Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RemoteAccess

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep - while there are numerous keep 'votes' from single purpose accounts accompanied by arguments that *cough* have little bearing on Wikipedia policy, the net of the numerous established editors arguing for keep and the potential citations presented is that this is apparently notable software. Now wouldn't it be nice if someone actually put those citations in the article? --Sam Blanning(talk) 18:03, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RemoteAccess

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether an article is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads (or socks).

You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!
Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}.

non-notable software. Prod was removed without explanation, afd'd for same reason. i kan reed 16:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

  *not a policy (yet) WP:SOFTWARE is a proposed Wikipedia policy, guideline, or process.
  • CommentIsn't that a matter of personal preference? I thought the point of Wikipedia is to provide info on anything. If you start bringing personal preference into it saying things are "not notable", then what's the point? It existed, it had it's following. Sure, it's dead now, but I think info should be here. Shouldn't be marked for deletion, either. Dopefish 16:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: OK, fair enough. But I still think marking this one for deletion while many other similar software articles are not seems like "picking on this particular subject". I wikified the article, there's several other articles about BBS software that should also be marked if this one was. Dopefish 16:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
      • There are probably thousands of articles that should be deleted. That's irrelevant to this one. Fan-1967 16:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Comment the real reason notability is used as a criteria, is to stop advertising bloat. It's hard to maintain NPOV when 10000 different articles are created by someone with a personal stake in it, and not very many people are familiar enough with the subject to maintain an NPOV structure to it. In the end, it would undermine wikipedia by going for the throat(credibility) i kan reed 17:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
    • pissed:I think that marking this article for deletion is extremely inconsiderate and ignorant. Remote access bbs software was a strong force in the pre-internet computer hobbist era. if you're going to delete THIS article then delete all the other bbs software entries, and go ahead and take out any internet related communications software articles pre 1995. i like some of these wiki-nerds need to find other hobbies, too. another thing i hate is people hiding behind politics and policies to defend their egos regarding their views on wikipedia articles Mroblivious1bmf 22:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Continue to make the arguments that you are, using the fallacious "if article A then article B" argument, and you will not make a case for keeping the article. I've already explained how you can make a case for keeping the article. Please cite sources. Citing sources can and does change editors' minds. Contravening the Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy will not. Uncle G 00:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Remote Access As a whole was the BBS package to run in the 90's as well if you look at the links on the BBS page it is listed there. It was the main runner in the 90's and I think this page will grow with time. Although I have been the one of the ones changing it I would like it to stay. I still run a bbs so I am biased, but in time this page will be like everything else on Wikipedia. IMHO this is the first Draft and will grow with time when old sysops look up there software. You know they are still out there. And this page is accurate. Vagabond
    • We don't accept personal testimony of Wikipedia editors. Readers must be able to check the accuracy of the article for themselves, per our Wikipedia:Verifiability. Currently, they cannot, because you have cited no sources at all. Uncle G 10:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - I'm not sure why delete this entry would even be in question. RemoteAccess was one the most important pieces of software to hit the streets. It, with other BBS software, with their compliment of applications, forged the path to the commercial internet as we know it now. Omitting it from the Wikipedia would be like removing the civil war from US history books. If you aren't familiar with the subject matter, it doesn't necessarily make it insignificant nor not noteworthy. One resource to view is http://www.bbsdocumentary.com/ACTION 03:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Importance is not the issue. Cited sources, demonstrating that the WP:CORP criteria are satisfied, is. That hyperlink is not a source, for example, because the web page that it links to is a simple directory list of ZIP files for downloading, not an article written about the software. It provides no means for verifying the content of this article. Please cite sources. Uncle G 10:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Incorrect sir. The link includes articles to an entire time line to the BBS era (specifically - http://timeline.textfiles.com/ ) RemoteAccess is still in use today as there are BBSs using the software to power their BBS. I still haven't found article in the WP:CORP criteria that would void this entry, beyond someone has a undisclosed, personal reason for omitting it. One of the external links is to the software's own site, where you can still buy it. What else needs to be 'verified', it did and still does exist? ACTION 20:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - I do not like it how people with more time on their hands than others can participate in ugly acts on wikipedia. Whether it be the structured anarchy of 'deletionists' who feel that anything they do no know about does not exist, and should not belong on wikipedia, or people that do outright vandalism. Remote Access is an award winning software. Hide behind as many policies as you want [even unimplemented ones], it doesn't change a fact that BBS softwares played an important part in the history of computing, and the internet. Mroblivious1bmf 04:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - This whole thing strikes of "Well, we don't know about it, so it needs to be deleted because you can't prove it exists". As was said by others, it was good solid BBS software for a long time. It's hard to find stuff on it, because most of the records aren't likely easily available. I never used the stuff personally, it just strikes me as a totally unncessary deletion, and yea, I agree with the remark about "hiding behind policy". I think it's a perfectly valid article, even before I wikified it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dopefish (talk • contribs) 2006-08-11 06:25:36 (UTC)
    • In fact that is one of our primary reasons for deleting things, per our Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Please cite sources. If "the records aren't [...] available" for something, then it is unverifiable. Wikipedia is not a primary source for documentation on something which has no available documentation outside of Wikipedia. The place to document and to record for posterity BBS softwares that aren't otherwise recorded is a book, a magazine article, or another web site. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, a tertiary source. To demonstrate that this is not the case here, and that this software really has been documented by someone independent of its author already, please cite sources. Uncle G 10:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with keeping it.. I don't think someone should get rid of such an important piece of computing history at all. I would view that as ignorant and foolish, as would alot of other people who understand and know about what BBS's are.. AND how important they were in the coming around of the internet. Some people should do a little research before decided something is worthless. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DarknessBBS (talk • contribs) 2006-08-11 08:37:32 (UTC)
    • Please base your arguments on our Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. If there is research to be done, then do it! Look for sources, and cite the ones that you find. Uncle G 10:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Clearly a lot of people want to keep this entry. Instead of complaining, and ignoring Wikipedia policies, I would think if they devote some effort they could find some sources. Votes that ignore Wikipedia policies are routinely discounted. Fan-1967 13:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Bschott; sources and citations, as explained at length by Uncle G, are the way to change minds. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - significant bulletin board software in its day. Outriggr 20:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
    • P.S. I am not one of the people who "dropped by" to vote Keep. I was interested to see an article on it, and the first thing I saw was AfD. The article itself is full of external links that imply its notability; I can't cite any peer-reviewed journals, no, but there are 33,000 google-hits for "+remoteaccess +BBS", and this is ten years after anyone cares about the software. Thanks, Outriggr 01:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment can you cite sources, provide links or Verify this? --Brian (How am I doing?) 20:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


