address: editors 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 Subject: volume 10 issue 19................................. 2 UK Geonetting............................................... 4 Moderator Guides Recommended................................ 5 How NOT to incorporate a Fidonet Network.................... 6 Observations on Moderator Behavior.......................... 9 Strike One! Whaddya mean I'm OUT?.......................... 10 Nodelist Updater 2.00 released!............................. 11 ARJ vs ZIP, the Real Story?................................. 13 Is FidoNet Really This Bad?................................. 14 Seen It all?................................................ 15 The Geographical Joke....................................... 15 Correction Of Previous Article.............................. 17 The Region 25 IGate......................................... 19 Regionalization - why we need it............................ 19 Why the Confusion in Region 18 and Elsewhere?............... 20 Free Spirit Network......................................... 24 The definative archiver test, Part 1........................ 26 FidoNews 10-31 Page: 2 02 Aug 1993 MARANATHA! NET INTERNATIONAL................................ 28 SEE, I TOLD YOU SO!......................................... 29 Re: ARJ vs ZIP, The Faceoff................................. 33 3. Fidonews Information.......................................... 35 ======================================================================== Editorial ======================================================================== A large issue this week, with 18 articles. Many of them are even worth reading. (Did I really say that?). Normally we do not comment on articles, but perhaps this week the first article bears a comment. We do not write the pieces in Fidonews. Nor do we edit them, unless specifically asked. If that is the case, and we do edit, we never print the revised article without the original author seeing it and okaying the changes. About the only time this applies is when we receive an article from a non-english speaker, and are asked to clean it up. Secondly, we cannot verify every article that is sent in. We are two sysops sitting in our home; we do not have an international team of reporters we can send out to verify the accuracy of each article. We can, however, print responses to articles. That we do. What else is new? Well, we have a new art gallery opening in the neighbourhood, and have been busting butt helping to get it ready. As the site was a wreck of a crack-house about a dozen weeks ago, the amount of work has been rather daunting. Max will be one of the featured painters, so if any of you happen to be in the Kitchener, Ontario, downtown ... ======================================================================== Articles ======================================================================== Subject: volume 10 issue 19 From: Ron Dwight The following, although a message to you may also be published in FidoNews. The choice is yours, but if it is published, you will publish it UNALTERED (except for reformatting) and credit it to me on 2:220/22, aka 2:2/0. You see anything I write, I stand by, a quality severly lacking in today's society. Hi Folks, In last Vol 10, 19 FidoNews, there was an article:- region25 ZC2 does it again ..... Stuff deleted.... It means that many of us may perhaps lose our node numbers, there is no path of appeal left to us, since now ZC2 has decided in his infinite wisdom to become RC25 as well. Lunacy is an understatement, one sysop has already bee expelled from Fidonet because he tried to get an injunction to stop this madness. I FidoNews 10-31 Page: 3 02 Aug 1993 ask does Fidonet want to grow and encourage Human communication or does it want to shrink into the dark ages. .... Stuff delete.... The rest of the article is not really relevant, although it certainly misrepresents what was actually written. I am concerned about the following matters: 1) The paragraph quoted above contains certifiable, provable LIES. NO-one has been excommunicated from zone 2 for attempting to file an injunction. In fact, quite the opposite is true, as an agreement has been reached with the SysOp who was attempting to file an injunction. The injunction was refused by the court and the SysOp has indicated that he will no longer be seeking any court order against any FidoNet SysOp. 2) What you have printed here is LIBELOUS, to me as well as others. 3) How can you possibly allow yourselves to print this garbage and allow it to be done anonymously? You have created a newspaper in which personal attacks, of virtually unlimited outrageousness are allowed without the author even having to take responsibility for his actions. Do you seriously believe this is a reasonable way for a newspaper publisher and Editors to behave? Hiding behind "We publish everything" will earn you no points at all, as it is YOU who are responsible. 4) In the past I have enjoyed reading FidoNews for it's technical articles and information from around the FidoSpace. Today it has become nothing but a rumour mill, totally lacking in ethical control and lacking the qualities which any publication should strive to achieve, TRUTH & HONESTY. This is YOUR job as editors an Tom's as publisher. I suggest that you remove yourselves from the editorship of FidoNews and pass it over to someone with the moral fibre to do the job right. Someone who will DEMAND that articles are published by SysOps who identify themselves and have to take responsibility for the information they want published. You have managed, in a few short weeks, to turn the "snooze" into the "sleaze". I am disgusted and you should be ashamed. FidoNews 10-31 Page: 4 02 Aug 1993 UK Geonetting From: Paul Carroll, 2:250/412 Many thanks for publishing my previous article in the FidoNews. I have been contacted by ZC2 Dwight who advises me that I am wrong in several respects and insists that I apologise to whoever I have mislead. An XAB complaint is threatened. 1. Mr Dwight says that I imply collaboration or collusion between himself in respect of the enforced geonetting of the UK. He denies this collaboration, which I accept: however, his inference that I imply collusion is incorrect. 2. The threatened court injunction against RC25 appears not to have been served. 3. Peter Burnett did not in fact resign as RC25: he was replaced by ZC Dwight in order to protect him from the injunction referred to above, and ZC Dwight has netmailed me to this effect. Mr Burnett will resume his RC25 duties with effect from NODELIST.211. 4. I stated that a sysop was excised from the nodelist by RC25. The sysop in question claimed in several messages that he was about to be excised, but he was not in fact removed from the nodelist. If anyone has been mislead by my article, I apologise. I wish to retain my Fido node number, but I certainly won't grovel for it. Isn't it sad, however, that a supposedly amateur organisation created for the purposes of friendship should have sunk to levels such as this ..... threatened court injunctions, accusations of libel and lying ..... I'm a very ordinary sysop here in the UK, who has never until now been involved in Fido Politics. I doubt I ever will again following this "brush with the law", but I'd like to bet that I'm not alone out here ...... Here's a quote from a *very* respected sysop here in the UK which perfectly echoes my sentiments -----------Quote begins--------------------------------------- > Fidonet is no longer a network where people work together > to help each other it is a place where those in charge now > like to show they are in power. -----------Quote ends----------------------------------------- Can I suggest that Messrs Dwight and Burnett now submit articles to yourselves to bring the whole question of UK Geonetting to the attention of the Fido world at large? I'm sure they have nothing to fear by doing so. FidoNews 10-31 Page: 5 02 Aug 1993 Moderator Guides Recommended By Kent Anderson Former Moderator, now Co-Moderator, SHAREWRE 1:382/91 During an approximately two year period of moderating the SHAREWRE echo, I formed some fairly strong opinions as to what constituted proper behavior for Moderators. Despite my trying hard to be tactful, and as gentle as possible in enforcing the rules, there was always an element of users who felt I was overbearing, and who took any rule enforcement as invasive of their rights. I resigned due to burnout because of this expressed opinion, and, when I became Co_moderator, resolved to try and formulate a VOLUNTARY set of guidelines to which Moderators might subscribe, if they agreed with them. I proposed to do this through online contact among Moderators, Sysops, and interested members of the Fidonet "C" structure. Wherever I tried to open this up through contact with echo Moderators, I met resistance on the grounds that the subject would attract the control freaks who want an appeals process which could remove or discipline Moderators. In my opinion, the present system works very well in about ninety eight percent of the echoes on the backbone, and I have no desire whatever to change it. The system I propose would work in a way similar to the Better Business Burea, which prescribes certain business behavior, and the Moderator, if he subscribed, would so announce in the Echolist. This would provide some idea for the potential user what s/he might expect as treatment from the Moderator of an echo, and also make it very clear that rules within those guidelines would be enforced. In a separate article, entitled Moderator behavior, I have outlined my observations on Moderating, and this might serve as a beginning guide for the proposed topic. The questions I pose to all of you are: 1. Is the idea feasible? 