merce@iguana.uucp (Jim Mercer) (05/15/91)
[ please note that i am under the buzz of a couple beers (a lot for me) and i really probably shouldn't be posting right now, but what the heck. ] [ see end of article for pleas for help ] [ speaking as jim@lsuc.on.ca, for reasons illustrated below ] [ lsuc.on.ca is a "central" mail hub in toronto, all connections are via dial-up, no TCP, no SLIP, just uucp ] it seems that every 6 weeks or so, some bonehead on one of our ~75 mail connections, decides to BITFTP something huge. first it was a 60 Meg VMS utility (attributed to ignorance). next it was a 12 Meg VMS uucp suite (same bonehead, attributed to lack of respect of the 'net) [ BTW: the bonehead in this case, when contacted via voice, told me "if you can handle the volume, get out of the gateway business", to which i (wished) i said "fuck you and the mutant OS you live in" ] last night it was another bonehead ordering gcc source and gas source (16 Meg) (attributed to ignorance). [ the mail processing on this bopped the load average up to 17.00+, as well as "discovering" some bad blocks on the drive which the system want's to use for inode tables. do i need this? ] i've about had my fill of this. effective now, we will be developing scanners to trash BITFTP and listserve type requests flowing via lsuc. that is requests and responses. (any hints on keywords would be appreciated) lsuc's mail/uucp system over flowed last night, resulting in unknown quantities of news and mail being dropped on the floor. coincidentally, our news partition ran out of inodes at the same time and the entire disk seems trashed. i spent an hour and a half (11:30pm - 1:00am) last night, doing damage control from at home (in kitchener). i still managed to get up and catch my bus into toronto. today (Tuesday), i spent no less than 3 hours trying to put the disk back together so we could get news and mail back up. i had to leave before the job was done (pre-natal class at 7:00pm in kitchener) and i had to leave instructions on how to shut down news before i left. when i got home, i called in and news was shut down (newsrunning off). i'm not sure what kind of news loss we'll have (major for sure) and i don't know if mail is totally functional. (the file systems were messed up) i am really peaved. [ ok jim, calm down (previous 6 lines of expletives deleted) ] Education! Education! Education! Education! Education! Education! Education! Education! we can put in place all the filters we want, but the only way to resolve this issue of file transfer by email is Education. Henry Spencer defined email at a user group meeting as (paraphrase from (currently fuzzy) memory) "text entered by hand, ie. not machine generated". file transfer by email would be fine if all of the hubs had infinite disk space for spooling stuff up to dial-up sites, but we don't. i might also note that in all 3 cases of abuse, the requested items were more than likely available locally. and if not, were of interest to the local community (ie. someone at UofToronto could have ftp'd it). please tell your users to post to the local *.general groups to see if it is local. .... how much of a net.lobby do we have to do to get pucc.princeton.edu to shut down BITFTP? can we at least get them to limit responses to systems that can be verified as being on BITNET (as i assume the system was intended)? or maybe, get them to limit responses to "official" internet sites? grrrrrrrrrr!!!!!!!!! this really pisses me off. HELP: i am looking for the following "tools": - Cnews spacefor that checks remaining inodes as well as free blocks - efficient rmail frontend which will "act" on key phrases in the To: and From_ headers - how to mark bad blocks on a 3B2/500 (SysV 3.2.1) please reply to jim@lsuc.on.ca (as i have tried to set the Reply-To: header) thanx -- [ Jim Mercer work: jim@lsuc.on.ca home: merce@iguana.uucp +1 519 570-3467 ] [ "Anarchists Unite!" - seen spray painted on a wall ]
carlo@electro.com (Carlo Sgro) (05/15/91)
In article <1991May15.042146.29800@iguana.uucp> jim@lsuc.on.ca (Jim Mercer) writes: >it seems that every 6 weeks or so, some bonehead on one of our ~75 mail >connections, decides to BITFTP something huge. My sympathies. We are a smaller site with a few connections and plenty of disk space but no modem power (2400 baud max. speed). We have had so many problems with people using BITFTP (and other large file transfer) tying up our lines (and our main feeds' lines) that we have had to drastically restrict mail through our site. Luckily, we have had cooperation from those connected to us (and those downstream from them). >effective now, we will be developing scanners to trash BITFTP and listserve >type requests flowing via lsuc. I'm sure that I and many others would be interested in this, but ... >we can put in place all the filters we want, but