venta@i2ack.UUCP (Paolo Ventafridda) (01/15/89)
I am sorry for posting this in 3 different newsgroups, but i want this
message read by the people i am looking for.
What is EUcon. It's like EUnet, but it's free. It has News, it has
links to USA. This message in fact comes through UUNET, though i am in
milano, italy.
EUcon by now has people from Switz, Italy and Germany. We are looking
for new sites in France and UK.
Connections are possible through X.25 or direct phone with High speed
modems. In italy we use Trailblazers 9600-19200.
German people is now leading eucon with a lot of hosts on < subnet >
(subnet is the name of german network); to get infos you can mail
pengo@tmpmbx.UUCP ( mcvax!unido!tmpmbx or pyramid!tmpmbx )
My address on EUnet is blue@altger (unido!altger!blue)
Watch out, mcvax and unido rejects mail to/from i2ack since i didn't
subscribe EUnet..
If you happen to have a direct link to UUNET, from WITHIN uunet send to
i2ack!venta@pyramid (soon deejay!i2ack!venta@pyramid).
Finally, remember that EUcon is free; each node pays for its connections
and is free to support other subnodes.
I hope to hear from someone soon.
Greetings, Paolo Ventafridda
--
Paolo Ventafridda Via Ottoboni 6,20148 Milano - Italy Tel.+392-4032432
EUnet:blue@altger eucon:venta@i2ack BANG:{pyramid,altger,tmpmbx}!i2ack!venta
# If you mail me on i2ack, use pyramid path; i'm on eunet's lock-list..(sic) #wnp@dcs.UUCP (Wolf N. Paul) (01/16/89)
In article <96@i2ack.UUCP> venta@i2ack.UUCP (Paolo Ventafridda) writes: >What is EUcon. It's like EUnet, but it's free. It has News, it has >links to USA. This message in fact comes through UUNET, though i am in >milano, italy. > ... >My address on EUnet is blue@altger (unido!altger!blue) +-> >Watch out, mcvax and unido rejects mail to/from i2ack since i didn't | >subscribe EUnet.. | > ... | >Finally, remember that EUcon is free; each node pays for its connections | >and is free to support other subnodes. | +- Does this mean what I think it does? Does the EUnet backbone reject mail which has a non-subscribing European site anywhere in the path, i.e. xyz!mcvax!uunet!i2ack? Or do they only reject mail addressed directly, i.e. mcvax!i2ack? If the former, then this is a most blatant violation of the USENET spirit I have come across. They would be behaving like their national PTTs in their most monopolistic heyday! -- Wolf N. Paul * 3387 Sam Rayburn Run * Carrollton TX 75007 * (214) 306-9101 UUCP: killer!dcs!wnp ESL: 62832882 DOMAIN: dcs!wnp@killer.dallas.tx.us TLX: 910-380-0585 EES PLANO UD
csg@pyramid.pyramid.com (Carl S. Gutekunst) (01/19/89)
>In article <96@i2ack.UUCP> venta@i2ack.UUCP (Paolo Ventafridda) writes: >>Watch out, mcvax and unido rejects mail to/from i2ack since i didn't >>subscribe EUnet.. In article <303@dcs.UUCP> wnp@dcs.UUCP (Wolf N. Paul) writes: > Does this mean what I think it does? Does the EUnet backbone reject mail > which has a non-subscribing European site anywhere in the path, i.e. > xyz!mcvax!uunet!i2ack? Yes. Any EUNet backbone will eat any mail to/from any European site that is not a member of EUNet. >If the former, then this is a most blatant violation of the USENET spirit >I have come across. Well, let's see. EUNet is organized something like this: kddlab------\ /---i2unix \ / North_america-----uunet-------mcvax-----unido / \ munnari-----/ \---other_Eu_national_backbones In other words, there is a single point of entry for all traffic outside of EUNet, and major hubs in each country. The topology is designed to minimize the largest cost: crossing international boundaries. Members of EUNet pay both fixed membership costs and packet charges. Some sites, particularly in Germany, have decided to reduce costs by setting up direct North American UUCP links. They are still members of EUNet, though; they pay their annual dues, and use EUNet for continental traffic. They just use their own links for USA traffic because the packet charges are lower. What Paolo is doing is different. He is not an EUNet member. He is instead setting up an alternative network in Europe to compete against EUNet. I know the EUNet folks aren't crazy about this, since it stands to make hash of a lot of hard work. but they aren't trying to interfere with him either; and as far