2. Where might I take it to reach the group mentioned? Contact me by netmail at 1:382/91. FidoNews 10-31 Page: 6 02 Aug 1993 How NOT to incorporate a Fidonet Network. By Anonymous (After you read it, you will know why) Net 343 So your NC wants to form a non-profit organization to run your network? NET 343 tried it last year. The results have been 2 new NC's in 2 months, a new NC next month, turmoil, censorship of the Net343 sysop echo, and alleged fraud. Last summer the NC of NET 343 said he was going to form a non-profit organization in order to save on taxes . It seem the net had a surplus on those fees, and the NC didn't want be responsible for taking care of the taxes on it. The NC at the time, LeRoy DeVries, said that before the NPO was formed he would let the net sysops look at and discuss the Articles of Incorporation, and the bylaws. THIS WAS NEVER DONE! Not only that but a federal NPO or 501c3 which would have saved tax liabilities was not filed but a state NPO was filed. Washington state does not have a state income tax. Suddenly during the, almost monthly, social gathering we call the "Net Meeting", LeRoy DeVries announced the NPO had been founded and the bylaws accepted and officers appointed without so much as one word from the documents being submitted to the sysops it would govern. These docs were not even presented at the meeting for perusal. Well couple of weeks passed, and something about a BOD echo started to crop up in the local NET343 sysop echo. It was a private Board of Directors (BOD) echo. One of the BOD members didn't like what was happening at the BOD meetings and started to post about it in the NET343 echo. When queried about what was happening at the BOD meetings, we were told it needed to be secret by request. The sysops of Net 343 didn't even know the BOD existed! And now it was holding secret meetings! What was going on that was so secret!?!? Finally the one BOD member was given permission to cross post the capture file of the BOD echo, and the feces hit the proverbial fan. It turns out that the NC appointed himself President of the BOD, and appointed the HUBS as VP, Treasurer, and officers. The first things the BOD did were: 1. LeRoy DeVries sold his own used hard drive to the Corporation, without any bids or discussion in the net. 2. It was announced that the BOD had decided to start buying its echomail and file feed from LeRoy DeVries, for $225.00 per month, who had decided to become the new "backup STAR" to Dave James. Wait you say. The President of the BOD sold his hard drive to the Corporation, isn't that a conflict of interest? Ah, but the Article FidoNews 10-31 Page: 7 02 Aug 1993 of Incorporation specifically allow this. Many if not most NPO's try to avoid conflict of interests concerning the directors. Lesser Seattle Opera Corporation institutionalized it. Concerning decision 2: NET343 sysops were told the reason actions and discussions were secret were because LeRoy DeVries, along with Dave James of Western STAR notoriety, had decided that LeRoy DeVries would become the "backup" for the Western STAR. The net was informed the change in feed had already been instituted, and the money was destined for LeRoy DeVries for supplying the new feed. LeRoy DeVries posted that Dave James had requested it not be revealed that he was going down "soon" and didn't want that information out. At that time the sysop were told that the outside feed of the NET343 echo to other nets had been cut to accomplish this and we were forbidden to reveal it. As of today Dave James has not gone down as the Western STAR. Sysops in NET 343 reacted with expected outrage. LeRoy DeVries quit as NC, appointed Sue Crocker the new NC, he then quit as President of LSOC. Sue was put on the BOD of LSOC. It then turned out, after the sysops requested it, that NET 343 could obtain a full echomail feed from the Region Hub in Tacoma. AND IT WAS A LOCAL CALL! The net could not only save the long distance charges to the Western STAR, but would not have to give $225.00 a month to the new "backup" STAR. Before it was decided to switch to the Tacoma feed, LeRoy DeVries announced the dissolution of the "backup" STAR idea. Two months passed and Christmas was approaching. The newly appointed NC, Sue Crocker announced she was quitting the NC position as of the 1st of Jan 1993, would quit Fidonet and also quit running a bbs. She called for an vote of the Net sysops for the next NC. Two weeks was given as the time frame. Sue said to send your vote to her with a password. Nominations were accepted and three sysops were nominated, Mark Marean, Ralph Sims, and Dave Ball. A short time later Dave Ball was going to withdraw because his machine crashed and he could not afford another one. This was announced in the sysop echo. Sysops started to change their votes because of this, then when Dave Ball announced someone had loaned him a machine, Sue extended the vote for 2 weeks, so the votes could be changed again. (Dave Ball was one of the old farts in this area, one of the BOD members, Terry Broyles, actually announced he would quit as our Tacoma feed if Dave wasn't elected!) When the votes results were posted there were 53 votes counted but only 42 passwords posted! When asked about the discrepancy, Sue said it wouldn't have made a difference. She has never posted an accounting of the election. When Dave Ball took over the first thing he did, was ban any discussion of the LSOC BOD until April 1st, censor any discussion of FidoNews 10-31 Page: 8 02 Aug 1993 gay issues, (why he did this was beyond most since it concerned threats by a user on a bbs and what should be done about it), and ban any discussions about NC's. His reason for banning discussion on the BOD was he needed some time to "evaluate" the issue. when quizzed how banning the subject would help him, he was quiet. So now it is January. There hasn't been a BOD meeting in over 2 months. Even if there were the sysops don't even know if we can attend. When the BOD is criticized and suggestion are made to change it, the sysops are told, "you pay your 5 bucks a month, and you are getting your feed, then what is the problem? You should be satisfied." A sentiment shared by the current NC, Dave Ball. The net is in turmoil, censorship is rampant, and we haven't had a treasury report like we were promised in 4 weeks. Now it is July, and we hadn't had a net meeting or LSOC meeting since Feb 20th. It turns out the Treasurer that was elected at the Feb 20th meeting never did anything, so the LSOC elected a new one. EXCEPT FOR ONE IMPORTANT THING....they forgot to remove the old one, and the old one didn't resign. When it was pointed out that the Treasurer election may be illegal, they merely say the old Treasurer never assumed his duties. And now it is pointed out that LSOC didn't file a tax return for 1992. LeRoy DeVries has said it was because the LSOC accounts were never switched over from his original network accounts. But then the question is asked....Well then who bought the hard drive and paid the $225.00 a month to LeRoy DeVries back at the end of last year? Well it could only be one person.....LeRoy DeVries bought his own hard drive from the network funds, purportedly for the network, without asking the net. He asked the LSOC Board of Directors, who had absolutely no control over LeRoy DeVries accounts, for this approval. LeRoy also paid for the $225.00 a month out of the network account to himself on approval from LSOC BOD. Again the LSOC BOD had no authority to spend that money. It should have been net decision, not a Corporation decision. These two items taken together show what? For what reason did LeRoy DeVries spend money out of the network account and put it behind the approval of Lesser Seattle Opera Corp? The irony of all this is that most of it could have been prevented if LeRoy DeVries and the BOD had been open and communicated the proposed AOI and bylaws, and their desires for the feed change and hard drive needs. If they had just used the communications that the electronic medium provides Net 343 might have avoided this entire debacle! Please understand this is not about NET343, it is about Lesser Seattle Opera Corp, a totally different entity. LSOC is only a FidoNews 10-31 Page: 9 02 Aug 1993 provider of echomail and files. The LSOC does not run the net. Observations on Moderator Behavior Kent Anderson Former Moderator, now Co-Moderator, SHAREWRE 1:382/91 This item is supplemental to the article titled Moderator Guidelines, and is a summary of my observations after nearly two years of moderating: One can become a Moderator in an eyeblink. But, it takes a long period of time to become a good moderator, and by that, I mean a reasonable Moderator, and one who is accepted by the participants of his/her echo. IMHO, the immediate reaction of most who are appointed or elected to the position of Moderator is to feel that the prime thrust is ENFORCEMENT OF THE RULES. While this is most certainly true in a sense, the primary goal of a Moderator is to create, or keep going, a smoothly running organization which serves the purposes for which it is intended and at the same time, allows its users to _enjoy_ the benefits of it. It takes a long time to learn to be reasonable in the approach to "off-topic" stuff, and not jump at the first hint of such. The approach should eventually become to look at whether a message is topic related (by any stretch of imagination); whether it is of interest and helpful to all, and whether it is likely to continue to the point that it annoys others. Patience is the name of the game, and such messages will bear watching for a few days before gently asking that a particular thread be ended. Minor altercations among users should be ignored unless they turn into personal attacks and vituperation. Then they must be dealt with quickly and firmly. The Moderator must not be easily upset by mistakes - particularly when committed by users new to echomail, or to the conference. Admonishments should take the form of gentle reminders about the rules. On the other hand, some people continue to make the same mistakes after reminders, and these cannot be taken lightly, but must be dealt with in the least harsh manner possible. It is most important to be certain that YOU adhere to your own rules 100% of the time. If you expect them to be important to others, it behooves you to see to it that they are important to you. One must always keep in mind that this is a hobby manned by unpaid volunteers, and be appreciative of the opportunities it provides. The Moderator should, to the maximum extent of his/her ability, control the amount of expense and overhead to the mail distribution system by controlling overquoting and idle chit chat in the echo. International echos carry messages all over the world at no small expense overall, and the volunteers gladly meet it within reason. There is no reason, however, to let the bandwidth and noise level get out of hand at their expense. FidoNews 10-31 Page: 10 02 Aug 1993 Be available to your participants, preferably by netmail or voice, but keep discussion of the rules and Moderator policy out of the echo where it may lead to argumentative or even flame type messages, to the disruption of the functions of the conference. Last but not least, the Moderator must be able to control his/her annoyance level. Let the little stuff slide off your back like water off a duck, and remember you can't please all of 'em all the time. As it has been well said: Do not be annoying. Do not be too easily annoyed. The learning experience in this field never really ends. Each day, one should pick up another idea or two on how to keep things running smoothly without getting in the way of the business of the echo. SOUNDS real simple, huh! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Strike One! Whaddya mean I'm OUT? From: Mark Yoder 1:264/177.5 Recently, I was more than slightly surprised when that fateful netmail appeared on my system. I had been forcably removed from the Front Door Support Echo. As a rather passive member of the echo, I was a frequent "topic lurker" but rarely posted messages. One fateful night in late June, I made the mistake of replying to the wrong thread which concerned the pricing of the commercial version of Front Door. I had observed other similar posts, on occasion, and therefore did not fear or expect any kind of negative response from any of the moderators. On the 3rd of July, I received a note, carboned to my NC and NEC from Mr. Bruce Bodger stating that I had "ignored warnings", "been warned too many times", and that I was to be cut from the distribution of FDECHO. I immediately responded to Mr. Bodger via direct crash netmail, and asked for some type of clarification as to what warnings I had been issued, and why they had never gotten to me. I apologized for whatever wrong doing I had committed and questioned why I was the only individual to be banned for straying to the topic of price. The truth was that there were *never* any such warnings to me. I asked Mr. Bodger on four occasions, via netmail, for some kind of reason or clarification, and if nothing else, to at least send a response that would indicate that the message was received and ignored. Nothing. I find it somewhat amusing that on the same weekend that another user points out Mr. Bodger's seeming eagerness to be the RA software police, I receive a response from Mr. Bodger stating that FidoNews 10-31 Page: 11 02 Aug 1993 "I think it would serve your own interests much better to say, 'I realize what I did wrong and will try not to do it again' rather than continually telling me how many other people are equally as guilty as you are." Mr. Bodger goes on to say that "You may access the echo again now by simply writing a NetMail to me that you will strive not to repeat your past mistakes." Thanks, Bruce, but I apologized for what I did, when it became aparent that I *had* done something wrong. If a simple mistake is treated with such harshness, not to mention adjunct inequality, I'm not sure that I want to be a citizen in the "Kingdom." It is a shame that one marginal apple can cause vinegar out of an otherwise tremendous bushel of apples that are so bountiful in Fido. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Nodelist Updater 2.00 released! By Roland van der Put, 2:285/320 Do you still have to use a large batch file to process your difference files and/or new nodelists? There's no need any more, because now there's a new way -- now there's Nodelist Updater! I started working on Nodelist Updater nearly two years ago. After releasing several versions, people started to become really enthusiastic. The result is the current 2.00 release of Nodelist Updater. This release contains everything you want to do, and maybe even more. With NU, you don't need to use a batch file for all your nodelists any more. You can easily configure Nodelist Updater by using the familiar full-screen setup program. NU's setup program also supports a mouse and will allow you to define up to 100 nodelists. After you've entered all information, you can simply run Nodelist Updater by executing the main program. Nodelist Updater will take care of all the rest. All nodelists will (if available) be updated within one single session. Nodelist Updater will decompress the difference files and/or nodelists automatically. It detects the compression format and executes the correct decompression program. So, if your uplink changes the compression format for a file, then Nodelist Updater will take care of it. If more difference files are found for a nodelist, then all of them will be processed. If you are also interested in statistics about your nodelists, then the answer is simple. Just enter a filename in the setup program, and Nodelist Updater will fill the file with useful information. If you want to compress and store the difference, nodelists and/or statistics files, then you can do so with Nodelist Updater. Nodelist Updater is also able to add the description of these files FidoNews 10-31 Page: 12 02 Aug 1993 to the Files.Bbs files or the RA 2.0 filebase. It's possible to let Nodelist Updater update your mailer's magic names for these files. And another feature is that you can keep the latest 5, 10 or any amount of nodelists, difference files or statistics files on your hard disk. Nodelist Updater will take care of deleting the files you don't want to keep. To finish this short overview, I should tell you that Nodelist Updater can execute any nodelist compilers (for your mailer, tracker, BBS, mail reader etc.). Nodelist Updater is DESQview and 4DOS aware and can also swap to disk, extended, EMS or XMS memory, so you'll have no memory problems. Nodelist Updater has been registered and tested by dozens of people all over the (FTN)world so far. The features I have mentioned are not the only ones, there are more. To summarize: Nodelist Updater can do everything you want and maybe even more. There's no simpler and more reliable way to update and compile your new nodelist[s] each week! To get the latest version of Nodelist Updater, you only need to file request the magic name 'NU' at one of the following systems: The Netherlands: 2:285/320 (Roland van der Put) [online from 18:00-05:30 UTC+2] 2:285/301 (Ronald Bras) 2:285/307 (Marco Kraaijeveld) Germany : 2:242/210 (Boris Huertgen) United Kingdom : 2:251/22 (Terence Milbourn) Sweden : 2:204/465 (Anders Naslund) Spain : 2:344/7 (Juan J. Achutegui) [online from 23:00-07:00 UTC+2] Belgium : 2:292/403 & 404 (Patrick Thijs) Australia : 3:635/537 (PT Kao) Denmark : 2:230/64 & 88 (Richard Hansen) Finland : 2:221/12 (Thomas Raehalme) All others : 2:285/320 (Roland van der Put) [online from 18:00-05:30 UTC+2] The filesize is about 100 kb. Nodelist Updater is also distributed through various file networks (like RANet). I hope you'll enjoy this new version! [Thanks to Terence for the translation to real English...] Greetings, Roland FidoNews 10-31 Page: 13 02 Aug 1993 ARJ vs ZIP, the Real Story? By Clay Tinsley, 1:124/5125 Real Life Comparisons of ARJ and PkZip In FidoNews 29, Scott Miller (1:123/416) submitted an article comparing ARJ 2.41 and PkZip 2.04g. While I certainly appreciate Scott sharing his results with us, I must point out a "real world" situation that Scott has apparently avoided or otherwise missed. SM> ... and the Unreal Graphics demo, (Thanks to Future Crew, for this SM> really fine and BIG demo, which I am proud to use in this test.) SM> which is a bit over 2 megabytes in size. It seems odd to me that you chose a 2MB graphics file for the test. Graphic files typically don't compress well. Besides, who keeps 100's of megs of 2MB graphic files on their BBS, anyway? SM> compression levels, ARJ with the -M1 and -JM flags, and PKZIP with SM> the -EX flag. I've done the same in my tests.. but I didn't bother to time them. Both archivers are pretty slow when in maximum compression mode, however PkZip seemed faster in my tests. Compression seemed to be the main point, anyway. SM> As far as file compression, ARJ did better than PKZIP by 1639 SM> bytes, which is a tiny difference, but can make a difference when SM> you are dealing with hundreds of megabytes, so a little is better SM> than nothing. Here's where we really differ. I took some "average" files - some containing more test files, some more binary files, but most containing a mix of file types. I selected these files because of their name, knowing that most people in the BBS world will recognize them. I picked 22 files for no special reason - I just kept choosing files until I had a "screenful" to test. I did try and keep the files over 100k, though. What's an "Unreal Graphics Demo", anyway? These 22 files are just a small cross section of the typical files you find on a BBS. PkZip is the clear winner in almost every case. 4DOS402D ZIP 232893 4DOS402D ARJ 237629 4DOS402P ZIP 282120 4DOS402P ARJ 283757 4DOS402U ZIP 172865 4DOS402U ARJ 172662 BNKB_256 ZIP 165766 BNKB_256 ARJ 167288 BW300MAX ZIP 314492 BW300MAX ARJ 315455 BWAVE212 ZIP 316985 BWAVE212 ARJ 318751 CLEAN104 ZIP 220818 CLEAN104 ARJ 221270 CQWK100B ZIP 404111 CQWK100B ARJ 407393 MAX200-1 ZIP 301457 MAX200-1 ARJ 301398 MAX200-2 ZIP 162562 MAX200-2 ARJ 162503 MAX200-3 ZIP 136530 MAX200-3 ARJ 136592 MAX200-4 ZIP 284548 MAX200-4 ARJ 288234 FidoNews 10-31 Page: 14 02 Aug 1993 MAX201B ZIP 449745 MAX201B ARJ 451238 NETSC102 ZIP 189271 NETSC102 ARJ 189503 NETSHLD ZIP 139146 NETSHLD ARJ 140136 POINT160 ZIP 182156 POINT160 ARJ 182775 SCANV104 ZIP 205952 SCANV104 ARJ 206738 SQSH_101 ZIP 289277 SQSH_101 ARJ 290708 VIRX28 ZIP 155707 VIRX28 ARJ 157222 22 file(s) 4606401 bytes 22 file(s) 4631252 bytes This is a difference of 24,851 bytes out of 4.6 meg, or a savings of about 10k per 2meg of archive, in favor or PkZip. Now =that's= worth converting for. While this is great and all, it hasn't even been mentioned what file type is compressed and decompressed more than any other in Fidonet, day in and day out - the .PKT mail bundle. It would be unfair to leave this most popular file type out of the test. Let's take another sample - I rescanned 500 msgs in POLITICS to a fake node, and compressed the resulting 955k packet using maximum compression: ZIPMAIL ZIP 314833 ARJMAIL ARJ 320505 As you can see, PkZip can save Fidonet many collective dollars each day though reduced long distance phone bills. SM> I would just like to say CONGRATULATIONS to the winner ... Me, too - PkZip. When used in the "real world", it's a better performer. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Is FidoNet Really This Bad? Is FidoNet Really This Bad? Peter Barney 1:234/56 I read an interesting post this morning in the SYSOP echo. The author was upset with all the current talk about corrupt FidoNet coordinators running amok and enforcing their own brand of justice upon their jurisdiction. He went on to lament the good old days of BBSing. He recalled an earlier time when bulletin boards were run for fun, as nothing more than a hobby for the sysop. "Carefree" summed up the feeling back then, and most BBS's had no real purpose other than to have fun. To that person I would like to say: Look, pal, FidoNet is serious business, and by god, people like you are only troublemakers. Take your fun and go to Disney Land, because We FidoNet Sysops *despise* fun on the network. Fun does not mix with FidoNews 10-31 Page: 15 02 Aug 1993 Serious Fido Responsibilities. Most of us wear suits when we post messages, and many of us even have briefcases. So if you want to have fun, get the heck out of FidoNet. No user should have fun without the consent of their Net Coordinator anyway. But on the serious side, I too remember those days of carefree BBSing. And I don't think those days are over yet. Sure, we hear alot of noise about all the trouble in FidoNet, but the truth is, most regions are happy, quiet places. Sure, there are a few bad *C's in Fidonet, but them's the breaks. It's something we're stuck with for now. Although if I had been in the same position as some of these lynched sysops, I'd probably have kicked some heads in myself, for satisfaction if nothing else. With a medium like the Fidonews to voice their problems, It's really only the loudest and most pissed-off coordinators and sysops that make all the noise. (And they usually do.) This tends to blow things way out of proportion, and it makes the appearance that FidoNet is a cauldron of bubbling controversy. But like I said, most regions and networks are at peace, happily posting and reading messages, and going about their usual Fidonet duties with no problems. Don't get discouraged by all of this, because really, things aren't as bad as they seem. Well, it's a lovely day outside. I can even hear the creek trickling through the rocks out back. I think I'll get a lemonade, go out back to the hammock and breath in the fresh air and life. It helps to keep everything in perspective. Life is still alive out there, and there are more things under heaven and earth than FidoNet. Good Morning from Toledo, Ohio. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Seen It all? Mark Phillips The First Step 1:139/540 Last week I had an article in the snooze called "Seen It All", but I did not include my name or mail address. Just so people don't think I am hiding from my opinions I have submitted it now! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The Geographical Joke by Rob Hillis 3:632/107@fidonet The recent shambles in Region 24 and the developing mess in Britain and Holland have made me appreciate that I am where I am - Zone 3. Recently in one of our sysop echos, AUST_SYSOP, someone described us FidoNews 10-31 Page: 16 02 Aug 1993 as the best behaved zone in FidoNet and were it not for the existance of zones 4, 5 and 6, I'd be inclined to agree. In the year-and-a-bit that I've been in FidoNet, I've seen several major beefs from plenty of people in the two largest zones and have on occasion sent the occasional netmail message to let someone know my feelings on the subject. (usually a carefully worded netmail message, but occasionally not) Net 632 is part of probably the least geographically organized region in Zone 3 - Region 50 - and I'm happy to be here. Echo mail is free, people generally get along with each other, mail moves well and has a tendency to get to it's destination in a relatively decent time frame and being a member of FidoNet is easy. Utopia? Not quite, but from my point of view, it's a very pleasant place to be. Our RC, David Nugent (of BNU fame) is very human and down to earth and has (in my opinion) the most accurate view of the way things would work best. There have been a few times when there have been rumblings of reorganizing the region have been about, but thankfully this has not happened. While I don't get along with our ZC the best (I've torn shreds off him in the past about things that I feel very strongly about and he probably sees me as a bit of a troublemaker), I have to be thankful that he's not done anything like Ron Dwight has with Region 24. Though he may seem to be a bit heavy handed and stubborn at times, he's nowhere near any of the "monster" *C's I've read about in FidoNews before. So what's the point of this article? Geographical nets and how they impede communication and create massive battles between "grunt" sysops and *C's. If FidoNet were a professional net, I'd be all in favour of geographical nets - but profession is exactly what FidoNet is not. It's a social net, and despite this policy 4.7 implements rules to make sure that social nets do not form. I understand the theory behind this - the idea is to stop the "elite" regions where nodes can join only by invitation, but realistically, a few more simple guidelines should ensure that this does not happen. I joined net 632 back in August (or thereabouts) last year not long after starting up my own network. I discussed joining Fido with David Nugent (then N632C) and ended up lodging my application with him. If Region 50 were not a little lax with the geographial rules, I may have ended up with an NC that didn't seem as "human" to me as David did - being a new node, I was scared of anyone with any "authority". So what do I want? What do I hope to gain by writing this article? I'd like to see the geographical component of policy seriously reconsidered. Non geographical nets work and work well. My opinion is that the geographical rule should end at the region and that the region should be left to make up their own mind. I'd be very interested to hear other people's views on this topic - it may be a minor detail, but it certainly does have some major effects on the network. FidoNews 10-31 Page: 17 02 Aug 1993 Correction Of Previous Article by Denis McMahon @ 2:252/20 I recently wrote an article attacking the actions of ZC2. Whilst I still believe that ZC2 is not acting in the best interests of FidoNet in Europe, I feel that it is only fair to correct some inaccuracies which, due to a large amount of misinformation that was being generated, appeared in my previous article. In the remainder of this article, I have included some paragraphs from the original, with some corrections after those paragraphs denoted thus: [correction] (a) ZC2 (who lives in Finland) appointed himself RC28 (The Netherlands) for several months in direct contravention of Policy 4 section 3.5. [The above may be inaccurate in that "several weeks" might be more accurate than "several months".] (b) ZC2 collaborated in the RC24 "geographisation" where several nodes were allocated node numbers without warning, a move that, whether permitted under Policy or not, was it seems somewhat lacking in planning and consultation. [I withdraw any suggestion that ZC2 was in any way involved in the reorganisation of Region 24 prior to the point at which he received and applied the nodelist update from RC24 which implemented that reorganisation, and that his involvement at that stage was that which was technically correct as ZC2.] (c) ZC2 has found that a Region25 node is guilty of blackmail (demanding money with menaces) for threatening to take legal action to prevent the withdrawl of a nodenumber. Does ZC2 place Policy 4 above national law? It certainly looks like it. ZC2 of course is safe from British Justice in Finland, and thus he is happy to take action that is in contempt of the British courts in a case that is sub-judice. I would suggest that ZC2 would be well advised not to visit the UK in future, he may find that a warrant has been issued for his contempt. [I retract the suggestion that ZC2 was in contempt of court, as the case had not been placed before the courts, and was not due to the costs involved in initiating the civil action required to obtain a court judgement prior to a (criminal) contempt action occuring. I also withdraw the suggestion that ZC2 stated the sysop was guilty of blackmail, he actually stated the opinion that the behaviour of the sysop was disguised blackmail.] (1) ZC2 mandated that Region25 must reorganise geographically - despite the fact that the only complaints about the non geographic organisation were purely based on policy, and not any problem that the non-geographic nets were causing. FidoNews 10-31 Page: 18 02 Aug 1993 [I now accept that ZC2 has in no way been involved in the move to reorganise Region 25 along geographic lines.] (3) RC25 / ZC2 were not prepared to accept this, and in one case, when a sysop said "We will incur costs" said "So what, Sue Me." [ZC2 (Ron Dwight) never said "so what, sue me", that was a comment made by the then RC25 (Peter Burnett).] (4) When the sysop concerned responded to RC25s public taunts to sue him by doing just that, both RC25 and ZC2 deemed the sysop to be excessively annoying. [The above was inaccurate, in so far as RC25 issued an XAB against the node for XAB, ZC2 stated the opinion that the behaviour of the sysop concerned was disguised blackmail.] (5) When the RC25 realised that the sysop concerned had a cast iron case for a restraining suit, he chickened out and resigned the Post. As a result, ZC2 has now imposed himself as RC25, unwanted by a large number of sysops in the region. [The above was inaccurate, in that (1) RC25 did not at any time acknowledge that the sysop concerned had a valid case, "cast iron" or otherwise, and (2) RC25 did not resign the post, rather ZC2 took action to, in ZC2's words "remove him from the firing line" (3) the action being discussed was an application for an inujunction preventing RC25 from withdrawing or causing to be withdrawn the sysops current FidoNet address.] Does FidoNet really want people who seem committed to a route of disharmony in positions where, by editing a file, they can remove sysops from the nodelist? I think not - yet this is the state we are in, today, in Zone 2. *Cs are charged with the technical management of the network, and to decide that a sysop exercising his legal rights is worthy of excommunication is a dangerous precedent to set. [Again, the above was inaccurate, ZC2 did not state that the node as guilty of XAB or would be excommunicated, he stated that, whatever the outcome of any case, the sysop concerned would lose the FidoNet address that he wished to maintain.] Finally, I would like to point out that (1) The matter has now been settled to the apparent satisfaction of all concerned, and (2) no sysop has as yet been excommunicated in relation to this matter. FidoNews 10-31 Page: 19 02 Aug 1993 The Region 25 IGate George Dorn The Regional IGate (In-Gate), although not formally recognised as a FidoNet routing node, is a way in which a Region can act to reduce the costs incurred by sysops sending mail to sysops within that Region. Instead of making separate calls to the Host of each node or group of nodes to which mail is being sent, a single call may be made to the Region. In the case of Zone 2 Region 25, the