the only way to resolve this >issue of file transfer by email is Education. > ... >i might also note that in all 3 cases of abuse, the requested items were more >than likely available locally. and if not, were of interest to the local >community (ie. someone at UofToronto could have ftp'd it). Damn right! There are people out there who believe that having a modem and a UUCP connection means that they have god-given rights to do whatever they want. There are many, many more that don't believe anything much but just fail to think before they act. We at Electrohome might seem like a large company with money to spend on Telebits and disks and the such. However, there are private systems who have better setups than we do. The bean-counters don't know anything about UUCP connectivity. We're probably lucky for that. However, it also means that a Telebit is something that I've tried to get for almost 3 years. We depend on the good grace of the large sites to which we connect. We simply don't have the resources and can't risk losing the good grace of our neighbours by transferring large reams of BITFTP stuff that could be more easily obtained by using a bit of resourcefulness. >please tell your users to post to the local *.general groups to see if >it is local. Would it be a desirable thing to set up local groups specifically for this sort of thing? I would think that it would be easier for a neophyte leaf admin to find out about kw.software (as an example) than to find out about BITFTP. -- Carlo Sgro Not a card-carrying member of the watmath!watcgl!electro!carlo Laurie Bower Singers Fan Club. carlo@electro.com System Administrator, Electrohome, Ltd., Kitchener, ON, (519)744-7111x7210
tower@buitc.bu.edu (Leonard (Len) H. Tower Jr.) (05/16/91)
You might talk to the folks who run the BITFTP gateway, and see if they could slow down the rate at which they mail a large request. 50k an hour? That requires them to have a lot of spooling space, but would limit the harm done small systems who forward mail themselves. Brian Reid's mail-based server (in use at a lot of Unix sites) does something like this on a per-address basis. You might also see if you can configure your mailer to bounch (or bit-bucket (if you want to be rude)) messages larger then a certain size (64k is traditional between UUCP hosts, though I've seen limits as small as 25k from some of the oversea gateway machines). I personally think any mail-based server that distributes any large packages (source, data, et al) is doing a dis-service to the Matrix (the world wide net as defined by John Quarterman). It causes sites who are willing to enlarge the community by passing small quantities of human generated mail along to stop cooperating due to resource use much larger then they can handle. This makes the net a smaller and less useful community for all of us. thanx -len
moraes@cs.toronto.edu (Mark Moraes) (05/18/91)
stanley@phoenix.com (John Stanley) writes: > No! This is a valuable service to the entire UUCP community. Well, at >least it is here. Ironic. It was intended for the Bitnet community (who play by different rules and have size grading on files, er, virtual card decks). I agree that it would be a valuable service for uunet/uupsi/your-favourite-internet-uucp-service-provider to make a mail based archive service available for their directly connected customers. (I thought uunet already did this) Take that up with them. (I just hope they implement it to cope with several hundred people simultaneously requesting the X.V11R5 distribution :-) Most complaints about mail based archive servers (MBAS) come from the people who provide free uucp connections to their neighbours to improve mail connectivity or because they're nice folk who think a global network is A Good Thing. Usually these people two or three hops upstream from the eventual destination of the MBAS mail. The difficulty is both disk space and modem time tied up by large file xfers. UUCP isn't packet switched, alas. Not much flow control either. Picture all those files from the MBAS piling up behind a Telebit which is the 100Kbps -> 10Kbps chokepoint! At present, we keep logs on MBAS traffic and send "please don't route this mail through us" messages to people who are recipients of a lot of such traffic. It seems to be working fairly well, except for the occasional glitch (the mail Jim was complaining about passed through us too!) and the human cost in monitoring the logs. An option we're considering is to modify our mailer to downgrade messages greater than M Kbytes and remove downgraded messages if they're older than N hours. (may as well learn from Bitnet :-) More human cost, but then, one of utai's postmasters is interested in exploring the frontiers of mailer science! Mark. -- "Coping with Mail Based Archive Servers" -- coming soon to a thesis near you.