  • COMMENT Alright...that is easily done. That is not concidered a Reliable source hence it is not acceptable to use for a source to support your position. Articles related to popular culture and fiction must be backed up by reliable sources like all other articles. However, due to the subject matter, many may not be discussed in the same academic contexts as science, law, philosophy and so on. Personal websites, wikis, and posts on bulletin boards, Usenet and blogs should still not be used as secondary sources.
I will also note that no one has provided Reputable Publications to cite this software's fame. All we have is people saying 'I remember it so it is popular'. Basicly this article (and all the arguments for keep) have failed to satisfy WP's Verifiable standard. --Brian (How am I doing?) 02:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • COMMENT: I assume, BSchott, that you'll be spending the night putting about 700,000 Wikipedia articles through AfD because they do not meet your version of verifiability. You are being very coy with policy. For God's sake, we have featured articles on Bulbasaur and Torchic - why don't you start with those to make a WP:POINT? Outriggr 02:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
    • COMMENT Outriggr, that was uncalled for. Please, do not use personal attacks and remain civil. These comments do not improve the article's chances of passing the AFD. Instead of insulting me, why not take some time to improve the article and cite a few sources, perferrably Reliable and Reputable to make people change their mind? This isn't to make a point...this is to refute arguements and try to show that per wikipedia's own standards, this article falls short. If someone could cite some reliable and reputable sources, then I would be happy to change my thoughts on this article. --Brian (How am I doing?) 05:51, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Question What about this article have we not verified. It merely states the software exists. What more do you want? Open the archive and read the WHATSNEW.TXT for more then that. Were you some WWIV BBS fan or something? Seems this is a personal battle for you. It's just an entry in the Wikipedia, that will probably only be viewed by those that know what a BBS is anyway. ACTION 12:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment We've got a couple of decades of history guys.

