ÜÛÜ ÜÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÜ ÜÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÜ ÜÛÛÜ ÜÛÛÜ ÜÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÜ ÜÛÛÜ ÜÛÛÜ ÜÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÜ ÛÛÛÛÛ ÛÛÛÛß ßÛÛÛ ÛÛÛÛ ßßß ÛÛÛÛÛÜ ÛÛÛÛ ÛÛÛÛ ßßß ÛÛÛÛ ÛÛÛÛ ÛÛÛÛß ßÛÛÛÛ ÛÛÛÛÛ ÛÛÛÛ ÛÛÛÛÜÜÜÜÜ ÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛ ÛÛÛÛÜÜÜÜÜ ÛÛÛÛ ÛÛÛÛ ßÛÛÛÛÛÜÜ ÛÛÛÛÛ ÛÛÛÛ ÛÛÛÛßßßßß ÛÛÛÛßÛÛÛÛÛÛ ÛÛÛÛßßßßß ÛÛÛÛÜÛÜÛÛÛÛ ßßÛÛÛÛÛÜ ÛÛÛÛÛ ÛÛÛÛÜ ÜÛÛÛ ÛÛÛÛ ÜÜÜ ÛÛÛÛ ßÛÛÛÛ ÛÛÛÛ ÜÜÜ ÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛ ÛÛÛÛÜ ÜÛÛÛÛ ßÛß ßÛÛÛÛÛÛÛß ßÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛß ßÛÛß ßÛÛß ßÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛÛß ßÛÛß ßÛÛß ßÛÛÛÛÛÛÛß ÚÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ¿ ³ IceNEWS is an independent newsletter published monthly as a service to ³ ³ IceNET, its Sysops and users. The opinions & reviews expressed herein ³ ³ are the expressed views of the respective writers. All Rights Reserved.³ ÀÄÄÂÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÂÄÄÙ ³ April In This Month's Issue of IceNEWS Volume 2 ³ ³ 1993 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Issue 3 ³ ³ ³ ³ Feature Articles ³ ³ Evolution of Networking - Filo......................... 1@2051 ³ ³ BBSes and Child Pornography - Chromatic Dragon......... 1@6981 ³ ³ ³ ³ Technical Department ³ ³ Hacking WWIV Software - Ima Moron...................... 1@9661 ³ ³ Converting Doors To Run Under WWIV - Avon.............. 1@5802 ³ ³ ³ ³ Software Department ³ ³ Registering Shareware - Martin......................... 1@6257 ³ ³ What Is OS-2? - Eremos................................. 1@2800 ³ ³ BBS Utilities I Can't Do Without - Kid................. 1@9403 ³ ³ To Cripple, Or Not To Cripple - Spammer................ 2@7676 ³ ³ ³ ³ User's Forum ³ ³ The Initiation of a New User - Ima Moron............... 1@9661 ³ ³ The Importance of Voice Validating New Callers ³ ³ - Jack Ryan......................................... 1@6100 ³ ³ User's Poll Question - The Fez......................... 2@7653 ³ ³ ³ ³ Humor Department ³ ³ Bob's Guide to Power Posting - Alpine Bob.............. 1@7416 ³ ÃÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ´ ³ Editors: Spelunker #1 @7653 and The Fez #2 @7653 ³ ÀÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÙ F E A T U R E A R T I C L E S ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ ÚÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ¿ ³ Chaotic Patterns or Global Architecture? ³ ³ Evolution of Networking ³ By: Filo (1@2051) ÀÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ Have you seen those "trick" pictures -- the ones that when viewed at a normal distance look like a Rorschach test, but when viewed at a greater distance look like a woman in front of a mirror or some other very observable picture? If so, you may have something of the perspective on the many networks that now seem to be springing up each day. Being so near to them and to their nascent development may cause us to fail to perceive the global architecture surrounding them. Networking in WWIV is a new phenomenon when viewed against the development of the world, for it is only seven years old. Multiple networks in WWIV that are capable of communicating with each other easily, gating e-mailed messages (NET32) and subs (NET32 and v4.22), are developments that are only a few months old. With this development in the software, many fledgling networks have come into existence. These new networks are somewhat like alligator eggs. The female alligator lays 30 to 40 eggs; most of which will not hatch into alligators due to being broken, being found by predators, or being eaten by other alligators. Many of our current networks will, like those eggs, never mature into full- grown networks. In my opinion, we are unlikely to see the emergence of more than 3 more general interest, full-service, WWIV-based networks in the USA during the next ten years unless we have significant growth in WWIV usage. On a world-wide basis, I believe that we will see several more "national" networks evolve during that period. It is not at all difficult for me to imagine rather large WWIV-based networks developing rapidly in Europe, Asia and possibly Mexico. Those areas have the economies to support rather wide-spread computer usage and with that will come a share of Bulletin Board usage and interest in Networks. At the same time, I think we will see numerous small networks survive as well. I believe that in time those small networks that succeed will do so for primarily one of two reasons. I would like to examine those reasons in turn. First, some networks will survive and perhaps grow and prosper because they have chosen to specialize in some particular area of interest. The concept of "networking" in the sense of developing support groups is very popular in our society and is apt to become even more important in our social structure. We have only to look around us at various groups that have emerged and prospered as a result of interest in common problems: The Sierra Club, Single Parent Groups, Alcoholics Anonymous, Battered Wives Associations, Mothers Against Drunk Drivers; and those who share an interest in common subjects: motorcycles, skiing, bridge, flowers, stamp collectors, etc. These shared interests could be the basis for a small network that wishes to specialize in a particular topic. They will meet the needs of a special interest group that does not care to be bothered with other general aspects that might be offered on a network. If we examined the volume of traffic on any given day on all networks regarding certain topics, we could find a sufficient body of posts to have a network devoted just to that idea. For example, Star Trek and its various aspects (Original, New Generation, etc) exists on most major networks in WWIV as well as in FidoNet and InterNet. Just that subject matter alone, if combined across all of those networks, would exceed the daily volume of posts on any single WWIV-based networks and would probably come close to rivaling a day's volume on FidoNet (20,000+ nodes excluding "points"). Some of these shared interests will also, I hope, arise among professionals who want to share their views and discuss their problems just as we currently do as Sysops facing some common problem. I can easily see how a network of accountants, for example, could provide benefits to the profession as a whole. In fact, many of the large accounting firms are actually "buying" time on CompuServe and other such pay-for-use networks in order to avail themselves of electronic mail capacity. If one of our larger networks were to be able to provide that same service to some large firm and to receive financial support for doing so, it could vastly improve the number of nodes it services and the quality of its connections. In short, the area of specialized networks will be one which I think will insure survival for some networks. This does not mean, of course, that I think all "speciality" networks will survive, but merely that I think we will see some of these grow fairly large, survive, and prosper to maturity. The second reason that I think some networks will survive is based on economics. For example, I see on many of our networks that the administrators often complain of the large "turnover" rate among new boards started by younger sysops. Again, I am not saying that younger sysops do not provide stability to the network, for some of them are among the best sysops that we can find anywhere. What I am saying is that of those who join a network, stay a few weeks and drop out, the incidence of youthful sysops is high. One reason for the high dropout or turnover among younger sysops in particular is related to the cost of networking. Many young sysops can neither afford the cost of LD connections