andy@mks.com (Andy Toy) (05/18/91)
In article <1991May15.135732.9749@electro.com> carlo@electro.UUCP (Carlo Sgro) writes: >Would it be a desirable thing to set up local groups specifically for this >sort of thing? I would think that it would be easier for a neophyte leaf >admin to find out about kw.software (as an example) than to find out about >BITFTP. There have been occasional postings in ont.archives, can.usrgroup, and {kw,ont,can}.uucp newsgroups asking for software locally. It may be desirable to have local newsgroups with more descriptive and consistent names. Otherwise, use the existing local *.uucp and *.archives newgroups. -- Andy Toy, Department of Computing Services, Extension 31, second floor annex
merce@iguana.uucp (Jim Mercer) (05/20/91)
In article <01a722w163w@phoenix.com> stanley@phoenix.com (John Stanley) writes: >merce@iguana.uucp (Jim Mercer) writes: > >> too fucking bad, better your money/time/disk than mine. > > If you don't want to be a mail server, then stop doing it. If you don't >want to carry mail to or from bitftp, don't do it. If you can't handle the >traffic, then get out of the kitchen. Don't demand that the world stop >just because you want off. this sounds all too familiar. about 2 months ago, some bonehead decided he HAD TO HAVE some VMS utility package. so, off he goes and BITFTP's it. 60Meg before uuencoding and mail chunking plus headers. it starts trickling through the internet at 56K or whatever, hit the University of Toronto, then slowly weasels it's way onto lsuc. quite a bit got queued up on lsuc before we established a link to bonehead's site. then we had a bi-directional connection going. worked fine, until bonehead's disk filled up. then lsuc's disk filled up. by that time, the rest had ended up in UofT's queues. we gutted it and cleaned up, it didn't do too much damage. i figure, this is a bit of a problem, better voice the sysadmin. sysadmin says sorry, and i don't feel like cutting a large company's connection for one bonehead user's mistake. so i get the bonehead's number and give him a personal talking to. he had almost the exact same thing to say. if you can't deal with the heat, get out of the kitchen. > If you don't want to be a mail server, then stop doing it. we want to maintain connectivity, and will continue to do it. >If you don't want to carry mail to or from bitftp, don't do it. problem solved. 8^) please remember, i did not DEMAND that bitftp shut down, all i did was ask how much of a lobby it would take to shut it down. turns out it didn't take much. if a single sysadmin from a backwater town like Toronto can force a life-giving service of USENET to shut down, you might think that there were other complaints as well. when did i achieve net.god status? >If you can't handle the traffic, then get out of the kitchen. >Don't demand that the world stop just because you want off. i did not demand anything of the world. end users seem to be really pissed off now that their free ride is over. it's funny, you know, i get thank you letters from sysadmins and hate mail from end users. also, your previous posts in comp.mail.uucp are starting to blame the entire province of Ontario for the timely death of BITFTP. why do you insist on escalating the blame for this from one individual who posted an article explaining his grief and asking for some helpful hints, to blaming an entire region? the uucp community of Ontario is about to suffer a very large hit on their connectivity. this will mean that they will come to depend on sites like lsuc, who will store and forward their messages. lsuc has been a part of the USENET community for some 8 years (more? i've only been here for 2 years). they are well respected in the Toronto uucp community. i hope your connections are well aware of your total lack of respect for their resources. -- [ Jim Mercer work: jim@lsuc.on.ca home: merce@iguana.uucp +1 519 570-3467 ] [ "Clickity-Click, Barba-Trick" - The Barbapapas ]
glenn@gla-aux.uucp (Glenn Austin) (05/24/91)
In article <91May18.002523edt.1028@smoke.cs.toronto.edu>, moraes@cs.toronto.edu (Mark Moraes) writes: > stanley@phoenix.com (John Stanley) writes: > At present, we keep logs on MBAS traffic and send "please don't route > this mail through us" messages to people who are recipients of a lot of > such traffic. It seems to be working fairly well, except for the > occasional glitch (the mail Jim was complaining about passed through us > too!) and the human cost in monitoring the logs. > > An option we're considering is to modify our mailer to downgrade messages > greater than M Kbytes and remove downgraded messages if they're older > than N hours. (may as well learn from Bitnet :-) More human cost, but > then, one of utai's postmasters is interested in exploring the frontiers > of mailer science! I seem to recall limitations of number of files and/or size as well over Bitnet. I really don't care WHEN I get the file, I just would like to GET the thing! =============================================================================== | Glenn L. Austin | "Turn too soon, run out of room. | | Macintosh Wizard and | Turn too late, much better fate." | | Auto Racing Driver | -- Jim Russell Racing School Instructors | |-----------------------------------------------------------------------------| | Usenet: glenn@gla-aux.uucp | CI$: 76354,1434 | | GENie: G.AUSTIN3 | AOnline: GAustin | ===============================================================================