UK, such calls tend to be International, and this is also the case with many other Regions outside the North American and Australian Sub-Continents. These calls are not cheap, and thus any way in which a Region can act to reduce the costs of nodes calling in from outside is to be applauded. Therefore, Zone 2 Region 25 has implemented a Regional IGate. Thus, if you wish to send netmail from somewhere in Zone 6 to, for example, 2:441/80, 2:440/3, 2:256/62, 2:252/110, 2:441/99 and 2:255/385, you can now do so in a single call, rather than calling 5 separate hosts. In Region 25, the Regional IGate is assigned a Regional level entry of 2:25/999. Mail for the following net list (as at NodeList 211) can now be routed to 2:25/999: 2:25/*, 2:250/*, 2:251/*, 2:252/*, 2:253/*, 2:254/*, 2:255/*, 2:256/*, 2:257/*, 2:258/*, 2:259/*, 2:440/*, 2:441/*, 2:442/*, 2:443/*, 2:444/*, 2:2501/*, and when it comes on line (which may be NodeList 218) 2:2502/*. Obviously there are some restrictions, and it is suggested that anyone who wishes to route files, commercial or encrypted / encoded (including asciified binaries, archives etc) messages through the IGate contact the GateKeeper, Pete Franchi, before they do so. The IGate does not stop nodes using the ZoneGates, and it does not stop you calling Direct, or Routing to Net Hosts, however it does provide another option which should be faster than the Zonegate but cheaper than individual calls. At the end of the day, whether you use it or not is up to you, the sysop making the International calls. George Dorn pp UK Sysops Everywhere (inc Finland, Germany & Outer Mongolia) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Regionalization - why we need it From: Harald Armin Massa (2:2407/9.7 - REGION24.169) During netwars '93 in region 24 my thoughts circled around the basic question for weeks: what is the unbelievable power in FidoNews 10-31 Page: 20 02 Aug 1993 regionalization, that makes sysops fight bloodcurdling battles, nake them forget mother, father and former friends - just letting the nodenumber reflect the phone companies' region code simply couldn't motivate so strong. Once again taking a shower I saw the light: Fidoists need regionalization for the same reason Muslims don't eat pork and Catholics don't use contraceptive devices: when these dogmas were founded, they made good sense: it's better not to eat pork 'cause of trichine illness if you don't have a fridge, and the former weak nation of israel needed needed every sperm to rise their civilisation. Nowadays both rules aren't very sensible - ok, we won't discuss about vegetarian food now. You'll see the same kind of dogma ruling Fidoism: The words written in THE POLICY were given to make it more pleasent to form networks under the phone tarifs given at a certain time in the US. Nowadays, in zone 2, there are totally different tarif structures forming our phone bills. Additionally there are some interpersonal effects concerning the NCs and HUBs of the former networks: often the distance between the minds of two NCs of two overlapping networks is much bigger than the 60km between their modems. So, what to do? We HAVE to follow the words given by THE POLICY, and have to regionalize our networks in region 24. But we should form regions based on the real distances - the distances between the minds of people who like each other or dislike each other. It has to be a regionalization of hearts. And, by the way, we already had networks formed by the regions defined by the hearts, and still they exist in FIDO-CLASSIC or region24.169 - what ever you want to call it. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Why the Confusion in Region 18 and Elsewhere? Christopher Baker Rights On! Titusville_FL 1:374/14 [1:18/0] What is FidoNet Coordination? There seems to be some confusion about what Coordinators do in FidoNet these days and nowhere is the confusion more apparent than in Region 18 of Zone 1 and certain parts of Zone 2 (judging by the inflammatory rhetoric that passes for FidoNews articles of late). It appears that certain Net Coordinators here and there are under the impression that they have some special kind of 'rights' as NCs that entitle them to make up their own rules with no regard for FidoNet Policy or permit them to remove Nodes from the Nodelist at their discretion. FidoNews 10-31 Page: 21 02 Aug 1993 Strange devolution from the original purpose of Nets and Net Coordinators but not surprising considering the dynamics of FidoNet growth and the lack of administerial skills demonstrated by some of our neophytes and even a few old timers. Coordinators are just Sysops. A lot of them tend to forget that or at least they give the impression that they have some mighty power that plain, old Nodes don't. The Coordinator's only purpose in FidoNet life is just to administer those few things that require the occasional tweak like their Net segment or the weekly file distribution. This comes as a shock to a few of them. They don't like it one bit when they are brought up short of their vision of power and glory. That's too bad. There are a few in Coordinator slots that just don't get it. They don't have a clue about FidoNet or how it works. They don't or won't understand that a lot of what happens in FidoNet is arbitrary and top-down managed. Sure, we have elections in some places and they do offer a certain measure of accountability but those elections are not, for the most part, mandated in FidoNet Policy as currently written. Even where elections are encouraged or tolerated, though, there are still certain things Coordinators cannot do. One of these things is to yank someone out of the Nodelist without a darn good reason. Another of these things is to make up rules that have no support in FidoNet Policy. Policy interpretation is one thing but ruling a fiefdom as a Net Coordinator is not what Policy had in mind then or now. This is, after all, ONLY a hobby to most people. I won't say to all since it is obvious that a few of the folks in FidoNet have their entire life and existence tied up in the comings and goings of this Node or that Node or this Coordinator or whatever. Those are the sad people of FidoNet, in my opinion. They are also very often the most noisy since they perceive the most to lose in some situations that actually have little to do with them, personally. Recently, it has been necessary to replace a couple Net Coordinators in Region 18. This is no big news since this happens from time to time. Usually, Coordinators are replaced because they retire in office and fail to perform any of the duties required by FidoNet Policy. That kind of online retirement is the fault of the next level up failing to pay attention to their job, too. Sometimes they just don't cooperate. This is a cooperative network. Not only do Coordinators have specific responsibilities spelled out clearly in Policy, they also have a responsibility to cooperate up and down the line with the Nodes they coordinate and with those who coordinate them. This is where the biggest snag seems to lie with certain individuals who do not work and play well with others. When cooperation and reasonable action fail, it's time to make a few administrative changes. FidoNews 10-31 Page: 22 02 Aug 1993 There is a lot of talk about 'rights' in FidoNet. I'm not sure who started this idea but there are no 'rights' in FidoNet. Not for anyone. The only one with any 'rights' at all is the guy who holds the copyright for the name we operate under, FidoNet, and that guy is Tom Jennings. The rest only have a privilege of association. That's what this is, you know, an association of Sysops. Everyone has a duty to it but no one has a right to it. The duty is spelled out in FidoNet Policy: Run a compliant mailer; observe ZMH; do nothing illegal via FidoNet; don't be annoying. Anyone who can't handle those requirements is in the wrong place. FidoNet Policy is the worst hodgepodge of conflicting, self-serving, argumentative, ill-defined, pseudo-legalese I've ever seen. It's the source of much contention and misunderstanding in FidoNet. It is so out-of-date it would be laughable if it weren't our only guideline for administrative action. As such, it is subject to the interpretation of the Coordinator structure; each level higher with more authority to determine proper interpretation than the last. That's just the way it is. Nothing can be done about that in its present form. That being the case, it shouldn't be too startling to find out that those with the larger responsibility consult and reach consensus on those issues that have broad import and having done so treat that consensus as the standard interpretation for all the Coordinators below them. The ZCs tell the RCs and the RCs tell the NCs. This is no big whoop to most. Why do we read all these gothic horror stories in FidoNews and the various Echos then? Hmmmm. They are almost always one-sided and filled with emotional overtones and snappy rhetoric that usually dissolve away when the full story is offered. Is it just a natural outgrowth of too much too soon? Too many axes to grind and oxen gored? Is it a juvenile organization or an organization of juveniles? Even that distinction will be lost on many of the loudest, crankiest, whineyest Sysops out there who still bother to read FidoNews. [sigh] You'd think if the oppression was so all-encompassing and pervasive that the FidoNews would be 2 megs long every week. Maybe it's just the imagination of a dissatisfied few after all? What a concept! No one has a right to be a Coordinator or even a Node. Coordinators are just volunteers who put their time on the line in a thankless job. Just because it's a volunteer position is no excuse to slack off, however. When a Coordinator isn't getting their job done, it is imperative that their Coordinator find out why and if no resolution is possible to find another volunteer. The woods are full of folks who like to do what they volunteer for. It's no big deal except to those whose attention was too little too late. As an RC, I take my responsibilities seriously. My primary function is to make sure the Region functions smoothly. It's spelled out right there in FidoNet Policy. When an NC stops being cooperative or falls asleep on the job, I remove them and replace them with somebody who doesn't have those problems. It's a last resort but it doesn't have FidoNews 10-31 Page: 23 02 Aug 1993 to be a long, drawn out process. Sometimes, it only takes a few specific incidents to get an NC replaced. The bottom line is the level of disruption to the local Net and the Region involved. This is often at the request of the Nodes not being served. That's my