as I can tell, Paolo is having a lot of fun doing this. EUnet is, though, 100% within their rights to refuse to pass mail to or from his site, or any other eucon site. And there is more to it than the old, "it's my site to do with as I please" argument. Consider what's happening here. Since i2ack is not connected to EUNet, there is only one way for him to get mail to EUNet hosts: i2ack->pyramid->uunet->mcvax->EUNet_backbone->EUNet_host This is obviously a lot more expensive than a simple hop within the EUNet, and EUNet is picking up most of the costs. You could argue that i2ack doesn't log- ically appear to EUNet to be any different than any American site, and you'd be right. And that was the case Paolo tried to make to EUNet. But i2ack is *not* a North American site. EUNet has made an exception for North America; the membership has decided that traffic with North America is important, and therefore they will pay for it. In other words, EUNet is doing a tremendous favor to all of us folks on this side of the pond, saying that we are so im- portant to them that they are willing to pay for the priviledge. But they are not about to subsidize other Eurpoeans; everyone pays their own fair share. Paolo is following the traditional Usenet battlecry: "If you don't like this network, set up your own!" And he's putting his money where his mouth is. But you can't expect the network he is competing against to subsidize him. At the least, EUNet runs on a shoestring budget themselves. What's this "spirit" stuff any way? Usually it's a euphamism for, "I'm a poor broke site, so I'll let big rich sites foot my bills." And by golly, a lot of us have done that over the years. But note that one reason the "<>" construct was added to pathalias was because of the number of UUNet subscriber sites who were unwilling to accept passthrough mail. When the money is up front and in plain view, people are a lot more careful. And, frankly, a lot more fair. Even if less democratic. <csg>
venta@i2ack.UUCP (Paolo Ventafridda) (01/20/89)
Previous message from Carl (csg@pyramid) perfectly describes the situation:
i myself took notice of this, and i am doing my best to "lock" (reject)
outgoing mail out of uunet and eucon. That is, any mail on EUnet.
Some user on Sublink still didn't get this limitation..
At least these messages on EUnet and Usenet described how the whole
thing works :-)
Paolo
--
Paolo Ventafridda Via Ottoboni 6,20148 Milano - Italy Tel.+392-4032432
EUnet:blue@altger eucon:venta@i2ack BANG:{pyramid,altger,tmpmbx}!i2ack!venta
# If you mail me on i2ack, use pyramid path; i'm on eunet's lock-list..(sic) #henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (01/21/89)
In article <303@dcs.UUCP> wnp@dcs.UUCP (Wolf N. Paul) writes: >... this is a most blatant violation of the USENET spirit >I have come across. The "Usenet spirit" fades fast when *you* have to pay, or justify paying, substantial long-distance bills. Believe me, I know: there was a time when all the long-distance bills for Toronto's Usenet links landed on my desk. The fact is, these things cost money, and people who are perceived as freeloaders -- whether this perception is accurate or not -- can expect little sympathy from those who have to finance the "Usenet spirit". -- Allegedly heard aboard Mir: "A | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology toast to comrade Van Allen!!" | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
jim@eda.com (Jim Budler) (01/21/89)
In article <105@i2ack.UUCP> venta@i2ack.UUCP (Paolo Ventafridda) writes:
#
# Previous message from Carl (csg@pyramid) perfectly describes the situation:
# i myself took notice of this, and i am doing my best to "lock" (reject)
# outgoing mail out of uunet and eucon. That is, any mail on EUnet.
# Some user on Sublink still didn't get this limitation..
#
# At least these messages on EUnet and Usenet described how the whole
# thing works :-)
# Paolo
I may be incorrect on how I understand this but:
1. Eucon nodes can send mail to the world, except for Eunet.
2. Eunet nodes can send mail to the world, except for Eucon.
3. The world can send mail to either, as long as they don't
attempt to send it *thru* the other.
In the above, receive/from can be substituted for send/to.