nor the shared costs of such connections when done as part of a "hub." Currently these young sysops are often "forced" to leave networks merely because they cannot pay their fair share. However, many of the sysops who participate in shared cost situations would, in my opinion, be willing to allow those younger sysops to obtain any sub that was already coming into the area (for the cost would not increase). What is often feared is that a "free" connection to a hub will order an immense number of new subs and thus drive up the cost of networking. Enter the small network as a means of solving the "economic" crises! One way for a "hub" or a single individual calling out for LD to have some protection against local connections ordering "new" subs is to have those local connections organized as a small local network and gate to them those subs which the caller would take anyway. Such a situation would provide the "security" required by the LD carrier and yet would permit the smaller local net to operate completely, sharing local stuff and obtaining some LD subs. Such a small local network would essentially allow the members to obtain some of the benefits associated with a FidoNet "point." This type of small local network seems to me to be a WIN-WIN situation. Our own recent experiences with multiple WWIV-based networks is similar to what has occurred and is still occurring on FidoNet. FidoNet has split several times and has had its splinter networks (AlterNet, EggNet, EgoNet, BBSnet, etc.). Some have survived; some have not. During the entire process, FidoNet itself continues to grow and prosper. Its status as an accepted domain in UseNet and InterNet has also helped it to grow. I think the day will come soon when WWIV-based networks will become domains in FidoNet and eventually in UseNet and InterNet. (BTW, there is already a WWIV domain in UseNet but it is relatively unknown and remains small). The global pattern is that communications will increase among nations and peoples of the earth. The necessity for the rapid acquisition of knowledge and the exchange of information between people will add to the number of persons using our networks and will insure the survival of a few general purpose networks as well as a large number of small, specialized networks serving both informational and economic needs. As the world shrinks into a "global village" and as the standard of living improves world-wide, networks will be the beneficiaries of much growth provided that we learn to live with one another without sysop wars, flaming each other, etc. ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ ÚÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ¿ ³ BBSes and Child Pornography ³ By: Chromatic Dragon (1@6982/1@6981) ÀÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ There has been a lot of talk about the electronic pornography issue recently, and I would like to share my views with you on them. First, there is a proliferation of electronic pornography available today. Most recently, we saw the FBI conduct a sting operation on an international ring of child pornographers. I believe its clear to all that Child Pornography has no decent place in our society, as it promotes further sexual abuse of children. We owe it to the dignity of our hobby and in some cases, our professions, to discourage people guilty of promoting this unacceptable behavior. There has been considerable debate over the right to own "data", regardless of what that data may be. I disagree with this view point. Are we to guard the freedom of speech and expression to the exclusion of Children's rights? Are we to ignore the heinous crimes committed against many children each year, so we can say "Its our right to speak and express ourselves as we see fit"? I say those freedoms are meaningless if we are unable to secure the safety of our children from society's sexual predators. We ignore the forest for the trees. We place blinders on and concentrate on our right to free expression, but we disregard the very fundamentals of a decent society. Although the expectations for our society are varied and diverse, we should easily reach common ground in regards to basic violations of decency. Today the term "decency" raises the ire of many people because they interpret the word as an infringement on their right to make choices. I say we better our chances of freedom by making a stand against what we know is wrong, instead of protecting it under the blanket of free speech. Censorship is the antithesis of the System Operator's credo, but as in all cases there are exceptions to the rule. We would hold up to better legal scrutiny and further enhance our freedom of expression if we were to police ourselves, instead of turning that responsibility over to the government. Think of it as a chance to buffer ourselves from the attentions of regulating authorities, by maintaining the appearance that we have common goals, and that we too have limits to our tolerance. Some say that if you start with Child Pornography, it will lead to other sacrifices in communication. In my view, I believe nothing could be further from the truth because we remove all possible confliction and points of contention before the government has the chance to. By establishing a clear foundation of common decency, you convey a common ground with those outside our community. Child Pornography presents a ripe opportunity for System Operators all over the world to unite and declare themselves unworthy of government regulation, by assisting authorities in discouraging Child Pornography within our community. Those people who choose to pursue this decadent subject, are undeserving of our protection within our bastions of Free Speech. Lets make a clear message to all that we do not tolerate nor condone the abuse of our children. ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ T E C H N I C A L D E P A R T M E N T ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ ÚÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ¿ ³ Hacking WWIV Software ³ By: Ima Moron (1@9661) ÀÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ Long ago in a WWIV version not heard of by most sysops there was a security loophole that would allow a user to upload a batch file then execute that file while online. The days of the archive section loophole are over, Mr. Bell has incorporated protection routines in WWIV since version 4.20e. In earlier versions of WWIV some sysops locked out the archive section of the BBS, others limited user access to the files section or created a BBS where the entire user list was made up of close friends. Today WWIV is written with string scans that watch for DOS redirects, the redirect being the most likely way for a hacker to reach the system and with that accomplishment delete a directory. Other methods of batch madness have been screened by limiting DOS calls from the comport. On the subboards all messages are systems routed to the display, this being the second interrupt after the system function checks the output source. An improper call from the wrong interrupt would cause your DOS to drop to protected systems mode, at which time you'll see something like; Call to protected systems area of DOS: A)llow, D)elete to reboot Your display may vary, however this is a definite signal that indicates a hack attempt. I've sat behind my monitor and watched a user do this to my BBS twice before I deleted his account and added his handles to my trashcan.txt file. Between WWIV and DOS you should be well protected with a modern AT and a well made modem. I mention modems here because some modems when initiated improperly will allow a user to put your BBS modem into the command mode remotely. This wouldn't allow the hacker to drop you to DOS, however he can jam your BBS by doing this and if he's smart he can lock up your BBS until you catch onto the fact that