What do you want? All we've heard is 'cite' this, and several links to wikipedia policies. We've cited. we've given websites, and documentaries that you can view for free. Honestly, what more do you want?
I would really like to come to a consensus with this. The people involved with bbsing were notified, and they have spoken. I don't want this to develop into some wikipedia ego war. It's obvious that having this article considered for deletion was a mistake. [talk of remote access bbs on a vintage computing website] [reference to a unix RA clone] Mroblivious1bmf 23:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep and any software that existed pre Web (or pre web explosion) of the internet is going to be hard to find sources for. I think Uncle G is making a WP:POINT on software that existed pre-popular internet. Does anyone have old issues of BoardWatch? Otherwise most references will be to USENET postings or FIDOnet archives. 132.205.45.148 23:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. RemoteAccess was a popular BBS software for the DOS platform, and somehow still manages to return a healthy 32,500 Google hits a decade after being obviated by the Internet. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep there was computer stuff around before the internet guys... this was one of the more important BBS packages. ALKIVAR™ 12:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I am the person who submitted the RemoteAccess artical to Wikipedia, and I admit I am am a noob to submitting articals here. The initial issue I had was Wikipedia said that the artical needed to be "Wiki'fied", so I asked for some assistance in a #BBS IRC channel, and Dopefish was kind enough to jump in and help out. Then we ran into the issue that someone had requested for it to be deleted, and it was discussed by several people on IRC, but it was certainly not my intent to turn this into a war. As I understand it, the real issue is that the software is considered "Notible" unless media (newspaper, magizine) sources are cited. This is difficult since RemoteAccess was popular before the world wide web explosion. Andrew (and most RA sysops) lost intrest in it by 1996. There was only one popular media-publication for BBS software that I know of, which was a magizine called Boardwatch. While Boardwatch did contain frequent articals on RemoteAccess, these articals would be difficult to locate because Boardwatch no longer exists. Incidently Andrew Milner was on the cover page of the January 1995 issue, standing next to his Jaguar. You can see a thumb sized image of it here: http://web.archive.org/web/19991116131747/boardwatch.internet.com/mag/online95.html Unfortunatly Boardwatch did not post the older issues from 1990-1994 on their web site, and even the later issues from 1995-2000 are not well archived by the Internet Archive so most articals are lost. I think the best proof that RA existed, and its popularity can be cited by the large number of third-party utilities that were written for it. I have started adding links to RA specific files, and other links to prove not only that RA existed, but it was indeed very popular in its day. I will continue to search for more proof, but my concern is that someone will delete it before enough sources have been cited. Incidently, I have no commercial intrest in RemoteAccess. I was a RA beta tester since the early years, and I was also a North American RA Support Site. User:pcmicro
  • Keep citing: http://www.rapro.com/ Rswindell 17:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. RemoteAccess was a very important piece of BBS software. Computer stuff, specifically "online communications"/telecom/whatever predates the internet be several years. Just because you haven't heard of it, doesn't make it non-notable. --Myles Long 17:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


  • Keep. We have pages for Simpsons characters, but not for BBS software that thousands of people used? At least the stub entry should be left over so that someone else may add on to it. BBSes were the driving force of ALL computer hobbyists in the 1980s. Just because you are too young to remember it doesn't mean that an article should not appear! How incredibly arrogant!