In the above Sublink appears to be synonymous with Eucon.
I feel appalled that in this time of increased connectivity, we now
are creating a situation in which some people on Usenet cannot
communicate with other people on Usenet.
I have no desire to cast blame on anyone, but I feel that this situation
is unacceptable.
jim
--
Jim Budler address = uucp: ...!{decwrl,uunet}!eda!jim
domain: jim@eda.comwisner@cheops.cis.ohio-state.edu (Bill Wisner) (01/22/89)
>I feel appalled that in this time of increased connectivity, we now >are creating a situation in which some people on Usenet cannot >communicate with other people on Usenet. Picture: a EUCon user sends mail to pyramid, to uunet, to EUNet. Simple enough, no?
sl@van-bc.UUCP (pri=-10 Stuart Lynne) (01/22/89)
In article <459@eda.com> jim@eda.com (Jim Budler) writes: >In article <105@i2ack.UUCP> venta@i2ack.UUCP (Paolo Ventafridda) writes: .. summation of current status of the two european net's mail forwarding problems deleted. >I have no desire to cast blame on anyone, but I feel that this situation >is unacceptable. Unacceptable is a very harsh word. What they do is really their own business. I would suggest that RIDICULOUS is a far better choice. BTW my reading of the previous articles on this situation was a little different. I believe that the newer of the two nets was happy to forward mail to it's internal sites that originated from the other (after it got sent to US and back) but the original network refused to forward mail to it's internal sites that originated from the newer network. Seems as though the original network has higher internal costs and wants everyone to play with their ball and bat to help them recoup their costs. I would think that if the newer net is indeed less expensive then the situation will indeed sort itself out. Over time newer sites will connect to the less expensive of the two nets and some sites will switch or connect to both. When the connectivity of the newer net gets better than the original then there will be a mass migration of all sites that can physically do so. This will leave the organizers of the original network holding the bag so to speak. -- Stuart.Lynne@wimsey.bc.ca {ubc-cs,uunet}!van-bc!sl Vancouver,BC,604-937-7532
cld@altger.UUCP (Claus L. Duerr) (01/22/89)
In article <1989Jan20.165603.5440@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: }In article <303@dcs.UUCP> wnp@dcs.UUCP (Wolf N. Paul) writes: }>... this is a most blatant violation of the USENET spirit }>I have come across. } }The "Usenet spirit" fades fast when *you* have to pay, or justify paying, }substantial long-distance bills. Believe me, I know: there was a time }when all the long-distance bills for Toronto's Usenet links landed on my }desk. The fact is, these things cost money, and people who are perceived }as freeloaders -- whether this perception is accurate or not -- can expect }little sympathy from those who have to finance the "Usenet spirit". hello! perfectly right! but there is a *big* difference between taking money to pay bills (caused by the net-service) and making money by demanding more money than the net-traffic costs. so long claus -- | Claus L. Duerr | "Some programmers have been known to howl at full .. | | Munich | .. moons." - "Only at full moons ?!" | | West-Germany |------------------------------------------------------| | UUCP: ..mcvax!unido!altger!cld SUB: ..{altger,doitcr,chiron}!dicon!cld |
wnp@dcs.UUCP (Wolf N. Paul) (01/22/89)
In article <32219@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> Bill Wisner <wisner@cis.ohio-state.edu> writes: >>I feel appalled that in this time of increased connectivity, we now >>are creating a situation in which some people on Usenet cannot >>communicate with other people on Usenet. > >Picture: a EUCon user sends mail to pyramid, to uunet, to EUNet. >Simple enough, no? It would be, except a recent posting indicated that the EUNet backbone sites will throw out anything with the name of a EUCon site (or for that matter, any European site which is not registered with EUNet) anywhere in the path. This is where I have my problem with this system: I can understand and accept that EUNet does not want to pass mail from one unregistered site to another, but as long as either the destination or the origin of a message is within EUNet, they ought to pass it on, as a courtesy to their own member sites. If they do not do that, then I question (as a USENIX member) whether UUNET should allow them reduced rate or free access to uunet -- they are not legitimately fulfilling the gateway function which is the basis for their special treatment. I am in a situation where I might soon be moving to Europe, and will probably join the national User Group in whichever country I go to, and thus become a registered EUNet site. I do not want EUNet telling me who I can correspond with, after I pay whatever membership or access charges apply. -- Wolf N. Paul * 3387 Sam Rayburn Run * Carrollton TX 75007 * (214) 306-9101 UUCP: killer!dcs!wnp ESL: 62832882 DOMAIN: dcs!wnp@killer.dallas.tx.us TLX: 910-380-0585 EES PLANO UD