job and I do it when forced to by the non-compliant NC. This is the way it works everywhere in FidoNet. If a majority of the 84 NCs I coordinate complained to my Coordinator, I'd be back to being a non-Coordinator Sysop just like most of the 22,000+ folks in FidoNet. It's that simple. Coordinators need a thick hide because some are quick to point fingers and make uneducated assumptions. It goes with the territory but it's not a very good sign in a cooperative network. Just ignore the naysayers and bellyachers. They don't have a clue and they rarely know what they are carrying on about. The checks and balances are in place regardless what you hear from the anonymous article writers and replaced Coordinators. Coordinatorship is not an honor or a blessing or a curse. It's just a volunteer job. Those who do it correctly keep doing it. Those who don't are replaced. Like I said, no big whoop. TTFN. Chris Full-time grunt Sysop Part-time RC18 [aka MadDog Dictator RC of R18] [oh, brother] Post Scriptum: Recently, in the Region 18 Coordinator Echo [HOST18], someone questioned if Coordinator consultation and consensus prior to making excommunication or administrative replacements was a good idea or if it was somehow denying a level of appeal. The following was my response. It may be illustrative for those in similar circumstance. Msg # 8 Date: 28 Jul 93 21:02:12 From: Christopher Baker To: An NC Subj: Re: response from the ZC ______________________________________________________________________ >> That does not make the cutting of a level of appeal implication >> correct.....Those judges DO NOT go ask the judge who will hear the >> appeal what their decision will be when/if asked. > True. They look more at patterns of precedent in the people who > would likely hear such an appeal. It's just difficult to do that with > such a small group. Perhaps I'm still just idealistic enough to > expect objectivity from those people who are supposed to make a > decision based solely on the information presented to them . FidoNews 10-31 Page: 24 02 Aug 1993 it has nothing to do with appeal levels at all, actually. there are no 'judges' in FidoNet. it is not a government. it is not a courtroom. it is not a lawmaking body. it has NO parallels in the real world. Policy4 beyond its technical references is purely interpretive. the ones responsible for that interpretation are the Coordinators. to achieve a consistent interpretation, consensus is desirable to prevent 40 different interpretations from complicating an otherwise straightforward hobby operation. some people treat Policy as if it were some kind of legal statute. they also treat complaints as some sort of holy grail. Policy is a guideline for operations and for resolving disputes. it is not law or any attempt at law. most disputes are the result of misunderstanding or unrealistic expectations. few are actually dealing with malicious acts and most should never have been filed in the first place. the object of filing one is behavior modification. the object of dealing with them is resolving a problem at the lowest possible level. with that in mind, it makes perfect sense and is completely reasonable to work out these things with input from higher levels with more experience dealing with them. when it comes to interpretation, the ZC tells the RCs and the RCs tell the NCs and the NCs tell the Nodes. the IC rarely tells anyone anything even when he/she is awake. that's how it works in Zone 1, anyway. it isn't short circuiting anyones 'rights'. the only one with 'rights' in FidoNet is the guy who holds the copyright to the word FidoNet. that's Tom Jennings. everyone else has a privilege of association provided they meet the requirements of that association. those requirements are spelled out in FidoNet Policy and augmented by the consensus of the upper Coordinator structure who have the ultimate responsibility [according to Policy and reality] for the care and feeding of this beast. i hope this helps, insight-wise. there's a lot of misinformation floating around about what FidoNet is and does. TTFN. Chris RC18 --- DB B2011/001027 * Origin: Rights On! - Coordinate This! - Titusville_FL (1:374/14) -30- C.B. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Free Spirit Network FREE SPIRIT NETWORK - People who care about People FidoNews 10-31 Page: 25 02 Aug 1993 =================== by Russ Goodale The Free Spirit Network (Zone 169) is a Network for people that care about other people. There is no age limit on joining this network although Sysops that are minors will not be allowed to receive Adult Echoes from any hub. This network is a team effort by all involved. Prejudice based on color, sex choice, religion, etc. must be put aside. Those unable to put aside these prejudices, this net is not for you. A signed agreement is required to join this Network. Free Spirit only distributes echomail and takes no ownership to any echo with the exception of the two Sysop Echoes. Moderators and Sysops of the originating echo are in complete control of their echoes. Sysops starting echoes in the Free Spirit Network retain control of the echo. Echo owners may gate their echoes to other Networks. Echo owners may make arrangements to gate any non-backbone echoes into Free Spirit as long as they are a member of Free Spirit and they have complete control of the echo (no Network is in control of the echo). Echo owners must be willing to send echoes for zone gating to the zone gating hub in Seattle, Washington. Sysop echoes (2) must be made available to all system users. The reason, our members are an important part of our Network and we want their ideas, thoughts and suggestions. Sysops do have the final say. There are no hidden Sysop echoes. These echoes may also teach and help the user understand how much work it takes on the Sysops part to bring in these Networks. And it may help to keep Sysops from those Network fights. After all, if they want to yell and scream at others, they will do it in front of those that call their own system. To make a network work, we must work together as a team in a win/win situation. A dumb question is one that isn't asked, a dumb answer is one that requires yelling and screaming. It's okay to disagree, as long as it remains a discussion. Sysops have more responsibility. Sysops may connect to the hub(s) of their choice. Sysops are responsible to make sure they only receive/send an echo to one hub. Sysops must prevent dupe loops and make sure they are zone aware. Sysops are responsible for the echomail they carry. Due to some quirky laws, some echoes may be legal in some areas and illegal in others. Hubs will only carry echomail that is legal in their area so Nodes may need to connect with multiple hubs for the echomail they seek. Sysops are responsible of knowing echo policies before they start to receive an echo and make any needed restrictions. To join, you must review the information contained within FSNET.ZIP. This file may be obtained from the following systems: HalfLife Oakland, CA. 1:215/606 FidoNews 10-31 Page: 26 02 Aug 1993 Kinston Micro / Connie's Corner Kinston, NC. 1:151/50 Paul's Waka Waka Seattle, WA. 1:343/117 The Shrine BBS Sunnyvale, CA. 1:204/666 The file may be available with the Magic Name FSNET. You may also receive this file by calling The Room Next Door on (206) 938-3966 (300-12,000) or (206) 938-1832 (300-14.4k). If you believe in "Human Rights," check us out. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- The definative archiver test, Part 1. Shawn McMahon 1:206/1701.666 I recently decided I was sick of seeing partial tests of archivers, where somebody picked their favorite and fed it a file that isn't relevant to Fidonet mail, so I decided to do my own test. The results are given below. The test file is a packet containing an entire day's contents of the Fidonet TREK echo; there may be some PUBLIC_KEYS in there, as well. I'm keeping the packet, so I could be persuaded to let somebody have it to check my results. I used EXECTIME.COM, a TSR that I found (uncredited) on a BBS, to time the results. If the EXECTIME author will contact me, I'd be happy to credit him. I shut off my disk cache to avoid giving an edge to any archivers for which I had to check syntax. In order to be included, an archiver had to meet the following criteria: 1) Be suitable for use with Fidonet mail. I made an exception for HAP, which isn't suitable since it can't handle packets with different extensions. 2) Be a legal release version meant for the public. 3) Have documentation available to me. (This is why HYPER isn't included; I haven't found an archive with docs yet.) 4) Have said documentation, and the program help text, in English. If your favorite archiver isn't included, please let me know where I can get a copy that meets the criteria. archive length time archiver/ command line version c4eb3250 pkt 176408 Original unarchived text FidoNews 10-31 Page: 27 02 Aug 1993 test arc 102994 7.03 arc 6.02 arc a test *.pkt test zoo 94031 9.89 zoo 2.1 zoo a test *.pkt test dwc 90111 2.91 dwc a5.01 dwc a test *.pkt testz dwc 84528 3.63 dwc a5.01 dwc az testz *.pkt test pak 64259 12.41 pak 2.51 pak a test.pak *.pkt test1 zip 62612 7.85 pkzip 1.1 pkzip1 a test1 *.pkt test1ex zip 62612 7.75 pkzip 1.1 pkzip1 a -ex test1ex *.pkt testh zoo 61673 28.29 zoo 2.1 zoo ah testh *.pkt test lzh 61542 19.91 lharc 2.13 lha a test *.pkt test arj 58286 11.48 arj 2.3 arj a test *.pkt testjm arj 58242 11.76 arj 2.3 arj a -jm testjm *.pkt test2 zip 57719 6.59 pkzip 2.04g pkzip a test2 *.pkt test sqz 57409 12.74 sqz 1.08.3 sqz a test *.pkt test2ex zip 57242 9.28 pkzip 2.04g pkzip a -ex test2ex *.pkt testq0 sqz 57242 14.55 sqz 1.08.3 sqz a -q0 testq0 *.pkt test hpk 55314 34.93 hpack .78a0 hpack a test *.pkt test hap 53467 28.34 hap 3.00 hap a test *.pkt DWC turned in the fastest times, but the third and fourth worst compression ratios. ARC is a hopeless dinosaur; it wasn't even in the running as far as compression goes. PAK was kind of surprising; considering it's age, I'm amazed ARC has stuck around so long as a standard. I double-checked the results of the PKZip 1.1 test; the maximal compression mode did, indeed, go faster yet produce the same size archive. The reasons should be obvious with a little thought; in hindsight, anyway. :-) Based on these results, I intend to go on using PKZip 2.04g for my Fidonet whenever possible. Those who are desperate for size but have all the time in the world for compression, such as points and non-hub nodes with 2400 bps modems, should look into HPack. It's available for a wide range of machines, and has excellent security features as well. (Can you say built-in PGP?) ARJ looks to be a good choice, but not very portable. PKZip-compatibility will probably port faster, since lots of BBSes use it for everything. Again, I'd like to point out that HAP, as of version 3.0, is not suitable for Fidonet work since it ALWAYS creates archives named *.HAP, and PAH, the unarchiver, can't unpack them unless they have that name. Folks, remember something; the standard is only there for communicating with people you don't know. If you want to use PKZip with your echomail hub, then just ASK him to switch. If he won't switch it on for you, then go somewhere else for your FidoNews 10-31 Page: 28 02 Aug 1993 echomail; there's no law against it. If you're getting it via a local call and don't want to switch to long distance, what the hell are you griping about? Switching won't save you any money anyway. If your hub won't switch it for you, try checking with his other nodes; if they want to switch too, you can all send letters to the appropriate C asking him to talk to your hub. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- MARANATHA! NET INTERNATIONAL by Martin Riley MARANATHA! NET INTERNATIONAL. "Spreading God's Salvation message through the TRUTH of scripture & LOVE of Jesus." () () ()()()() () A REAL ONE GOD APOSTOLIC CHRISTIAN NETWORK! () Serving the Christian community since 1991! () Elaborate and exciting Bible debates! () Over 25 religious and NON-religious echoes to choose from! () A Christian file support line! () Nodes in CANADA and the USA! () A Christian Network in five languages with echo support! () A Non-denominational Net that stands FIRMLY on God's TRUTHS! Hi everyone! My name is Martin Riley and I am the International Coordinator for Maranatha! Net International. Maranatha! Net International is a young and growing One God Apostolic Christian Net that was started in 1991 in Calgary, Alberta Canada. So why the post in Fido News? To let people know that there is a growing and blessed of God, One God Apostolic Network they can grow with and be a part of. Why is Maranatha! Net here? Maranatha! Net is a Network that strives to spread the Good News of the Bible and offer Christian message and file support to those of the Christian faith. What separates Maranatha! Network from other Christian Networks? (A) Maranatha! Net International is non-denominational. We believe the Power of God has the ability to cross over the denominational walls men put up. We in Maranatha! Net believe Christian Fellowship is based on God's Holy Ghost and all those who have obeyed God's salvation message, and NOT what paticular church or group of people you happen belong to. (B) FidoNews 10-31 Page: 29 02 Aug 1993 Maranatha! Net International, (unlike some other Networks that *CLAIM* to be Apostolic in nature) feel that one does not have to resort to insults, abuse, or maliciousness towards other people or other Networks to spread the Gospel and saving message of Jesus Christ. Maranatha! Net International feels that the Gospel needs to be proclaimed the way Jesus told us to proclaim it....by standing on the firm and solid rock of Biblical TRUTH, and by sharing this same TRUTH the way Jesus told us to share it, with LOVE, COMPASSION, and UNDERSTANDING. (C) Maranatha! Net International also believes in NOT axing your Net membership just because you happen to have a different theological belief than that of an echo moderator or Coordinator at any level. Sound interesting? :-) Maranatha! Network is exciting and I would urge you to be a part of it! Maranatha! Network has over 25 RELIGIOUS and NON-RELIGIOUS echoes to choose from with topics ranging from cooking, camping, hunting, fishing, ect.. to theological discussions, end time discussions, Bible studies and several other echoes of popular family and Christian interest! Since Maranatha! Network has last posted in Fido News, Maranatha! Net has, under the grace of God, has grown with nodes in Washington, North Carolina, Texas, Ohio, California, British Columbia, Alberta, and Ontario! It's an exciting Network and one we hope you can become a part of it! :-) If you wish more information concerns Maranatha! Network, you can download MARANATH.ZIP from either: 1:134/95 (FidoNet) in Canada, or 1:160/103 (FidoNet) in the United States. Or you can leave me a personal net mail message at 1:134/95 FIDO. If you do send me personal net mail, please insure that you send it using your FIDO address so that I can get back to you. Some people have sent me Net mail with a "Try to guess what Net I'm in" zone addresses. :-) Thank you for your time! A special thank you to Fido Net for the chance to advertise Maranatha! Net in the FIDO NEWS! Martin Riley International Coordinator Maranatha! Net International 22:22/0 Maranatha! 1:134/95 Fido Net! ---------------------------------------------------------------------- SEE, I TOLD YOU SO! by Jack Decker I recently picked up the last month's worth of Fidonews issues from an Internet FTP server. Yes, you can get Fidonews via the Internet; in fact you can even get Fidonet nodelists and nodediffs, although on FidoNews 10-31 Page: 30 02 Aug 1993 some of the servers they may be a few days outdated. I am amazed by many things I have read. I am truly amazed to see that Policy 4 is still in effect after four years, when about half the net thought it was a terrible document at the time it was put in place, and even many supporters of it viewed it only as an intermediate stepping stone to a better document. I am amazed that some coordinators are still around and still acting like petty jerks. I guess what really amazes me is that in some cases the same names are around that were there four or five years ago, and they are still causing problems. Why is it that you hardly ever hear a single complaint about some RC's, while others insist on going out and bullying some defenseless sysop every so often? I am really, truly amazed that the average sysop has not yet realized what a terrible thing the geographic restrictions of Policy 4 are. I railed against these almost incessantly at the time they were put in place, and for years afterwards. Check your back issues of Fidonews; I haven't counted but I'd guess that at least 50% of my past Fidonews articles caontained some reference to the asinine geographic restrictions contained in Policy 4. Most sysops shrugged and said "I'm getting my mail and echomail, why should I care?" Maybe some of those same sysops are now having to pay more to get their mail, or maybe they have dropped out of Fidonet. I hate to say "I told you so", but it's true. For those that still don't get it, what the geographic restrictions do is create a monopoly situation. You are forced to deal with only certain people for your netmail, echomail, nodelist listing, etc. and if you don't get the level of service that you might get in another net, or if you are asked to pay ten times as much as nodes in another net, or if you simply can't get along with the people in charge, you are up the proverbial creek without a paddle. According to Policy 4, you are not allowed to go elsewhere. In contrast, if nets were organized strictly on a voluntary basis (you join the net you want to join, which may or may not be the nearest one geographically), you would eliminate about 90% of the problems in Fidonet. Your NEC wants too much for echomail? Find another feed. Your NC says you have to take six local conferences you don't want or be excommunicated? Find another NC. Your RC cuts off your entire net to prove some point (usually that he is a bigger jerk than any other RC in Fidonet)? With non-geographic nets, there would be no need for RC's. As far as I can see, there's no real need for RC's anyway, they just gum up the works (but that's my opinion only, and I apologize for denigrating any good RC's out there). Now, I am going to share something personal with you. I started out in Fidonet back in 1987, before many of these controls were put in place. Despite what anyone may tell you, Fidonet was a much nicer place to be back then. I have seen the power-mongers and control-freaks gradually assimilate and concentrate their authority, and Policy 4 was one of the tools they've used to do this. FidoNews 10-31 Page: 31 02 Aug 1993 About a month ago, I had to go out of town for a few days, and I had to take my computer with me. By this point I had turned off all Fidonet echoes, and was only getting netmail. So I had the system that polled me every night discontinue polling and took down my system entirely, and after I got back I just never bothered to turn it back on. See, as the control freaks got more and more abusive, I wanted less and less to be part of Fidonet. Of course, I have an option that many of you don't have. Last November I moved and in my new location I have access to Michnet, a statewide non-profit packet network in Michigan (one that could well be the model for a national data network, by the way). Through Michnet I can access the Internet and get access to all the Usenet news I could ever want to read. I can also connect to the various Freenet systems, and receive mail that way. I can connect to various FTP servers and download files. At present this doesn't cost me a dime (because of upcoming changes at Michnet, I will soon be limited to only being able to connect to sites in Michigan or to Gopher systems for free, but there's still more available in that subset of the Internet than I could ever hope to want!). So I should be happy, right? I should be able to just turn up my nose at the jerks running Fidonet and walk away, and say "Goodbye, you S.O.B.'s, you'll never be able to turn the screws to me again!" Except that I care. I recently took a personality test I found at an Internet FTP site (in effect, a place where you can download files), and the description for people of my personality type reads in part as follows: "Beneath the quiet exterior, INFJ's hold deep convictions about the weightier matters of life. Those who are activists--INFJ's gravitate toward such a role--are there for the cause, not for personal glory or political power. "INFJ's are champions of the oppressed and downtrodden. They often are found in the wake of an emergency, rescuing those who are in acute distress. INFJ's may fantasize about getting revenge on those who victimize the defenseless. The concept of 'poetic justice' is appealing to the INFJ. "'There's something rotten in Denmark.' Accurately suspicious about others' motives, INFJ's are not easily led. These are the people that you can rarely fool any of the time......" I apologize for reprinting so much of that, but I suspect that this description also applies to many of the other folks who do passionately