RW>>>> How do you know who to send it to? By reading policy

 MvdV>>> And how do you know you can find these facts in p$ if you have
 MvdV>>> never heard about it before?

 PL>> If one does a search on "how to join fidonet", it
would be crystal
 PL>> clear. The information is out there... everywhere.

 RW> You would think so. But as I recall logging onto net202 NC's BBS at
 RW> the
 RW> time, all of that info was there, but nothing that told you how to
 RW> go
 RW> about doing it, procedure wise.

What I find a lack of is software help.  As far as proceedure wise, typing
a search on the internet for "joining fidonet", "how to join
fidonet", and "join fidonet" produce a variety of different
places that tell you how to do it.

The most "to the point" one, I think, is http://www.fidonet.ca/joinfido.htm

Other than software setup it is "step by step".  The first thing
it tells you is to get a basic knowledge of fidonet and your seftware, and
to get a copy of P4 and the current nodelist.  The rest basicly, as it
should be, leaves it up to the SysOp to follow the "procedure" as
set in P4.

It lays out before the proceedure (the site) that it is wise to be a user
first on a FidoNet BBS first while getting to know your software.

Other sites go more into the idea aside from application proceedure that
joining Fido is not to be taken lightly, and unless they are willing to
commit to the responsibilites entailed with being a node, that
they should be a FidoNet BBS user, or use a point package, at least while
gaining knowledge.

All of what I see above is more than sufficient in my eyes.  So be it if we
have more users and points than nodes... that's what FidoNet lacks the most
these days and where attention should be focused.  Why does everybody have
to be a "node"?  I was a FidoNet BBS "user" for quite
some time when I ran my old Atari support BBS ... even though it had
netwroking, it wasn't compatible with FidoNet, but I was still a FidoNet
"user".  I don't see anything wrong with that.

 RW> How to go about it should be an
 RW> adendum to
 RW> policy...or should have been, as it's too late now.

If some areas see a need to more well define it, then local policy so long
as it doesn't conflict with P4 is no problem.  Just defining it better in
the procedural sesne doesn't coinflict, so no issue.

As far as I'm concerned, a netmail here to 1:267/9999 with an application
for the node number (indicated by the listing in the net segment to signify
the preference of the net here -which policy says a net can signify it's
own preference-) with contact info so I can assign a temp number tothem and
do a few two way test runs with the temp number will get that node listed
as soon as it's confirmed we can exchange two ways.  As to siftware setup
help... I will help in any way I can, or point to somebody who can if I am
not overly familiar with what they are trying to run.

It's a pretty straight forward process for anybody who takes the time to
figure it out, and if they want to be a fidonet node, that's what they need
to do.

Phil

--- FMail/Win32 1.60
Netwo (1:267/169)