ClintJCL 19:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep - probably one of the most popular BBS software around. // Gargaj 19:47, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment if Uncle G is so hot and bothered on the policy citations and references why doesn't he go ahead and nominate thousands of articles on less significant bits that exist on Wikipedia without references? 132.205.93.83 01:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Guys, I understand your thoughts on this subject and how you can view it as popular, but the fact remains that Wiki does have policies and guidelines in place. If you could find old magazines, books or some form of hard copy at least that can back up your claims then this would be accepted by the wiki policies. The simpsons characters have pages because they meet all the standards. The claims are verifiable, not original research and presented in a neutral point of view. User:ClintJCL I will remind you to remain WP:CIVIL and stop making Personal Attacks. You are making general statements about people whom you do not know. User:Myleslong, I remember the BBS days and was using them on a 286 (with 640k of RAM and a 2400baud modem) long before the internet was around. I remember this software, and using it before being introduced to Gopher, Telnet, and finally the Internet. However, unless wiki's policies can be meet, the article can not be kept. This AFD is not about how many people raise their hands and say 'I remember the software, so let's keep the article' as the Admin who will make the call on keep or delete does not take those comments into concideration. Mainly what they look at is the arguments made and if the article passes all of wiki's standards. Also, it's not anyone's job to have to race all over wiki making AFD's. Instead of making personal attacks, contribute. Nominate those articles yourself if it bothers you so. Don't expect that it's someone else's job. --Brian (How am I doing?) 02:01, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • comment Brian, please put your life story on your own page, isnt this discussion supposed to be about this article?

also, i find it hard to understand how you keep referring to Personal Attacks when people are making generalizations, not attacking one person.

Wouldnt it be a personal attack if i were to say for example, that "brian is a guy who goes trying to get 'CRED' by around deleting articles and hides behind vague wiki jargon" ?? this ofcourse is just an example, i am more interested in retaining this FINE article instead of personal banter. Mroblivious1bmf 17:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

    • CommentMroblivious1bmf, I'm not taking this personally, nor am I engaging in personal banter. Someone is accusing people who this this article is worth deleting as being too young to know about the subject. I provided information disproving that. Also, note that the Articles for Deletion process is designed to get community input. Your views are not being heedlessly dismissed. Also remember that voting here is done by consensus, meaning that a majority is not enough to delete. If the article has merit as it stands, it will remain. Mr Obvious, how are we supposed to write a useful encyclopedia if we don't have a set of standards that govern what we will allow ourselves to publish? How are we supposed to verify that your, my, or anyone's submissions are accurate, for example, if this software has never been covered in the press? I hope you'll read Wikipedia:Verifiability and understand why we have these debates. I assure you that nobody here has anything against you or this software personally - it's just that many, many people try to use Wikipedia to publish announcements, opinionated statements, or unverifiable information. It's nothing personal - these articles just do not meet Wikipedia's standards. A word of caution: in the true Wikipedia spirit, voters/commenters should try to judge the merits of the article itself in the light of the rules (see WP:RULES)--Brian (How am I doing?) 20:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I understand the need for references, citations, etc, and why this is a big deal for Wikipedia. But couldn't we simply remove this article from AfD and instead put in a tag saying that citations are needed? I think that by now, even without "proper" citations, there should be little doubt that the software was actually notable. --Cotoco 02:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • comment while a nice thought, the problem is the AfD process is almost over at this point. The 'citations' tag really is used to give the authors a chance to cite their sources before the Prod and then AfD is assigned. If it is notable, then there should be newspaper, magazine or books mentioning it. If so, then people should cite them. If people feel so strongly about a keep, then obey the process and wiki standards/guidelines, and do research and cite sources. The burden of proof is on the article writers to provide evidence that the article shouldn't be deleted...not visa versa. --Brian (How am I doing?) 15:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • question you're really enjoying this, arent you brian? (this is not a personal attack, just a question)Mroblivious1bmf 17:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
    • comment Enjoying contributing to Wikiapedia? Yes I am. Anything that can clean up and make wiki more accurate is very much worth doing. --Brian (How am I doing?) 20:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
    • comment i wouldnt really call it contributing, this all seems like some game you enjoy playing, not a personal attack [before you post a link], just my

