bob@attcan.UUCP (Bob Kyryliuk) (12/02/88)
Enjoy :-) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- #N attcan #S AT&T 3B2/500; System V 3.2 #O AT&T Canada Inc. #C Bob Kyryliuk #E attcan!bob #T +1 416 756 5183 #P 3650 Victoria Park Ave. Suite 800, Willowdale, Ontario, Canada M2H 3P7 #L 43 45 05 N / 079 21 41 W #R attcan is actually 4 3B2/600s and 4 3B2/500s ethernetted together. #U lsuc uunet utzoo #W attcan!bob (Bob Kyryliuk); THU DEC 1 18:45:00 EDT 1988 # attcan utzoo(DIRECT), lsuc(DIRECT), cops01(LOCAL), cind01(LOCAL), cott01(LOCAL), cvan01(DEMAND), cmtl01(LOCAL), cbur01(DEMAND), uunet(EVENING), sobeco(EVENING), nebulus(DEMAND), utgpu(DEMAND), telly(DEMAND), ontmoh(DEMAND)
dtynan@sultra.UUCP (Der Tynan) (12/06/88)
In article <3536@vpk3.UUCP>, bob@attcan.UUCP (Bob Kyryliuk) writes: > > #N attcan > #O AT&T Canada Inc. > attcan utzoo(DIRECT), lsuc(DIRECT), cops01(LOCAL), > cind01(LOCAL), cott01(LOCAL), cvan01(DEMAND), cmtl01(LOCAL), > cbur01(DEMAND), uunet(EVENING), sobeco(EVENING), nebulus(DEMAND), > utgpu(DEMAND), telly(DEMAND), ontmoh(DEMAND) 'Scuse my ignorance, but as I understand it, AT&T will not forward mail. Does this apply to AT&T Canada as well? The reason I ask, is if this is the case, then the above-quoted routing information is useless to say the least. Comments? - Der -- dtynan@zorba.Tynan.COM (Dermot Tynan @ Tynan Computers) {apple,mips,pyramid,uunet}!Tynan.COM!dtynan --- If the Law is for the People, then why do we need Lawyers? ---
dave@lsuc.uucp (David Sherman) (12/09/88)
In article <2701@sultra.UUCP> dtynan@sultra.UUCP (Der Tynan) writes: >In article <3536@vpk3.UUCP>, bob@attcan.UUCP (Bob Kyryliuk) writes: >> >> #N attcan >> #O AT&T Canada Inc. >> attcan utzoo(DIRECT), lsuc(DIRECT), cops01(LOCAL), >> cind01(LOCAL), cott01(LOCAL), cvan01(DEMAND), cmtl01(LOCAL), >> cbur01(DEMAND), uunet(EVENING), sobeco(EVENING), nebulus(DEMAND), >> utgpu(DEMAND), telly(DEMAND), ontmoh(DEMAND) > >'Scuse my ignorance, but as I understand it, AT&T will not forward mail. Does >this apply to AT&T Canada as well? > >The reason I ask, is if this is the case, then the above-quoted routing >information is useless to say the least. Comments? The policy does not apply to AT&T Canada, which is (mercifully) able to make its own decisions. Canada being a different country and all that... AT&T Canada does not have the historical baggage of AT&T in the US, which had the whole world routing through ihnp4 and decided enough was enough. (While I think AT&T-US overreacted, I understand why they implemented the policy.) attcan became active on the net fairly recently, and to their credit, AT&T Canada has formed an official corporate policy of supporting Usenet. They are backing this up with large dollars spent in phone bills to bring megabytes of netnews daily from uunet. And, within reason like everyone else, they are willing to carry mail. AT&T Canada is to be commended for this approach. It was originally encouraged by Michael East, who has now moved on to another company. The current front-line support for news & mail are attcan!bob (Kyryliuk) and attcan!colin (Dijkstra), both of whom work hard at keeping stuff flowing. They, and the company, deserve our thanks. David Sherman The Law Society of Upper Canada Toronto -- Moderator, mail.yiddish { uunet!attcan att pyramid!utai utzoo } !lsuc!dave