debra@alice.UUCP (Paul De Bra) (01/23/89)
In article <459@eda.com> jim@eda.com (Jim Budler) writes: >In article <105@i2ack.UUCP> venta@i2ack.UUCP (Paolo Ventafridda) writes: ># ># Previous message from Carl (csg@pyramid) perfectly describes the situation: ># i myself took notice of this, and i am doing my best to "lock" (reject) ># outgoing mail out of uunet and eucon. That is, any mail on EUnet. > >I feel appalled that in this time of increased connectivity, we now >are creating a situation in which some people on Usenet cannot >communicate with other people on Usenet. > >I have no desire to cast blame on anyone, but I feel that this situation >is unacceptable. > I quite agree, but similar situations already exist, and that is creating problems. I can register a new system on uunet, claim that I will poll uunet every 5 minutes, and also pretend that I have a very fast (hardwired) link to a machine "x". This new entry would be transmitted to everyone, and the rerouting programs would route all mail for "x" through me. I could easily intercept and/or toss all mail for "x". This is a very bad situation, especially since mail DOES get tossed by systems. All AT&T operated Unix machines for instance will only forward mail if it comes from a machine within AT&T or goes to a machine within AT&T. If anyone reroutes a message from somewhere to somewhere else through a machine at AT&T it will get tossed. Eunet seems to do the same: it will only forward mail that is originating from or going to a Eunet site. (They may of course be including systems in their Eunet list that are not really on Eunet.) This situation is bad mostly because any intermediate site could decide to reroute a message through a "faster" path that will not let some messages through. Paolo's story shows another problem with Eunet: the cost is not the same in all of Europe, and you are not free to choose your own backbone. The EUUG is set up such that backbones in one country refuse serving EUUG-sites in other countries, even when they would only be polled by the client. In a country like Italy, with few Eunet members, you are really screwed because the backbone seems to be extremely expensive (and I've heard this not just from Paolo). Paul. -- ------------------------------------------------------ |debra@research.att.com | uunet!research!debra | ------------------------------------------------------
debra@alice.UUCP (Paul De Bra) (01/23/89)
In article <32219@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> Bill Wisner <wisner@cis.ohio-state.edu> writes: }>I feel appalled that in this time of increased connectivity, we now }>are creating a situation in which some people on Usenet cannot }>communicate with other people on Usenet. } }Picture: a EUCon user sends mail to pyramid, to uunet, to EUNet. }Simple enough, no? But crazy. I don't want to send mail to a friend, 2 blocks away, through another continent! The fact that there is a backbone 1 block away that asks thousands of dollars to enable me to send mail to my friend is absurd, especially since on top of these dollars I still have to pay the phone-bill. Paul. -- ------------------------------------------------------ |debra@research.att.com | uunet!research!debra | ------------------------------------------------------
jim@eda.com (Jim Budler) (01/23/89)
In article <32219@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> Bill Wisner <wisner@cis.ohio-state.edu> writes:
# >I feel appalled that in this time of increased connectivity, we now
# >are creating a situation in which some people on Usenet cannot
# >communicate with other people on Usenet.
#
# Picture: a EUCon user sends mail to pyramid, to uunet, to EUNet.
# Simple enough, no?
Not if the original statements that EUNet backbones drop all mail to/from
EUCon are true.