[and others] opinion on this. Mroblivious1bmf 21:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


  • BOOKS

■ Bibliographic information Title: Tales from the Motherboard ISBN: 0973788003 Publisher: Jon Watson Author(s): Jon Watson PAGE 19 [AMONG OTHERS] REFERENCES REMOTEACCESS BBS SOFTWARE ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

■ Essential Guide to Bulletin Board Systems Patrick R. Dewey Mecklermedia published 1987-01-01

■ Bulletin Board Book: Setting Up and Running a Successful Bulletin Board System/Book and 1 5 1/4 Disk IBM Tom Scott M & T Books published 1992-08-01

■ The Complete Cyberspace Reference and Directory : An Addressing and Utilization Guide to the Internet, Electronic Mail Systems, and Bulletin Board Systems Gilbert Held Wiley 1994-09


■ National Directory of Bulletin Board Systems, 1993 Patrick R. Dewey Mecklermedia Corporation 1991

■ Create a Computer Bulletin Board System L Myers Tab Books Hardcover 1991-12-01

■ Handicap BBS list: A listing of handicap electronic bulletin board systems Bill McGarry press:Research & Development Division 1991

■ Computer bulletin board systems and the First Amendment: The common carrier solution Jennifer R Dowd 1993

■ Electronic bulletin board system final report Duane Smith Center for Transportation Research and Education, Iowa State 1998

  • cite

■ http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/bbs.htm

■ http://www.podfeed.net/podcast/Tales+from+the+Motherboard/1223 Show #7 - BBS SoftwareShow #7 - BBS Software BBSes are still alive and well, albeit in smaller numbers than before. There is software available for all platforms and support as well. This is the final show for TFTMB, I am moving on to host The Linux User Show on The Podcast Network. Stay tuned to this blog and my personal blog at http://www.jonwatson.ca for more info on that. Citadel BBS Software MBSE BBS Software Galacticom BBS Software Remote Access BBS Software BBS Documentary BBS Software List Fidonet Website Mikly Way BBS This will be the last TFTMB Podcast because I'm moving to The Podcast Network (TPN) to host The Linux User's Show.

■ http://www.cigital.com/silverbullet/

■ http://www.net-security.org/vulnerability.php?id=14731

■ V.E.R.A. -- Virtual Entity of Relevant Acronyms http://www.delorie.com/gnu/docs/vera/vera_19.html (references RA bbs)

■ http://www.hackcanada.com/blackcrawl/hack.html :::thc-rahk.zip remote access bbs hacking tools

■ http://www.textfiles.com/bbs/bbsfaq03.txt introduction to remote access

■ http://computerdictionary.tsf.org.za/dictionary/terms/r.html references RA bbs

■ http://cd.textfiles.com/cream06/readme.1st remote access on cream of the crop Compact disc

■ http://www.rentacoder.com/URLSEO/RentACoder/advertisement/LocalCodersByCity!asp/x!Wisconsin/strCity!Holmen/lngStateId!52/Holmen.htm

Mroblivious1bmf 17:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment nicely done on the books though the websites are not acceptable by Wikiapedia's standards on Reputable and Reliable sources. The only missing information that would satisfy WP:V is specific page numbers in those books where RA is mentioned. I am just pointing out the standards in place so please stop the veiled attacks and stay WP:CIVIL. --Brian (How am I doing?) 20:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

*Comment That is YOUR biased opinion regarding those websites. Not all of those websites are privately run and owned.