care about where Fidonet is going, and who see through some of the actions of the various coordinators. Naturally, the "bad" coordinators do not like having their inner motives laid on the table for all in Fidonet to see, so they naturally see those of us who care as a thorn in their sides, and if at all possible, a nuisance to be eliminated. By the way, according to one of the documents that I FTP'd along with the personality test, those of the INFJ personality type comprise FidoNews 10-31 Page: 32 02 Aug 1993 only about 1% of the total population. So in any given net or region, there aren't going to be that many of us, making us a minority and therefore, convenient targets. (Also by the way, I will add a disclaimer that the personality test stuff is only one of many guides to someone's personality, and may not always give an accurate picture. Still, I found the above fascinating because it seemed to describe those who get truly passionate about things like this, and then when it mentioned that there were so few of us, it helped me understand why it was always so difficult to get many Fidonet sysops fired up enough to want to change the status quo.) The problem is that no matter how much I may care, or others who have a similar personality type care, no changes are going to come if everyone else decides not to "rock the boat" until THEY PERSONALLY are afflicted, and then only until their particular problem is solved. For example, let's say that suddenly the German *C's back down and restore the nodelist exactly as it was in mid-June. Does that mean our problems are over? Does that mean that it will never happen again, in any other part of Fidonet? Of course not. Policy 4 will still be in effect. Instead of applying band-aids to these problems, we need to perform major surgery, starting with Policy 4. Now, I would like to digress for just a moment to give you an example of what real-life politicians have done here in Michigan (yes, this does have an application to Policy 4, please bear with me for two paragraphs!). For years, schools in Michigan have been financed mostly through property taxes. As education spending has increased, these taxes have gone up and up, with the result that Michigan had some of the highest property taxes anywhere (for those outside of Michigan, in this state the term "property taxes" generally refers to taxes on the value of real estate, including any improvements such as houses, businesses, or other buildings located on the property). Because of this, major businesses were moving out of state, and in some cases people were not improving or repairing their homes to avoid additional taxation. So the legislature tried to pass all sorts of plans that would lower property taxes a little and increase revenue from other sources a little. In other words, they tried to take a bad law and dress it up a little. But they could never get such plans passed, because there was never any agreement on the best way to accomplish the goal of lowering property taxes, nor on what should be done to make up the difference. Finally, they did the one thing they could agree on... they passed a law saying that property taxes could no longer be used to support the schools, thus cutting property taxes by almost two-thirds instantly. Of course the education lobby cried about how irresponsible this action was, but legislators were simply tired of arguing without ever reaching any resolution, so they decided to eliminate the one option that had always been open to them in the past: Delaying action while keeping the status quo! Now, they feel that all sides will have much more incentive to come up with a new and better way to finance the schools, and that agreement will finally be within their grasp (also, the governor feels that much of the shortfall can be made up by FidoNews 10-31 Page: 33 02 Aug 1993 cutting waste and excess spending in other state programs). So how does this apply to Fidonet? I have a simple proposal: Instead of haggling endlessly over what should be in a new Policy document, let's try to accomplish just one thing immediately. Let's enact a Policy 5, that contains EVERY SINGLE WORD of Policy 4 but adds just one paragraph, as follows: "This Policy will be in effect until December 31, 1993, after which time it will be null and void. No portion of this Policy may be enforced against any Fidonet sysop after that date. Any Policy document which supersedes this Policy must be enacted by a majority vote of all sysops in Fidonet. If no new Policy document has been enacted by December 31, 1993 then no official Policy shall be in effect in Fidonet. Temporary extensions of the expiration date of this Policy shall not be permitted for any reason." Do you suppose that if this were added to Policy 4, folks might feel a little bit more inclined to put forth some decent policy proposals, knowing that there would actually be a vote taken? The point is, for the first step, get rid of the option to keep the status quo. Once everyone knows that Policy 4 will be history in a few months, there can be some serious discussion about how to fix some of the wrongs in Fidonet. Or, maybe sysops will decide that we don't really NEED an "official policy"... that should be an option as well. Personally, I think that Policy documents should be as short as possible and leave things as open-ended as possible, but others may disagree. The point is that right now those who are happy enough with current policy (because they are not being adversely affected by it at the moment) see no real need to hurry and change it. This would at least give folks a reason to start thinking seriously about how policy could be improved. If you care about Fidonet and don't want to see it fall apart node by node (or region by region), ask your NC to support a "sunset clause" amendment to Policy 4. Or just wait until you get disgusted and then walk away, like I did. If you take the latter option, you won't feel good about it, but if your blood pressure is already a bit too high you may need to consider that action. In any case, I wish everyone well, and hope that in another four years Policy 4 is part of ancient history! Jack Decker Internet address: ao944@yfn.ysu.edu ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: ARJ vs ZIP, The Faceoff By Scott Shaffer, Satellite of Love BBS (1:106/4580) I must comment on Scott Millers test of compression utilities. While I think some solid testing on the archivers has merit, Scott's should not be considered a very accurate reflection on either programs abilities. Simply using 1 file to test an archivers capabilities is FidoNews 10-31 Page: 34 02 Aug 1993 clearly not how they should be judged. I would like to try to put forward a little better data compression test, and hopefully make things a little clearer. First, it would seem to me that time involved in comp/decomp is of little consequence since the true bottleneck in our community is the data xfer speed. However, I understand that the time involved is very important to some people, and I do not wish to discount it. But, since the time to comp/decomp will be different on each machine (even of the same type CPU and clock speed) due to the wide array of hardware available, I will not publish any timings. I will say that the time to compress and decompress are almost the same for both programs on my machine, and your mileage may vary. Second, to judge the effectiveness of differing archivers, a set of test data must be developed that accurately reflects the type of data that gets compressed routinely by the users. In the BBS community, that data set is necessarily large. I would like to put forward my test suite of data and explain the rational behind it. I would like note that this data suite does NOT propose to test the algorithms in question. Instead, I want to test the implementation of the different algorithms. Therefore, there will be none of the traditional 'best case' or 'worst case' scenarios here. I am looking to test REAL WORLD situations. I have broken down the test data into the types of files that I think are most often transmitted in our BBS community. Three types are worth testing: executable files, text files, and graphics files. It is easy to see why executables are the most important, as they make up the bulk of BBS file areas (except some graphics, see below). Text files are an area where compression can be easily gained (thank Huffman), and all those documentation files are worth shrinking. Graphic files are sort of a mixed bag. I have left out the format of files that are already compressed (like PCX, GIF, and JPG) since they yield minimal compression factors (and most boards don't bother compressing them). I have then decided that regular old BMPs are what remains, and worthy data for the compression programs. Finally, I have included WAV files as an interesting exercise. Since audio is a different type of data altogether, it would benefit from a completely different compression algorithm (one in Dr. Dobb's Journal supposedly gets 6 to 1 losseless compression.) However, these are not in widespread use, and I thought it would be interesting to see how our regular archivers worked out. The WAV files are all type 1 uncompressed. SETUP The test machine is a i486DX50, and I am using ARJ 2.41 and PKZIP 2.04g. The test files are a random collection of things found on my hard disk. FidoNews 10-31 Page: 35 02 Aug 1993 The commands to each program: arj a -m1 -jm * * pkzip -ex * * RESULTS 38 BMP files 23 EXE files 115 TXT files 20 WAV files raw 5319542 3812802 2791543 2828241 ARJ 1515298 28% 1421666 37% 807103 28% 1289020 45% PKZIP 1499382 28% 1416247 37% 801885 28% 1279533 45% diff 15916 1% 5419 0.4% 5218 0.7% 9487 0.7% CONCLUSIONS Although PKZIP was better in each test, it was always 1% or less. This is not enough for me to call one a 'winner'. Oh, and I don't propose we change the standard in Fidonet to anything. ARC is clearly the best choice today, as it has true multiplatform support. While it would seem that ZIP is gaining some ground (I think the GNU folks have a ZIP out), it isn't there yet. Any comments on the methods or data set used are welcome. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ======================================================================== 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 BBS +1-519-570-4176, 300/1200/2400/14400/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 FidoNews 10-31 Page: 36 02 Aug 1993 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 (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, 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 10-31 Page: 37 02 Aug 1993