allbery@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon Allbery) (01/01/70)
I should point out that all this anti-Allbery verbiage, if we were "discussing"
the proposed conversion of the unmoderated net.sources into the moderated
comp.sources.misc, would be in the spot where Mr. Webber felt it would best
serve his interests: net.sources. Which, of course, would prove my point
instead, as this interminable load of bullsh*t is already larger than most
submissions of sources to comp.sources.misc, which itself is larger than the
number of source postings that could be found in net.sources between Jan. 1,
1987 and March 1, 1987 (a period of equal size to the time for which I have
logged submissions to comp.sources.misc).
I vote that this net miscarriage be redirected to /dev/null: with my feet.
As of now, my global KILL file will contain a command to junk all articles
by Mr. Webber. I have more important things to do than read articles wherein
Mr. Webber twists and turns in order to insult me. It'll be interesting to
see how long it'll take for Mr. Webber to start mailing his insults at me
instead to make sure I can see them.
--
Brandon S. Allbery, moderator of comp.sources.misc and comp.binaries.ibm.pc
{{harvard,mit-eddie}!necntc,well!hoptoad,sun!cwruecmp!hal}!ncoast!allbery
ARPA: necntc!ncoast!allbery@harvard.harvard.edu Fido: 157/502 MCI: BALLBERY
<<ncoast Public Access UNIX: +1 216 781 6201 24hrs. 300/1200/2400 baud>>webber@brandx.rutgers.edu (Webber) (07/22/87)
In article <1619@celtics.UUCP>, roger@celtics.UUCP (Roger B.A. Klorese) writes: > In article <289@brandx.rutgers.edu> webber@brandx.rutgers.edu (Webber) writes: > >From my experience trying to get a sources mailing list together, I > >quickly found out that the gateways out of the U.S. to places like > >Europe and Austrailia are downright paranoid about communications cost. > > If you consider the fact that they have to pay for them, rather than getting > gifdts from your and my tax money, to be "downright paranoid", then you are > right, they're downright paranoid. Sane people think they're realistic. Doubtless paranoia is not the appropriate clinical term, but I would hardly call people who threaten to sue if they transfer messages that they don't want due to their own laziness as `realistic.' I hardly see the relevance of your opinion of the thoughts of sane people. After all, this isn't sci.psychology. > >For all practical purposes, they are playing by a different set of rules > >than the portion of Usenet that is inside the United States (and portions > >of Canada). All of these nets are referred to collectively as Internet. > > "The portion of Usenet that is inside the United States (and portions of > Canada)" is NOT the Internet, nor is the collection of those systems and > the aforementioned European and Australian nodes. My system shares UUCP > connections with its news feeds. Since it carries news, it is a Usenet > site. It is NOT an Internet site, as it has no TCP/IP based connections > with the network coordinated by the NIC. (That network is the Internet.) My observation of common usage is that Internet refers to any site that can be reached via a mail address that can be parsed according to the rules set down in the appropriate RFCs. One of the points of the message you are quoting from is that I do not think that transport protocols are a meaningful way to view the boundaries of the net. If you can cite a specific RFC that supports your view of the definition of ``Internet,'' then I will be willing to grant that you are internally consistant. However, I will still maintain that whether news and/or mail is transferred by TCP/IP or UUCP is irrelevant to the question of where the information flowing through the net forms natural groupings. ----- BOB (webber@aramis.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!webber)
allbery@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon Allbery) (07/26/87)
As quoted from <301@brandx.rutgers.edu> by webber@brandx.rutgers.edu (Webber): +--------------- | In article <1619@celtics.UUCP>, roger@celtics.UUCP (Roger B.A. Klorese) writes: | > In article <289@brandx.rutgers.edu> webber@brandx.rutgers.edu (Webber) writes: | > >quickly found out that the gateways out of the U.S. to places like | > >Europe and Austrailia are downright paranoid about communications cost. | > | > If you consider the fact that they have to pay for them, rather than getting | > gifdts from your and my tax money, to be "downright paranoid", then you are | > right, they're downright paranoid. Sane people think they're realistic. | | Doubtless paranoia is not the appropriate clinical term, but I would | hardly call people who