Furthermore, those "standards on Reputable and Reliable sources" are just a guideline, not a policy. At this point, there is NO question that Remoteaccess is notable :D Mroblivious1bmf 21:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


  • Keep - Out of the hundreds of bbs packages in the "List of BBS software" article, RemoteAccess is one of the few notable packages that deserves its own article. Better citation may be in order, but deletion should be out of the question. --Sodium N4 20:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment It should be noted that Jason Scott, creator/author of http://www.textfiles.com and of the BBS Documentary is probably the most prominent BBS historian in existence. Therefore, his website should not be discarded as an unreliable reference just because it's a website. --Cotoco 20:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I wish to cite the following additional electronic Newpaper/Magazinepublications:

FidoNews is an electronic NewsPaper for FidoNet, published by Tom Jennings, the original founder of FidoNet.

FidoNews Volume 7, Number 13 ( 26 March 1990)
http://www.textfiles.com/fidonet-on-the-internet/909192/fido0713.txt
Page 2: Dale Barns states that the new version of Menu Master will support Remote Access BBS.

FidoNews Volume 7, Number 24 (11 June 1990)
http://www.textfiles.com/fidonet-on-the-internet/909192/fido0724.txt
Page 5: An announcment that the "RA_UTIL" echo was added to FidoNet, for discussions on third party utilities for RemoteAccess.

Volume 7, Number 26 (25 June 1990)
http://www.textfiles.com/fidonet-on-the-internet/909192/fido0726.txt
Page:25 Dave Thompson mentions he writes programs for QuickBBS and RemoteAccess.

Volume 7, Number 33 (13 August 1990)
http://www.textfiles.com/fidonet-on-the-internet/909192/fido0733.txt
Page 11: Dennis McClain-Furmanski mentions RemoteAccess and FrontDoor in an artical about BBS Networking The Soviet Union.

FidoNews Volume 8, Number 6 (11 February 1991)
http://www.textfiles.com/fidonet-on-the-internet/909192/fido0806.txt
Page 12:John Bierrie breifly mentions RemoteAccess and 5 other BBS programs in his BBS_UTILS echo artical.

FidoNews Volume 8, Number 8 (25 February 1991)
http://www.textfiles.com/fidonet-on-the-internet/909192/fido0808.txt
Page 7: Todd Looney mentions that his SNETDOOR is compatible with RemoteAccess.

FidoNews Volume 8, Number 18 ( 6 May 1991)
http://www.textfiles.com/fidonet-on-the-internet/909192/fido0818.txt>
Page 7: FidoCon '91 will include a seminare on configuring Remote Access. Page 24: Dave Appel mentions that the Fidonet FileBone currently carries 24 FDN's including one for Remote Access.

FidoNews Vol. 8 No. 24 (17 June 1991)
http://www.textfiles.com/fidonet-on-the-internet/909192/fido0824.txt
Page 24: WORLDCON 1991 Announcment mentions that Andrew Milner, author of RemoteAccess will attend.

FidoNews Vol. 8 No. 25 (24 June 1991)
http://www.textfiles.com/fidonet-on-the-internet/909192/fido0825.txt
Artical by Tom Jennings on FidoCon '91. FidoCon was a yearly convention of Fidonet sysops, and the speaker list included notable people such as Steve Wozniack of Apple Computer. Page 18 lists the "Remote Access Representitives will attend, for a discussion on how to install RA.

FidoNews Vol. 8 No. 32 (12 August 1991
http://www.textfiles.com/fidonet-on-the-internet/909192/fido0832.txt
Page 3: In the announcment for the The 1991 International BBSing and Electronic Communications Conference, it mentions that Andrew Milner (RA Author) will be present to describe the future of RemoteAccess.

FidoNews Vol. 9 No. 29 (20 July 1992)
http://www.textfiles.com/fidonet-on-the-internet/909192/fido0929.txt
Page 4: Fredric Rice explains how to configure a user-defined origin line under Remote Access.