If true then the picture becomes:
A EUCon user sends mail to pyramid, to uunet, it hits EUNet and is
blackholed.
jim
--
Jim Budler address = uucp: ...!{decwrl,uunet}!eda!jim
domain: jim@eda.comulmo@ssyx.ucsc.edu (Brad Allen) (01/23/89)
Just as a comment in what fixes I think should be used for this and MANY other problems, and am surprised many networks don't already have these implemented (I am still planning on doing so myself, but you know how those things go ...) In article <8813@alice.UUCP> debra@alice.UUCP () writes: [using UUCP maps to cost traffic through your site for/from site "x"] > easily intercept and/or toss all mail for "x". This is a very bad situation, > especially since mail DOES get tossed by systems. All AT&T operated Unix All three fixes help this one: - all objects have reliable communication, e.g. MAIL SHOULD HAVE ACKS (with a minimum of one positive ACK from the dest to the orig on success); failed mail would be resent. (Progress ACKs/NAKs can help and get in the way; it's not very hard to set this up appropriately.) - encryption (the administration and organization of this one falls out pretty easily from the implementation of the below, as well) - permissions. This would fit under the category of extended, programmable network/host updates (e.g. similar to UUCP Map, EGP, etc. but just better). (note: not everyone would receive all such updates; this illusion seems to often be held by UUCP Map users. Domains are a great help in this respect.) This is fast becoming necessary. It would be nice if ISO took care of this cleanly, but I still haven't had the chance to find those protocols ... bletch. -brad allen <ulmo@ssyx.ucsc.edu> [followups are to: news.config, comp.mail.uucp]
lmb@vicom.COM (Larry Blair) (01/23/89)
In article <32219@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> Bill Wisner <wisner@cis.ohio-state.edu> writes:
=Picture: a EUCon user sends mail to pyramid, to uunet, to EUNet.
=Simple enough, no?
That's no stranger than when mail I send to a site 2 blocks away takes a trip
to Virginia (fortunately on their nickel).
--
Larry Blair ames!vsi1!lmb lmb@vicom.comdik@cwi.nl (Dik T. Winter) (01/23/89)
In article <1396@vsi1.COM> lmb@vicom.COM (Larry Blair) writes: > In article <32219@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> Bill Wisner <wisner@cis.ohio-state.edu> writes: > =Picture: a EUCon user sends mail to pyramid, to uunet, to EUNet. > =Simple enough, no? > > That's no stranger than when mail I send to a site 2 blocks away takes a trip > to Virginia (fortunately on their nickel). ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ And that is the problem. -- dik t. winter, cwi, amsterdam, nederland INTERNET : dik@cwi.nl BITNET/EARN: dik@mcvax
wisner@cheops.cis.ohio-state.edu (Bill Wisner) (01/24/89)
By now it is quite clear that EUnet does, indeed, torch mail from EUcon, regardless of how it arrived. So I'll hop on the bandwagon and start flaming them. As far as EUnet is concerned, EUcon sites should look exactly like normal North American USENET sites. Making an artificial and arbitrary distinction is revolting. But it's hardly the first revolting thing they have ever done. Soon after I first registered killer as killer.dallas.tx.us, I got a piece of bounced mail from mcvax. The attached error message rather nastily informed me that "US" was not a valid top-level domain, and that mcvax would not pass mail from bogus domains. (That action alone might, possibly, conceivably, be excusable, but if they are going to do it they had better at least get their facts straight.)