threaten to sue if they transfer messages that | they don't want due to their own laziness as `realistic.' I hardly +--------------- I take it, then, that you believe you have a God-given right to send stuff anywhere and have EVERYONE forward it. Tell it to the folks who run the IBM VNET. Laziness? NO! If _you_ had to pay for all your messages, out of your own pocket, you _might_ be willing. If you had to pay for _mine_, because I announced that I have a God-given right to have my messages forwarded by everyone on every network, you'd leave the network business (or get pissed off at me, and rightly so). The hard facts are monetary. Obviously you haven't had to pay for your machine's news link. +--------------- | > >than the portion of Usenet that is inside the United States (and portions | > >of Canada). All of these nets are referred to collectively as Internet. | > | > site. It is NOT an Internet site, as it has no TCP/IP based connections | > with the network coordinated by the NIC. (That network is the Internet.) | | My observation of common usage is that Internet refers to any site | that can be reached via a mail address that can be parsed according to | the rules set down in the appropriate RFCs. One of the points of the +--------------- The full name for the Internet is the "U.S. Department of Defense Internet". In other words, DoD owns it, and therefore Bob Webber can't change the defi- nition to suit his tastes. If you disagree, argue it with the DoD, since it's their term. -- Brandon S. Allbery, moderator of comp.sources.misc and comp.binaries.ibm.pc {{harvard,mit-eddie}!necntc,well!hoptoad,sun!cwruecmp!hal}!ncoast!allbery ARPA: necntc!ncoast!allbery@harvard.harvard.edu Fido: 157/502 MCI: BALLBERY <<ncoast Public Access UNIX: +1 216 781 6201 24hrs. 300/1200/2400 baud>>
webber@topaz.rutgers.edu (Webber) (08/03/87)
In article <3632@ncoast.UUCP>, allbery@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon Allbery) writes: > As quoted from <301@brandx.rutgers.edu> by webber@brandx.rutgers.edu (Webber): > | Doubtless paranoia is not the appropriate clinical term, but I would > | hardly call people who threaten to sue if they transfer messages that > | they don't want due to their own laziness as `realistic.' I hardly > +--------------- > > I take it, then, that you believe you have a God-given right to send stuff > anywhere and have EVERYONE forward it. Tell it to the folks who run the IBM > VNET. I take it that any net that transmits messages as boring as ibm pc binaries has no right to complain about the quality of the content of any other messages. You know, I always find it interesting that everyone wants everyone else to forward everything so that they can pick and chose the parts that interest just them. [... skipping usual silliness about who pays for what -- rest assured that brandon does not pay the cost of distributing his pet binaries either.] > | My observation of common usage is that Internet refers to any site > | that can be reached via a mail address that can be parsed according to > | the rules set down in the appropriate RFCs. One of the points of the > +--------------- > > The full name for the Internet is the "U.S. Department of Defense Internet". > In other words, DoD owns it, and therefore Bob Webber can't change the defi- > nition to suit his tastes. If you disagree, argue it with the DoD, since > it's their term. DoD does not `own' any `name' (I bet they haven't even applied for a trademark). Any way, I see that you couldn't find an RFC or any other `official' document to back up your position, so you simply decided to repeat it in case people would start to agree if you just said it often enough. --- BOB (webber@aramis.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!webber)
mack@inco.UUCP (Dave Mack) (08/04/87)
In article <13647@topaz.rutgers.edu>, webber@topaz.rutgers.edu (Webber) writes: > DoD does not `own' any `name' (I bet they haven't even applied for a > trademark). Any way, I see that you couldn't find an RFC or any other > `official' document to back up your position, so you simply decided to > repeat it in case people would start to agree if you just said it > often enough. "Ada"(TM) is a registered trademark of the U.S. Department of Defense, Ada Joint Program Management Office. The "Internet" is "owned" by DoD: it is an unclassified component of the Defense Data Network (DDN), along with MILNET. The classified component is called SCINET and may not be operational yet. I may have screwed up the taxonomy there a bit, but you get the idea. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dave Mack (from Mack's Bedroom :<) McDonnell Douglas-Inco, Inc. DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed 8201 Greensboro Drive are my own and in no way reflect the McLean, VA 22102 views of McDonnell Douglas or its (703)883-3911 subsidiaries. ...!seismo!sundc!hadron!inco!mack ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