your init string has been reset. WHAT TO DO..? Don't be so easy going when the same user was the last logon and you find your computer at protected systems. If it happens twice I'd suggest that you delete the clown, because if you don't your BBS may become a proving ground for hackers methods. I've called a local BBS and have seen a file of WWIV hacking techniques available for download. Now I don't know about your area, but here in Northern California the FCC will prosecute a hacker, and if necessary they hunt the jerk down for you. If you need help ask your Sheriff. By far the most covert method of hacking a BBS is by the trojan horse file method. This is an attractively titled file that contains an executable or command file that will delete a directory or virus the system. Of the trojan horse files the most deadly is is the ansic bomb type. This type of file utilizes the ansic capability of PKWARE in an attempt to reset the interrupts then calls an executable or com file hidden in the ZIP which is not compressed but stored. Now I know that some of the experts are going to disagree with me, but one careless act with a loaded ansi and your files are history. PKWARE INC. allows for download an anti ansic bomb file named PKSFANSI.COM. This is a terminate and stay resident utility from the PK people, I'd suppose that they know what they are doing and you could probably rely on this program for most bomb situations. I have a copy of this, from the PKWARE manual; PKSFANSI.COM - PKSFANSI (PK Safe ANSI) is a terminate and stay resident program that disables ANSI keyboard key reassignments, thereby preventing "ANSI Bombs" embedded in any text file (such as read.me files) or output by any program. Normally ANSI sequences that redifine the KB could be hidden inside of ANY text file or program, and could be executed completely unnoticed until it's to late. PKSFANSI intercepts calls to the ansi.sys or other ANSI device drivers, and filters out any keyboard reassignments while allowing other ANSI sequences through unaltered. That is what you get when you register that PKWARE compression utility. I personally rely on FluShot+ which I bought for the astounding price of $29.95. I'm glad I spent the money because as I was fooling around with some undocumented command utilities this program sent me the following message; SWITCH.EXE - is attempting to infect drive C: with the PLO- or Jerusalem virus. Remember where I and the experts disagreed? Right here, this PLO virus was spread across 40 plus utilities and switch.exe was the trigger for the virus. Fortunately FLUSHOT also does a file checksum and scans the environment, that saved me from the TSR part of the PLO. The experts call this a stealth approach to virus a system. Well I knew that every now again a sysop would receive a little strange file from someone. Now I've heard that Central Point Software has a nice little package that both interrupts those nasty direct file writes and scans the existing files for a byte checksum change, I'm not sure because I only have word of mouth information about the product. I really think that the product to purchase is the one that interrupts the offending program before that bug makes it to disk, and that method will work so long as you the sysop won't skip through the warning screen messages when you are unzipping a new upload. Now I know that some of you expected someone to type out the how to of making an ansi bomb, or perhaps show how to utilize a DOS redirect from the ansi comment of a zip. The reason I won't do that was in this article, that paragraph where I said that I'd found a file about hacking WWIV BBSs. One of us in our zeal to be informative would post the directions and then there would be an outbreak of ansi bombs and ansic trojans all over the US. Not to leave anybody out of the game, I'll mention that McAffee and Associates make a scanning utility called scan.exe and clean.exe. These are two utilities that locate and clean off a virus. I'm not in total agreement with McAffee's methods, but I'm not an expert at anti virus methods. Being fooled is part of the hacking game, and download protocols made for v32 modems can drop you to protected systems. Protocols can also dump your active hayes command set and cause the modem to go crazy. You may not be hacked, but some user's rear might be in your ringer because of his name placement in the sysop's log. The problem here might actually be that your memory managers are set for extended memory use and your protocol is switched to directly access the expanded memory. The page frame request here is different, and this might cause the drop to protected systems by DOS. Would you know if a user was handing you an excuse after a hacking attempt or would you realize that your software installation caused the drop to protected systems? If you like the article you will find me located 1@9661 WWIVNET & ICENET if you disagree with my article please write and tell me. ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ ÚÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ¿ ³ Converting Doors To Run Under WWIV ³ By: Avon (1@5802) ÀÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ Doors, gotta love them! Yeah right! On Sanctuary, I place many doors on-line so that other sysop's may see them in operation. I just spent over $500 in registration fees for the better ones. Now whether users will appreciate this remains to be seen. But back to the subject at hand. You call a board and see a door there that you like, but the system you are calling is not a WWIV system, well you have several options, one, write the author of the door and ask that he make it WWIV compatible. Two, go take a course in "C" or Pascal and write a look alike for WWIV. Or Three, find a way to interface the files. Luckily, thanks to several programs, there is a way to do the third way, and do it easily. Two programs that I have tried have been Door Kit and Door Master, both of them are very good programs, I prefer Door Master, and will be registering the software as soon as I get my new printer. What these programs do is convert chain.txt to the equivalent file that the door uses. Say the door you wish to use is written for WildCat, this can be tricky. First you need to know which version of WildCat is being used. Versions 1 & 2 of WildCat utilize a CALLINFO.BBS file which serves the function of WWIV's CHAIN.TXT. With WildCat V.3 the filename was changed to DOOR.SYS, that had to make some people happy, NOT! Once you know what file is needed for your Non-WWIV door to work, thoroughly read the docs for the door converter program. I have found the command lines are usually quite simple for example, Door Master, the command line to convert CHAIN.TXT to DOOR.SYS is "dm /f=wwiv /t=wc3". This will convert CHAIN.TXT to DOOR.SYS. If you wish the file to be placed in the same directory as the door, the you would use a command line similar to this one "dm/f=wwiv /t=wc3 /dp=c:\wwiv\chains\door" Now, let's look at Chain Edit. A.) Description : This is the name of the Door obviously B.) Filename : This is the name of the batch file you are using to execute the door C.) SL : Security Level, This can be what ever you decide is best for your system's needs D.) AR : You can restrict who has access to your doors by using AR's E.) ANSI : I usually set this to optional, unless the door clearly states ansi is necessary. F.) DOS Interrupt: NOT USED!!! If the door is not written for WWIV, then it cannot use WWIV's interface for DOS Interrupts. Some games will function if you use the WWIV to intercept the DOS calls, but will hang when door is exited, so DO NOT USE. G.) 300 baud : Your Decision H.) Shrink : If you only have 640k of memory, then more than likely this should be yes. If the door uses a lot of ANSI, then say yes. I.) Disable Pause: Always, never could figure out why Wayne put a pause in the