kfk@ccieng2.UUCP (11/07/83)
WRT Tim Maroney's statement: Contrary to the assertions of one claimant in Avi's poll, I DO answer my mail. Not always within the space of two weeks, but I do answer it. IF you received no reply to a letter of yours, you might start looking for other explanations before you start pinning blame on me. Haven't you ever had a messaged sucked into the void before? This network is incredibly unreliable. This situation is hardly ameliorated by the rapid fixing of blame, whether it is there or not. Well, Tim, that was me (ccieng2!kfk) who made that complaint. I have tried on 3 separate occasions to mail to you; I have never received a response. I know that I can get to !unc! via uucp, because I have mailed to !unc! on other occasions. It is, of course, possible that on *all* of these occasions when I have mailed to you that the links to !unc! were faulty. But who is guilty of "rapid fixing of blame?" I'm truly sorry if I offended you, but just what am I supposed to conclude when I am consistently ignored? I have had messages sucked into the void on other occasions, but if the links were down on all occasions, I had no way of knowing it. Frankly, the first 2 times didn't bother me much; I attributed it, just as you suggested, to unre- liable network paths. The third time I came to what seemed to be the inevitable conclusion that I was being tersely ignored. Hence my claim that you do not respond to mail. Perhaps you could now mail me a short note, so that I know a path (perhaps a more reliable one than I have been using) with which to reach you on future occasions? Karl Kleinpaste ...![seismo, allegra]!rochester!ritcv!ccieng5!ccieng2!kfk or ...![seismo, ihnp4, allegra]!rlgvax!ccieng5!ccieng2!kfk P.S. All flames to /dev/null. This is posted because it is clear that I cannot trust current mail paths to !unc!. Also, I was not trying to generate animosity when I commented that Tim did not respond to mail, but was merely commenting on what seemed at the time to be a fact; but Tim seems to have interpreted it as animosity. Mild apologies for possible confusion. P.P.S. Also, let's NOT start a discussion of the unreliability of mail paths here.
laura@utcsstat.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (11/11/83)
hey everybody, mail to unc is really screwy. 2 out of every three messages I send there either bounce at decvax or bounce at duke. (these days I use ulysses!unc, but that is another question). half of these bounce silently. It is real hard to keep up a converstion at that rate, but people try. over the past 6 months I think that about 7 things that I have sent to unc have been irrecovocably lost (ie they were lost and now I can't remember what I said). I think that Tim owes me 3 articles and I owe him 2. (but if your count is 3, Tim, I sent the 3rd try of "what a C function type really is" this morning!). half of the mail between us is "did you get X" and "duke is dead for a week, route through ulysses for sure" sort of mail. so if you are losing messages, you aren't the only one...but I really do not think that Tim is to blame either. Laura Creighton utcsstat!laura