allbery@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon Allbery) (08/08/87)
As quoted from <13647@topaz.rutgers.edu> by webber@topaz.rutgers.edu (Webber): +--------------- | In article <3632@ncoast.UUCP>, allbery@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon Allbery) writes: | > As quoted from <301@brandx.rutgers.edu> by webber@brandx.rutgers.edu (Webber): | > | Doubtless paranoia is not the appropriate clinical term, but I would | > | hardly call people who threaten to sue if they transfer messages that | > | they don't want due to their own laziness as `realistic.' I hardly | > +--------------- | > | > I take it, then, that you believe you have a God-given right to send stuff | > anywhere and have EVERYONE forward it. Tell it to the folks who run the IBM | > VNET. | | I take it that any net that transmits messages as boring as ibm pc | binaries has no right to complain about the quality of the content of | any other messages. You know, I always find it interesting that | everyone wants everyone else to forward everything so that they can | pick and chose the parts that interest just them. +--------------- Why do I detect in this paragraph a rich and fruity smell, as of skunk? Bob, you can't have it both ways (i.e. "don't allow binaries on any net I'm on, but you damned better accept anything I submit"). Your article smacks of hypocrisy. BTW, I pay to keep ncoast working. I hate to tell you, but this includes phone bills. As for sites outside ncoast, they pay if they want it. I don't object to Bob Webber not wanting to carry comp.binaries.ibm.pc; I object to Bob Webber trying to force people who WANT it _not_ to carry it. This network is built on the idea that if site A wants something, it can carry it; and if it doesn't want it, it doesn't have to receive it; and that no site or person has the right to force another site to carry/not carry something. Another site can block articles in its "sys" file, or add a connection to another system to receive newsgroups (and ncoast is always willing to accept such connections). Obviously, this is a wrong-minded way of doing things, and it's obviously coorrect that Bob Webber should decide what everyone should (i.e. the outside-the-US sites) and should not (i.e. comp.binaries) carry. Thank you for enlightening us, O Great One! +--------------- | DoD does not `own' any `name' (I bet they haven't even applied for a | trademark). Any way, I see that you couldn't find an RFC or any other | `official' document to back up your position, so you simply decided to | repeat it in case people would start to agree if you just said it | often enough. +--------------- I haven't got the RFC's; I suppose someone who can't ftp something from another machine is subhuman. Don't bother replying to this, as your statement above contains the assumption that I have access to every RFC, an assumption that holds true only if I can ftp from SRI-NIC; and thereby implicitly considers sites that DON'T have FTP or TCP/IP of any sort as being totally ignorable. However, I have a copy of RFC822 here, from the time it was posted to the Usenet. The Preface makes it clear that the Internet is defined as the DoD ARPA network; the terms are used interchangeably. This, of course, is not enough, simply because it doesn't support Mr. Webber's claim. Pulling out my crystal ball, I see that Mr. Webber will continue to make untrue statements and insist that his definition of "Internet" _must_ be the One True Definition because he said so. Actually, it doesn't require a crystal ball at all; all it requires is to compare this situation to the many similar situations that have arisen recently with respect to postings by Mr. Webber, and to see what responses he has made in each case. My current opinion is that Mr. Webber ought be shut up. However, I support the current network organization; and, thanks to the fact that Mr. Webber's idea of how the network should work is NOT the way the network _does_ work, he can continue to talk all he wants. This is something that Mr. Webber is likely never to understand except by applying the label "sucker" somewhere. A pity. -- Brandon S. Allbery, moderator of comp.sources.misc and comp.binaries.ibm.pc {{harvard,mit-eddie}!necntc,well!hoptoad,sun!cwruecmp!hal}!ncoast!allbery ARPA: necntc!ncoast!allbery@harvard.harvard.edu Fido: 157/502 MCI: BALLBERY <<ncoast Public Access UNIX: +1 216 781 6201 24hrs. 300/1200/2400 baud>>