csg@pyramid.pyramid.com (Carl S. Gutekunst) (01/24/89)
Bill Wisner <wisner@cis.ohio-state.edu> writes: >So I'll hop on the bandwagon and start flaming them. As far as EUnet is >concerned, EUcon sites should look exactly like normal North American >USENET sites. Making an artificial and arbitrary distinction is revolting. I thought I explained this. The "artificial and arbitrary distinction" is not being made for eucon, it is being made for North American sites. The EUNet backbone is, at present, subsidizing all of us folks here in North American who want to talk with people in Europe. They just aren't willing to subsidize other European sites. <csg>
sl@van-bc.UUCP (pri=-10 Stuart Lynne) (01/24/89)
In article <1322@altger.UUCP> cld@altger.UUCP (Claus L. Duerr) writes: }In article <1989Jan20.165603.5440@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: }}In article <303@dcs.UUCP> wnp@dcs.UUCP (Wolf N. Paul) writes: }}>... this is a most blatant violation of the USENET spirit }}The "Usenet spirit" fades fast when *you* have to pay, or justify paying, }}substantial long-distance bills. Believe me, I know: there was a time }perfectly right! but there is a *big* difference between taking money }to pay bills (caused by the net-service) and making money by demanding }more money than the net-traffic costs. And an even bigger difference when you try to setup as a monopoly and attempt to *prevent* anyone else from offering a lower cost solution. I think that anyone trying to evolve a lower cost solution should be appluaded and supported. Anyone trying to impose an expensive solution don't deserve support. I would suggest that people in Europe try and prod their PTT's into loosening up the standards a bit to allow easier entry for modems. One interesting rumor .. is it true that sometime in the next year or so any modem approved for sale in a member of the common market countries can be sold in any other member without any additional approval. Heard this from a modem manufacturer who had his modem certified in the UK and wasn't planning on doing any more (expensive) testing or modifications, but was just going to wait. To quote "Why pay for something that will be handed to us on a platter in a year and a half?". Should shake things up plenty if it's true!!! -- Stuart.Lynne@wimsey.bc.ca {ubc-cs,uunet}!van-bc!sl Vancouver,BC,604-937-7532
venta@i2ack.UUCP (Paolo Ventafridda) (01/24/89)
In article <2162@van-bc.UUCP>, sl@van-bc.UUCP (pri=-10 Stuart Lynne) writes: > In article <459@eda.com> jim@eda.com (Jim Budler) writes: > > I would suggest that RIDICULOUS is a far better choice. I would call it TRAGICAL.. > > BTW my reading of the previous articles on this situation was a little > different. I believe that the newer of the two nets was happy to forward > mail to it's internal sites that originated from the other (after it got > sent to US and back) but the original network refused to forward mail to > it's internal sites that originated from the newer network. Correct. I will also make an example of what's currently going on now. There's an EUnet node here (an i2unix one) which will be posting it's mail for USA and receive News from us. Anyone which can reach us, can go through our links (at least on SUBLINK). > > Seems as though the original network has higher internal costs and wants > everyone to play with their ball and bat to help them recoup their costs. For sure EUnet has high costs. I asked about them , but i got no answer. Probably the News traffic takes most of it. Personally, i don't agree with receiving news groups such as soc. and rec. and anything which is not related to The Art Of Computing Or Backboning (comp. news.). Better, i'd like to receive them, sure, but since they cost too much money, let's forget them. The main problem is that - from my point of view - EUnet spends too much. Costs are shared, but who can afford them? Few people. So there are 2 main categories of hosts on EUnet: rich sites (some of these very generous, which would support us for free, i.e. PAYING for OUR connections - but EUnet complains.) and normal sites, some of which are given the B.F.B.P.A. ( Best Friend of the Backbone's Postmaster Award ) and pay nothing for EUnet, since their backbone simply charge the others.. > > I would think that if the newer net is indeed less expensive then the > situation will indeed sort itself out. Over time newer sites will connect to > the less expensive of the two nets and some sites will switch or connect to > both. NO. EUnet is a strong network; it works fine, except for costs. We cannot offer the same services, not now and not in the future. My personal wish is that someday EUcon will grow up, and allow <sub> sites which cannot afford EUnet to exchange mail all the same. There is a BIG difference among - say - i2ack and i2unix (no relationship among "i2": they claimed