cda@jade (05/01/86)
In article <580@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> mwm@ucbopal.UUCP (Mike (I'll be mellow when I'm dead) Meyer) writes: >On the other hand, Bandy sending people notices (I got one - it wasn't a >flame, even thought it wasn't exactly polite) is in keeping with the way the >net should be run. This is a concept called "peer pressure." You do >something obnoxious enough, and you'll get such notes in your mailbox. Be >really obnoxious, and you'll get *LOTS* of them. In the future, you'll >probably think twice before doing it again; even if the second thought is >only "good, this'll make that sob mad again." > >If you don't like those notes from bandy, quit doing things that he >considers obnoxious on the net. That applies for me, too - you do something >I consider obnoxious on the net, and I'll send you a nasty note about it. On >the other hand, if you want to do those obnoxious things, you'll have to put >up with notes from people who consider your actions obnoxious. > > Keep our net clean: help police it. > <mike I consider using root privileges to read other peoples' mail pretty high on the obnoxiousness scale... maybe I better appoint myself to the civilian review board of the net police and start auto-mailing. Two of the things we certainly don't need any more of in this country are mental cleanliness and police. charlotte allen
george@sysvis.UUCP (08/22/86)
From looking at just the responses posted so far (6), it looks as if the area code plan (and all stringent plans) fail miserably in some case. Why then shouldn't each site just declare itself as "master" or "feed" and leave the current uucp connections be? If this declaration only carried with it that "master" sites MUST carry all groups while "feed" sites carry some subset, then it shouldn't be too hard for all sites to satisfy their own requirements/wants in a reasonable and civilized interpersonal manner. What if each site makes a declaration on the USENET mod.map as to whether it carries a full line of groups or not? Would this then get most of the complaining out of the sites who do or do not want such and such? Each site could contact "the least cost" alternative master or feed sites to establish the kind of services that they are willing to pay for. It seems that it is also incumbent on each master site to establish at least one connection to another master site in order to get full sets exchanged. Basically, this is the way it works right now. So why do we have all of the whining and complaining about costs under the guise of spending more money (combined total labor cost is LARGE) to `police' the net from "undesirables?" If what I read about AT&T sites is true, it would be in their best long term interest to establish master sites in most large metro areas to which feed sites could dial in (at feed's cost) to get data from. Sort of a 900 number type thing where caller pays ?$ for each call. Am I thinking correctly here? I would think that it would be wise for there to be non-AT&T master sites also. Too much responsibility/control possibility otherwise. Even if Stargate becomes absolute reality, there will still need to be a ground network which gathers remote data and centralizes it for subsequent transmission. Some ground station(s) will still need to have data funneled into it(them). If the major complainers are allowed to cut the network up into little pieces, no one will find it helpful/amusing enough to use it and it will die a silent death. Maybe this is the desired goal of some?