chains area..... J.) Local : Again, your call. Here is a sample batch file, this one is for a Fresh Water Fishing Simulator, pretty simple, huh? @echo off dm /f=wwiv /t=rbbs cd\wwiv\chains\fish cd\wwiv Now, this one for Melee is a bit more difficult because it requires a fossil driver to function properly. @echo off dm /f=wwiv /t=qbbs /* Command line for Door Master */ cd\wwiv\chains\melee bnu /p:1 /f+ /m+ /* Command Line for Fossil Driver */ melee /* Command line for the Door */ bnu /u /* Command line for Fossil when game is finished */ cd\wwiv If you are having difficult with converting a door, please by all means drop me a line and I will see if I can help you out! Avon, Sysop of Sanctuary, IceNET 1@5802, WWIVnet 1@5813, WWIVweb 1@1 ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ S H A R E W A R E D E P A R T M E N T ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ ÚÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ¿ ³ Registering Shareware ³ By: Martin (1@6257) ÀÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ In the last eight years or so that I've been BBSing there has been a huge increase in the amount, and quality, of freely distributable programs available to computer users. I suppose a lot of people take it for granted that there will always be great programs available on the BBSs they call, but it hasn't always been so. When I first starting calling bulletin boards in 1984 a typical file would probably have been 20K or less in size. A game might have consisted of a crudely drawn graphics screen with a sprite or two moving across its background. And I don't recall many real utility programs other than those that organized a directory listing or sped up a disk format. Many of the limitations found in freely distributable programs were certainly due to the limited power of the 8 bit computers in use at the time. Computers typically came with 48K or 64K of memory. They were capable of displaying, for example, 40 columns and 25 rows and could display 16 different colors (out of a possible 256) at a given time. If a person was lucky enough to be able to afford it, disk drives were available that stored an amazing 180K on each disk. These disk drives, though, often cost more than the computers they went with. Modems were universally 300 baud add-ons that the general public knew even less about than they did computers. In the early eighties most of the programs legally available on computer bulletin boards were those that had been released into the public domain by the owners of the programs. People made no money off programs released into the public domain; these programs were released for the good of the general public. Public domain programs, from what I recall, were generally fairly simple programs that didn't take the resources of a software development house to create. These programs were useful, entertaining and interesting, but they never even came close to rivaling the programs that were sold by the software companies. I am convinced that this is because people writing freely distributable programs did not have the resources to create programs that would take weeks, months or years to write. By way of contrast, the programs legally available on BBSs today often equal, or even exceed, the programs available through commercial outlets. We have text editors, DOS shells, terminal programs, games, etc., etc., and so on. We even have a computer Bulletin Board program, written in C, to which registered users get the source code! Anyone who has used Telix, who's played Wolfenstein 3D, or who's run a WWIV BBS knows that there are Shareware programs available on local BBSs that are well worth the money spent registering them. And I am certain that it is the concept of Shareware that is to a great extent responsible for these programs having been written and released to the public in the first place. For those who aren't familiar with the concept, Shareware is basically a way for software authors to get their products into the hands of the general public directly - without going through middle persons (Hey, what can I say. I'm living in Minnesota, the land of the politically correct!). The theory is that by having the link directly between author and end user software can be had for a fraction of the cost paid at retail outlets. The question is: "Is it worth paying the price to register Shareware?" I guess this question could be answered in any number of different ways; I'll only mention two of them. For those looking to see how much can be had for nothing the answer is more than likely "No". In a large percentage of instances Shareware programs can be used with no significant drawbacks by those who have not registered them. A person can play the first level of some Shareware games for hours and days, can run a very successful BBS, can hook up to those BBSs with an unregistered terminal program, and never send in a dime to the people who have made these things possible. I am guilty of this myself. I've used Qedit for years and have found it to be indispensable and have gotten so used to the nag screen that I don't even notice it any more. Yeah, right. The fact is, I do notice it; I simply haven't sent in a registration fee for it. I believe in the concept of Shareware and have registered somewhere in the neighborhood of 2 dozen programs and utilities. Qedit is just one of those that is still on my "to register" list. I haven't paid the author for my use of the program yet, but I'd sure hate to have to try and get along without it. Which brings me to the main reason for my belief that Shareware is worth the money spent on registration fees aside from the obvious moral reasons. Those registration fees are the lifeblood of Shareware. They are a way for the people who spent their time, their money, their blood sweat and tears, on their products to get their fair rewards. And without the motivation to write quality programs many, maybe even most, Shareware authors would stop writing and releasing their products to the public. And I doubt anyone would ever want to return to the measly offerings found on computer bulletin boards in the early days. I sure know I wouldn't. In light of all this, what's my answer to the question of whether registering Shareware is worth the cost? A clear and resounding "Yes". ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ ÚÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ¿ ³ What is OS/2 ³ By: Eremos (1@2800) ÀÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ "(1) What is OS/2? OS/2 is an advanced operating system for PCs and PS/2s with an 80286 processor or better. It was co- developed by Microsoft and IBM and envisioned as the successor to DOS. It was designed from the ground up with preemptive multitasking and multi-threading in mind. It also protects applications from one another (a single misbehaved program will not typically disrupt the entire system), supports all addressable physical RAM, and supplies virtual memory to applications as requested, breaking DOS's 640K barrier." By now even the most remote areas have heard of OS/2. Some of you may already make extensive use of it. OS/2 is an excellent environment for running a BBS. It allows the use of the main BBS computer while the BBS is up and running. Of course OS/2 isn't perfect, you can't expect something so large and complex to be without bugs and flaws, but despite it's short comings it is perhaps the most powerful and most useful operating system you could have for your 80x86 based system. Lets set this straight. OS/2 2.0 is an operating system, like DOS. It is not a fancy DOS shell, like Windows. It is a true blue (pun intended) operating system. It handles everything. Memory management, disk access, everything. It also happens to be a multi-platform operating system to boot. This is probably OS/2s most useful feature - its breadth as an application