FidoNews Vol. 9 No. 31 (3 August 1992)
http://www.textfiles.com/fidonet-on-the-internet/909192/fido0931.txt
Page 6: Announcment for the Second Annual International BBSing and Electronic Communications Conference, IBECC'92 mentions that Online Communications will be attending to represent both FrontDoor and RemoteAccess.

FidoNews Vol. 9 No. 34 (24 August 1992)
http://www.textfiles.com/fidonet-on-the-internet/909192/fido0934.txt
Page 24: RemoteAccess is one of the 24 FDN (Fido Distribution Networks) carried by the FidoNet Filebone at this date.

FidoNews Vol.10 No.30 (26-Jul-1993)
http://www.textfiles.com/fidonet-on-the-internet/939495/fido1030.txt
Page 5: Larry Eggers complains about RemoteAccess representitive Bruce Bodger enforcing shareware registrations in FidoNet.

FidoNews Vol.10 No.45 (07-Nov-1993)
http://www.textfiles.com/fidonet-on-the-internet/939495/fido1045.txt
Andrzej Bacinski briefly mentions RemoteAccess.

FidoNews Vol.11 No.17 (25-Apr-1994)
http://www.textfiles.com/fidonet-on-the-internet/939495/fido1117.txt
Page 4: Ralph Merritt mentions that the NewtNet File Distribution network main hub runs RemoteAccess.

FidoNews Vol.11 No.27 (34-Jun-1994)
http://www.textfiles.com/fidonet-on-the-internet/909192/fido0952.txt
Page 14: Fredrick Rice describes confusion with configuring Remote Access use the RA to UUCP utility. Page 17: Fredric Rice describes how to allow Remote Access users to access the internet from the BBS.

FidoNews Vol.11 No.37 (12-Sep-1994)
http://www.textfiles.com/fidonet-on-the-internet/939495/fido1137.txt
Page 8: Andrew Leniart describes "FALSE SECURITY PROMOTION" in the way that RemoteAccess stores the users passwords as CRC-32. According to this artical, the same artical originally appeared in the the Australian PC Review computer magazine.

There were several additional FidoNews articals which also mention RemoteAccess. Another note, all these issues of FidoNews mention the current version of RemoteAccess near the last page. In case anyone does not consider textfiles.com a valid source, there is another link to the same articals (archived as .LZH files) found in the FidoNet Artical.

WoeZine Electronic Magazine from the Underground BBS Scene. By definition, an ezine is an Electronic Magazine or periodic publication.

Woe was a much respected BBS modding group in the 1990's, and their ezines are also archives at scene.org, which catered to the underground scenes: demo scene, art scene, music scene, and bbs scene.

Here is an artical on RemoteAccess found in Woezine issue 10, 1998
http://www.thuglife.org/woezine/
http://www.thuglife.org/cgi/load/load.cgi?/woezine/releases/wz010.zip
http://www.scene.org/file.php?file=%2Fmags%2Fwoezine%2Fwz010.zip&fileinfo

:: The RemoteAccess(ra) Scene

Where did the RemoteAccess scene go? this famous and in many eye's
infamous BBS-software. In early 1994 when the first Betas of RA was
realeased many sysops looked there eye's up and saw this BBS-software,
this software who was too easy to configurare that people never used
more than a few weeks to mod it and it was ready. A lot of PCB sysops
look'd at this pathetic software and wondered, was is this shit? and
took a look at it. They saw the most easiest to use menu system ever
being made to setup a board that even my kidbrother who is 7 years old
could start a BBS and make it popular.

Alot of newbie sysop's started to build there BBS:s in RemoteAccess and
soon almost 50% of the europian Bulletin Board Systems where RemoteAccess
certified And with alot of board running RA the modding people started to
build there groups to release "doors" to RA and to there own boards.

