Guest Editorial

• My Thoughts on Fidonet
• First Principles, Part II

My Thoughts on Fidonet, 12/2/2000
by Darrell Salter

This is the third edition of "My Thoughts on Fidonet", the original being written in 1997 when I was the NC (Network Coordinator) of Net 229. This document is originally posted on the web at http://sparkys.dyndns.org and you can check there first for updates to my writings. These documents have been consequently posted from the web site to various publications like Fidonews. It seems to be an editorial that has taken on a life of it's own because I get so much mail and so many comments about it, both positive and negative. Please, keep writing to me, I enjoy your comments, whether you agree with me or not. Fidonet is, after all, an association that was built on anarchistic principles, and is all about free and open communication.

Yet again, a dangerous thing has been attempted (do people never learn?). A bunch of policy-thumping sysops marched into the FN_SYSOP echo and started spouting off about the new and improved proposed changes to Policy document #4. Hello? Was P4 ever sysop-ratified in the first place? It wasn't of course, and they know it. So what were they trying to do? Some of them probably thought the proposed ideas had merit and were genuinely trying to fix that sorry excuse for a policy document. But I think the real reason was far more insidious. They thought if they could get the sysops of Fidonet to approve a few minor changes that looked good to the sysops, it would constitute an approval for the whole document. Wrong! Nice try.

Policy 4 has never been given the seal of approval from the sysops it is supposed to represent. What was done some 10 years ago was that a group of sysops known as RCs (Regional Coordinators) approved it. Why? Because P4 gave the RCs far-reaching powers to rule over the sysops of Fidonet. It was objected to then, and it is objected to now. If the policy thumpers want to add even more to Policy 4 and have it approved, they must get a sysop ratification of it. I don't care if they present the old P4, or a new one, for sysop ratification, but it needs to be voted on by the sysops in it's entirety.

The challenge was laid out to the policy thumpers to have a sysop vote for their beloved document so as to settle this issue once and for all. Their reaction was typical and three-fold. First, they tried to claim that P4 was already ratified. Excuse me? SYSOP-RATIFICATION PLEASE, not RC ratification, for obvious reasons. Second, they coordinated a vicious attack of character assassination against those of us that were putting a wrinkle in their plans. This culminated with their arrogant proclamation, "if you don't like it, get out of Fidonet"! Um, excuse me again, but this is not a network belonging to the policy thumpers. They do not decide who stays and who leaves. The sysops do, collectively. In fact, this entire network belongs to the sysops, lock, stock, and barrel. We, the sysops, will decide all issues, thank you very much. Third, they bailed out in retreat. Once exposed, the policy thumpers scurried away in defeat to regroup. Some of them scrambled over to the Z1C echo where they attempted to enlist the Zone One Coordinator to help them in their crusade. Some others scrambled for the "moral high-ground" where they sit now and extol their virtuous pasts and stroke themselves with stories of glory days gone by when sysops were intimidated by policy, and those that used it to berate and belittle their fellow sysops. A few have stuck around to snipe at us but their guns, like their arguments, are empty. The end result was that no sysop ratification vote is being coordinated by the policy thumpers. They know all to well that sysops simply want to be left alone to run their systems as they see fit without some glory-seeking mob of beaurocratic wankers telling them what they must or must not do with their own computers, modems, phone lines and/or Internet connections.

Comments: Write to me at r12c@sprk.com, or send me netmail at 1:12/0.

First Principles
Part II in a Series examining ZMH and FTS001 Issues
David B. Smith, American Tune BBS (1:2410/104)

Have been following the should-we-or-shouldn't-we discussions about ZMH & FTS-001 for a while, and haven't been firmly convinced by either side. Something's missing in both arguements.

Why is ZMH important? Why is FTS-001 important?

Direct Netmail. Heavy on the "direct." If I don't follow ZMH, and/or if I don't comply with FTS-001, you won't be able to send me direct netmail, and with the latter, I may not be able to send you direct netmail.

Naturally, that's always been considered important -- because in the beginning, that's all Fidonet was about -- direct netmail. Tom Jennings and his friends would send messages directly one to another, and that was it. No echomail, no filebones, not even routed netmail. Just Direct Netmail.

As I have pointed out elsewhere, ZMH and FTS-001 appear to me to be focused at accomplishing the exact opposite of what's causing all the arguments. Direct Netmail requires only one hour a day, and only one minimal standard, so that Fidonet impacts as little as possible on the primary objective -- the local BBS, with it's own local discussions, local gaming groups, local character & local color.

And they exist only to consistently allow for one function, the first functionality offered by Fidonet, which is Direct Netmail. All the arguments for these two (other than "but it's Policy") have been "If you don't follow those standards, I can't send you Netmail, so the Net is broken." Well, sorta.

If you assume that sending and recieving Direct Netmail is absolutely vital to Fidonet.

I don't think it is. Sure, in a "spiritual" sense, perhaps. "Grasshopper, when you can snatch the netmail from my modem, then it's time for you to kill the Prince, go to America and make sappy TV programs." It is the oldest Fidonet technical function. But it isn't the only function, and it certainly isn't the most important, and hasn't been for years.

And no Blue Lightning flashed down from the sky and struck me dead when I said that. <g>

The individual BBS is the most important thing. Fidonet is valuable to the extent that those individual, unique venues also produce content that can add value to other unique BBSes, and Fidonet gets it there.

Direct Netmail is "necessary" in joining Fidonet to demonstrate a successful connection to Fidonet, the ability to move mail. But I haven't recieved any direct netmail in a long time, and I have completely given up sending any. Can't afford to. Even my "local" network isn't local to me, and I can't afford to call directly from my system to theirs.

And you just recieved this message. The mail got moved anyway. Why? Because without making a direct POTS call to the next areacode over, I used my Internet connection to deliver it. I can probably succeed in sending netmails to everybody in this echo, using that same method of connection. Not direct, routed. But netmail. I'm successfully connected to Fidonet.

The only necessity for ZMH comes from Direct Netmail. And the only necessity for FTS-001 compliance is to insure ability for Direct Netmail. And if you lost Direct Netmail abilities, probably nobody would notice.

If my mailer had blown up permanently at Y2K (which almost happened) and I'd entirely lost my ability to send or recieve Direct Netmail, my ability to practically communicate with any other functioning Fidonet node in the world would have been effected not one whit.

File moving? The Internet using a couple-three techniques. Person-to-person messaging within Fidonet? Routed netmail. Absolutely must be private messages? Internet email, which can be encrypted, for that matter.

But what if I absolutely, positively must get a message to you right now?? An LD phone call. Direct netmail, especially during ZMH, won't get to you (as compared to your Board) till you wake up in the morning.

Direct Netmail is a Real Nifty Trick. It's been around an awfully long while, and there's kind of a sentamental attachment to it. To Fidonet, it's like Code requirements to be Ham, or Full Immersion Baptism. But let us finally realize that it is not the be-all and end-all of Fidonet.

If you can do it, great, more power to you. If you can't, you're missing something -- but you're not missing Fidonet.