platform. OS/2 is a base for the future of 32-bit applications, but you can also find a place for all your DOS applications as well. Not only that, with OS/2's Windows {{1}} compatibility you can run your Windows applications as well. Truly OS/2 2.0 allows you to run a wide range of multi-platform applications all at once! "How is OS/2's DOS capabilities". Excellent. In fact DOS programs run better under OS/2 that under DOS. When you open a DOS window you have a full 640K (More or less), and access to a configurable amount of EMS/XMS. Of course you can open as many of these DOS windows as you like. All with 640k and access to as much XMS and EMS as you want to allow it. In addition you gain powerful control over you DOS applications. OS/2 is actually a "Better DOS than DOS". A "Better Windows than Windows"? Perhaps. In the 2.0 release Windows 3.0 support was included. From what I have used of this it seems to be adequate. Some report a slower performance with Windows programs under OS/2. This was of course compared to Windows 3.1. I would expect this in that case. With the release of OS/2 2.1 Windows 3.1 support will be adds. Amongst a whole bunch of other features. I am running the OS/2 2.1 beta right now and have had very good results. To get down closer to home, how does OS/2 run WWIV? Excellent. I've run WWIV under OS/2 since OS/2 2.0 was first released. I've attempted to run WWIV under Windows and Desqview, with poor success. The performance of both was lackluster compared to OS/2. OS/2 offers many features that make a sysop's life easier. By being able to do more than one thing at a once, vast amounts of time are saved. For those sysops that modify their WWIV source code, OS/2 can save immense amounts of time. You can edit and modify your source, debug it, and make the BBS all while a user is on. You won't have to take down the BBS to do most of your work. You can edit a text file with the OS/2 system editor in one window, and paste some of that text into a post on your BBS in another. OS/2 was more or less a dream come true. I was actually able to reclaim the computer and use and still not have to take the BBS down. Is OS/2 for everyone? Defiantly not. Not yet at least. You can't just grab OS/2 out of the box and slap it on your Hard Drive and get it singing the Stars Spangled Banner, well not without the Multi Media Pack at least. Though you can install the thing and have it running, it will take you some time and some playing to get all your applications to run smoothly. Many will run without any real tweaking. Some though will cause you problems. Its these few that give the user enjoys a challenge their jollies. Finding out the optimal settings and getting the system tweaked makes their eyes shine. These are the people that will love OS/2. Coupled with OS/2's hardware "excessive" hardware requirements, real or perceived, alienates many from giving it a deserved chance. OS/2's hardware requirements are perhaps one of its major draw backs. OS/2 requires the following: (Straight off the box) 386SX or better based computer 4 MB of memory A high density floppy 15-30 megs on your HD A mouse Personally I recommend you have at least a 386DX-25. Get 8 megs of memory instead of 4. You won't regret it. OS/2 runs MUCH faster with 8. Although it is reported that with the Service Pack installed you will get better performance with 4 megs as IBM reduced the kernel size. It is also reported that OS/2 2.1 will run better with 4 megs. Regardless of this get the 4 extra megabytes, it will be money well spent in the long run. That high density floppy is a requirement. The General Availability (Your standard release in IBMspeak), GA for short only comes on high density 3.5 or 5.25 disks. So does the Service Pack. Since high density floppies are pretty cheap and included with any system you buy these days, you shouldn't have to worry there. The hard drive space may be cause some trouble for some people. I have seen the media slam OS/2 by saying 30 megs was too much for an operating system. Well you only need 30 megs if you are going to do the full install, which I recommend you don't perform. Do a selective install and only install the features you think you need or are going to use. Personally I never used the applets and didn't install them. Saved a bunch of space. All those little programs that IBM included in the GA, such as the clock, the data base, just to name a couple, are pretty useless when you get down to it. They look neat and might be useful once in awhile, but as the whole are a waste of disk space. Basically you can cut the installation down to 15 megs if you want. I had the install run about 16-17 megs. Not a large amount really considering you can erase DOS, Windows, Desqview, QEMM, and any data compression software like Stacker. From pretty non-scientific calculations you probably just have a bit more with OS/2 that you would with all the other stuff, and you get a whole lot more with OS/2. OS/2 complexity being one of its major advantages is also one of its drawbacks. The casual user could easily become intimidated by the multitude of settings. One can easily cause the system to become inoperable if they don't know what they are doing. OS/2 has been deemed a operating system for "Power Users", and those that are just the casual computer illiterate should stick with their little Windows environments. This is unfortunate and only seeks to alienate non-OS/2 users further. In my experience OS/2 learning curve is only a bit more steep than learning DOS. Coupled with learning Windows, well OS/2 is only one system you have to learn instead of two or more. OS/2 is capable of being an "operating system for everyone". It's wide application platform, and its crash resistance, and its ability to multi-task applications from different platforms successfully give OS/2 a very strong base from which to explode into the PC world. Plus with the release of Borland's C++ compiler for OS/2 (To be released March 1), OS/2 should become even more popular and even more usable. Eremos, WWIVnet 1@2800, ICEnet 1@2800, FIDOnet 1:347/31 eremos@cardboard.mocw.id.us Authors note: The quote at the beginning of this article was obtained from the OS/2 Frequently Asked Questions. Compiled by Timothy F. Sipples. Copies of the complete OS/2 FAQ can be had via anonymous ftp from 128.123.35.151,in /pub/os2/all/info/faq. I welcome questions and comments regarding this article and OS/2. I will happily attempt to reply to all correspondence. ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ ÚÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ¿ ³ BBS Utilities I Can't Do Without ³ By: Al Yonn (a.k.a. Kid) (1@9403) ÀÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ As most of you well know there are many utilities for WWIV.The problem is, Which one of them is going to work best with your hardware, software, and still get what you want done. I have found that one of the most used WWIV utilities is NETxx the networking software.In it's own way it may be considered a utility. NETxx comes with a file called LNET.EXE that is used to analyze and read the file DEAD.NET created when a system does not know where to send a message next. Recently "Dr.Deversity" created a file called DRLNET1.EXE which is a very useful utility when working with DEAD.NET files.It allows for you to utilize certain new features like Extracting messages to files, Dos Shell's,WWIV Color Codes, and More. Another utility used on almost all WWIV Bbs's is the TIMEBANK. Which most of you know is a utility for allowing users to keep the time from one logon and use it in another log on. Another WWIV utility is a new feature added to WWIV in version 4.22 called External strings.The most common utility to modify this is ESM which allows you to change certain strings that you and the user see. Most SysOp's use some sort of bulletin maker.I