it was copyrighted but it was not, so i didn't change the name, what the hell): i2unix offers a fast and reliable mail service. It polls mcvax once every 30-60 minutes. I poll pyramid 3 times a day. I don't care about receiving a letter one day later, and SUBLINK does not offer such efficiency. We point to the cheapest way of networking, within a decent result. This policy is just fine for some people, while for others it's not. This reminds me a conversation i had with a local EUnet postmaster (a woman) who ended up saying: " You said we can have a link, but how often do you poll USA ?" " ..well..3 times a day, it depends.." "Ah-ah! You see: i2unix polls mcvax once every hour!" " I know. But how often do YOU poll i2unix [ at 2400 baud via phone call ]?" "Once a night! It costs money! " Here, we have a good example of a problem of costs: this silly postmaster could have accepted my offer (no money..good offer i think!) but went for i2unix cause they have a better service. COURSE THEY HAVE! You pay 4 that! So this node does not receive News. They cost too much. Stupid woman.. She was talking about a next domain for Italy ( .ita ), and did not realized that italy is out of the network right now. Did you ever see a message here coming from an italian site (not i2unix)? Its impossible. The only one i saw was on eunet.test (i read that in germany) some time ago. Very few nodes receive News in Italy; the total amount of nodes is 44 , many of which are FAKE nodes (DEAD hosts, or such..). However i2unix did not think about taking only a few newsgroups, and leave the others for better times. They got them all. -- Paolo Ventafridda Via Ottoboni 6,20148 Milano - Italy Tel.+392-4032432 EUnet:blue@altger EUcon:venta@i2ack BANG:{pyramid,altger,tmpmbx}!i2ack!venta # This signature on i2unix costs 70 Lire (240 bytes); a phone call costs 80 L.#
venta@i2ack.UUCP (Paolo Ventafridda) (01/24/89)
In article <308@dcs.UUCP>, wnp@dcs.UUCP (Wolf N. Paul) writes: > > I can understand and accept that EUNet does not want to pass mail from one > unregistered site to another, but as long as either the destination or the > origin of a message is within EUNet, they ought to pass it on, as a courtesy > to their own member sites. > > If they do not do that, then I question (as a USENIX member) whether UUNET > should allow them reduced rate or free access to uunet -- they are not > legitimately fulfilling the gateway function which is the basis for their > special treatment. THAT'S IT. SAME QUESTION I ASKED Mr. Piet Beertema (mcvax). I am not asking again, since everytime they answer me, letters are kind of "shut up, we pay for the X.25 so we decide what to do" (no mention to the fact that money should be the PUBLIC one). -- Paolo Ventafridda Via Ottoboni 6,20148 Milano - Italy Tel.+392-4032432 EUnet:blue@altger EUcon:venta@i2ack BANG:{pyramid,altger,tmpmbx}!i2ack!venta # This signature on i2unix costs 70 Lire (240 bytes); a phone call costs 80 L.#
w-colinp@microsoft.UUCP (Colin Plumb) (01/25/89)
sl@van-bc.UUCP (pri=-10 Stuart Lynne) wrote: > One interesting rumor .. is it true that sometime in the next year or so any > modem approved for sale in a member of the common market countries can be > sold in any other member without any additional approval. Well, you know this will be the case come 1992, and the EEC is trying to avoid making all the changes at once, so introducing this early seems probable. -- -Colin (uunet!microsof!w-colinp)
kre@cs.mu.oz.au (Robert Elz) (01/25/89)
In article <8814@alice.UUCP>, debra@alice.UUCP (Paul De Bra) writes: > But crazy. I don't want to send mail to a friend, 2 blocks away, through > another continent! But that's exactly how we send mail to people at local DEC offices .. the local DEC bureaucracy are dead scared of net connections, and won't have any other than their internal ones. But at least that's a big step up on attempting e-mail to the local office of another large 3 letter computer company I won't name. kre
cld@altger.UUCP (Claus L. Duerr) (01/26/89)
In article <2172@van-bc.UUCP= sl@van-bc.UUCP (pri=-10 Stuart Lynne) writes: =One interesting rumor .. is it true that sometime in the next year or so any =modem approved for sale in a member of the common market countries can be =sold in any other member without any additional approval. would be really nice, but i am sure that the european telephon companies which are mostly controlled by the states, will find a way to avoid this step ! coz they all want to make one thing: MONEY well, we'll see wot the future will bring, but i am a real pessimist on that. so long claus -- | Claus L. Duerr | "Some programmers have been known to howl at full .. | | Munich | .. moons." - "Only at full moons ?!" | | West-Germany |------------------------------------------------------| | UUCP: ..mcvax!unido!altger!cld SUB: ..{altger,doitcr,chiron}!dicon!cld |