Around 1996 there where about hundrets of Modding-Groups active like:
RA-force, MAD, TRAP, RUDE, CROW, IDS, COT, COFFEE, NAILBOMB, NOVA STORM,
S!P, DX, XPress and alot more or less unknown groups. German was a big
holdout for alot of these groups.

You didn't have to do anything as a sysop, everything could be found at
most of these modding groups. As a lame newbie sysop you could find about
100 of LastCaller Doors, about 50 Note 2 Next User door, a total of 200
Doors with unknown features (like lamer-killers, random quotes and
userdupers) About 20 different rumour doors, somelike 300 page-the-sysop
doors, userlisters, bbslisters, userconfig doors, and even clocks you can
tell the user what the local time is (whaow!, i'm impressed!). And the
best - they all where free. Doors with shareware shit never got used
becouse RA-sysop's could always find a look-a-like door that was freeware.
With all these plugins/doors it wasen't hard for a newbie sysop to choose
system. Not to say all the utils that was available, status-doors, top
download/upload and so on...

As usual in the scene, all PCB-sysops got pissed off all these newbie
sysop's didn't know how to run a REAL board, so all the modding groups
As usual in the scene, all PCB-sysops got pissed off all these newbie
sysop's didn't know how to run a REAL board, so all the modding groups
started to say "now with pcb lightbars" / "now got pcb-ansi" / "pcb style"
so all RA-sysop's thought that was kewl, they will soon run a 100% pcb
clone. Alot of ideas to doors to RemoteAccess (RA) where directly taken
from the PCB modding groups, even the ansi where ripped, that's the main
reason the PCB-sysops got angry.

Well, as every good start it have to end, alot of modding groups died most
becouse of the "ideas" was empty, and the BBS-scene in general was fading
out, and worst of all - The Developers behind RA have stopped developing
it. Ofcouse was RA 2.50 not buggy but alot of sysop's wanted to see Even
more features but there it stopped.

RemoteAccess source code was later sold (expensive) to a man with name
"bruce morse" who still (today) is working on a new version but he seems
to work very very very slow so alot of RA-fans started to build there own
RA-clone's, as the structure of RA was free.

In 1998 the RA-scene is 100% dead, there is only 1 real active group left
producing RA doors - Coffee from UK - Respect!
One of the more famous RA-clones is "eleBBS" which is still in beta-status
and the GUI/windows version that is named "tcRemoteAccess/32" they are both
being developed and they are both in Beta-Stage, but they are not giving up
so respect to them too! They are both YK2.

The Offical BBS FAQ describes RemoteAccess in detail. This electronic periodical was first written in Augest 1994, and is still maintained by the sysopworld staff.

http://sysopworld.com/bbsfaq/ch03.3.5.htm#3.5.20


As a final Citation, I would like to point out that Wikipedia currently has a definition for the JAM Message Base Format which was developed by the author of RemoteAccess and the author of FrontDoor. I hope that this entry further valiates that RemoteAccess is indeed notable. I now rest my case. :)

Pcmicro 07:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep RemoteAccess was one of the most important softwarepackages used for BBS's. Need proof? Simply google RemoteAccess BBS Software and most of the 220.000 hits are about this particular softwarepackage... Tdevries 16:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC) (once a RemoteAccess BBS Sysop, 2:280/704)
  • arf arf i'm going to beat chester to the punch here and say that i believe wikipedia doesn't accept google hits as citations. That being said,

i'm sure the entry is saved, _BUT_ I hope to see some more support and constructive comments. This camaraderie is really showing the youtube generation of the internet what made bbses special. Mroblivious1bmf 19:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

  • STRONG KEEP' are you nuts? RA was one of the most popular Shareware BBS Systems for the PC. I called at least a dozen local BBS's that ran on RemoteAccess --roy<sac> Talk! .oOo. 21:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, notable software with high historical value. bbx 12:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_RemoteAccess_457a.html"