have found that these may at times be useful but the cheapest and the easiest way to make a logon bulletin is to write a batch file that echo's and does all the functions you need for example below is my batch file: @ECHO OFF CD\Bbs\Chains\Checkers BbsCheck -M C:\Bbs\Chain.Txt CD\Bbs\Chains\Chess BbsChess -M C:\Bbs\Chain.Txt Cd\Bbs ECHO: 7 Login Info From , Your SysOp: 6KID ECHO: 5Registered To: 6Kid ECHO: 2Version 1.0 Written By: 6Kid ECHO: 7---------------------------------------------------------------------- ECHO: 5Well Everyone We Have A Few On-Liners Up So Go Check Them Out. ECHO: 5Also We Are In A Lot Of Nets Now And Have Over 100 Subs. ECHO: 5So Go Post Some. ECHO: 7---------------------------------------------------------------------- Exit And that is how my Bulletin maker works. It's a Lot easier than registering a whole program for 20-50 dollars. Some other utilities I have seen are Full Screen Editors.Such as the one I am using to write this.I prefer WWIVedit, Because it allows for the "WWIV SLASH COMMAND's" ,With most other editors you have to use CTRL or ALT characters such as to save in another Program you may have to hit CTRL-S to save. Also the biggest question is "What Software Should I Use For A Bbs?" well I picked WWIV because it has some of the easiest command's for both SysOp and Users.WWIV is un-doubtedly one of the best if not THE BEST bbs types.As we all know the story behind "telegard".Although "telegard" was a very nice bbs it had a few features that bombed out, like the SysOp "YELL" command.I also have looked at a bbs called "SearchLight" and it was very very nice.Simple menu command's like hitting the space bar would give you separate menu option's. Yet another utility that some SysOp's use is "The Draw" for making the ansi screens for there bbs's such as the log on screen or menu's."The Draw" is a simple program to operate.It merely makes it easier to animate and color the ansi's most of the "ALT" commands were moved to the function keys."The Draw" also makes drawing line's easier with the ALT-M command which allows drawing. And that's all that i can think of.. any comment's/suggestions for another article on this topic/question's just E-Mail Me 1@9403 and the alias is KID ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ ÚÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ¿ ³ To Cripple, Or Not To Cripple ³ By: Spammer (2@7676) ÀÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ What do you think of "CrippleWare?" Well, I for one, can see the point that the programmers had in mind. You see, a lot of people who go out and find ShareWare will not register it. Now, here's a few things to keep in mind when it comes to registering ShareWare: 1) Support usually comes with registration. This is not always true, but in most cases, it is. 2) Updates. A lot of programmers update their software because of user request, bugs, modifications to accompanying programs, or even a combination of these things. So, the programmer may include future updates as part of registered privileges. 3) Source Codes. Sometimes, the programmer will include the source code so that you can personalize it to your taste or modify it for your needs or wants. 4) Appreciation. Programmers of ShareWare/Public Domain Software put a lot of time, effort, and swearing into their creation. Registration shows the appreciation of the user for their efforts. So, you see, registration of "uncrippled" ShareWare programs does more than get rid of that annoying "UNREGISTERED" notice. As for "CrippleWare," I agree to a point. People like to see what they're getting before they buy it. That's one thing I don't like about commercial software. I have been disappointed after going to a store, buying a game or utility, and finding that the only thing that was worth keeping was the disk. Mind you, I don't agree with piracy, but, I hate being disappointed, also. I think that if you are going to write a program, either send it out uncrippled as ShareWare, or make a demo of the program so that the user can see the program in operation, but knows that it will not accomplish the job. One program that comes to mind is The Network Coordinator. Dr. Fred sent it out as a demo, and the user will get the usable version when he/she registers it. The reason I like Demos over "crippleware" is that most users don't read what it won't do, they see just how to run it. Then, when they go to do something that the unregistered version won't do, they get upset and, probably, won't get another piece of software. That defeats part of the purpose of the programmer. Please remember, these are the views of only one user. I know that there are others who agree, but I am only stating an opinion. ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ N E W U S E R ' S F O R U M ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ ÚÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ¿ ³ The Initiation of a New User ³ By: Ima Moron (1@9661) ÀÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ So you don't have the time to help that potential user that is ignorant in the use of a BBS? Speaking for myself, I'm semi retired and I usually have the time to educate a new user. However if your circumstances are different than my circumstances than perhaps you might read this article for the opportunity to review your options about user education. WWIV software is written specifically to allow a user as complete and rapid an access as any BBS software that has been written. I can recall my first logon to a WWIV type BBS, the sysop was and is Elmer Fudd of Critical Mass BBS here in Redding, Ca.. I fumbled around with Mr. Bell's abstract menus for about 10 minutes when Elmer came online and asked me what I was doing, or attempting to do. He instructed me as to the how of downloading the WWIVUSER.DOC file. For the uneducated that file is provided by Mr. Bell so that you sysops may allow your users to download a more complete explanation of the WWIV user options. But what if your new user doesn't know how to download? The options for the user aren't fully explained in the menus, nor are the terms used on a BBS. Terms such as GFILES, TRANSFER SECTION, ONLINE GAMES, etc; are non standard with other BBS software types. All of these problems create a difficult task for the sysop that wishes to help a new user enjoy the use of his or her BBS. Your user can't go to your GFILES section if the term GFILES is a foreign language to the user. So what can you do..? Perhaps an explanation of one of the four basic areas of a WWIV BBS written out in your feedback.msg letter might be helpful to that new user. An example feedback.msg; Hello new user, and welcome to Das' Tube BBS! At this time I want you to leave me a little information about yourself. Please tell me your age, your interests, and if you own a dictionary? If you are new to calling BBSs or if you are unfamiliar with WWIV BBS software please tell me, and I'm presuming that you are unfamiliar with the software so follow the directions in the following paragraph. After you write the feedback letter to me you can save the letter by entering /S on a blank line at the far left side of the screen, then press enter. If you need further assistance then when you see a menu followed by a line that reads "General - Area bulletins" press G, a second menu will appear. Look for How To Use This BBS and press 5. Another menu will appear, choose one or all of the subjects that you need information about. If you are forgetful, write this paragraph down. SYSOP : Ima < end letter There, you have informed a new user as to how to find the GFILES section of the BBS. From there the user isn't left completely help- less. In my GFILES section I've placed some basic " how to " files about the basic user options such as E-mail, message reading, message posting, multi-mail, how to find online games, etc.. All