news@oresoft.uu.net (Randy Bush) (01/27/89)
In article <56205@pyramid.pyramid.com> Carl S. Gutekunst writes: >The EUNet backbone is, at present, subsidizing all of us folks here in >North American who want to talk with people in Europe. [but not vice versa] And, as a North American uunet subscriber and very frequent user of the international service, I certainly appreciate that. What worries me is that I could be sending mail to my friends in Europe, but their replies (using the Reply-to: field) are being blackholed. This 'diode-mail' would be most unfortunate, to say the least. -- {mcvax!uunet,tektronix,reed,sun!nosun}!oresoft!news (Randy Bush)
pcg@aber-cs.UUCP (Piercarlo Grandi) (01/27/89)
In article <56205@pyramid.pyramid.com> csg@pyramid.UUCP (Carl S. Gutekunst) writes: Bill Wisner <wisner@cis.ohio-state.edu> writes: >So I'll hop on the bandwagon and start flaming them. As far as EUnet is >concerned, EUcon sites should look exactly like normal North American >USENET sites. Making an artificial and arbitrary distinction is revolting. Thoroughly agreed. I thought I explained this. Hey! A wrong explanation is no explanation... The "artificial and arbitrary distinction" is not being made for eucon, it is being made for North American sites. The EUNet backbone is, at present, subsidizing all of us folks here in North American who want to talk with people in Europe. This is ridiculous. What happens really is that european sites are billed for the mail they RECEIVE from the states, because the mcvax/uunet link is paid for entirely by mcvax and dependants in both directions. The american sites are not being subsidised by the EUNET backbone at all; simply, every time a msg is sent from the USA to the EUNET backbone, the european side of the communication, be it sender or receipient, is billed for it (at the very high rates commanded by them). They just aren't willing to subsidize other European sites. Don't be disingenuous! EUcon are prepared, I understand, to pay themselves for the communication costs to mcvax or the national backbones, so that billing of mail to the other party would not be necessary. In other words the real reason for which EUcon is being ostracized is of course not money. Let's now do an exercise in guessing. The EEC and other public and private bodies, in the UK and elsewhere, shell out good money in grants and equipment to help with the costs of linking institutions etc... If there are two competing networks, and one may turn out to be cheaper, EUNET and/or national branches of it would have to split the money, or at the very least the fame. I understand that running a backbone node is not an exercise in profit making, and it does cause its problems, but it is not without its good advantages either. Also, the cost problems that prompted the setup of EUcon are very large for individuals and small institutions or businesses, but they are minuscule for large institutions or businesses, that by chance are also the largest recipients of largesse, and that by chance have an obvious interest in keeping upstarts "out" of the grapevine/circuit. -- Piercarlo "Peter" Grandi | ARPA: pcg%cs.aber.ac.uk@nss.cs.ucl.ac.uk Dept of CS, UCW Aberystwyth | UUCP: ...!mcvax!ukc!aber-cs!pcg Penglais, Aberystwyth SY23 3BZ, UK | INET: pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk
lmb@vicom.COM (Larry Blair) (01/28/89)
In article <605@oresoft.uu.net> news@oresoft.uu.net (Randy Bush) writes:
=What worries me is that
=I could be sending mail to my friends in Europe, but their replies (using
=the Reply-to: field) are being blackholed.
Actually, I think the problem is the other way around. I often receive
mail from people in Europe that is bounced when I reply. It usually happens
with ukc. If ukc is unwilling to pass mail, they should change their map
entry so that mail that they don't want won't get routed through them. I
do think that it's justice that the bounce message costs them a lot more than
passing the mail would have.
--
Larry Blair ames!vsi1!lmb lmb@vicom.comprc@maxim.ERBE.SE (Robert Claeson) (01/29/89)
In article <605@oresoft.uu.net>, news@oresoft.uu.net (Randy Bush) writes: > What worries me is that > I could be sending mail to my friends in Europe, but their replies (using > the Reply-to: field) are being blackholed. This 'diode-mail' would be most > unfortunate, to say the least. I've found that when I send a mail to someone in the U.S. of A., it goes thru about 99% of the time, but they can often not reply back to me. That's why I always include my fax number in my signature. People use to send me their bounced messages in the fax nowadays. -- Robert Claeson, ERBE DATA AB, P.O. Box 77, S-175 22 Jarfalla, Sweden "No problems." -- Alf Tel: +46 758-202 50 EUnet: rclaeson@ERBE.SE uucp: uunet!erbe.se!rclaeson Fax: +46 758-197 20 Internet: rclaeson@ERBE.SE BITNET: rclaeson@ERBE.SE