of these files are about one page long and are written to inform the user in a most direct method. If you're going to attempt to write your own little "docs", please remember to make the files short and concise. The reason for this is expressed in the following dialog which I derived from my 18 months online, and that reason is "..the docs are so long I forgot half of em..". Teaching File Downloading My all time favorite conversation with a user was when a young man left me e-mail stating, "...I downloaded a file from you yesterday and I can't find it. Do you know where it went? " Well I could have replied to him, " the modem boggie-man got it.." and left it at that, however I don't do those things. So I called him voice and I explained as best I could how he should download a file and where those files go when "completed" flashes on his screen. I've also added a little doc in my GFILES section on the rudiments of downloading and I've separated that subject by the user terminal software type ( don't ask for a copy, I don't know every version or type of terminal software. As a matter of fact I currently have only a few available, like Qmodem ). If you don't know anything about Telix, Procomm+, Qmodem, etc; then ask your users in a flyer for their downloading key sequence, I almost always receive an answer that I can derive some text from, and from that dialog I type out a doc file. Online Game Tutorials I suggest that you zip those game docs up and place them in a user accessible directory for downloading. But remember this, commodore 64, 128, and Atari users may not be able to unzip those doc files for the online games. I have several users that have requested that I uncompress an online game doc for them, from that request I learned that we IBM users alienate the small computer user with our IBM utilities. You can ignore today's Atari user, who may be the 486 owner of tomorrow, but what will he or she think of you then..? Now don't forget to start a dialog with your users on the message bases so that you may introduce those game document files. You might initiate a new subboard that covers either all of your online games in discussion or perhaps a specific subboard to discuss one particular game, the choice is personal. There are networked subboards for many of the popular online games such as Tradewars, Space Dominions, etc. and those subboards can be very informative to your users. If you wish to respond to my interpretation of user help, I can be reached as 1@9661 WWIVNET & ICENET. If you wish to write a rebuttal to my methods I'm still 1@9661. ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ ÚÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ¿ ³ The Importance of Voice Validating New Callers ³ By: Jack Ryan (1@6100) ÀÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ With the recent publicity that BBSing has received, the majority of it being negative, the importance of voice-validating callers is at an all-time high. More and more people are calling BBS's, and all for different reasons; some are interested in messages, others files, some games, and yet others are interested in causing you a lot of problems. I have broken down the major reasons why voice-validation is, in my opinion, a necessity. 1. When a caller knows that they are going to be voice-validated they tend to enter correct information. This makes the job of a sysop a lot easier. It's nice to know that the information you have on your users is valid. 2. Discourages hack attempts. When a caller logs in as "new" on my board, a message is displayed, informing them that I will voice-validate them before granting them normal access. I have watched several callers drop carrier after reading that message. 3. Demonstrates that you are an attentive sysop. It lets the caller know that you are aware of all that's happening on the bbs. The caller get the feeling that you take pride in running your board. They feel like you care about it, and them, which brings them back again. 4. Voice-validation gives you a better feel for your callers. You can tell a lot by a quick call. While I restrict "adult access" to callers who have mailed me a copy of their d.l., you can generally tell age by a phone call. I began voice-validating callers after a user had attempted to up-load a file to me, which had a nasty little batch file in it. All up-loads go to sysop, so there wasn't too much danger, but it made me aware that I needed to find a way to discourage more attempts like that one. Before I began voice-validation of all callers, I had four attempts like the one above. Since I began the voice validation, I have not had any. Jack Ryan (1@6100) Patriot Games [ASV/ISB] ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ ÚÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ¿ ³ User's Poll Question ³ By: The Fez (2@7653) ÀÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ In a previous issue of IceNEWS, the question "What do you look for in a good user" was asked of IceNET sysops. For this month, I decided to reverse the question and ask the regular IceNET users "What do you look for in a good sysop and bbs?" The question was posted on IceNET National General discussion sub. I chose this forum to ask the question due to its large subscriber base. I had anticipated a fairly large response to this question. The question was posted numerous times on the forum over the course of the month of March. What I got instead was an extremely small response. I'm at something of a loss to explain the lack of response to a question that I felt should have stimulated a decent amount of feedback. Perhaps the users don't really care about the sysops or BBSs that they call. Perhaps they just did not care to take a minute to type out a response to my query. Then again, perhaps it was due to other reasons I haven't considered. Regardless, here are the responses I received to my question: Jim, 1@1, answered the question this way: 1 - Answer all mail immediately. Never read mail you are too tired to answer. 2 - Full featured board (email, messages, games, files) 3 - Nice Menus, avoiding clutter 4 - No demands or overbearing warnings and Don't Do's all over the place. Give the user a chance to have and use some common sense. 5 - No XXX files or smut filled message bases 6 - No Pirated files 7 - A sysop who actually POSTS on his_her own board. 8 - 24 hours/7 Days RELIABLE operation. Never off line (or so it seems). 9 - A good sysop has the 'right' temperament to get along with almost anyone, on their terms, and not just his own. It's too easy to become a bit tyrannical as a sysop, so at all costs avoid such trappings. 10 - Act upon any suggestion, even if it only comes from one person. Many probably have though it, but only one took the time to let you know. Listen to your users, do what they ask you to do, and that's just about all you need to do. 11 - Oh and yeah, you shall have FUN! Ted Hering, #95 @9680, replied: "I like SysOps who are involved in their BBSs. I think that sets the pace for the users. Some boards are pretty dead: you call today, and two or three weeks you call again, to see that nothing has been changed or added. The "Q-scan" turns up nothing new. But other boards are a real adventure! If you leave Feedback, there is a comment or response the next day. If some of the subs are a little slow, some SysOps will post a good question that gets the discussion rolling." "I also like," continued Ted, "a SysOp to take some initiative in setting and enforcing rules. I really don't find the 'free-for-all,' 'anything goes' type of BBS very interesting. I've noticed that EVEN WITH THE SAME USERS calling different boards, each BBS has a different mood and feel. Why? The SysOp sets the pace. If verbal abuse is not allowed, for example, users learn pretty quick how to live within the boundaries." Kerouac, #304 @7670, rounded out the responses thusly: "I look for (in a BBS) A Sysop that posts as much as the users do and one willing to help out a newbie... I was lost, and probably still would be if not for the help of a few good Sysops." "Also," finished Kerouac, "I like a good sub base (local and netted) and a interesting X-Fer section... Oh yeah... And Tradewars 2002." ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ H U M O R D E P A R T M E N T ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ ÚÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ¿ ³ A Blatant Attempt At Humor: ³ ³ Bob's Guide to Power Posting ³ By: ’lpine áob (1@7416) ÀÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÁÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ 1. Conspiracies abound: If everyone's against you, the reason can't *possibly* be that you're a moron.... There's obviously a conspiracy against you, and you will be doing the entire net a favor by exposing it. Be sure to mention the CIA, FBI Oliver North and the Army as co-conspirators. 2. Lawsuit threats: This is the reverse of Rule #1. Threatening a lawsuit is always considered to be in good form. "By saying that I've posted to the wrong group, Charlie has libeled me, slandered me, and sodomized me. See you in court, Charlie." 3. Force them to document their claims: Even if Jane Jones states outright that she has menstrual cramps, you should demand documentation. If Newsweek hasn't written an article on Jane's cramps, then Jane's obviously lying. 4. Use foreign phrases: French is good, but Latin is the lingua franca of networking. You should use the words "ad hominem" at least three times per article. Other favorite Latin phrases are "ad nauseam", "vini, vidi, vici", "E Pluribus Unum" and "fetuccini alfredo". 5. Tell 'em how smart you are: Why use intelligent arguments to convince them you're smart when all you have to do is tell them? State that you're a member of Mensa or Mega or Dorks of America. Tell them the scores you received on every exam since high school. "I got an 800 on my SATs, LSATs, GREs, MCATs, and I can also spell the word 'pre meiotic' ". 6. Be an armchair psychologist: You're a smart person. You've heard of Freud. You took a psychology course in college. Clearly, you're qualified to psychoanalyze your opponent. "Polly Purebread, by using the word 'zucchini' in her posting, shows she has a bad case of penis envy." 7. Accuse your opponent of censorship: It is your right as an American citizen to post whatever the hell you want to the net (as guaranteed by the 37th Amendment, I think). Anyone who tries to limit your cross-posting or move a flame war to email is either a Communist, a fascist, or both. 8. Doubt their existence: You've never actually seen your opponent, have you? And since you're the center of the universe, you should have seen them by now, shouldn't you? Therefore, THEY DON'T EXIST! Call'em an AI project, to really piss them off. 9. Laugh at whatever they write: A good "HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA" should intimidate just about anyone. 10. When in doubt, insult: If you forget the other rules, remember this one. At some point during your wonderful career on the network, you will undoubtedly end up in a flame war with someone who is better than you. This person will expose your lies, tear apart your arguments, make you look generally like a bozo. At this point, there's only one thing to do: insult the dirtbag!!! "Oh yeah? Well, you do strange things with vegetables." 11. And, if all else fails, remember that you can always fall back on the favorite defense of Soc.women: "Who cares what YOU think -- this is Soc.WOMEN!". Add "DAMMIT!" for effect. 12. Be sure to have a cute signature that proclaims that you are a man basher: No one will respect you unless it's clear that you hate men. 13. Call'em a "Pman" if you can't think of anything: Tell the linguists to stuff it -- YOU know a diminutive when you see it. 14. Make things up about your opponent: It's important to make your lies sound true. Preface your argument with the word "clearly." "Clearly, Fred Flooney is a liar, and a dirtball to boot." 15. Cross-post your article: Everyone on the net is just waiting for the next literary masterpiece to leave your terminal. From rec.arts.woebegone to alt.gourmand, they're all holding their breaths until your next flame. Therefore, post everywhere. 16. Use the smiley to your advantage: You can call anyone just about anything as long as you include the smiley. On really nasty attacks add "No flames, please". When they bitch, call them an ass for not being able to recognize sarcasm when they see it. 17. Threaten to destroy Soc.men if your opponent refuses to give up: This at least gives you an appearance of power, even if nobody on the net gives a damn about what goes on in soc.men. 18. Should you post something exceedingly stupid and later regret it, don't worry: You needn't cancel the article. That only shows what a wimp you really are. Deny that you ever sent it. "It must be a forgery!" (Yea, that's the ticket, it's a forgery!) "Someone broke into my account and sent it!" "It's that damn backbone cabal out to get me!" Take your pick, they've all been used before. 19. A really cheap shot is to call you opponent a "facist": By itself, it really does nothing. But, when used often, and in enough articles, it can make you a net-legend. 20. And finally, never edit your newsgroup line when following up (unless you're expanding it): This drives 'em wild. Be sure to follow up as many articles as possible, even if you have nothing to say. The important thing is to get "exposure" so that you can be called a "regular" in your pet newsgroup. Never change the ">" symbol when following up; that's for wimps. Dump a hundred lines of "INEWS FODDER" in every article. Now that you know the ways to properly post on the net, let's try an example: Bill Netter #912 @7416 writes... > Dear Sally, I object to your use of the word "dear". It shows you are a condescending, sexist Pman. Also, the submissive tone you use shows that you like to be tied down and flagellated with licorice whips. > While I found your article "The Effect of Lint on Western Thought" > to be extremely thought-provoking, "Thought-provoking"? I had no idea you could think, you rotting piece of swamp slime. :-) (No flames, please) > it really shouldn't have been posted in Soc.women. What? Are you questioning my judgment? I'll have you know that I'm a member of the super-high-IQ society Menstruate. I got an 800 on my PMS exam. Besides, what does a Pman like yourself know of such things. This is Soc.WOMEN, DAMMIT! Your attempts constitute nothing less than censorship. There is a conspiracy against me. You, Colin, Charlie and the backbone cabal have been constantly harassing me by email. This was an ad hominem attack! If this doesn't stop at once, I'll crosspost a thousand articles to soc.men. > Perhaps you should have posted it in misc.misc. It is my right, as granted in the Bill of Rights, the Magna Carta, the Bible and the Quran, to post where ever I want to. Or don't you believe in those documents, you damn fascist? Perhaps if you didn't spend so much time sacrificing virgins and infants to Satan, you would have realized this. > Your article would be much more appropriate there. Can you document this? I will only accept documents notarized by my attorney, and signed by you in your blood. Besides, you don't really exist anyway, you Pseudo, you. > If I can be of any help in the future, just drop me a line. HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! > Bill. Sally Sourpuss "If we can send one man to the moon, why can't we send them all?" Soc.women Women WOMEN, DAMMIT! /* Thanks to Judiciary Pag, #27 @ 7400. Look for another Installment! */ ÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÍÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